Horowitz: Idaho conservatives poised to remake legislature like never before



Idaho has long suffered a paradox, in that it is so dominated by Republicans that it is not so Republican at all. Because it is a de facto one-party state, many liberals who are well connected to the woke industries and lobbyists choose to run as Republicans and use their superior campaign cash to campaign as conservatives, the exact opposite of what they plan to do in office. This is why, despite a 58-12 majority in the House and a 28-7 majority in the Senate, conservatives rarely enjoy legislative wins that other red states are able to easily secure. Last night’s elections might have changed that in a big way.

Establishment Republican elites are crowing about their apparent victories in both the Pennsylvania Senate race and the Idaho gubernatorial race on Tuesday. Idaho Gov. Brad Little warded off a challenge from Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin. However, when you get past the statewide elections, which require tremendous money and organization to make competitive – money true conservatives don’t have – we find a different story.

A total of 20 incumbent Republicans – 11 running for the Senate and nine running for the House – were defeated or poised to lose as of Tuesday night. A big part of these results is thanks to the work of the Idaho Freedom PAC, which actively recruited candidates against incumbents.

It’s truly hard to overstate the significance of this development. Thirteen of the 28 Republican senators didn’t stand for re-election. Out of the 15 remaining, nine were defeated, and several RINO House members seeking a Senate seat lost to conservatives. There is almost no parallel to that in recent history. While some of the races involved other quirks or were due to redistricting, and a few others were conservatives who were defeated by more ideologically ambiguous candidates, for the most part, conservatives downed many liberal Republicans and made gains in open seats.

Among the highlights were conservative Rep. Codi Galloway beating Sen. Fred Martin, the five-term Senate Health and Welfare Committee chair from Boise. Sen. Jim Patrick, who served five terms in the Senate and three in the House, was defeated by a conservative as well. He was chairman of the Senate Commerce & Human Resources Committee. Also, Rep. Greg Chaney, the outgoing chair of Judiciary, Rules & Administration in the House, lost his bid for a Senate seat, and Sen. Carl Crabtree, vice chair of the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee, lost his seat.

Additionally, two conservatives who moved from California to seek freedom in the Gem State defeated prominent incumbents. Retired California firefighter Carl Bjerke took out Senate Health and Welfare Committee vice chair Sen. Peter Riggs. Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee co-chair Sen. Jeff Agenbroad was defeated by Brian Lenney, who moved his family from California to Nampa in 2010.

Even in a number of instances where the incumbent survived, the challengers came much closer than we usually see in statewide elections. Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Winder only won his race by about 640 votes. Now he will face a brand-new caucus that can possibly vote him out of leadership. Conservatives would have enjoyed an even better night if not for the fact that leadership drew several of them into the same district and forced them to compete with each other. This dynamic made the House results more of a wash, but the House was already fairly conservative. So, the fact that the Senate has caught up to it will give the legislature a lot of clout over Gov. Brad Little.

What this success at the legislative level demonstrates is that for lower offices, where the bar to entry is much lower in terms of financial needs, conservatives are on a much more level playing field.

Even in the statewide elections, there are signs that in the future, conservatives can sweep the state. Former Congressman Raul Labrador defeated a 22-year incumbent for attorney general. Conservatives also came within a hair of winning the office of secretary of state and only lost because of vote-splitting. Even for governor, Brad Little only secured 53% of the total vote. Had there been a runoff option, the race might have picked up more momentum and could have become contested. With less vote-splitting and slightly stronger candidates, conservatives can truly take over the state next time.

In other states, mainly in the South, where there are runoffs, conservatives have a stronger chance to compete statewide. Next week, conservatives have an opportunity to draw Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey into a runoff. One recent poll showed Ivey only garnering 40% of the vote, with socially conservative businessman Tim James in second place for a potential runoff. Vote-splitting has plagued conservatives for decades, and the institution of runoffs in more states would allow them to compete against the establishment without fear of dividing the vote of thinking voters.

The Idaho media cheer for liberal Republicans because they don’t really have Democrat horses to ride, but even they recognize the significance of the Idaho Freedom PAC’s work in changing the state’s politics. A bigger focus on state legislatures will pay great dividends in the future, and other states can mimic the work of the Idaho Freedom PAC.

Indeed, the trend of RINO chairmen losing their seats played out in other states on Tuesday night. Three RINO Kentucky House chairs lost their seats in northern Kentucky. Eight-term incumbent Adam Koenig, chairman of the House Licensing and Occupations Committee, was defeated by Steven Doan, a liberty candidate supported by Congressman Thomas Massie and state Rep. Savannah Maddox, a rising conservative star who might run for governor next year. Rep. Ed Massey, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from Hebron, and Rep. Sal Santoro, an eight-term incumbent and chairman of the Transportation Budget Committee, were also defeated.

In Pennsylvania, Rep. Stan Saylor of York County and Sen. Pat Browne of Lehigh County, both the House and Senate appropriations committee chairs respectively, were defeated by conservative challengers. Saylor had been in the House for 30 years. Republicans already have strong majorities in both houses, and if they can pick up the governorship with Doug Mastriano, a more conservative legislature can dramatically alter the political trajectory of the state.

So, what gives when it comes to 63% of the Pennsylvania Republicans voting for Mehmet Oz or Dave McCormick over the conservative favorite, Kathy Barnette? Very simple. They each raised close to $16 million and ran as solid conservatives, so the other challengers, including Kathy Barnette, were outgunned. On the other hand, Doug Mastriano, likely the most conservative in the gubernatorial field, won his primary in a landslide. In that case, there was no unified establishment candidate with endless sums of money to fool the voters.

Overall, conservatives would be wise to focus more on state and local races rather than federal races. Making red states red again and state legislatures great again will go a long way in divorcing ourselves from the morass of Washington. The RINOs can have the irremediably broken federal system, while we focus on rebuilding liberty in some of the states.

Horowitz: Chairman of the Idaho House Health Committee refuses to hold hearings on dangerous COVID policies



The state motto of Idaho is Esto Perpetua – "it is perpetuated," as if to say that God's blessing and bounty for the Gem State should last forever. But in the mind of Fred Wood, the state House Health and Welfare Committee chairman, it means that the imperial administrative state and federal executive control over our bodies, property, and health care should be perpetuated and last forever without any legislative check or balance reflecting the will of the people. Who needs California when you have Idaho Republicans who behave like this?

To begin with, it took months to even get the GOP supermajority legislature back in session to place a check on this dangerous executive power. Now that leadership is back in session and rank-and-file members have introduced nine bills to reorient the immoral response on COVID to reflect more compassion, science, parental choice, and informed consent and to restore the doctor-patient relationship, the committee chair flat-out refused to hold hearings on them.

"I profoundly disagree with all nine of them," Wood (R), told the Idaho Reports.

"If you don't like that company and you don't like its policy, go work somewhere else," Wood said. Wood also added, "I have the right not to be infected by somebody that has a communicable disease."

Well, gee, if you have your shot and your mask, and they work so effectively, why does someone else who has not chosen to get these shots affect your health? Moreover, how are you to get another job when it is the federal government forcing all businesses across many industries to require the shots?

Hey, Mr. Wood, if you don't want to be a committee chairman or a legislator, then just resign. How dare you decline to hold a single hearing for 19 months probing both sides of a debate that affects every aspect of our health and wellness? For example, two of the bills being blocked would prevent the state medical licensing board from attacking doctors who actually seek to treat patients with FDA-approved drugs that are infinitely safer than the shots or remdesivir. We have people dying, including those who got both shots, because of a war on treatment. How could Mr. Wood not even conduct a hearing on the state of play with therapeutics and treatment of COVID? How many patients has Mr. Wood treated? I can personally attest to the fact that Dr. Ryan Cole of Boise has saved hundreds of lives, yet he is being attacked by Idaho's licensing board.

Here are some of the commonsense bills rejected by Rep. Wood:

  • HB 424: Prohibits any person, individual, business, or school from releasing one's vaccination information.
  • HB 426: Bars any state or local governing entity from discriminating based on injection status or any employer from discriminating against one not showing proof of injection.
  • HB 428: Affirms a parent's right to consent to any vaccination of his or her child.
  • HB 432: Bars any requirement of a vaccine that has not been fully approved by the FDA.
  • HB 433: Bars any licensing board from punishing doctors for prescribing FDA-approved drugs to treat COVID and prohibits pharmacists from blocking such prescriptions.
  • HB 435: Prohibits any local government from enforcing Biden's injection mandate.

The ball is now in the court of Speaker Scott Bedke. If he really wants to stand up to Biden and support health care freedom, he will make sure these bills get a vote. Six other bills that were routed through other committees did pass the House yesterday. One of them was HB 429, which allows parents to opt out of school mask mandates. Shockingly, 16 Republicans still voted against it, including Wood, House Education Committee Chairman Lance Clow, and House Speaker Scott Bedke, who is also running for lieutenant governor. Wood and Clow also voted against HB 414, which prevents employers from questioning sincerely held religious beliefs in the context of injection mandates. Now these bills head to the even more liberal Senate.

Also, where exactly is Gov. Brad Little when it comes to standing up to Biden and the war on treatment for COVID? The reality is that the shots are not working, people have the right to access safe and effective therapeutics, doctors have the right to prescribe them, and state and federal bureaucrats have no right to block them while coercing people to take unsafe and ineffective therapeutics. I can't think of a more important topic on which to hold a hearing.

What is so disappointing about people like Wood, especially as committee chairmen in critical red states, is not just that they are California liberals ruining red states. It's that they have zero interest in representing the people in what was supposed to be the strongest branch of government and the one closest to the people.

We live in a time when the federal and state bureaucrats are essentially running all of the policies that matter to our lives – and now our bodies – through executive fiat without any legislative oversight. They are directing spending for a sum of COVID funds that is larger than the entire state's general fund. How can it be that committee chairs throughout the country like Wood have zero interest in holding hearings on the shots, remdesivir, hospital treatment, early treatment, masks, lockdowns, conflicts of interests, and spending priorities even from a facially neutral standpoint? Wouldn't he want to call in experts from both sides and get to the bottom of some of these disputes?

For those wondering why there is no check and balance on Biden in a state with 4-1 majorities in the legislature, people like Fred Wood are the culprit. They literally agree with Biden – up to and including his sentiment that somehow the unvaccinated could affect the protection of those who are already supposedly protected ... but the "protection" failed to protect them.

Horowitz: Idaho GOP leaders refuse to convene a special session to fight experimental vaccine tyranny



RINO legislators in Idaho are so "conservative" that they believe the government can use taxpayer funding to manufacture, promote, cajole, absolve of liability, and censor its way into lying about a vaccine — and somehow businesses following that very guidance is considered a "private" decision. That would come as news to the thousands of Idaho business owners who suffered under Gov. Brad Little's restrictions for months without a legislative response. These RINOs only seem to support private enterprise when it's being backed by — not when it is facing — the fist of government.

GOP leaders in the legislature have thus far rebuffed an effort by conservatives to convene an emergency special session to prevent employers from mandating the experimental injections on employees, a gross violation of the Nuremberg Code. "The basic principle, that I think is a pretty strong principle within the Republican Party, is less government interference is the best and so when you decide you're going to go in and tell the private sector to do something it better be for a very good, very good reason," said Idaho Senate President Chuck Winder in rebuffing a special session.

This comes after the state's two largest health systems, Saint Alphonsus and St. Luke's, announced that every employee must be vaccinated, spawning a backlash of protesters at the state capitol last week. Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin, who is also running for governor against Brad Little, is publicly calling on the legislature to hold a special session dealing with vaccine coercion and informed consent.

The response from the Republicans, who control the Senate 4-1 and the House nearly 5-1, is that a private business can do whatever it pleases and they oppose "regulation" of private contracts. Really? That would come as news to those shut down for over a year by Brad Little's COVID orders. It would also come as news to those who abide by endless ADA laws regarding discrimination based on health status.

Pursuant to the ADA (36.201), no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services, without retaliation or coercion (36.206), covering any condition, whether a physical or mental impairment (36.302.1), wherein mere presence does not constitute direct threat, even if contagious or noncontagious with transmissible diseases (36.302.b.2, 36.208). It's one thing to be leery of inserting government where it has never regulated before; it's quite another to create a carve-out for the most destructive health discrimination of all time.

Indeed, when it comes to employment and anti-discrimination law, the slate is not clean. Government has regulated every aspect of labor law; why should we make an exception when it comes to the most unjustified discrimination that in itself is dangerous and promoted by the government?

There is a moral hazard in suggesting that a "private" entity can mandate the most foundational violation of human rights. Can they force employees to take sterilization shots? Can they force them to walk around naked? And in the case of COVID, where studies have shown that ivermectin, when taken preventively, reduces the chances of getting the virus by 86%, can employers force its employees to take the drug?

There is no stated interest in forcing another person to get the shot that can even pass a rational basis test. Even according to the insistence of proponents of the injections that somehow the shots are still effective and safe, that means that someone's decision not to take them only affects that person alone. If the employer is concerned about the virus, he has every ability to obtain the protection for himself.

Moreover, it has now become clear that the vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of infection. Even our government officials are now conceding it only stops critical illness. Israel is experiencing a similar trend, and according to Hebrew University researchers, roughly 90% of newly infected people over the age of 50 are fully vaccinated.

Thus, there is literally no benefit from the standpoint of transmission and workplace protection to getting the vaccine. A vaccinated person is no less a risk of spreading the virus than one who is not vaccinated, even if we believe the shots prevent critical illness in the person vaccinated. Israel's latest COVID data shows that the new rates of infection nearly perfectly reflect the percentage of the population by age group divided by vaccination status. Incidentally, Israel's data show that most of the people sick with critical illness were vaccinated too.

Pfizer vaccine now completely worthless in Israel as >80% of all COVID-19 patients were previously vaccinated. Was… https://t.co/D1o5tRjqPa

— COVID-19 Evidence-Based Clinical Response Panel (@cov19treatments) 1626403614.0

Then of course there are the side effects. Just last week, the updated VAERS data show over 11,000 reported deaths. The risks of myocarditis in young male employees being forced to vaccinate are much greater than the benefits the shot provides. And again, there is zero benefit to the other employees who are already happily and voluntarily vaccinated. Our anti-discrimination laws are replete with examples of prohibitions on employers to deny employment or service when the person's identity or behavior doesn't harm the company. Absent any evidence of "your vaccine protects me," there is no justification for such a mandate, especially when companies have been absolved from any liability stemming from such a mandate.

The reason conservatives support in principle the right to deny service or employment even when it could be discriminatory is because such behavior is organic and would be checked and balanced by a free and open market. But in the case of injection mandates and mask mandates, they came directly from the government. The government has:

  • Funded the vaccines;
  • Spent taxpayer dollars promoting them;
  • Worked together with Big Tech to censor all information about them;
  • Absolved the companies from liability;
  • Distorted the marketplace to create a climate of fear without any informed consent about the problems with the vaccines or benefits of alternative treatments.

If Republicans in red states are now OK with this sort of fascism, it will be applied to every other issue. Unlike in Europe, they won't directly mandate them (although they did mandate masks), but they will work with the "private" sector to violate individual rights and even the Nuremberg Code. What if the government fosters a climate where every worker has to pledge allegiance to BLM? Is that OK too? Will we be leery of "over-regulating" businesses?

In a country that now mandates that mom-and-pop shops must provide services for gay weddings, conservatives should not stand idly by when entire industries can collude together and with government to block people from accessing all vital goods and services unless they follow a government-induced "guideline."

And speaking of mask mandates, isn't it peculiar how the hospitals are mandating that employees get injected even though they continue to mandate the masks as well? I thought the masks work.

Finally, it's quite convenient that Idaho Republicans suddenly discovered their libertarian streak when it comes to permitting businesses to collude with government to prohibit individual rights, yet they failed, with supermajorities, to block the government from downright closing businesses. After declining to call a special session for nearly a year of Brad Little's COVID fascism, they failed to override his veto on a very modest bill limiting the governor's emergency powers to 60 days. They also failed to pass HB 291, a business bill of rights that precludes any layer of government from ever shutting businesses or revoking licenses for staying open.

So, you can shut down businesses completely, but you can't merely tell them not to violate the Nuremberg Code against someone's passive state of being? Also, it's not like these same legislative leaders have even passed legislation banning public institutions, such as Idaho's state universities, from mandating vaccines either.

In talking down a special session, Idaho House Speaker Scott Bedke told local media, "Call me an old-school Republican, but I think that the government that governs best is the government that governs least." But that is the strategy across the country in red state legislatures that has resulted in the most tyrannical government ever. Having the legislature, the body closest to the people, sit out from COVID, has allowed the health department bureaucrats to work with CDC to remake our country. The idea of a limited legislature was designed for a time when the governor and courts were even more limited.

Indeed, it's time for the Idaho legislature to convene marathon hearings with true experts to audit every decision the Idaho Department of Health has made based on a reputed scientific premise – be it masking, vaccines, testing, or protocol for treatment of the virus. If they can't grab the reins of power back from the despots during the most consequential executive power-grab of our lifetime, then they should all resign and abolish the legislature.

There's nothing quite like a Republican who engages in intellectual sophistry to pave the road to despotism by clinging to notional straws of conceptual liberty that no longer exists.

Horowitz: Idaho Gov. Brad Little thinks 60 days of dictatorial power are not enough for him



Californians are flocking to Idaho to escape the collapse of their culture and freedoms and in search of liberty. There is even an entire movement to create "Greater Idaho," which would encompass eastern portions of Washington and Oregon as well as northern California. Yet many of them will be disappointed to know that, thanks to leftist Republicans like Gov. Brad Little and some legislators, they as may as well stay put and suffer under Gavin Newsom with the warmer weather.

A year ago, I wrote an article titled, "Governors, not gods: State executives cannot simply do whatever they want indefinitely," observing the shocking tyranny committed by governors who, as of April 20, 2020, had unilaterally vitiated our most basic human rights without legislative input for a full month. Little did I know that a year later, most of these governors, including Republicans like Brad Little, would continue exercising the power of a king indefinitely. Now Brad Little has successfully killed a bill that would ever place any meaningful limitations on his dictatorial powers. Who needs Gavin Newsom when you have Brad Little?

With today's transportation and communication, a governor should not be able to rule by emergency in a way that really alters people's lives for more than a day or two. We have legislatures for a reason. Yet SB 1136, which passed both chambers with overwhelming support, actually gives the governor 60 days to continue a declared emergency before requiring affirmative support from the legislature. The bill also states that the governor cannot unilaterally change state laws during the declared emergency. Sounds pretty generous, right? Sixty days of emergency declaration, and if it is really that compelling, the legislature would continue it. Yet Brad Little vetoed the bill because he believes in the rule of one man. He claimed that the bill would add "more red tape and government bureaucracy." Self-awareness is dead to these tyrants.

SB 1136 originally passed the House by 54-16, with four Republicans opposing it, and the Senate by 28-7, with all Republicans in support of the measure. That should have been enough to sustain a two-thirds majority veto override; however, the governor successfully flipped five Republicans in the Senate, netting just enough votes to sustain his veto. The Republicans who voted to make Little king were Jim Guthrie, Patti Anne Lodge, Fred Martin, Jim Patrick, and Jim Woodward. When it comes to this broken Republican Party, there is no majority large enough to uphold basic civil liberties as they existed before the pandemic.

The governor held a press conference last Friday with four former governors as well as Sen. Jim Risch to explain his veto. This demonstrates that the Republican Party in Idaho has been rotten to the core for years as conservatives have been complacent, not selecting authentic Republicans in the primaries.

The governor also vetoed HB 135, which, among other things, would bar the governor from quarantining the healthy, shutting down businesses and churches, and banning assembly. Idaho Gov. Little illegally barred assembly of more than 10 people for months, even longer than some blue states did. The House already voted to override Little's veto, but as of this writing, it's unclear whether the same senators who sided with the governor on SB 1136 will stay the course on HB 135.

It is truly shocking how a simple proposition banning the shutdown of businesses and churches and the quarantining of healthy people is now controversial in a red state. It is unfathomable that 60 days of unilateral emergency powers are not enough.

The governor had the nerve to suggest that the legislature acted out of "an emotional knee-jerk reaction" in standing for the Constitution, when it was he and his ilk who acted impetuously out of emotion to the virus. Thirteen months later, he has refused to look at the science. Little said he believes the legislature limiting his powers violates the state's constitution. That is really rich. This man violates every clause of the Bill of Rights, yet suddenly when the legislature tries to check that power, it is they who are violating the constitution!

Perhaps he should study Art. I Sec. II of the state's constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature.

There are a number of other good bills that passed the House but are being blocked in the Senate by Little's phony Republican allies. Evidently, a 28-7 majority is not enough. Some of the bills that will likely die in the Senate are:

  • HB 339 – Bars all state and local officials from ever instituting a mask mandate.
  • HB 140 – Bars all companies from discriminating against people who don't get the experimental COVID vaccines and prohibits state officials from entering into public contracts with companies that do so.
  • HB 291 – A business bill of rights that precludes any layer of government from ever shutting businesses or revoking licenses for staying open.
  • HB 249 – Would require parents to have to opt in before the public school can teach any sex education.

Wouldn't one expect these bills to easily pass in a state like Idaho? Well, governors like Brad Little make states like Idaho blue without Democrats ever assuming power.

Brad Little is up for re-nomination next year as a Republican running for governor in a state Trump carried by 31 points. Local media reports that Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin might challenge Little for the GOP nomination. McGeachin has been openly campaigning against lockdowns since the beginning and seems to represent the values people expect from a state like Idaho.

Trump recently suggested that the key to winning for Republicans is to adopt his America-first agenda. Well, nothing more important was hatched in China to destroy America than the concept of lockdowns. Brad Little is antithetical to Trump's base and why people voted for him. McGeachin, on the other hand, was the first Republican in the state to support Trump and nominated him at the RNC convention for the state of Idaho. Thus, if she runs, Trump will have a bold choice to make in Idaho. Does he stand with the Fauci governors, or does he stand with MAGA governors like Ron DeSantis?

The difference between Republicans like Ron DeSantis who reject "Fauciism" and Republicans like Little who embrace it is greater than the difference between a Republican and a Democrat. If Trump really wants to make an impact on changing the Republican Party from Fauci to DeSantis, he will endorse against lockdown governors in every red state primary. Otherwise, his most ardent supporters will quite literally have nowhere to live as free Americans.