freedom matters fall-winter 2020

Fall/Winter 2020

Studies show COVID-related distance learning is costing students at least a year of their education.

Page 34.

Volume 5, No. 2

ARE THEY REALLY LEARNING??

A Publication of the Freedom Foundation

H

as there ever been a year more deserving of being left behind than 2020?

Not as far as I'm concerned.

A deadly pandemic, a shattered economy, millions thrown out of work needlessly, family businesses destroyed, rioting in the streets, racial tensions, wildfires — and all of it topped off by a president-elect who promises to make his the most union-centric administration in history.

What next? Boils and locusts?

For most of us, 2020 can't be in our rearview mirror soon enough.

But even though it's gone, it shouldn't be forgotten.

Sometimes the most important lessons are the most painful.

The famous German philosopher, Frederich Nietzsche, whose musings are chronicled elsewhere in this issue of Freedom Matters, famously asserted, "That which does not kill me makes me stronger."

If you buy that line of reasoning, 2020 surely left us a lot stronger than it found us.

And that's a good thing, because we'll need all our strength, all of our wits and all of our stamina in the trying days ahead.

Our adversaries on the left have made no secret of their desire to roll back many of the gains we've made in our bitter struggle against government employee unions, and now they have a committed ally in the White House.

But they also have a battle-tested foe in the Freedom Foundation, whose resourceful staff, stalwart board of directors and unflinching supporters have no intention of standing idly by as years of hard work are erased by those who covet what others have rightfully earned.

The bell of freedom can't be un-rung. As we move into a new year, we stand bloody but unbowed.

And ready for whatever challenges await us.

TOM McCABE, CEO

Volume 5, No. 2

6. The Barrett Factor

Contents

The U.S. Supreme Court's newest justice is already moving its rulings in the "right" direction.

10. Who's Behind This?

The ties that bind public-sector unions to Antifa are tighter than you know.

14. Real Chaos Former White House Spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders pays a visit and rocks Freedom Foundation supporters with an online event.

16. Would George

Washington wear a Mask?

How would history's great leaders and thinkers react to modern COVID restrictions?

20. Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho. It's

Back to Court We Go

f

What her union and the state of Oregon did to her sounds like a fractured fairy tale. It isn't.

22. Our Ears

are Burning

Recently disclosed emails show Washington's lawmakers are well aware of the Freedom Foundation, and actively crafting laws to thwart it.

26. Sudden Death Are the country's professional sports leagues hastening their own demise by caving in to spoiled athletes and demands that can actually be traced back to radical leftist organizations?

30. And Good Riddance As bad as 2020 has been, it's taught us some valuable lessons and served as a reminder that we still have a lot of work to do .

34. System Failure Experts are advising everyone that COVID-related school closures could cost this country a generation of students.

38. Action Timeline Recent significant accomplishments.

Freedom Matters is a publication of the Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit think and action tank based in Olympia, Wash., dedicated to promoting free markets and limited, accountable government. Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any ballot measures or the election of any elected official or candidate. Publisher: Tom McCabe; Editor: Jeff Rhodes. Phone: (360) 956-3482.

PAGE 6

n FREEDOM MATTERS

The FACTOR

E

Supreme Court's newest justice is already moving its rulings in the 'right' direction

ven before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had sworn in Amy Coney Barrett as an associate justice on Oct. 26, 2020, court watchers were all asking the same question: What difference — if any — will her membership in this

By ERIC STAHLFELD Chief Litigation Counsel

exclusive club have on future rulings?

The answer wasn’t long in coming.

Just 30 days afterwards, late on Thanksgiving Eve, the court issued an opinion explaining why it was staying New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s edicts restricting religious gatherings to no more than 10 or 25 people, in buildings that can accommodate anywhere from 400 to more than 1,000 worshipers, while he permits businesses deemed “essential” to

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 7

have unlimited occupants.

As a result, worshipers were free to exercise their religious rights the following day, thanking God for his many blessings.

Cuomo probably felt certain he could get away with his dictates.

After all, the Supreme Court had already twice refused to stay similar proclamations in California and Nevada.

Chief Justice John Roberts had even specifically quoted Jacobson v.

Massachusetts allowing mandatory vaccination in Cambridge to counter a smallpox outbreak there well over a century earlier.

Some 128 cases had also cited Jacobson, since the Chief Justice argued it entrusted the “safety and health” to state politicians, and the federal judiciary should not apply constitutional restrictions to “second-guess” their broad powers and expertise.

Roberts concluded it was “quite improbable” that California’s limitations are unconstitutional.

But in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the court enjoined enforcement of the governor’s severe restrictions on the applicants’ religious services.

What changed? The addition of Amy Coney Barrett in place of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Rather than being able to join the four liberal, Democrat-appointed justices to form a majority of five, the chief justice now had only three to join, leaving himself in a minority of four.

Barrett and the other four conservative justices ruled that the religious rights are “likely to prevail,” rather than quite improbable.

New York should not treat religious organizations more harshly than even non-essential businesses, which were given the right to decide for themselves how many people to admit.

Churches and synagogues were not considered “essential,” giving more favorable treatment to large stores, manufacturing plants, transportation facilities and even unusual things such as acupuncture facilities.

It fell to Justice Neil Gorsuch to PAGE 8

n FREEDOM MATTERS

illustrate the dramatic failure of the Chief Justice’s reliance on Jacobson.

“Jacobson hardly supports cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,” he wrote, “nor was it ‘a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic.’ Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in time of crisis … Even if judges may impose emergency restrictions on rights that some of them have found hiding in the Constitution's penumbras, it does not follow that the same fate should befall the textually explicit right to religious exercise.”

The court, Gorsuch concluded, “may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack.”

Gorsuch forced the Chief Justice to back down on his opinion citing Jacobson in the California case.

It was only “one sentence,” to the effect that Jacobson is “uncontroversial” to simply state politically accountable officials principally guard and protect the safety and the health of the people.

No mention was made of the dozens of citations since his opinion, nor any analysis of how those lower courts applied his opinion.

Gorsuch responded by noting “(M)any lower courts quite understandably read its invocation as inviting them to slacken their enforcement of constitutional liberties while COVID lingers.”

Whether the Chief Justice, to put it charitably, wants the court to stay out of the way in times or crisis or prefers the court not be “activist,” with the addition of Barrett he is now in the minority when it comes to protecting rights explicit in the Constitution.

By all indications, Barrett will zealously protect Constitutional rights. She believes the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original public meaning of its text, and that meaning is fixed at the time of ratification.

Relatedly, when interpreting statutes, the court should use the most natural meaning of the words to identify their plain

communicative content.

For example, when on the 7th Circuit, Barrett was faced with the question of whether the Second Amendment permitted legislatures to prohibit non-violent felons from possessing firearms.

While agreeing their power prohibits “dangerous” people from possessing guns, she looked at the founding -era legislatures and found they did not strip felons simply because of their status as felons.

As an example, Rickey Kanter, the former owner and CEO of Dr. Comfort, was convicted of mail fraud for falsely representing that his company’s shoe inserts were Medicareapproved and billing the government accordingly.

While a violation of the law, Kanter’s offenses did not, in and of themselves, suggest any propensity to violence.

Thus, Barrett would have found unconstitutional the idea of permanently denying Kanter the

right to possess firearms.

The First Amendment protects religious schools from state interference into the school’s religious mission under the “ministerial exception.” Justice Barrett held this applied not just to “ministers,” but other employees whose role furthered the mission, protecting the “free exercise” clause and presaging the Supreme Court’s subsequent final ruling on the question.

Similarly, the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protects against searches or arrests unless a warrant is issued based on probable cause, and a police officer who deliberately falsifies the allegations in the warrant application violates the Constitution.

Moreover, this principle is so clearly established the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity.

The Equal Protection Clause entitles owners of similarly situated property to roughly equal tax treatment. But when Cook

County didn’t, after 10 years of litigation in state courts, Barrett ruled that a federal statute didn’t apply because there was no remedy in state courts — much less a plain, speedy, and efficient one.

Because of her insistence on protecting the Constitution’s enumerated rights, Amy Coney Barrett will be more on the conservative side of the philosophical divide. Consequently, the middle justice on that scale no longer will be the Chief Justice, but more probably Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

It thus appears far easier for conservatives to get a majority.

In addition, which justice writes the majority opinion is decided by the most senior member of the majority. So rather than Roberts being able to water-down decisions even when he sides with the conservatives, the decision will be in the hands of Thomas, and he will have little reason to restrict the import of positions defending our rights.

While the Thanksgiving Eve opinion was unsigned, at least one observer believes Barrett wrote it.

Between the opinion and Gorsuch’s concurrence, the ability of lower courts merely to cite to Jacobson and Roberts’ previous endorsement thereof has now been obliterated.

This already has benefitted Freedom Foundation clients. The Slidewaters water park in Chelan, Wash., lost its right to serve its many patrons, with a federal judge summarily citing Jacobson to justify the state’s ability to enact whatever COVID rules the governor demands.

The case is now on appeal to the 9th Circuit, and you can be sure the Freedom Foundation has already has cited Roman Catholic Diocese to show the trial court was wrong to allow the state to shut down Slidewaters.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett will make an impact on the Supreme Court.

By all indications, she already has.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 9

PAGE 10

n FREEDOM MATTERS

Who'S BEHIND THIS?

By BEN STRAKA Policy Analyst

It's no secret the leaders of America's government employee unions support Antifa and its campaign of terror, but it turns out the two are closer than either one might want you to realize.

U

ntil the recent outbreak of wildfires in Oregon put a temporary damper on the Portland riots, the only thing attempting to burn down the state was the rioters themselves.

To be clear, that’s not a confirmation of the unsubstantiated rumors that Antifa members actually started some of the wildfires. It’s simply a recognition that rioters in Portland have set fire to multiple government buildings within the city over the past few months.

So yes, “Burn down the state” may be a bit of a hyperbole.

Then again, maybe not.

Because although there may be some nonviolent demonstrators among them, it has become abundantly clear that many of those in Portland carrying the not-so-proverbial torch for a movement they claim is about social justice are, in reality, less concerned with police reform than they are hell bent on tearing down the American system of government itself.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 11

While it’s easy enough to distinguish between the violent and nonviolent, it’s more difficult at times to make sense of the various participant groups amidst the chaos — whether it be Black Lives Matter activists or the unstructured “Antifa,” for example — and to identify where the lines (to the extent they exist) become blurred.

Without speculating as to whether Antifa is playing a central role in the current unrest, it’s safe to say its members have earned a reputation for doing so in the past.

And the decentralized, secretive nature of its adherents makes it

PAGE 12

n FREEDOM MATTERS

nearly impossible for the public to look at the ongoing Portland riots without thinking of Antifa, let alone who might be associated with it.

Considering that perception, you’d think Oregon’s mainstream political players might want to stay well away. But as evidenced by the recent arrest of the top legislative aide to House Speaker Tina Kotek (D-Portland), that’s apparently not the case.

Now to the point: Moving from perception to reality, it appears an even bigger political player, the Service Employees International

Union (SEIU), may have been involved in planning to host at least one — if not Antifa-connected, let’s say Antifa-suggestive — event at its Portland office in 2017.

We’ll start with the disclaimer.

The event itself was ultimately canceled, and its actual organizer, a group called “Demand Utopia,” has claimed on its Facebook page that the event flyer — posted below — was created by someone “not affiliated” with the group who “erroneously depicted this event as hosted by ‘antifa’ and a training for June 4 along with violent images.”

That may be true, though it is hard to confirm.

The flyer advertised the event, which was titled “Strategy Games: Group Self-Defense in the Streets,” for June 3, 2017, and listed SEIU as the host, including the address of SEIU 503’s Portland office.

It also advertised an Antifa rally that was scheduled to take place the following day, on June 4, 2017, and boasted the tagline “Love Trumps Hate, Chainsaw Trumps Love,” with an artist’s graphic depiction of a man sawing through the president’s head.

Assuming the repulsive flyer really was created by a rogue actor and that Antifa had no involvement in the event, there are still some concerning elements to consider.

First, the event was real.

And according to Demand Utopia’s Facebook page, it really was set to be hosted at SEIU 503’s Portland office. The flyer — even if created by an unauthorized person and falsely depicting Antifa’s involvement — bore the same description of the event as described by the event’s organizers:

“This workshop will focus on how to defend against attacks by large groups of people, how to think strategically in such situations and keep yourself and your friends safe.

Attendees will play live-action role play of group vs. group scenarios and play other educational strategy games. The event is hosted by longtime Portland activists and strategy gaming experts.”

Second, and perhaps even more concerning, the “workshop” really was scheduled for the day before a large Antifa rally on June 4, 2017. And the rally did take place.

Which begs the following questions.

Even if Antifa wasn’t directly involved in the June 3 workshop and the flyer was simply created by a rogue Antifa member trying to capitalize on the event to promote the June 4 rally, what other purpose could a “Group Self-Defense in the Streets” workshop possibly have the

day before Antifa’s rally, if not to train its participants?

And what on earth were SEIU 503 leaders thinking when they agreed to host such an event?

While the 2017 rallies obviously differed from the 100-plus days of protests-turned-riots that have gripped Portland this summer, one thing that hasn’t changed during that time is the willingness of groups like Antifa to use violence as a means to advance their goals.

In a statement leading up to the June 4, 2017, rally, for example, Rose City Antifa expressed the belief that its goals sometimes required “physical militancy,” and announced that “(T)here are groups in attendance that will be prepared to handle physical opposition.”

The nation’s oldest Antifa chapter also declared it was “not opposed to the tactic of property destruction” aimed at the state.

Unsurprising, to be sure. But Antifa’s tactics are hardly the point.

The head-scratching issue remains SEIU’s willingness to host such an event the day before Antifa’s rally.

On paper, SEIU 503 doesn’t seem like the anarchist type. You’d think union leaders would like government, after all, since that’s what pays their salaries — first via the taxpayers, and ultimately in the form of union dues deducted from public employees’ paychecks.

And notwithstanding union leaders’ own self-interests, do they really think their members would approve? After all, SEIU 503 claims to represent the very public employees whose buildings are now being targeted and who likely don’t appreciate finding themselves — or their government employers — in the crosshairs of anarchist rage.

The answer might be that union leaders like those at SEIU 503 are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they need members’ dues money to survive.

On the other, the gravitational pull of their existence has gradually moved away from core issues of workplace representation and increasingly towards the new center

of their universe — the political and ideological agendas of their activist leaders.

One is more important than the other, as any economist or child with a lemonade stand will tell you.

But it seems they just can’t help themselves.

It’s the same conundrum that caused SEIU 503 to donate more than $2.9 million of its members’ dues to a group called "Our Oregon" over the past several years, then watch as the group’s recent promotion of the “defund police” movement caused more than 300 members to leave the union.

Lest any reader call these connections bogus, let’s return again to the canceled 2017 event.

Even if there were no connection to Antifa, Demand Utopia’s website depicts it as a rather strange organization for SEIU to be involved with in the first place — unless, that is, the union wants to end representative democracy and statehood as we know it (and even if it does, the organization’s mention of “voluntary association” should probably raise a few red flags for SEIU leaders).

But it appears Demand Utopia is, in fact, a “comrade” of Antifa — at least according to a Rose City Antifa Facebook post.

So at the end of the day, maybe it’s true that Antifa didn’t actually “sponsor” the June 3, 2017, training scheduled at SEIU 503’s office the day before their rally.

And who knows? Maybe SEIU 503 was just renting out the space.

But it stands to reason SEIU leaders would only rent it out to “allies,” wouldn’t they? It’s not as if they’d take a rent check from the Freedom Foundation.

In other words, there are certainly enough connections to raise eyebrows among the union’s rank-and-file members, who might never cease to be amazed at some of their union’s activity. Even if turns out that the group’s “live action role play” — or ‘LARPing’, as some call it — looked more like this than this… well, that’s concerning enough.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 13

For a while, there it didn't look like the Freedom Foundation would need a keynote speaker for its annual banquets this year because, thanks to the massive overreactions by the governors of both Washington and Oregon, there were real fears the COVID pandemic might cause both to be canceled for lack of a venue.

Happily, the organization was able to stage pay-per-view, online gatherings in both states.

And the main speaker, former White House Press Spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders, rocked.

Her remarks at the Oregon banquet are transcribed below. n n n hank you for inviting me to be here tonight — it’s so exciting to be talking to real people again and not a computer screen. This is absolutely wonderful, and such a great turnout.

And the reason it’s such a great turnout is because of the work the Freedom Foundation does. What a tremendous organization of just real patriots who are out there fighting the good fight every day, holding the radical left’s feet to the fire and making sure they don’t get away with using unions to take money out of the back pockets of workers to drive their own agenda.

Thank you for the work the Freedom Foundation does.

Most of you probably know me as the former White House press secretary for Donald Trump. It’s a great job, and one I really loved.

I’m actually the first mom to be the White House press secretary, and being a mom is actually the best preparation you can have for that particular job because I was used to saying no a lot. I was also used to repeating myself a lot.

My kids were a perfect training ground for the job of press secretary because my kids were better behaved than the White House press corps many times.

The press was always begging me to tell them about the “chaos” in the White House, and I would have to tell them PAGE 14

n FREEDOM MATTERS

Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders visits the Freedom Foundation with a terrifying vision of where Biden and his friends want to take us. there wasn’t any. If you want to see true chaos, come to my house.

I’m probably one of the few people in history who came to the White House every day to get a break, because it was easier than being at home.

But in all seriousness, if we want to see real chaos, it’s very simple. All we have to do is let the radical left take over our country and start making decisions for us.

That’s what real chaos will look like.

I don’t have to lecture the people in this room. You people are living in real chaos already — far more so than those in other parts of the country.

If we want to see what real chaos, we can allow liberals to come in and keep raising our taxes higher and higher and making government bigger and bigger.

Thankfully, we still have a president who is fighting back to make sure we get smaller tax bills and bigger paychecks.

That’s stopping real chaos.

If we want to see real chaos, we’ll allow liberals to come into our homes and confiscate our guns because they think they know how to protect our families better than we do.

If we want to see real, destructive

chaos, we’ll allow liberals to use unions to drive their radical agenda on the backs of American workers.

Fortunately, we have an organization like the Freedom Foundation that is standing up and fighting back, putting money back into the pockets of American workers and saying, “Not on our watch, not in our communities and not on our time.”

If we want to see real chaos, we’ll allow liberals to destroy private insurance and force everyone into government-run health systems. Thankfully, we’re not going to let that happen.

We have a president who’s willing to stand up and make sure you not only get to keep your health insurance, but you also get to keep your doctor.

If we want to see real chaos, we can allow liberals to take over our communities and allow the sort of violence we've seen for the past few nights in Portland.

We don't want to see that replicated, elsewhere, but that's exactly what will happen if we allow liberals to move in and take control of our cities, our states and our country.

Never in my wildest dreams did I ever expect to see this country start to demonize the very people who protect us and keep us free.

The way we are attacking our police, our military and our first responders is absolutely disgraceful, and that is not who we are as a country.

Not all of us are called to be on the battlefield, but we are all called to be part of the battle.

For some us us, this is done in a very public way. For others, it may be opening your home to like-minded people so we can remember what's important, what's necessary and what we're fighting for.

For still others, it may mean writing the biggest check possible to groups like the Freedom Foundation.

But I'm calling on everyone watching me tonight to do whatever you can to be the agent of the change we need.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 15

PAGE 16

n FREEDOM MATTERS

Would

George Washington wear a

Most of history's great leaders and thinkers would have considered today's COVID restrictions an infringement on their fundamental rights.

T

he political “leaders” demanding everyone wear a mask to slow the spread of the COVID-19 were clearly motivated by many factors — perhaps the least of which were their genuine concern for public health and confidence that donning a filthy bandana could somehow outsmart a highly contagious and adaptable virus.

Otherwise they would have formulated a more measured approach that took into account the verifiable fact that, while a disproportionate number of Americans have contracted the disease, only a tiny percentage actually die from it — nearly all of whom are elderly and afflicted with

Mask?

By JEFF RHODES Managing Editor

other health challenges that make them especially vulnerable.

None of which is to suggest no precautions whatsoever need to be taken, or that the lives lost to COVID are irrelevant. The question is whether the appropriate response to the pandemic was to devastate the economy, destroy hundreds of thousands of businesses, throw millions out of work and generally scare the living bejeezus out of everyone.

That depends on your true objective. If your intent is to do what’s best long-term for the largest number of Americans, the answer is a resounding no. But if you see COVID as a heaven-sent opportunity to undercut the roaring economy presided over by your political rival,

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 17

or a means by which to seize and exploit a whole range of “emergency powers” not available under normal circumstances, you see the issue a little differently.

For them, the vast array of COVID countermeasures, no matter how intrusive or ineffective, were justified. And masks, despite their dubious effectiveness, were a key component of the strategy because walking into Walmart and seeing an entire store full of muzzled shoppers sends a clear message that everyone agrees with and supports your policy — even if they didn’t.

For average Americans, resistance to the mask mandates seemed futile, and it came down to a simple choice between submitting to a humiliating abuse of their rights and having access to a loaf of bread at a grocery store battling to stay off the governor’s list of “nonessential” businesses.

But would leaders made of sterner stuff have tolerated such an outrage? How would our most respected political philosophers have responded to being ordered to wear a symbol of virtue-signaling as the price of walking the streets and freely associating with our friends and neighbors?

It’s impossible to know for certain, but based on their welldocumented positions, we can make an educated guess.  George Washington

One doesn’t become the “Father of His Country” by abusing the power its citizens have entrusted to you. George Washington’s greatest gift to the nation was the restraint showed when he could have demanded to be made king, and if he recognized it would be wrong to impose an arbitrary, unscientific and unconstitutional mask mandate on his countrymen, he would likewise resist any attempt to have it imposed on him.

Washington said, “Government is not reason and it is not eloquence.

It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never

PAGE 18

n FREEDOM MATTERS

What would Jesus do?

According to a collection of clergymen and -women opining recently on the subject, the son of God would wear a mask.  Ariana Velasquez & Alarah Gillum; University of Louisville; Lexington (Ky.) Herald Leader; July 13, 2020.

“We fully believe He would. Jesus would wear a mask because wearing a mask is an act of love.

God sees how you wear a mask to protect not only your family, but other families too.”  Scott Hoezee; director of the Center for Excellence in Preaching at Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Mich.; Christian Reform Church Network; Aug. 5, 2020.

“Jesus loved God and loved his neighbors. That’s why he would have resisted temptation and put on a mask.”  Stephen Brehe; retired dean of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church of Helena. Mont. ; Helena Independent Record; Aug. 3, 2020.

“I am puzzled why so many people — especially some

Christians — rebel at the idea of wearing a face mask. What would Jesus say to us today if he walked into one of our Bible studies or churches? He’d wear one.”  Rev. Nathan Miller; minister-head of staff, First Congregational Church United Church of Christ in Greeley (Colo.); Greeley Tribune; July 26, 2020. “(N)o matter how I twist and turn the question, the answer always comes out simple and the same.

Would Jesus wear a mask? Yes, of course.”  Dr. Karl Lorenz; section chief of palliative care programs and a professor of medicine at Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, Calif.; Dallas Morning News; July 26, 2020. “(T)he issue isn’t about you. It’s about your freedom to serve others. What would Jesus do?

He’d wear a mask.”

for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

He would neither have used force, nor would he have submitted to it where masks are concerned.

God-given individual rights in exchange for the phony promise of temporary safety from a disease that makes no such distinctions is a bad bargain indeed.

Writing whimsically in Poor Richard’s Almanac, the so-called “First American” extolled the virtues of preventative measures to ensure a “healthy, wealthy and wise” lifestyle. But in a less-lighthearted vein, Franklin famously observed that, “Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.”

Franklin would almost certainly have recognized that trading our

Likewise, the “Sage of Monticello” expounded on the importance of good health, writing that, “Our greatest happiness does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed us, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation and freedom in all just pursuits.”

The question is which of these ideals he prized above the others.

 Benjamin Franklin

 Thomas Jefferson

And in Jefferson’s case, he leaves little doubt. “In matters of style,” he wrote, “swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.”

Jefferson might have voluntarily worn a mask, but he almost certainly would have recognized that government has no right to force him to do so.

 Fredrich Nietzsche The troubled German was nevertheless responsible for some of Western Civilization most profound thinking. And individualism was a constant theme in his work.

Nietzsche once noted, “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”

No one who could utter such words would allow himself to be stampeded into wearing a mask for the sake of appearances.

only a handful at the top.

Just as billions of individuals can be told what to wear, where to live and how to earn a living, they can be compelled to wear a mask.  John Stuart Mill

British economist, public servant and philosopher John Stuart Mill is considered by many to be the  Abraham Lincoln father of classic liberalism — which bears little to no resemblance to the Lincoln, too, spoke eloquently modern political philosophy that about the necessity of freedom. But bears its name. as the nation’s 16th president, he Mill believed strongly in committed numerous acts that call individual liberty and economic into question his standards. In his freedoms, writing that, “The only quest to restore the union — or at freedom which deserves the name least his vision of it — “Honest Abe” is that of pursuing our own good in didn’t hesitate to suspend the right of  John Locke our own way, so long as we do not habeas corpus, imprison newspaper attempt to deprive others of theirs, editors who criticized his actions In his “Second Treatise of or impede their efforts to obtain it.” in print, try civilians by military Government,” Locke wrote, “Men Would Mill have agreed that tribunal and much more. being, as has been said, by nature, government has the right, let alone Even his Emancipation Proclaall free, equal and independent, no the obligation, to ensure the health mation, while undoubtedly the right one can be put out of this estate, and of each individual? Consider his thing to do, nonetheless amounted subjected to the political power of observation that, “Each is the proper to an unconstitutional seizure of another, without his own consent.” guardian of his own health, whether what, at the time, the law considered Nor could he be compelled to bodily, or mental or spiritual.” private property. wear a mask.

Mill would not have worn a mask In his zeal to advance his agenda or recognized government’s right to at any price, Lincoln not only would  Karl Marx force him to. have worn a mask, but he’d have ordered you to wear one, too.

“If we have chosen the position  Ayn Rand in life in which we can most of all  Aristotle work for mankind,” Marx wrote, “no In her masterpiece, “Atlas burdens can bow us down, because Shrugged,” Rand creates a nightmare The enigmatic Greek philosopher they are sacrifices for the benefit world in which individual beliefs opined on many subjects, including of all; then we shall experience no and desires must constantly be his belief that, “Republics decline petty, limited, selfish joy, but our subjugated to the “greater good” into democracies, and democracies happiness will belong to millions, as articulated by an out-of-control decline into despotisms.” our deeds will live on quietly but bureaucracy. She argues, instead, for With respect to COVID, Aristotle perpetually at work, and over our a philosophy called “objectivism,” held that, “The wise man does not ashes will be shed the hot tears of in which the highest calling for any expose himself needlessly to danger, noble people.” human being is to pursue his or her since there are few things for which The obvious flaw — or perhaps own needs and advance as far as he cares sufficiently; but he is willing, omission — in this formulation is the their gifts and effort will take them. in great crises, to give even his problem of determining who speaks If wearing a mask would keep her life — knowing that under certain for the masses when it comes to calling alive for another day, Rand would do conditions it is not worthwhile to for “sacrifices for the benefit of all.” so — and heaven help the poor soul live.”

In any just society, it is left to the who tried to stop her. But she would Like Jefferson, who studied his individual to act in his own best never submit to an edict from the beliefs, Aristotle would likely have interests. In an communism or any governor requiring mask usage in voluntarily worn a mask for his own autocratic political state, however, the public’s interest because of her protection but bristled at any attempt the state makes that determination fundamental distrust of government by government to force him into one.

— always based on the desires of to identify what that might be.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 19

By MARGO SCHIEWE Freedom Foundation Client

What her union and the state of Oregon did to her sounds like a fractured fairy tale. But sadly, the experience was all too familiar irst, a quick story.

Once upon a time, a young girl named Snow White lived in a country whose greedy queen allowed the pixie dust factory she worked for to demand she join the National Association of Poisoned Apple Growers (NAPAG) and allow the organization to skim hundreds of dollars from her paycheck every year — even though Snow herself had once had a very bad experience with poisoned apples.

“What could be more fair?” the queen asked. “In my opinion, NAPAG is a wonderful organization that does a lot of good things for you. On top of which, it gives me millions of dollars every year and helps me keep this swell job of mine. Which means if you want to keep yours, just keep paying dues and don’t make waves.”

Snow’s job wasn’t quite as wonderful as the queen ’s, but still, she enjoyed it. And besides, she had a houseful of dwarves to feed at home, so she reluctantly agreed to keep her mouth shut while the country deducted ever more money from her meager wages and handed it over to NAPAG. PAGE 20

n FREEDOM MATTERS

This went on for many years, until one day the corrupt queen was overruled by the High Court, which outlawed her nasty protection racket. “How wonderful,” Snow White exclaimed. “Now I can keep my job … and my whole paycheck.”

Unfortunately for her, NAPAG, which had spent generations skimming the wages of every worker at her factory — and lots of others, too — had no intention of changing its business model. So instead of simply working harder and providing a service people would willingly pay for, NAPAG started doing everything it could to get around the new law.

Its leaders openly lied to Snow White and her co-workers. It changed its own rules to make it hard for the workers to leave. And when they tried to anyway, NAPAG hired lawyers with the workers’ own dues money to file lawsuits against them.

But the final straw came when Snow White followed NAPAG’s rules to the letter but still wasn’t allowed to stop paying blood money because someone at the organization had illegally forged her name on a membership form.

By now you’ve figured out this isn’t just a fairy tale. It’s my story. You just have to swap out a few names to make it accurate. The part of Snow White, for example, is obviously played by me, and the fairy dust factory I work for is the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services.

The greedy queen , of course, is Gov. Kate Brown and NAPAG is, in reality, SEIU 503 — the government employee union that presumes to represent me and my co-workers whether we like it or not.

And I don’t like it. But there was little I could do until 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus v.

AFSCME that mandatory so-called “agency fees” in the public sector amounted to forced political speech — a clear violation of my First Amendment rights.

But despite the fact that I was not a union member, SEIU 503 began deducting dues, saying I had put my electronic signature on an online membership agreement that could only be voided during a oneweek annual window.

Knowing I had never signed any union paperwork — online or otherwise — I demanded to see the document.

Sure enough, I discovered it was a crude forgery.

With the help of the Freedom Foundation, I filed a lawsuit this past spring that has now been rejected.

The U.S. District Court in Portland earlier this month conceded the likelihood my signature had been forged on the membership forms authorizing my dues deduction. But since the illegal act was committed by the union, the judge inexplicably claimed there was nothing the court could do to sanction the state, which was only collecting dues on the union’s behalf.

Sadly, this isn’t an isolated case. The Freedom Foundation has litigated at least a dozen similar instances of forgery as the unions grow increasingly more desperate to keep what isn’t rightfully theirs.

Ultimately, it looks like we’ll all be looking for a happy ending from the U.S. Supreme Court, which takes a dim view of lower courts turning its unequivocal rulings into fairy tales.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 21

PAGE 22

n FREEDOM MATTERS

Our ears are burning Recently obtained emails make clear that liberals in Washington's legislature are well aware of the Freedom Foundation — and scared to death of it.

I

n politics, the old maxim that holds “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all,” only applies to public statements. In the relative safety of cyberspace, apparently anything goes — particularly when it comes to the left’s sentiments regarding the Freedom Foundation.

Ironically, the only reason emails specifically targeting the organization and its mission of holding public-sector unions accountable are now seeing the light of day is because local news media, government transparency advocates and tens of thousands of concerned Washingtonians successfully pushed back against the Washington State Legislature’s attempt to exempt itself from the PRA in 2018.

The Washington Supreme Court subsequently confirmed that the Legislature must begin complying with the PRA. In March, the Freedom Foundation requested records held by the state House and Senate involving the debate over HB-1888, a union-backed bill passed this year that exempted public employees’ full dates of birth from disclosure under the state PRA. Records have been produced in installments for the past seven months.

Ostensibly, according to supportive

lawmakers, the bill’s purpose was to protect public employees from identify theft, stalking and harassment.

However, it was an open secret around the capitol that the bill’s true motivation was to curtail the Freedom Foundation’s ability to inform public employees about their newly acknowledged constitutional right to cancel union dues deductions from their paychecks.

Without PRA access to lists of public employees

By MAXFORD NELSEN maintained by Labor Policy Director government agencies, the Foundation’s ability to identify and communicate with public employees would be hampered.

Late in 2019, a coalition of unions filed litigation challenging the Freedom Foundation’s PRA requests for public employees’ dates of birth — a key identifier that differentiates persons with the same name — but the Washington State Supreme Court ruled against them in October 2019, finding the Freedom Foundation had a legal right to the information.

Unions immediately pivoted to changing the law.

They freely admitted HB-1888 was aimed at suppressing the Freedom Foundation’s FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 23

speech, and numerous newspaper editorial boards pointed it out in denouncing the legislation.

Nevertheless, lawmakers assiduously avoided referencing the Freedom Foundation in connection with the bill — at least publicly.

However, records show that, behind the scenes, lawmakers and their staff were fully aware the bill was intended to protect unions and disparaged the Freedom Foundation and local news media for opposing the bill.

Even prior to the start of the 2020 legislative session, Sen. Sam Hunt (D-Olympia) emailed a constituent about his intention to hamper the Freedom Foundation’s outreach to public employees in the upcoming session, writing on Dec. 10, 2019:

“It is unfortunate that the rightwing Freedom Foundation is using employees’ information in its antiunion campaign… My goal is to deal with this issue early in the 2020 session by protecting employee birthdates from public disclosure.”

In a Jan. 3, 2020, email also sent before the beginning of the legislative session, Rick Manugian, senior communications specialist for the Democrat Caucus in the Washington State Senate, provided talking points for Sen. Claire Wilson (D-Auburn) to use regarding HB-1888.

Manugian also savaged local press outlets for their presumed opposition and claimed the public doesn’t actually care about government transparency.

In his email, Manugian wrote of HB1888: “I would avoid discussing this issue with the media. As their hysterical coverage and editorializing on the PRA showed, they are unlikely to be rational, fair or objective regarding public access to information of any kind.

“The (talking) points focus on the risk and harm to public employees, not whether personal information about public employees should be accessible to third parties…

Conversely, debate about process and/or access to public information is of little concern to the public despite the media’s obsession with it, and — as noted above — not a discussion that the media can

PAGE 24 n FREEDOM MATTERS

be expected to report with any semblance of fairness, accuracy or basic professional responsibility.

“Unfortunately, the nature of the Janus ruling leaves employees with no means to protect their private information from being shared and misused, whether through identity theft, domestic abusers, political organizations or other avenues. Only the Legislature has the ability to address this problem by passing new law, which was attempted in Sen. Kuderer’s bill this past session and would be attempted in HB-1888.”

Manugian’s comment on “the Janus ruling” refers to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v.

AFSCME, in which the court struck down state laws, like those in Washington, forcing public employees to pay union dues/fees as a condition of employment.

While he correctly identified a connection between Janus and HB-1888, Manugian’s observation that Janus left employees “with no means to protect their private information from being shared and misused” was entirely off base; Janus didn’t address personal information at all, simply the obligation to pay union dues.

Others in the Legislature had a better grasp of the connection between the two.

On Jan. 10, Aaron Wasser, communications director for the Senate Democrats, emailed two of the caucus’ policy staffers draft talking points he had prepared for Democrat senators to use when fielding uniongenerated correspondence from public employees who had received information from the Freedom Foundation.

Wasser emailed an updated version of the talking points four days later, which were subsequently distributed to the offices of Senate Democrats.

Wasser’s final talking points condemned the “antics of these antiunion zealots” and noted that, “Our colleagues in the House are working on House Bill 1888, which will exempt state employee birthdates from the list of disclosable personal information.”

On Jan. 12, 2020, Sen. Karen Keiser (D-Des Moines) emailed a constituent, writing:

“Thank you for writing to me in support of House Bill 1888.

On December 18th, the Thurston County Superior Court has issued a temporary injunction stopping the release of personal information for public employees, including birth dates, which had been requested by an anti-union private organization called the Freedom Foundation. The breadth of the Freedom Foundation’s request was so large as to make its request a classic ‘fishing expedition’ in my opinion… Bills related to public records requests for public (sic) will be addressed when the 2020 legislative session starts on January 13th. I will be sure to keep your comments in mind as we grapple with this important issue.”

Far from being a “fishing expedition” — a term typically used to describe broad requests for records with no particular purpose in mind other than to “fish” for incriminating information — the Freedom Foundation’s requests were quite specific, seeking only basic, legally disclosable information of certain union-represented public employees necessary to allow the Freedom Foundation to send them informational material about their rights. Unions routinely receive far more comprehensive personal information about employees without being accused of being on a “fishing expedition.”

Regardless, Keiser’s comments confirm both her knowledge of and desire to thwart the Freedom Foundation’s educational efforts.

In a Jan. 22, 2020, response to a constituent email asking her to oppose HB-1888 because, “ 'Public officials need to stand for the common good, not fall prey to efforts intended to support the goals of special interests,” Sen. Christine Rolfes (D-Bainbridge Island) replied that she supported the legislation because she was “… concerned about the scope and intent of the recent records requests from the Freedom Foundation…' ”

Several weeks into the legislative session, on Feb. 6, 2020, Josie Ellison, communications specialist for the Senate Democratic Caucus, emailed Alex Ramel (D-Bellingham) a Power-

Point prepared by caucus staff for use by Democrat legislators at their upcoming telephonic town hall meetings. One of the slides in the deck pertained to HB-1888 and stated:

“The Supreme Court case was filed by the Freedom Foundation – an anti-government special interest – in order to contact state union members to alert them about the right to not pay union dues. This is not done in good faith for transparency, but as a political tactic to reduce union participation while putting individual people at risk.”

First, the referenced litigation was actually filed by unions seeking to block government agencies from complying with the Freedom Foundation’s requests for public records. The Freedom Foundation joined in defending the government’s position that the requested information must be disclosed.

Further, the Freedom Foundation is neither anti-government nor a special interest group, though part of its mission statement does involve advocating for “limited, accountable government.”

Lastly, the argument that there was anything inappropriate about the Freedom Foundation’s requests is both easily refuted and difficult to take seriously, given that unions have used the PRA to obtain lists of employees for organizing purposes for decades and, now that most have been unionized, have access to detailed personal info about employees — including even Social Security numbers — outside the framework of the PRA. On Feb. 10, 2020, Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline) emailed her assist-ant talking points to use in formulating responses to constituent correspondence received about HB-1888. While noting that the “Freedom Foundation testified opposed to the bill,” Rep. Ryu directed her assistant to deny that the bill was “a spat between unions and the Freedom Foundation…”

Though the Washington Supreme Court had just ruled in October 2019 that the Freedom Foundation was legally entitled to public employees’ dates of birth, new union arguments in lower courts further delayed the release of the information, dragging the litigation into, and through, the 2020

legislative session, a fact apparently not lost on Sen. Hunt.

After HB-1888 had passed out of the Senate Government, Tribal Relations & Elections Committee, which Hunt chairs, it was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, of which he is a member.

While the Ways and Means Committee was considering the bill, Hunt sent the following email to a nonpartisan legislative staffer on Feb. 29, 2020:

“This morning an attorney working on the court case reminded me that the hold on the release of state employee information to the Freedom Foundation expires March 15. I want to offer the addition of an emergency clause to 1888 so there is no gap that might allow release of information.”

When asked by the staffer whether the amendment should be “public” or “confidential,” Sen. Hunt directed him to “start with confidential.”

While the bill eventually passed without an emergency clause, Hunt’s interest in tacking one on to HB-1888 — such clauses mean the bill takes effect more quickly than usual, typically immediately upon the governor’s signature instead of 90 days after the end of the legislative session — for the sole purpose of changing the law before the information could be released to the Freedom Foundation establishes beyond any doubt that suppressing the Freedom Foundation’s speech was the animating force behind HB-1888, not protecting employees.

During the debate over HB-1888 on the Senate floor on March 4, 2020, several amendments were introduced

by Sens. John Braun (R-Centralia), Doug Ericksen (R-Ferndale) and Shelly Short (R-Addy).

Adam Hall, policy counsel for the Senate Democrats on the State Government, Tribal Relations & Elections Committee, emailed his thoughts about the amendments to Sens. Hunt and Patty Kuderer (D-Bellevue), describing them this way:

“Braun 1279 – rather than have the agency describe the nature of the request (e.g. ‘The Freedom Foundation wants your birthday’) the agency is providing a copy of the request (which may be

nondescript or convoluted in nature).

Braun 1280 – Limits disclosure to labor union without employee authorization. This is PRA exemption base on the requester. Can’t imagine the court will love this…

Ericksen 1276 – Requires agencies to distribute Freedom Foundation materials about labor organizing so long as the nonprofit pays for it and they don’t do it more than four times a year.”

Nothing in the amendments themselves actually referenced the Freedom Foundation, but Hall’s repeated references to and fixation on the Freedom Foundation and the Democrat majority’s subsequent rejection of each amendment — none of which would have undermined the bill’s purported objective of protecting public employees by blocking disclosure of their dates of birth — drive home the point that the bill was always and only about limiting the Freedom Foundation’s ability to inform public employees of their civil liberties.

Taken together, the records collected thus far by the Freedom Foundation reveal a stark contrast between lawmakers’ public and private statements about HB-1888.

As the Freedom Foundation contended at the time, the bill was never about protecting public employees; indeed, it accomplished very little in this regard. For instance, the date of birth of every registered voter in Washington, including those who are public employees, remains a matter of public record.

Instead, HB-1888 was nothing more than one of the largest and most influential special interest groups in the state — government unions — seeking to roll back voter-approved government transparency laws to prevent public employees from learning of their constitutional right to refrain from subsidizing unions and, by extension, the elected officials those unions back with members’ dues.

More concerning than the brazenness of government unions is that a majority of the state Legislature not only knew of, but actively participated in, the charade.

That’s something Washingtonians of all stripes should find deeply concerning.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 25

By JAMI LUND Senior Policy Analyst

PAGE 26

n FREEDOM MATTERS

Sudden

Death By caving to a group of spoiled, overpaid whiners, are America's professional sports leagues hastening their own demise?

P

rofessional athletes were once placed on pedestals — and not just for their impressive play on the field. So, too, were they admired for their patriotism and willingness to accept the mantle of role model that accompanied their fame.

By JOE MANDRUSIAK In many notable Pennsylvania cases, renowned Outreach Director athletes walked away at the height of their career to answer the call and serve their fellow Americans and nation in a greater capacity.

Following the Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese attack on the U.S. forces in Pearl Harbor, a total of 500-plus Major League baseball players fought in World War II, many of them giving up more than a season in the process.

The list included future Hall of Famers like Ted Williams, Stan Musial and Joe DiMaggio.

More recently, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the Twin

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 27

Towers and the Pentagon, we saw NFL star Pat Tillman trade a life of luxury to deploy to Afghanistan and — ultimately die in action.

We’ve seen this selflessness from professional athletes often.

Athletes and their represented sports have always been seen as a unifying force in our nation’s history.

In some of the most trying times Americans looked to sporting events for the feel of normalcy.

Professional sports gave us an opportunity to block out all outside worries and fears even if for just the duration of a football or baseball game.

For that reason, among others, the players’ on-field exploits were traditionally considered a celebration of home and country as much as sport.

The pre-, post- and in-game pageantry included marching bands, the national anthem, veterans presenting the colors, fireworks, “God Bless America” and every other expression of American values imaginable.

Fast-forward to 2020, however, and the scene at professional sporting events has a very different look and feel.

Many societal factors can be blamed for the change, but they arguably began to manifest themselves first at the start of the 2016 NFL season, when journeyman backup quarterback and sometime-liberal activist Colin Kaepernick decided to act out his anger over perceived racial injustices by kneeling while his PAGE 28

n FREEDOM MATTERS

teammates stood at attention for the “Star-Spangled Banner.”

This form of protest was in direct correlation with those that felt there was an epidemic of police brutality around the country. Kneeling during the anthem spread like wildfire not just across the NFL but into other professional sport leagues.

The reason for the protesting evolved from fighting for supposed injustice to a fight against the whole system and a desire to fundamentally restructure the United States in general.

Professional athletes soon began to style themselves as political activists and commentators who believed their skill at throwing a football, swinging a bat or bouncing a basketball equipped them with the needed insight to lecture everyday Americans about their unconscious bias — or in layman’s terms, their racism.

Americans, who tuned into a game hoping for a diversion from preening politicians watched in disgust as their favorite players competed for who could be the “wokest.”

The problem could have been remedied had team owners and league officials — those nominally in charge of their sports and presumably interested in promoting the longterm interests of the game — acted decisively in the early stages of the revolt.

Like every other American, a professional athlete has every right to express their displeasure by staging

an organized a protest. But protesters have no right to state their case in a forum provided by someone else.

The right to free speech entitles you to carry a protest sign on a public sidewalk; it doesn’t entitle you to carry it up and down the halls of your office, disrupting those trying to work. And if you tried to, your employer would be perfectly justified in firing you.

Likewise, a football, baseball or basketball player has no realistic expectation of airing his or her grievances at their workplaces in front of cameras and commentators paid to cover a sporting event — particularly when the consequence of their behavior is likely to erode the good will the sport requires to survive.

But instead of nipping Kaepernick and his imitators in the bud, league and team officials caved to bogus arguments about free speech and not only allowed, but in many respects encouraged, the spectacles to continue.

Soon enough, instead of simply kneeling, players upped the ante by taking to social media and using their media airtime to parrot every liberal talking point.

Players went to great lengths to have their voices heard on these issues. They injected themselves into political campaigns and were used as surrogates for liberal politicians and their radical policies. They were cheered on and amplified for the liberal media and politically correct

sports commentators.

But somewhere along the line, a funny thing happened. Not only did the public stop listening to the complaining, but they staged a protest of their own by declining to watch the tainted product being served up by the players — with the tacit approval of team owners too timid to fight back even as their massive investments were being undermined and league officials whose political biases blinded them to the damage being done before their very eyes.

This radical political posturing by athletes is quickly backfiring on their respective leagues. Americans are fed up. They are tired of being vilified and they are tired of being labeled for thinking differently and holding conservative views.

Americans are hitting back and are refusing to spend their hard-earned dollars on an industry that lets its employees ridicule and belittle them.

A resounding number of Americans have decided to cut sports out of their lives; 46 percent of Republicans and 36 percent of independents say they’re unhappy with the on-field protests and political antics of athletes.

These boycotts have proved to be problematic for the bottom line of professional leagues. Ticket sales over the past four years have seen a steady decline across leagues.

Television ratings are way down, as well, as viewers tune out the political correctness that has engulfed their once-beloved sports teams and leagues.

If the NFL, NBA and MLB weren’t worried before, they should be now.

Even as Americans were being forced to stay at home as a global pandemic shuttered the world, viewership for these leagues saw some of its largest declines. NBA ratings were down a whopping 40 points from just two years ago. Major League Baseball and the NFL also saw their rating take a dramatic hit this season.

After a delayed start for baseball and its greatly anticipated return, the MLB saw a 32 percent drop in viewership.

These numbers do not bode well for advertising revenues, especially at a time when fans are barred from in-person attendance at games due to the global pandemic and public health restrictions.

So the discussion has to be had to whether professional sportthis?

Who's behind leagues can survive their “greatWhile professional athletes and their apologists in the mainawokening.” media are determined to portray the ongoing protests The stream American people are as out a spontaneous, organic checking and boycotting a phenomenon, they are clearly orchestrated by leftist organizations under the banner of Black once-indispensable product.

The Lives Matter and sister,ofthe Movement for Black Lives. question is whether theitsheads these leagues and the owners of The NBA, NFL and MLB have even gone as far as to adorn its these teams walk the fine like back playing surfaces and uniforms with the BLM banner. But what to sanity before it’s too late? exactly does the organization stand for, and are these ideals That is still an unanswered shared by ordinary sports fans. The graphic below, reprinted question that if not addressed from MBL's website, lists its most non-negotiable demands: could have grave consequences for professional teams and leagues.

At this point it’s safe to argue that if these owners and league commissioners do not address is broadly disliked PC culture, it has the potential to devastate teams and even leagues as a whole beyond repair.

Teams in smaller marketplaces with low revenue share to begin with are the most vulnerable to completely going under. If a professional team were to go belly up and fail, it would have disastrous trickle-down effects on the community it calls home.

Even now these host cities are seeing a loss of tourism dollars as teams fail to fill stadiums.

Allowing players to dictate and hold owners hostage with respect to how their teams and leagues respond to social issues will continue to have a chilling impact on their fanbases and viewership if they continue to go down this unchecked road of political culture.

For the sake of our national pastimes, it is well past time to say enough is enough and demand that politics be left in the locker rooms.

Americans want to be entertained and would be primed to return to the stands if they weren’t so fearful of having to be forced into being lectured on what and how to feel.

Now is the time for the adults in the room to stand up and take back their once beloved organizations from the political activist zealots before it is too late.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 29

PAGE 30

n FREEDOM MATTERS

And good

riddance

For most of us, 2020 was perhaps the most forgettable year in recent memory.

But even at its worst, the year serves as a reminder that we still have much to do.

T

his year is certainly going to go out

with a bang. And it seems nearly

everyone is ready to just get it over with.

At this point, no one is surprised

by the next crazy twists and turns

2020 doles out to us, but it is shocking how much our American culture has been changed because of them.

Who could have imagined as recently as last January that American governors would even consider — let alone get away with — closing houses of worship and setting themselves up as the arbiters of whose job is essential whose can be liquidated on a whim?

How many Americans could have predicted that mayors would prevent them

from visiting their loved ones in a nursing home or set limits on the number of guests they can entertain in their own home?

Most chillingly

By ASHLEY VARNER

of all, in what VP for Communications alternate universe

could we even contemplate that Americans would be encouraged to turn in friends and neighbors who violated these illegal edicts — and that more than a few would enthusiastically comply?

In fact, But such is the hubris and thirst for power the last of our elected “leaders” that they have no qualms about exploiting our understandable fears about a potentially deadly virus to

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 31

seize powers unattainable to them through the normal democratic processes.

So here we are, and for too many of our states, there doesn’t seem to be an end in sight.

Small businesses are going under and people are losing their jobs by the thousands, but Big Box stores and government-owned liquor stores have been allowed to stay open.

In fact, while we’ve been told for more than eight months that “We’re all in this together.” But it’s become increasingly clear that’s not the case.

The private sector has been brought to its knees, but government is doing quite well — as you’d expect in a world where businesses make the money but politicians make the rules.

Government officials and bureaucrats who’ve never had to worry about missing a paycheck are handed the power of life and death over people’s hopes and dreams.

West Coast Govs. Jay Inslee (Washington), Kate Brown (Oregon), and Gavin Newsom (California) are textbook examples of state leaders who’ve became drunk on raw power grabs the COVID-19 pandemic provided them.

Teachers unions across the country are permitted to hold families hostage to their political demands and are increasingly revealing their lack of desire to even attempt to get back to “normal” and return to work.

Why are taxpayer-funded public school teachers allowed to stay home and collect a paycheck, forcing families to make difficult decisions about working from home versus continuing their children’s education and supervision, when grocery stores have figured out a way to carry on business in a safe and responsible manner?

This year indeed brought a lot of unpleasant changes, as well as new opportunities.

In March, governors across the country were asked to place a three-month moratorium on union dues deductions from public sector employee paychecks.

The plan offered several important benefits, including:

1) allowing public employees to keep more of their own paychecks would have helped thousands of households that suddenly found

PAGE 32

n FREEDOM MATTERS

themselves down an income due to government jobs being labeled “essential” while much of the private sector was named “nonessential”; 2) those public sector households would then have more take-home pay to pump into the private sector, helping the small businesses struggling under the shutdowns – without raising a single tax dollar; 3) exposing the reality that, for all their talk of fighting for the “little guy,” union bosses didn’t offer to give their union members a financial break on their own.

None of the governors responded to the request, and you can bet labor leaders ignored the suggestion, as well.

As the lockdowns continued into the summer and the “cure” became worse than the disease, a rash of lawsuits were filed challenging overreaching government officials Numerous cases up and down the West Coast, were contested, fighting unconstitutional mask mandates, school closures and the bullying of business owners.

The publicity generated by these cases in both traditional and social media has created a whirlwind of support and a new base of people who have learned how destructive government can be in our personal lives and want to help fight against it.

As it becomes increasingly likely that Joe Biden — who vows to be the most union-friendly president in history — will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2021, that support will become even more valuable.

While the 2020 presidential election was as much of a dumpster fire as anything else this year, there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic about 2021. Some of the results of the down-ballot races bode well for the fight against government union tyranny.

A total of 470 seats in the United States Congress were up for election, including 35 Senate seats — two of them special elections — and all 435 House seats. Republicans gained one Senate seat in Alabama, while Democrats gained two Senate seats, in Arizona and Colorado.

The two pending Senate seats are in Georgia, and the special election is slated for January 2021.

The way this election cycle is going, it makes little sense to even try to predict the Georgia special election Senate races, or which party will control the Senate for 2021.

However, a slim majority for either party makes controversial legislation, like some of the bills union leaders have been insisting on since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 issued its ruling in Janus v. AFSCME banning mandatory union membership and dues in the public sector.

Congressional Democrats are floating a bill to give all 21 million government employees the right to unionize, in a direct response to Janus. The Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act intends to add government union members by expanding the audience that would be susceptible to forced unionization.

Having announced his candidacy for president at a local International Brotherhood of Teamsters union hall in Pittsburgh, Biden pledged to create “millions” of new union jobs — a great deal of them at taxpayer expense.

But voters across the country recognized that the party that shut down their businesses and churches would grow government in other ways and responded accordingly at the ballot booth.

Going into the election, Democrats held a strong majority in the House of Representatives, with a 232 – 197 seat lead over the Republicans. That majority was slashed significantly, however, when the Democrats lost a dozen (and potentially more stillundecided) races.

Such a cut to her majority ranks is a most unwelcome surprise to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who bragged about a coming “blue wave” in 2020. A slim, four- to six-seat majority means Pelosi will be much less able to ram through some of the more egregious publicsector union demands they thankfully didn’t get to in the age of COVID teleCongress (including the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act).

If by chance union-demanded legislation does make its way to the desk of a President Biden, there will be challenges in the federal court system, which saw nearly 230 vacancies filled during the past four President Trump years .

Then there are the state governments.

In 44 states, 86 out of 99 state legislative chambers held general elections on Nov. 3, 2020. Prior to the election, Republicans held majorities in 59 chambers and Democrats had majorities in 39 with a power-sharing coalition in the Alaska House.

Partisan control flipped in three chambers, as both the New Hampshire House of Representatives and state Senate majorities went to Republicans and the Alaska House gained enough Republicans to discontinue their powersharing agreement.

Heading into the 2020 election, 36 states had governmental trifectas (same-party control of the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature). Republicans held 21

trifectas to the Democrats’ 15, while the remaining 14 states had divided government.

Republicans picked up three trifectas: Montana, New Hampshire and Alaska. The Democrats still hold a trifecta in 15 states, with 11 remaining divided governments.

At both the state and federal levels, the party that wants to expand government into our lives received perhaps an unexpected rebuke by We the People.

This boring breakdown of the election has a purpose. The gain of Republican trifectas makes it considerably less likely that publicsector unions can grab a tyrannical stranglehold over state policy as we

suffer in Washington, Oregon and California.

Former Vice President Joe Biden (as of this writing, we aren’t sure of his proper title) vowed to be the “strongest labor president you’ve ever seen” at a Labor Day event with the AFL-CIO, and on this point, at least, you can take him at his word.

If the next president is Joe Biden, that is a great move for union bosses, no question.

But it also means those who still believe in free markets and limited, accountable government have more than ever to fight for. And you can bet your life they will.

Fasten your seatbelts, America. The fun is just starting.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 33

PAGE 34

n FREEDOM MATTERS

Experts say students forced to 'learn' at home during COVID school closures are losing up to a year's worth of education they may never be able to recover

T

o say 2020 wasn’t a good year for students would be a massive understatement.

With almost no notice and essentially no accommodation, youngsters across the nation were sent home in the spring.

While the still-lingering COVID-19 pandemic offers a unique challenge to maintain public health, the public interest in an educated citizenry has sustained considerable damage.

Studies have long shown that the three-month summer vacation break results in achievement scores declining by an average of a month’s worth of learning.

The “summer slide” for lowincome students is much higher, and the

achievement gap is increased in the absence of regular school learning opportunities.

With the spring shutdown and most schools without a plan in place to maintain a disciplined approach to student learning time, the “summer” of 2020 was essentially doubled.

Participation rates were discouragingly low, and only students with actively engaged parents who could fill the gap as a

By JAMI LUND classroom monitor were Senior Policy Analyst able to keep up.

Hastily constructed distance-learning programs saw very low complete participation rates. The Hartford (R.I.) School District claimed that 20 percent of students stopped school altogether, and of the remaining 80 percent, only half of at-risk students participated.

Jamestown (N.Y.) Public Schools reported 25 percent of students minimally engaged.

In Clark County, Nev., schools, 30 percent of students — 12,000 — were unaccoun-

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 35

ted for in April. In Los Angeles, 15,000 high school students dropped out for at least the month of March, and 40,000 students participated only minimally.

Connecticut’s Department of Education reported that one in four students participated minimally, and in high-poverty areas nearly half of the students did not fully participate.

Even those students who do click an attendance box or log in to the digital learning platform are often not participating in learning activities.

A Common Sense Media survey of middle and high school students reported that before April, roughly half of all public school students had not participated in a single online class.

A South Carolina survey of 4,000 teachers found that 21 percent of the teachers said they had been in contact with less than half of the students in their classes.

The damage of academic learning loss and disrupted accountability have been studied by McKinsey & Co., which estimates that if the 2020-21 school year is disrupted only until January 2021, the average learning loss will be seven months.

Minority students would lose closer to 10 months, and low-income students more than a year.

The researchers believe this would exacerbate existing achievement gaps by 15 to 20 percent. They further predict that an additional 2 to 9 percent of high school students could drop out as a result of the Coronavirus and associated school closures.

Even for students participating to the level expected by their school, the quality of their services is also significantly impacted by the changed delivery method — assuming students do more than the minimum to be counted as attending.

Many districts nationwide suspended or relaxed attendance and participation expectations. Since education funding is almost entirely based on attendance, and since the pandemic shutdown was sudden, districts could not be expected to forgo funds based upon nonattendance.

Instructional expectations also were relaxed. Union spokespersons quickly called out the problem of inequitable approaches to education services, which further prevented any PAGE 36

n FREEDOM MATTERS

real service expectations.

A study by the Center on Reinventing Public Education reported that in the spring of 2020 only 27 percent of districts tracked attendance, and less than half require either a measure of attendance or a check-in with the student by the teacher.

For participating students, academic progress was required in only 42 percent of districts.

In the process of looking after members’ safety, workload and compensation interests, unions negotiated the new workplace terms over the summer. In most highly unionized states and cities, schools

were not allowed to open to provide education services in person.

Unions strongly advocated against hybrid approaches, preferring a onesize-fits-all approach of fully remote learning.

It does make sense that staff would prefer not to have to do double the work, offering full-time, in-person and a full-online offering, but the reach of the decisions in bargaining agreements goes well beyond the common sense.

In New York City, like most strong union locales, the teachers’ union dominated the decision-making about how to reopen schools to assure

lighter workloads and maximum safety.

Its protests and pressure campaign included marches with tombstones and body bags. To get the United Federation of Teachers to agree to come back to the classroom, Mayor Bill de Blasio had to agree that if the city reached a 3 percent positivity rate in the general population, the school system would return to remote learning.

When the threshold was reached, schools shut down all in-person learning. The science of whether students infect staff or staff is at risk was not as important as the interests in workload and convenience.

In Massachusetts, the teachers’ union successfully decreased the students’180-day school year by 10 days for “planning purposes.”

In Los Angeles, the teachers’ union struck a temporary deal with the district to require just four hours of work each day. Other elements of how much student follow-up is required or how much content they must produce are also subject to policy decisions made in secret collective bargaining sessions.

After the experience in the spring and facing minimal changes for the fall in most schools, many parents have recognized that the services their children receive have declined. They have begun to defect from the public school system in unprecedented numbers.

The decision to enroll in a wellestablished, professional online school gets easier when compared to a hasty and reluctantly assembled program of a local public school.

Likewise, a parent who has been expected to essentially homeschool and deliver education services cobbled together by a classroom teacher who doesn’t know their child can easily see the benefits of simply homeschooling fully.

One of the dark secrets of the factory model of public education has also come to light as parents were forced to engage more completely with their schools — the fact that lockstep and age-based education content delivery is absurdly inefficient.

A days’ worth of work is very small in a classroom of 22 widely different

students in ability, self-control, language and character. A days’ worth of work in a whipped-up online program without any requirement to make academic progress is almost nothing.

Parents defect from the system when they see what counts as education content, especially when it doesn’t match their child’s needs.

When the task of a parent was only to put their student on the bus, they assumed the best about the rate of education.

Many others began to see the ideological nature and unexpected areas of emphasis in the content of their child’s education.

As a result of declining services, as well as the sacrifices families were already having to make, interest in education options have exploded.

Polling has shown that nationwide support for school choice has jumped 10 percent by August.

Another survey from July show-ed 74 percent of parent reported having a more favorable view of homeschooling.

An August nationwide Gallup survey suggested the proportion of students enrolled in traditional public schools could drop by 7 percent.

In the fall, many districts across the country saw marked declines.

In addition to established options like private schools, charter schools, online schools or homeschooling, new possibilities are popping up to pick up the monopoly’s slack.

Small numbers of families have discovered that by pooling resources, they can delegate their distant learning responsibilities to a tutor or teacher in a “learning pod.”

These monitored study groups could be simply administering the minimal local school curriculum, or they could work like homeschool cooperatives and devise and deliver original content.

Of course, the monopoly school districts have an intense self-defense motivation, and the unions that represent employees have even more.

When schools started shutting down in the spring, families seeking options faced opposition.

The preservation of payroll despite declining services, parent defections and student nonparticipation has

been unquestioned. The laxity of measuring attendance and participation is primarily about preserving payroll.

For example, in Washington state, the union-installed Superintendent of Public Instruction provided guidance waiving many of the state’s laws regarding attendance. Truancy proceedings were suspended. A new allowable absence, “excused due to COVID circumstances,” was established to keep students on the rolls for funding purposes.

When counting students for the purpose of securing funding proved troublesome, the state of Washington redefined student counts from the obligation to actually be at school subject to, “Students can be claimed for state funding if they participate in a course of study at least once during the month of September.”

When some districts were still facing serious enrollment declines under these relaxed terms, the state encouraged districts to apply for CARES Act funds to keep payrolls intact despite “unrealized enrollment.”

Union-backed policymakers in several states like Pennsylvania, Oregon and California took steps to prevent families from accessing established online or charter schools.

In a number of locations where government schools are closed to any on-site services, private schools have been prohibited from offering services, as well.

In New Mexico, public schools were allowed to open at 50 percent capacity, but private schools only at 25 percent.

The silver lining is that unions and monopoly school apologists are on defense against a growing family recognition that one size doesn’t fit all, and that education services can come in many forms. Education entrepreneurs are creating learning pods, starting tutoring services or growing their non-traditional school programs.

However, it remains a tragedy that a system that operates to assure comfortable workloads and reliable payroll for adults is willing to risk an entire generation’s education, graduation chances and future selfsufficiency.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 37

ACTIONTIMELINE ACTION TIMELINE Highlighting a few of the Freedom Foundation’s signature accomplishments over the past half year

May 27 Freedom Foundation attorney Robert Bouvatte argues before the Washington State Supreme Court in defense of a state law authorizing individuals to file enforcement actions against political committees that violate the Fair Campaign Practices Act (the “FCPA”) if the state attorney general and prosecuting attorneys fail to do so.

June 10 The Freedom Foundation erects a billboard in downtown Olympia accusing Washngton Gov. Jay Inslee of overstepping his authority by imposing a COVID-19 shutdown that has killed thousands of small businesses and threatens to kill even more. The billboard demands Inslee lift the stay-home order immediately.

June 15 A Freedom Foundation complaint alleging violations of state election laws by a union-backed political action committee calling itself “Our Oregon” is referred to the Oregon Department of Justice, indicating the investigation has turned criminal.

June 21 Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who served as guest speaker at the Freedom Foundation’s annual banquet last year in Oregon, returns the favor by inviting National Director Aaron Withe to appear on June 21 as a guest on his TBN talk show.

PAGE 38

n FREEDOM MATTERS

June 23 Washington’s “invasive,” “coercive” and “unprecedented” directive requiring residents to wear a mask or equivalent face covering in public places is challenged by a Freedom Foundation lawsuit arguing the state cannot compel citizens to meekly support whatever newest guess the government is making when responding to the COVID-19 virus.

July 3 The Freedom Foundation buys a full-page ad in the Seattle Times demanding an apology from Gov. Jay Inslee. Several weeks earlier, after being asked about a Freedom Foundation study detailing how Washington’s Department of Health was inflating the number of state residents who had died of the COVID-19 virus, the governor publicly denounced the organization and called the study “malarkey.” With a month, DOH announced it was, in fact, exaggerating the number of COVID deaths and promised to change its reporting methodology. Inslee, however, never apologized.

July 9 Freedom Foundation attorney Shella Sadovnik appears on “Global Hangout,” on online production of NBC News, discussing mandatory facemask laws like the one the Freedom Foundation has filed a lawsuit against in Washington. Sadovnik, who is six months pregnant and can’t breathe wearing a mask,

By the Numbers With more than 1 million emails and 250,000 pieces of direct mail sent to public employees over the holiday season, the Freedom Foundation has been flooded with notices of workers choosing to exercise their right to opt out of paying union dues.

In just the week following Thanksgiving, 1,500 opt-outs forms were processed, representing almost $500,000 a year snatched from the coffers of various unions.

During the second week of December, the Freedom Foundations efforts made a record impact of $1 million per year in losses to big government labor, money put back in the pockets of the workers who earned them. argues the order needlessly subjects her the order recklessly exposes her to public scorn when she refuses to comply and violates her First Amendment rights to disagree with the shaky science on which it is based.

July 16 Slidewaters, a popular waterpark in Washington’s Chelan County, announces it will lay off its 150 employees and close its doors — possibly forever — after being notified by the state’s Department of Labor and Industries it will be fined $10,000 for defying Gov. Jay Inslee’s COVID-19 shutdown order. Its owners, Blake and Robert Bordner, are also threatened with jail time if the park remains open after July 20. Represented by Freedom Foundation lawyers, the Bordners were denied in their quest for an injunction to keep the park open pending a full hearing on the case. The case will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Leave a legacy of freedom

Aug. 18 Concluding a yearlong process, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) in July adopts a Freedom Foundationsupported regulation making it easier for union-represented federal employees to cancel unwanted union dues deductions from their wages. At issue was the proper interpretation of a provision in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute that requires federal agencies to deduct union dues from the paychecks of any employee who authorizes such deductions in writing. The law specifies that, once authorized, the deductions “may not be revoked for a period of one year.”

Aug. 25 A new Freedom Foundation commercial rebuking Gov. Jay Inslee’s COVID-19 shutdown order debuts on cable TV in Eastern Washington.

Sept. 4 The Freedom Foundation files a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of LaborManagement Standards alleging the Washington Federation of State Employees/American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 28 (WFSE) has violated various provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Among the allegations made in the complaint are that the union has failed to properly file reports about its governance and finances as required by the law. The alleged violations span a period of multiple years.

The wealth of our country exists in large part in the savings and hard-earned assets of good people who have endured, sacrificed and succeeded. It is their legacy that stands poised to be transferred to the next generation.

Will these funds be a windfall profit for government programs, new capital for center-left organizations? Or will they be a responsible transfer of values held dear by the good people who earned the money?

Join the fight against the tyranny of the government unions.

Become a member of the Freedom Foundation today. Donate online at www.freedomfoundation.com For information on how to become a member of our Legacy Society, contact www.freedomfoundation/legacy

Transportation District (TriMet) public transportation system in Portland, Ore. After she had exercised her Constitutional right to opt out of the union, an ATU 757 representative demanded to know why she had resigned union membership and subsequently called her a “freeloader.” Worse, the representative kept essential job information from Ms. Williams and assigned her the “leftover” shift and vacation times in retribution.

Nov. 15

Sept. 14 A lawsuit is filed in Shasta County (Calif.) Superior Court by the Freedom Foundation on behalf of three local parents alleging the school policy of having students in class part-time denies students their constitutional right to a quality education. “Gov. Newsom has repeatedly told us to ‘trust the science.’” said Mariah Gondeiro, attorney for the Freedom Foundation.

OCT. 28 The Freedom Foundation files a brief with the Oregon Court of Appeals in the case Mooney v.

Oregon, arguing that the mask mandate is invalid.

Nov. 3 Freedom Foundation attorneys file an unfair labor practices complaint against Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 757 on behalf of Alyssa Williams, a rail operator for the Tri-County Metropolitan

In a rare Sunday press conference, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee joins his fellow West Coast governors in announcing another round of devastating restrictions intended to control what he claims is a major spike in COVID-19 cases reported to state health officials. The Freedom Foundation immediately issues a statement opposing the actions in all three states.

NOV. 16 Maria Quezambra, an Orange County, Calif., mother, on Nov. 20 asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court ruling that allows a labor union she never joined and whose values she rejects to continue deducting regular dues from her paycheck despite a pair of Supreme Court rulings affirming her right to opt out of union membership and dues if she wishes. Not to mention her signature was forged on the dues-authorization that made it all possible in the first place. She is represented by the Freedom Foundation.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 39

Non-Profit Organization U.S Postage

PAID

Olympia, WA Permit No. 462

PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507 (360) 956-3482