Here is a link to the Idahoans for Liberty presentations that took place in Meridian the other night and the website these courageous representatives have put together to provide resources for the public to participate in their government. What I have seen so far is mostly encouraging and seems to be empowering for the citizens of Idaho who have become frustrated, like me, at the kinds of things that get a pass in this state. It continues to be the case that there has not been an honest effort to inform and allow for public participation; nor has their been proper internal review and conversation among the employees within the various government agencies. Hopefully, with the help of honest representation by people with integrity, this will soon change.
Having said that, there are a couple of things within this effort that I don’t personally subscribe to:
1) The declaration of this being a conservative movement, which reinforces much of the perceptions which that half of the left/ right paradigm requires; perceptions that I don’t think are based on an honest assessment of the facts. The reason I wrote in candidates in the last elections, with only two exceptions (the position of president was certainly not one of those exceptions), is because everyone in politics adheres to the party narratives and doesn’t use their own powers of discernment. You can observe this to a lesser degree with these representatives. Though I like much of the message and the effort to provide real representation to the public I recommend caution in blindly subscribing to the whole package.
2) I take issue with this conservative group’s promotion of our current war stance. The common perceptions held by these representatives, along with the majority of conservatives, on our actions abroad is absent any conversation on the well documented influences of the CIA, AIPAC, CFR, PNAC, Military Industrial Complex and many other powerful institutions and organizations that have sway over our public trust institutions; including the Pentagon, Congress, the Presidency and the Military leadership as a whole. Nor does the conservative majority consider the international agendas of organizations such as NATO and the United Nations. True proponents of liberty, such as Ron Paul and others like him, oppose the incessant meddling in other nation’s affairs; especially through CIA destabilization programs (as revealed in the revelations on the Phoenix program prior to Vietnam) and through economic extortion. Taking this deceptive approach to international relations and allowing psychopaths to carry out their horrific agendas has made things far worse. This includes the current refugee crisis that conservatives are constantly complaining about while they blindly support the boarder wall agenda and broad immigration reforms. Discontinuing destabilization policies and otherwise “blowing shhstuff up” in other nations would be a far less costly approach to the refugee crisis. Abstaining from fear mongering policies of destabilization in foreign nations would help ensure that people’s homes are more hospitable places to live; which, in turn, will take away the liberal extortionist’s justifications for advancing policies that are exacerbating resources and allowing a pathway for destabilization programing here at home.
The kinds of issues revealed in the Church Committee hearings, should cause all to question the legitimacy of our international (and other) policies put forth by all of this nation’s leaders… including those policies of President Trump, who, despite all his war rhetoric, has never been a military service member . I suggest Donald Trump is far more “controlled opposition” than he is a champion of liberty. Review these links here, here, here, here and my own letter to Trump for more analysis on why I would take this position on our current scapegoat in chief.
I support the efforts to maintain the right to refuse vaccines; empower the local school districts and get rid of common core; establish local autonomy from federal and state government and corporate intrusion; end extortive taxes; maintain constitutional integrity; address the misconduct in the Bundy and Hammond cases; … I will NOT sign on to their promotion of a holy war in the middle east or bend over for Israel (at least not any more than I am forced to already).
Exploring the Possibilities
Huge Kudos to those junior representatives who have gone to such great lengths to speak to the public and address their concerns. Taking on such an effort to go against the status quo among their colleagues and choosing to honor their oath of office as public trustees, takes a great deal of courage when there is so much encouragement to do otherwise. Even though I have a great deal to say about what I perceive as the problems we face and much in the way of ideas on how to resolve these problems, I have not had the courage to put myself out there in anywhere near the capacity of these representatives. They are doing what is necessary and should be commended for that.
(I recently read an article by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market Watch “Human Courage And Kindness Stand As Obstacles To The Void“. This blog post speaks to the importance of real action and community in the fight for liberty, such as what these representatives are trying to accomplish.)
- Possibility: Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
I wonder if anyone among these proponents of liberty have explored the methods being undertaken by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund? The term “environmental” might dissuade conservatives from considering their efforts and, having looked the sight over, there may well be some pressure to use agenda 21 rhetoric to condition the local communities to advance regional globalism. However, the “home rule charter” and other methods being employed to empower the counties over state and federal agencies seems to be a worthwhile pursuit. Having a conversation about the ways in which both sides of the aisle are being conditioned to advance outside interests might be a way to transcend the divide; such as you see me discuss at great length in my other blogs; particularly the blog on the Idaho Climate Summit. (I don’t know how so many conservatives in Idaho are remaining silent on the Climate Summit issue and not calling out their public trust institutions who have donated public money to advance this collaboration scam).
You certainly don’t have to be a liberal to get on board with protecting your community from being a dumping area for fracking wastewater in Grant Township, Pennsylvania nor do you have to be a conservative to support the Lundy family in their fight against the National Park’s Service to save the Drake’s Bay Oyster Company. (Oh, BTW, where is Labrador at on the Drake’s Bay issue these days? And why won’t he return my messages on the Bobby McIlvaine Act? Where do you, among this liberty movement, stand on these and so many other important issues?)
Excerpt from CELDF Website:
The Box of Allowable Activism above depicts how communities are boxed in by a legal system designed to protect corporate interests and limit their rights to local self-government.
State Preemption: State legislatures enact laws that remove authority from communities and define the legal relationship between the state and municipalities as that of a parent to a child. This deprives communities of their own rights.
Nature as Property: Nature is considered property by law, meaning anyone with title to property has the legal right to destroy it. This allows the actions of a few to impact the entire ecosystem of a community. (Author’s Note: This idea needs more discussion as this seems to have the potential to be misused like it is being done in other nations (like in New Zealand where the rights of nature are arbitrated by oligarchs not locals). Perhaps some discussion around the “rights of nature” appeal on the Colorado River should be looked at in depth.)
Corporate Privilege: Often referred to as corporate “rights” or corporate “personhood,” it means that corporations claim “rights” to protections of free speech (1st amendment/money as speech), protections from search and seizure (4th amendment), due process and lost future profits (5th amendment Takings clause) and equal protection (14th amendment). Contracts clause protections, civil rights laws, and commerce laws, further amplify corporate power to override local decision-making.
The Regulatory Fallacy: The permitting process, and the regulations supposedly enforced by regulatory agencies, are intended to create a sense of protection and objective oversight. By working through regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and our state agencies, we’re told we can protect our community. We can challenge permit applications and demand regulations be enforced. Except, by their very definition, regulatory agencies regulate the amount of harm that takes place. When they issue permits, they give cover to the applicant against liability to the community for the legalized harm.
- Possibility: The People’s Republic of Kanata
What is the Republic of Kanata?
A sovereign nation of many nations that have broken free from the British monarchy and its tyrannical system of “crown law”.
Kanata is convened under a public Proclamation of January 15, 2015 that establishes it as a constitutional republic under the common law. The Republic has over 1,000 founding signatories but reflects the wishes of nearly 60% of Canadians, who when polled in 2013 favored an end to all ties with the British monarchy.
The Republic of Kanata is also the fulfillment of the aspirations of the first patriots who attempted unsuccessfully to create such a Canadian Republic in 1837. “Kanata” is an Iroquois word meaning “our communal village”.