The Risks of Undermining Anti-Domestic Terrorism Laws In Idaho

Article From Take Back Idaho

In the shadows of America’s heartland, a narrative of victimhood is being woven by those who once stood armed against the government. Figures like Eric Parker, known for his standoff at the Bundy Ranch, and the memory of LaVoy Finicum, a martyr in the eyes of anti-government extremists, are repositioning themselves not as the perpetrators of potential domestic terrorism but as its victims. This revisionist history is gaining legislative traction in places like Idaho, where Senate Bill 1220 seeks to redefine "domestic terrorism" in a way that could effectively disarm the legal system against homegrown threats.

Groups like The Center For Self Governance have spent the past few years asking for donations to support the widow of LaVoy Finicum, Ammon Bundy’s right hand man at the Malheur Wildlife refuge illegal occupation. Mark Herr goes around the region gaslighting conservatives into supporting his organization that seem to seek normalization for acts of violence towards government employees.

When you watch video from the Malheur standoff and witness the hate in the eyes of anti-government militia members who were ready to trade bullets with local and federal law enforcement officers one must ask themselves, is this the future we want for Idaho?

The Center for Self Governance has been working hand in hand with Idaho Freedom Foundation aligned groups for years, seeking to radicalize a base of support and indoctrinate them with ideas that align with anti-government militia groups. It's part of a growing trend that tries to normalize false interpretations of the constitution like the Constitutional Sheriffs movement, who’s leader actively pushed for putting the women and children in front of law enforcement guns so they could get video of them dying to help galvanize support for their anti-government cause. Eric Parker was there that day and endorsed the idea of human shields, the same tactic currently being used by Hamas when they build tunnels and command centers under hospitals and schools.

Local Idaho moms who have been influenced by OAN and Alex Jones conspiracies have voiced concerns about getting put on “watch lists” and expecting no-knock warrant executions for merely expressing their culture wars concerns to local school board members. No Idaho mom has ever had federal authorities show up, even when they engage in behavior that makes school board members and their families feel unsafe. 

It’s a preposterous claim being amplified by those who want legal protection to shield their confrontational tactics used by a small ideologically aligned group to coerce elected officials under the threat of doxxing, targeted social media harassment, and the fear of militia groups showing up outside their homes. This bill would give those who use these tactics tacit approval and make it so no elected official or critic of their abusive behavior is safe in Idaho.

Local elected officials are scared as these same groups have organized mobs outside homes, terrorizing their children, and attempting to bully anyone who does not comply with their narratives that have been shaped by the likes of Alex Jones and shared by their local legislator. 

The bill, which narrows the definition of terrorism to exclude acts not associated with foreign terrorist organizations, represents a significant pivot away from acknowledging the complex nature of domestic terrorism. It's a change that, if passed, could leave the state—and potentially the nation—vulnerable to the kinds of attacks that have, in the past, shattered communities and taken lives.

Historically, Idaho has been no stranger to the machinations of extremist groups seeking to carve out bastions of their ideologically driven utopias. The state has seen its fair share of violence and plans for violence, from the Aryan Nations’ dreams of a white homeland to the more recent Bundy-led standoffs that challenge federal authority with armed resistance. These incidents are not relics of the past but harbingers of what could become a more tumultuous future if legislative protections are eroded.

Critics of Senate Bill 1220 argue that it essentially blinds law enforcement and the judicial system to the threats posed by such groups. By limiting the scope of what can be considered "domestic terrorism," the bill risks not only emboldening those who would use violence to achieve their ends but also invalidating the experiences of those who have suffered at the hands of domestic terrorists.

The implications of such a legal shift are profound. Without the means to legally address domestic terrorism in its many forms, Idaho could see an increase in the boldness and frequency of extremist actions. From plotting the destruction of critical infrastructure to the intimidation of communities through armed presence, the activities of groups that would previously fall under the umbrella of domestic terrorism could go unchecked.

Moreover, this redefinition serves to prop up anti-government extremists as victims of a system they actively seek to undermine. It provides a veneer of legitimacy to their actions and narratives, painting them not as threats to public safety but as champions of liberty. This dangerous perception undercuts the very foundations of democratic governance and public safety, creating a milieu in which the line between legitimate protest and terrorism is not just blurred but erased.

The story of Idaho's Senate Bill 1220 is not just a local issue but a national cautionary tale. It speaks to the broader challenges of addressing domestic terrorism in a political climate where extremism can be rebranded as activism. As legislators consider the future of this bill, the stakes are high not only for Idaho but for the entire country. The question remains: will we heed the lessons of history, or will we find ourselves unprepared for the consequences of our inaction?

In a world where the threats of domestic terrorism are real and present, the muzzling of our legal watchdogs could spell disaster. It's a scenario that demands not just attention but action from all who hold the safety and security of our communities dear. As the debate over Senate Bill 1220 unfolds, it's imperative that we consider not just the legal ramifications but the societal impact of diminishing our defenses against domestic terrorism. The cost of getting it wrong is a price too high to pay.

Disclaimer: The following is intended to convey an opinion on newsworthy events of public concern regarding public figures and/or public officials in the exercise of their official duties. No implications or inferences—beyond those explicitly stated in the preceding—are intended to be conveyed or endorsed by the Author. Wherever available, hyperlinks have been provided to allow readers to directly access any underlying assertions of fact upon which this opinion is based.