What Making a Difference Looks Like “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you , then they fight you , then you win .” - often attributed to - Mahatma Gandhi As the Washington outreach coordinator with the Freedom Foundation, my job description is listed under “Freedom in Action” on the staff page of our website. What does “ Freedom in Action look like? Freedom in action looks like a small army going door to door across the state to inform union members of their constitutional rights to stop funding the political portion of their union dues or, in some cases, their ability to end paying dues altogether. It also looks like an aggressive legal team that b oth defends good ideas in practice and goes after bad ones . We will not sit by idly while good intentions are snuffed out and bad ideas are imposed unchallenged. But when you engage in a meaningful way to create change, especially when that change affects an existing power structure, those in position...

By Matthew Hayward The stronger our communities are, the less need for government exists. Conversely, the weaker and more disconnected our communities are, the greater the need for government assistance. The problem is that the more government grows, the more it takes the place of charity and community, the more disconnected and less likely we are to help one another. This is a vicious cycle. The only way to break it is to come together and help one another. Start with your friends, family, and neighbors, surely most of us could be doing much more for them than we are. Even if all you are doing is helping a family member with rides until they can get their car fixed, or helping with the 90-year-old neighbor's lawn, maybe you have a friend going through a hard time and they need a little more than a shoulder to cry on, they need some extra money to cover their bills. Going to the government for assistance should be the last resort. You should only ask for government assistance...

By Matthew Hayward In a free society, there is no need for "distracted driving" laws. No law should exist that attempts to socially engineer society; we do not need laws that attempt to prevent crimes from happening, and we do not need pre-crime laws. We need to enforce rational laws and punish real crimes. In today's Tri-City Herald article  Put the phone down and pay attention, or get a ticket , we learn that the Washington State Legislature has again passed another emotionally driven bill that violates our basic human rights. First, they tell us we are not allowed to make phone calls while holding the phone to our ear, and then they tell us we cannot text; now, this most recent "distracted driving bill,"  Senate Bill 5289 , prohibits us from holding various electronic devices.  We don't need more complex laws; common-sense laws should suffice. We don't need a law that addresses playing musical instruments while driving or reading a ...

The USA never has, and never will use its military solely for humanitarian purposes.* There are ample examples of atrocities that we have turned a blind eye to. Thousands of pro-democracy protesters were brutally massacred  in the 80s and another uprising in 2007 in  Burma/ Myanmar.  The people of America can be motivated to support military use by pictures of dead and dying women and children, but the government is driven by complex geopolitical strategy , military strategical positioning, control of resources, etc. If the government had not been caught lying about nearly every major military event in our history, maybe more people would believe the propaganda about chemical weapons and evil dictators. Chemical weapons may have been used, women and children may have been murdered by an evil dictator, but that is not what anyone of this is about. The public is never told the whole truth ; not now, not Benghazi , not Libya , not 9/11/2001 , not the USS Liber...

Conservatives or people with limited government philosophical beliefs have a much harder task explaining their reasoning in a soundbite world. If you vote against any social service, you are a monster; you want children to starve extra. A lot of individuals benefit from things I do not support, but my opposition to those policies does not in any way have anything to do with my will toward the people who benefit or suffer. Being liberal is much easier; you get to act on the ends and justify the means; whatever you conclude to be good is right; the outcome is what matters, not the process. In some cases, the outcome doesn't even matter; only the noble intent matters. Like me, people who believe in limited government act upon moral, philosophical reasoning, our perceived "right and wrong." That means we find ourselves opposing things we might benefit from out of consistency for our principles, not mal intent for others. We may disagree, but I don't believe most ...

The 18th and 21st Amendments are Fantastic! They give us a clear guide to the powers and lack of powers of government. Of course, the enumerated powers  found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is another good place to look. But this is more of a  kinesthetic  approach.  The 18th Amendment was passed to create alcohol prohibition, a power not clearly granted to the government prior. The 21st repealed the 18th. Think about modern-day federal powers; where did they get all that power? President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a second Bill of Rights in 1944. While I disagree with what he proposed, it is invaluable to recognize that by making such a proposal, it was the clear government did not currently possess the power to implement said proposals. Things like: * "The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation;." * "The right of every family to a decent home;." * "The right to adequate medical care and the ...

An attempt was made to silence Lincoln, but the assignation attempt was foiled this time. For years, a discussion has been brewing about increasing transparency in government employee contract negotiations in Washington. Until recently, the unions have maintained their stranglehold on the process, forcing the meetings to be held in secret, hidden from the public's prying eyes. A county commissioner once asked one of the unions he was to negotiate with what they thought about making employee contract negotiations public. Union's response : "The union will not agree to public negotiations...we  have a contract with the County, not with the public... the public is not a party to the contract." Hannah Franks Facing the promise of litigation and an aggressive, defensive letter from the union outlining the “chilling effect and domination it would have on the members,” the county backed off. Over the next couple of years,’ enough signatures wer...