ICWA Weekly News
ICWA Weekly News
Radio Links, HB1333, PBS Newshour, Good News Bills!, March for Freedom
by Gerald Braude
In this newsletter:
January 27, 2023 Episode of An Informed Life Radio notes and links
HB1333 “Establishing The Domestic Violent Extremism Commission” UPDATE
PBS News Hour Fails Journalism 101
GOOD NEWS: ICWA Bill to “Restore Trust in Public Health” filed in House & Senate!
March for Freedom Every Tuesday at the Capitol!
January 27, 2023 Episode of An Informed Life Radio notes and links
Guests: Doug Basler, Sarah Garriott
TVW HB1333 hearing https://tvw.org/video/house-state-government-tribal-relations-2023011531/?eventID=2023011531
1:47 - 5:10 (1) Emily Kaufman, ADL
8:41 - 9:43 (2) Emily
57:27 - 59:32 (3) Lara Gabriel
1:08:49 - 1:10:25 (4) Doug Basler
1:10:27 - 1:12:28 (5) Sarah Garriett
ICWA Responds to KUOW (Rumble Video) Aug. 29, 2019
https://rumble.com/v1qocow-icwa-responds-to-kuows-isolde-raftery.html
56:45 - 57:30 (1) Isolde Raftery
Youtube Candace Owens
PBS News Hour Fails Journalism 101
During the PBS News Hour interview with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson last week, interviewer Laura Barrón-López played a video clip from a public hearing concerning House Bill 1333, which would establish a domestic violent extremism commission within the office of the attorney general.
The comment was, “This Orwellian bill would cause Washingtonians, including parents, nurses, doctors, and vulnerable and marginalized communities, to be afraid of expressing their opinions, or of speaking misinformation for fear of being labeled or penalized as domestic violence extremists.”
Laura Barrón-López then asked Ferguson, “What’s your response to that concern?”
Instead of getting straight to an answer, Ferguson, smugly smiled and stated the reason for public hearings, then focused on his domestic extremist violence report, and finally discussed taking a “public health” approach for broadening the term of domestic terrorism that is used at the federal level. When he finally got around to answer the interviewers question about the comment, all he said as he chuckled was, “So, we appreciate the feedback. But we think the feedback is a bit of an exaggeration, to put it mildly.”
His general accusation left him wide open for any responsible journalist to ask a follow-up question, like:
Could you please state why the public comment was such an exaggeration?
So, you’re saying those who provide what the government deems to be misinformation won’t be labeled or penalized as domestic violence extremists
What’s your definition of misinformation?
Who gets to decide what is misinformation?
Why did Barrón-López move onto another topic instead of offering a follow-up question to clarify matters? Was it because she wasn’t paying enough attention to her journalism classes when she attended California State University, Fullerton? Or was it because the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated nearly $500,000 to PBS and, in order to keep her job, Barrón-López had to follow the PBS script?
The Gates Foundation says the following on the GAVI website:
“The Gates Foundation plays both a technical and financial role in the Vaccine Alliance’s efforts to shape vaccine markets. It helps to gather data to inform our decision making and provides financial support for market investments. The Foundation invests in activities ranging from vaccine discovery through development to delivery, and encourages product innovation and new entrants into the market.”
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (gavi.org)
So, Gates’s profit-making interest in vaccines is to squelch any anti-vaccination opinions, such as those that, as noted in the public comment, could come from such medical influencers as doctors and nurses.
To drive the point home further of the PBS narrative, Barrón-López neglected to point to the issue of correlating anti-vaccine, as well as anti-mask, opinions to threats of extreme domestic terrorism presented in the following slide during a work session on the same day as the public hearing. The following arrow makes this cause-and-effect from “Anti-Mask and Anti-Vaccine Narratives” to “Increase threats against elections officials, medical professionals, school board members.”
What is meant by the word “threats” in the top red bubble? Did citizens show up in record numbers at election offices, medical offices, and school board meetings to voice their opposition to election fraud, masks & vaccines, CRT, and exposing children to adult sexual content? Heck yes! Were voices raised at times? Occasionally. When the actions and policies of those in positions of authority are causing harm, especially to children, tempers will flare. Being angry is not a crime. Were there isolated incidents where actual, physical violence occurred or was threatened? Possibly, but the vast majority of situations were peacefully passionate. ICWA certainly does not condone violence of any kind from any side of a debate, but attempting to prevent isolated, rare incidence of actual violence by censoring the free speech and actions of the many is exactly what the drafters of the WA state and federal constitutions hoped to avoid.
HB1333 “Establishing The Domestic Violent Extremism Commission” UPDATE
See ICWA Post About the committee Work Session & Public Comment on January 24
The bill is scheduled for Executive Session on January 31st. It is possible a vote could be taken, passing the bill on to the next committee. Follow the bill progress HERE, and send your comments to legislators, the media, everyone!
GOOD NEWS: ICWA Bill to “Restore Trust in Public Health” filed in House & Senate!
The House version: HB 1610
The Senate version: SB 5596
Bill Title “Restoring trust in public health through consumer protection.” Summary: This bill states that all government agency communication and promotion relating to a drug or medical device must adhere to the requirements and limitations for the product's labeling, promotion, and advertising as set forth for product manufacturers by federal licensing and authorization agreements. The bill also ensures all government agencies are subject to the WA State Consumer Protection Act, the Intrastate Commerce in Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and False Advertising laws.
Example of what this bill would do: if Pfizer can’t say it, neither could the WA State Department of Health. Pfizer cannot claim that their Covid-19 shots are safe during pregnancy because under both EUA and licensing agreements, they are not allowed to make that unsubstantiated claim. They can only say “Available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”
Stay tuned for more information about the bill!
March for Freedom Every Tuesday!
Informed Choice Washington will be joining March for Freedom and other medical freedom groups to bring their message to the legislature every Tuesday beginning January 31, from 11:00 to 1:00.
The marches take place every Tuesday at the Washington State Capitol until the legislative session ends on April 23. The messages to the legislatures will be to end all COVID-19 mandates, hold all public officials accountable—notably Governor Jay Inslee—support legislation to prevent this three-year nightmare of strangleholds from happening again.