11 thoughts on “Giga Idaho

  1. I was working with a new state movement in NV. When I became convinced it wasn’t going anywhere and I was wasting my time, I contacted the Greater Idaho people to see if they were interested in having a NV affiliate. The answer was No since they were convinced that NV was a swing state. I am less than convinced. The state did elect a RINO governor (as Sheriff he was the other investigating agency of the Mandalay Bay massacre) but the legislature is one vote in one house away from being veto proof. The Congressional delegation is all Democrat except one RINO. Better than half the population is in Clark County which is not only leftist but one of the major centers of election fraud.

    If one believes the polls, 2024 may be better but it will be temporary as Las Vegas continues to grow while up state bleeds out.

  2. Giga Idaho? No thanks. It would still only have two senators. While the left-leaning parts of Arizona are carved into north and south states, gaining them an additional two senators.
    No, I’d rather have East and West Washington, East and West Oregon, and North and South California. 3 new states with 6 new senators.
    Yes, it’s just about as realistic as getting Giga Idaho. (sigh)

    • West Oregon would split north/south and the south part would be happen to merge with NorCal to become the Great State of Jefferson.

      But let’s get down to a more practical point: The rest of these states loathe being run over by Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and its satellite Sacramento, Los Angeles, Los Vegas, Denver. The high population of these cities run their states as democracies, which favors them, rather than the republican forms of government we are guaranteed, where low population density counties would be a check against the vagaries of the mob.

      We’re just about ready for some West-Virginia-type state-making, where a new state is created out of a new state by the Constitutional process of consent of the legislature… the recognized, loyalist legislature because the other one was in rebellion. Now, how could the state governments of WA, OR, CA, NV, and CO be in rebellion? I would think that ignoring and actively violating a provision of the US Constitution would be sufficient justification.

      But rather than following the example where West Virginia declares itself a new state separate and seceding from rebellious Virginia, I propose the loyalist legislatures declare themselves the authentic states, and the rebellious territories are separate and ejected.

      Why? Then the new ‘states’ would have to go through the state assession process, and submit an acceptable state Constitution to Congress for their approval.

      • My favorite proposal to split up California, I can no longer find a link for. Basically, 6 parts: Jefferson, North, East, Central, South, and Coastal. Two are solid Blue (South and Coastal), two solid Red (Jefferson and East), and two more-or-less swing (Central and North; North leans Red).

        The writer even weighed the regional populations to determine Congress’ likely new composition: the House wouldn’t change much, but the balance in the Senate would change considerably, adding a few more Dems but also a half-dozen-ish GOP.

        But having a second Legislature in each State vote to eject the rebellious, unconstitutional portions and make them reapply for Statehood … that’s a novel idea. I like it. 🙂

  3. Possession may be 9/10’s of the law. But control is what the communist always goes for.
    Because you can own a car. But if someone else gets to tell you where you can drive, if you can drive, when you can drive, how much you will pay to drive. Ownership doesn’t mean much.
    That’s the problem with the greater Idaho proposal. Most all of it is under the control of the federal government. And what isn’t is just trying to gain a little autonomy.
    Ain’t no communist anywhere on the planet going to let that you have that. They cannot and will not abide it. We are their lifeblood. Without us they have no propose, nor ability to survive.
    Until we relieve ourselves of the tyrannical control mechanism the communists have built?
    Greater Idaho is just wonderful, but wishful thinking.

    • Until we relieve ourselves of the tyrannical control mechanism the communists have built?

      If that were to happen, Greater Idaho is no longer necessary.

  4. One of the fallacies of the new state movement, is trying to use it to change the balance of power at the Federal level. The balance is too close for that to happen.

    The Constitution provides for a two step process. First, the state legislature (plural in the case of Greater Idaho). We get this done by “persuading” the leftists in control that it is in their interest. A powerful argument is that the urban centers provide most of the tax revenue. This is generally true but is caused by decades of exploitation of the non-urban areas who generally have less desire for the services those taxes pay for. Another argument that doesn’t work in Oregon but may elsewhere is that someday we will win a statewide election and pull all of your programs up by the roots. Finally, the plans of the urban centers should be disrupted in any way possible. They don’t like us any more than we like them and we should encourage this.

    The second step is approval by Congress. Again, they are not going to do anything to upset the balance of power. We have been here before regarding slavery expansion as new states were added. The Left is playing this game too and is equally unsuccessful with attempts for statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. So we trade, in a new Missouri Compromise. They get DC and we get Jefferson. (Greater Idaho most skates around this since it moves a border rather than adds a new state. Might add a new congresscritter for Idaho but this would replace a Republican seat from E. Oregon. Be +1 in the EC for the good guys but this is minimal.) The Left could be encouraged to have their own separation movements in Red States that we could trade for our separations in Blue States. The states become more homogenous and representative and the balance of power doesn’t change.

    New state movements should stay away from controversial issues like undoing Reynolds v Sims (not necessary since the big cities would be in different states), conveying Federal lands to the states (there are more recreational users in Red States than there are cattlemen). Just focus on local control and governments that represent us.

    • “conveying Federal lands to the states (there are more recreational users in Red States than there are cattlemen)”

      Are those recreational users coming from mostly Blue territories?

      • Not this one. National parks maybe but not BLM and FS. Think hunters and ORV riders.

        We actually have a real life example when the states get control of public lands. It is called Texas. Since TX entered the union via treaty, public land was reserved for the state, not the Feds. The legislature bankrupted the state in the late 1800s and sold the lands. Thus, TX has no significant public lands other than what was recovered later. Big Bend was a donation from a bunch of ranchers. National Forest in E. TX was a buyback to bail out local governments in the Depression when they were going bankrupt because private landowners couldn’t pay their taxes. The hunting culture in TX is much like Europe where you have to know someone or pay someone.

Comments are closed.