Monday, August 09, 2010

Reed is Wrong

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed published an email message Friday telling citizens across the state: "Voters Wild About 'Direct Democracy.'"

Since our memo to the King of England back in 1776, we have indeed liked our freedoms and the practice of democracy.

The Secretary's office reports that this is, "one of those high-watermark years" in that a record 75 initiatives to the people were filed and 6 have qualified for the November ballot with enough signatures.

Secretary Reed's conclusion is articulated by his Director of Elections, Nick Handy:

"We have heard some critics say that people will be less willing to take part in the initiative process this year, given all the talk of the Secretary of State's policy of allowing public release of petitions. But we are certainly not seeing any hesitation at all."

"We are certainly not seeing" is an operative phrase. I'll come back to that.

OF RELATED NOTE: We received a lengthy comment from Tom Lang, a director of the national knowthyneighbor organization, this weekend. He requested we publish his comment in response to our
Friday's blog regarding the R-71 names. He is attempting to explain the mission of his organization. In the spirit of fairness we published it. We are not bigoted, nor do we "hate" homosexuals. While we believe God loves all people and wants to deliver, forgive and restore all of us, we do not believe biblical teaching allows for affirmation and celebration of the homosexual lifestyle. Nor do we believe it is an expression of "hate" to reject the notion that marriage and family must be redefined to prove our tolerance or their equality.

You will note, Lang takes considerable issue with Josh Friedes and his "cronies" at Equal Rights Washington. While we reject the mission and frankly question the transparency of his statements, we felt you should read them and have opportunity to respond directly to him.

Mr. Handy says 2.2 million signatures have been gathered this summer for various petitions, affirming, "That many, many people are more than happy to sign their names and addresses to petitions."

The conclusion? "The system is alive and well."

But, Reed is wrong. Here's why.

What the Secretary "is not seeing" is that 2.2 million people did not sign petitions this summer because he has promised to disclose their names to the public to be harvested for direct marketing and in the case of R-71, personal attacks, threats and harassment.

They signed petitions in spite of Reed's policy and because of the extreme inefficiencies they see in the present state government and are willing to risk the personal exposure of the Secretary's policies.

Should Secretary Reed decide to publish how each citizen voted on their ballot, I bet most would also continue to vote. But it would not be right.

The motivation of record numbers of people to participate is not found in the "Secretary's System" of disclosure, but in the frustration with the present lack of leadership in the state.

Many feel Governor Gregoire, and her left to far left majority in the Legislature, is doing a terrible job of leading the state. Initiatives and referenda are one of the few ways people can save themselves from their government. In spite of Reed's policy.

My friend Bob Williams and Evergreen Freedom Foundation has been consistently exposing and commenting on the fiscal fiasco of state government.

Within the past few weeks they have exposed that 68 Washington State public agencies are either improperly reporting their lobbying expenses or not reporting them at all.

Is discloser selective?

Williams and his Foundation are assisting a group of citizens who have
filed a lawsuit against Governor Gregoire for "abuse of power". I have linked the information.

Reed is wrong. Perhaps he is warming himself by the embers and afterglow of the left wing campfire in Olympia.

And the smoke has gotten in his eyes causing him to "certainly not see."

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. Indeed. I very much feel intimidation by the thought of my name being released - especially as the first response of people is not to 'ask why' but to condemn for the action and assign labels, the ones we already see on the internet such as bigot and hater, etc. Since many of my friends are gay, nothing could be farther from the truth. Because I find a behavior unhealthy/dangerous does not mean I hate the people who engage in it. But releasing the names -is- a cause of fear.

    However, as a Christian, we are told to expect persecutions, and not to live in fear of the world but rather to in all things do what is good.

    As such, this line that 'obviously these people are not intimidated because they signed the peition' (a past action), is false on two counbts. For the first, there -were- people who did not sign it for fear of what their friends would think. For the second, the fact that many wouold sign it again shows not that we 'were not intimidated' but that 'fear' is not insurmountable, especially through Christ.

    Intimidation itself means not to 'force' someone not to do something, after all, but to influence through fear, harassment, threat of bodily or monetary harm, etc, in a way that you hope will deter them from doing something you dislike.

  2. If you feel persecuted, stop trying to control others lives. Leave them alone and they would have no interest in you at all - guaranteed.

  3. 1:20 Evangelicals were not strongly opposing homosexuals in the culture before the intense crusade to redefine marriage. Most Christians I know opposed the lifestyle on biblical grounds. Our churches taught the scriptures on the subject, which condemn the practice and as Gary often points out, the forgivness and deliverence that God offers all through His love. It was only after the attempts to redefine marriage that evangelicals began to resist and defend marriage. It isn't about leaving you alone, it is about you leaving us alone. Homosexuals have the same rights I have. Why should they have special rights to accomodate their lifestyle?
    A pastor.

  4. Oh, now I get it, just knowing that two men you've never met love each other and are joined in marriage is an intrusion in your life. How dare they do that to you!

  5. @2:29 PM

    Better check your history, Evangelicals were pursuing an anti-gay agenda long before marriage equality was the battle. Does the name Anita Bryant ring a bell? How about the Briggs amendment in CA? Evangelicals fought for the "right" to discriminate against gays long before anyone was discussing marriage equality.

  6. @ 4:39pm, August 9th

    Hmm... I wonder what you mean by the word "love"...

    On another thought, the love of somebody or something alone does not necessarily grants anybody a right to marry, so your main argument is seriously flawed and should never be a reason for bending a sanctity of marriage to every wish, want, or desire.

  7. @ 1:20pm, August 9th

    Do you mean that those that do not agree with you should shut up and let you do everything what you want? Is that a real fair democracy to you? You are seriously You and people like you are changing lives of everybody in the society by breaking all fundamental norms and morals that allowed us to develop and progress through the ages. You are redesigning everybody's future lives to fit your own agendas and weaknesses and then offering to be silent in response insisting that only what you want and need is fair. Think about it if your mind is not closed completely and then you would understand other people's reaction to your demands.

  8. Back to the topic of the post, I wonder what everybody so badly wanting the release of the names and the addresses of the signers of R-71 really want? An openness and fairness? Let them publish their names and addresses as well then and state their interest on the issue, since we already stated ours.

    The truth of the matter is nobody including homosexuals, liberals, conservatives, Christians, etc., doesn't truly want their names to be released on every issue because, as the article above fairly stated, at the very least those names and addresses would get into the marketing machine and would be bombarded with tons of unwanted spam if we fit into the "needed" profile. I also don't see a clear reason why the opponents of the initiative would want the names and addresses if not for a some kind of retaliation, which is a clear act of terrorism.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.