Orwellian plan PBS Newshour calls model legislation for the rest of the nation.
Please review the below slide carefully. It’s from a presentation given by ADL during the January 24, 2023 “work session” and public hearing on HB1333. The ADL representative was attempting to justify the bill, which, if passed, would establish a commission to create a “public health” style, community-level framework to find, track, censor, and punish certain viewpoints, such as those shown in the blue circles.
- IT’S JUST A MASK . . . Because decades of studies on face masks showed that masks are unable to prevent flu virus transmission, and common-sense backed up by current studies show mask wearing comes with risks, especially to children, it was clear to many that COVID-19 mask mandates were not, and still are not, about public health, but a means to installing place-holding framework for vaccine mandates and passports.
- IT’S JUST A VACCINE . . . Because the “vaccines” are unable to prevent infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death, and increased uptake actually increases all areas of risk, it is clear to many that vaccine mandates and passports are not about public health, but are place-holding and enforcement tools for compliance training and controlling the movement of populations . . . and this framework is now being transitioned from serving public health to serving public safety, under the guise of “domestic violent extremism” aka “DVE”. Which HB1333 is attempting to establish. (Climate change will also be attached to this control framework – see this PRESS RELEASE.)
- IT’S JUST EXTREMISTS . . .Because peaceful citizens who oppose masks and the C-19 shots (and who have concerns about election integrity, and are alarmed by the societal move to sexualize children) are now being labeled as “motivating extremists” by well-funded entities working with Attorney General Ferguson on HB1333, it is clear that the mask-vaccine-extremism framework is not about public health or safety, but a tool for surveilling, tracking, censoring, and controlling the population . . . for? What purpose? Who benefits from censorship? Who benefits when the government proposes a framework that they acknowledge will violate the state and federal constitutions?
“Relatedly, because effective State intervention to address these threats has the potential to implicate speech or association that may be protected by the First Amendment, or the individual right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment, we include a recommendation that all stakeholders involved in the whole-of-society response outlined herein be trained to have a solid, high-level understanding of constitutional principles that may be implicated by the State’s response to DVE.”
Bob Ferguson, WA State Attorney General, 2022 Domestic Terrorism Study
In other words, Ferguson wants “stakeholders” (see those who are invited to be part of the Commission established by HB1333) to establish a breaking point where individual constitutional rights end and public health and safety begin, and this breaking point must be preventative. Rights must end based on someone’s speculation that a particular viewpoint has the potential to lead to violent extremism.
This mimics public health’s policy of considering everyone, no matter their current health or natural immunity status, guilty of being able to transmit COVID-19 unless they visibly display evidence they are complying with mandates, sporting a mask, or flashing a vaccination card (neither of which prevent infection or transmission).
In a PBS Newshour interview, the reporter stated:
. . . in many of these recent cases of violent extremism, including in the case of the Oath Keepers that were just found guilty of seditious conspiracy, these aren’t young men. These are men in their 40s, 50s, even in their 60s . . .
And Ferguson replied:
And that’s what creating a commission is all about. We’d be the first state to create the commission that you mentioned at the outset. And that would bring together experts to engage on making specific recommendations on exactly this kind of issue. What can we do to prevent the radicalization of folks who are a bit older, as you said, their 40s, their 50s, their 60s, and help them to get out of that if they are radicalized.
So there it is—Ferguson introducing the idea that there is some connection between individuals convicted of “seditious conspiracy” and people of a certain age, who just happen to be the majority of those in the above slide’s blue bubbles, opposing the government views on shots, masks, elections, and drag queen story hours. How, exactly, does Ferguson think he can prevent people between the ages of 40 and 70 from distrusting Pfizer and the FDA? How will he convince them it’s a good thing for men to gyrate suggestively in front of four-year-olds in public drag shows? How does he propose to “help them get out of that” frame of mind?
It is time for ALL HANDS ON DECK to oppose not just this bill, but the dangerous direction AG Ferguson and others want to go. This is the United States of America, land of the free, because of the brave.
We need everyone to be brave, be peaceful, be loud.
Please review the following linked information carefully and critically. Share them. Talk to your elected officials at the city, county, state, and federal levels. Talk to your family, friends, neighbors, groups, church, mainstream and alternative media. This is not about race, creed, color, gender, or any other divisive label being assigned to any of us. We are all Americans, we are all Washingtonians. We might disagree on some topics, but we all agree that freedom is a human right worth fighting for.
Together, we can protect WA and the U.S.A.
Watch the video of the Jan 24 hearing of the bill: https://tvw.org/video/house-state-government-tribal-relations-2023011531/?eventID=2023011531
The slide show presented by ADL during the bill hearing on extremism: https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Document/248976#toolbar=0&navpanes=0 And the slide show on Ferguson’s study: https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Document/248842#toolbar=0&navpanes=0
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB FERGUSON’S study that the bill is based on. Be sure to explore “Appendix 2: Consultant Team Biographies” and research some of their positions and actions. We are in a battle of language, with both sides claiming to support freedom, justice, and the constitution. https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/2022%20Domestic%20Terrorism%20Study.pdf
The Raben group the AG hired to help with his study (whose other clients include Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Pfizer . . .” https://rabengroup.com/clients/
A web page at another entity the AG hired for his study: Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown University Law Center and the States United Democracy Center (SUDC). A paper opposing Constitutional Sheriffs. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/09/Constitutional-Sheriffs-Fact-Sheet.pdf