Article: Washington Voters Will Again Decide the Future of a State Income Tax
Olympia, Washington - Washington voters will once again have an
opportunity to decide whether the state should impose an individual income
tax.
Initiative Petition 26-645 qualified for the November 2026 ballot after
its sponsors submitted
509,365 petition signatures, well above the 308,911 signatures required for certification.
IP26-645 would repeal Washington's newly enacted 9.9 percent gross tax on annual individual income exceeding $1 million. It
would also prohibit state and local governments from imposing taxes on individual income, the receipt of income, or amounts
measured by income.
Senate Bill 6346 Created the New Tax
The initiative responds directly to Senate Bill 6346, which the Washington Legislature approved in 2026. The bill
initially passed the Senate by a vote of 27-22 and passed the House by a vote of 51-46. The Senate later concurred
with the House amendments by a vote of 27-21.
Governor Bob Ferguson signed SB 6346 on March 30, 2026. The new law imposes a 9.9 percent gross tax on annual
individual income exceeding $1 million and is scheduled to apply beginning with the 2028 tax year.
Our History of Rejecting Income Taxes
This state history of rejecting income taxes started in 1931, when two attempts were vetoed by Roland H. Hartley who was a
Republican Governor. The Washington State Constitution was amended with a Uniformity Clause, which is broad definition
of property.
In 1932, in Initiative 69, voters approve a statewide income tax. 70% of the voters approve a graduated income tax,
which ranged from 1% to 7% on the annual income for individuals and corporations. This tax was extreme harsh for the
times, it tax poor at $1 to $1000 at a rate of 1%. The top rate was 7% on $12,000 or more, this is about $285,000 in
today’s inflated dollars.
In 1933, the Washington State Supreme Court found Initiative 69 was unconstitutional in the case of Culliton v.
Chase. In this case the court ruled income was property and the ruling included everything subject to ownership.
You would have thought after that the Legislature would have understood, but in 1934 Democrat legislature passed a
HJR 12, which was a Constitutional Amendment that proposed to amend the state constitution allowing for a graduated income
tax on the people of Washington. In the 1934 election, voters clearly rejected HJR 12 with a vote of 176,154 against
and 134,908 for HJR 12.
Again, you would have thought that at this point, Democrats would have got the message, but no. In 1935, the
Legislature and Democrat Governor Clarence D. Martin both pushed the Revenue Act of 1935 after humiliating defeat in
1934. The Revenue Act was tax that would have affected both individuals and corporate ‘NET’ income taxes. This was
crazy, in 1933, the Washington State Supreme Court rejected incomes taxes as being unconstitutional. The corporate tax
was enacted in HB 237, today's B & O tax, and also the state sales tax were also implemented on consumers. There was a
separate bill for income taxes on individuals.
In 1936, the Washington State Supreme Court strikes down the Income Tax. The court held that personal and corporate
income taxes were unconstitutional in two separate decisions. Again in 1936, the Legislature passed Senate Joint
Resolution 7, but again the voters defeated SJR 7 by a margin of 78% to 22%. This was another serious humiliation to
Democrats.
We can certainly can say, Democrats don’t give up easily, because the Legislature came back in 1937 and put forth another
constitutional amendment called SJR 5 to voters. Voters again rejected the Senate Joint Resolution in 1938 by a margin
of 67% to 33%. Another serious humiliation to Democrats.
In 1941, the Legislature referred another constitutional amendment to the voters after a Republican won the
governorship. This time the voters rejected the proposed amendment, 66% to 44%.
Ten year later, in 1951, the legislature passed a 4% corporate excise tax which levied net income tax on corporate
profits. Again, the court invalidated the tax and stated the tax on income is a tax on property under the State
constitution. The Supreme court also ruled that the tax was not uniform either because the tax did not apply fair
across the businesses.
Eighteen years later in 1969, Democrats again try to implement another constitutional amendment that would authorize a
flat-rate corporate and personal income tax. In 1970 Voters again rejected the tax by a margin of 68% to 32%.
In 1973, the legislature adopted and proposed a graduate and flat rate income tax amendment for the 1974
election. The graduated income tax was on individuals and the flat rate was on businesses. Voters again rejected
the income tax by a margin of 78% to 22%.
In 1975, another initiative was put forward, this time Initiative 314 would have created a tax of 12% called corporate
privilege fee which was tied to the net income. Again, the income tax was defeated in another serious humiliating
loss by a margin of 67% to 33%.
In 1982, roughly seven years later, the voters of Washington again rejected Initiative 435 by a margin of 66% to 34%, which
proposed a 10% tax on corporate privilege fee on net income. At this point, you would think the legislature would
finally understand that the voter is totally against income taxes of any kind on individuals and business
property. There was never a revenue shortage whatsoever for the state, either. It’s always been a 'want' to spend
problem, not a need.
Twenty-Eight years later, the legislature proposed an Initiative 1098 proposing an excise tax on the annual personal
income of about $200,00 for individual or $400,00 for joint filers. The margin of failure was 2 to 1. This again
was a long history of statewide votes rejecting all forms of income tax proposals by our legislatures and governors.
According to the
Bellevue Chamber’s historical review, Washington has seen two income-tax bills vetoed, five invalidated by the
state Supreme Court and nine rejected by voters.
The Legislature Approved Initiative 2111 in 2024
Then for the first time since the 1931, when Washington State Constitution was amended with a Uniformity Clause, the
legislature in 2024 approved Initiative 2111 with super-majorities in the House and Senate prohibiting state, city, counties,
and other local jurisdictions from imposing or collecting income taxes. The vote in the House was 71 to 21 and 38 to 11
in the Senate. Everyone thought this was the end of the rigmarole.
Talking Out Both Sides of Your Mouth
In 2026, Democrats then started talking out of both sides of their mouths, the legislature turns around and introduces
another attempt to collect personal income taxes after just after approving initiative 2111 just 2 years before with
super-majorities to prohibit incomes taxes. You just cant make this stuff up.
Income Tax Bill gets Passed
The Senate bill 6346 was passed by both the House and Senate and then signed off by Governor Bob “Sideshow†Ferguson,
which will institute a tax on personal gross incomes above $1 million at a gross rate of 9.9%.
This Income Tax bill is now law. It violates the Washington State Constitution by trying to tax the personal income
of citizens in Washington. The worst part, the income tax law is wrote very similar to the 1932 initiative, which at
some point it will end up being applied to not just millionaires, but it will include the everyone, (poor and rich).
Understanding the Income Tax Law
There are three important points about this income tax.
This income tax is coming for everyone, not just the rich.
You can’t trust Olympia, just look at the timeline above. The people have said no to income taxes over and
over, the Supreme Court has said no over and over, and Governors have also said no as well, and just recently roughly not
even two years ago the House and Senate said absolutely not. So ask yourself, why now?
Olympia recently and in the past has been wasteful with our money and we don’t have a emergency or money problem but
we have a serious spending problem.
Washington is Coming for Your Pocket Book
Supporters of SB 6346 argue that the tax will affect only people earning more than $1 million and will provide additional
revenue for public programs and tax relief.
That reversal from 2024 of no income tax to passing an income tax is 2026 is exactly the primary reasons opponents remain
skeptical of assurances that the new tax will always be limited to people earning more than $1 million.
Let’s Go Washington, some Washington voters, and we have said, this income tax is coming for everyone, including the
poor. Opponents of the income tax claim the current million-dollar threshold will not remain permanent. They are
concerned that future legislatures will lower the threshold, raise the tax rate, or eventually apply the tax to all
households, like what has happened in others states who have income taxes. There are good reasons believe this is true,
because in leaked emails, the e-mails the Democrat Legislature never wanted you to see, lays out their plan for all of us – an
income tax on everyone.
This concern should not simply be dismissed. Tax laws can be amended over time. Washington voters must
therefore consider not only how the tax operates today, but also how future legislatures might expand it.
Trust Among Constituents and the Courts are Paramount
Why you can’t trust Democrats in the Legislature or governorship? The Legislatures and Governors have been told
over, over, and over that an income tax on property is unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1933, 1936, &
1951. Yet, the legislatures and some governors over decades have ignored the Supreme Court and the peoples
vote. As you can see, your legislature and some governors definitely do not feel constrained by the State Constitution,
whatsoever.
Obviously, our so-called lawmakers are not listening to the people or the courts. Our lawmakers don’t feel the need
to abide by the law, because they feel the law doesn't apply to them. In other words, rules for thee, but not for
me. Can you say, 'NO KINGS'? Even a former Democrat, who was a State Senator and State Supreme Court Justice, which
ran for the Governor of Washington, says the income tax law doesn't follow the rules.
The Debate Is Also About State Spending
Washington's income-tax debate cannot be separated from the larger question of state government spending.
State leaders frequently argue that additional revenue is necessary to fund education, transportation, housing, public
safety and social services. Many taxpayers, however, believe the state should first demonstrate that it is responsibly
managing the revenue it already collects.
Before creating or expanding another major source of state revenue, lawmakers should clearly explain:
How much revenue the tax is expected to generate.
Which programs will receive the additional revenue.
Whether those expenditures will be independently audited.
What safeguards will prevent the income threshold from being
lowered in the future.
What will happen if expected revenue falls short because affected
taxpayers change their residency, employer leave, and/or financial arrangements.
Calling for transparency, accountability and spending discipline is not the same as opposing every government
program. It is a reasonable expectation when lawmakers ask residents to accept an entirely new category of
taxation. The fact that this did not happen shows the taxpayer is being abused and not taken seriously.
Economic Claims Require Careful Examination
Washington's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was
5.2 percent in June 2026 according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, placing it among the highest state
unemployment rates in the country. Washington is tied with California, Connecticut and Oregon. Only the
District of Columbia is higher, but D.C is not considered a state.
In 2024,
according to the US. Census Bureau, 1 in 35 people living in the state of Washington state moved in 2024 from another
state and it ranked 12th in state-to-state migration in 2024. These migration figures also present a more complicated
picture. Census-based estimates indicate that approximately 222,100 people moved to Washington from other states during
2024, while approximately 204,400 Washington residents moved to another state.
Older Internal Revenue Service taxpayer-migration data, however, indicated that Washington experienced a net loss of
taxpayers during the 2021-2022 period. An analysis cited by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation calculated that
Washington lost approximately one net taxpayer every 30 minutes during that period.
This information is relevant, but taxpayer migration and total population migration are different
measurements. Neither statistic should be presented as proof that Washington's population is currently
collapsing, yet.
Former Governors are Casting Doubt
Even former governors have stated that this income tax has gone to far. Former Gov. Christine Gregoire has warned
fellow Democrats that taxing millionaires out of the state will backfire. Former Governor Gary Locke, which had a
massive budget surplus without ever floating the idea of an income tax stated, he wasn’t sure the new tax would be enough to
close the current budget gaps and questioned what Olympia would do with the money?
The Fundamental Question for Washington Voters
The argument over IP26-645 concerns more than one tax rate or one income threshold. It concerns the proper limits
of the state's taxing authority.
Supporters of SB 6346 believe households with annual income exceeding $1 million should contribute more toward public
services. Supporters of IP26-645 believe the new tax conflicts with Washington's longstanding resistance to individual
income taxes and creates a mechanism that future legislatures could expand on.
Washington voters have repeatedly expressed skepticism toward income taxes, because of the public waste of revenues and
constant wants by the Legislature to spend money The state's courts have repeatedly raised constitutional problems with
the way previous and past income taxes have been structured.
The Legislature nevertheless enacted SB 6346 and prevented the taxpayer from doing a referendum. The inititive
IP26-645 now gives voters the best hope of a direct opportunity of reversing that decision.
Article: Seattle's Energy Prices: Another Reminder That "Normal" Isn't Coming Back
Seattle, WA Gasoline in the Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue region averaged $4.222 per gallon
in December 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yes, that’s lower than last December’s
$4.499, but it’s not relief — it’s simply a slightly smaller premium on top of a price level
that has been structurally high for years.
Electricity costs tell the same story. Seattle households paid 13.9 cents per kilowatt‑hour,
up from 12.7 cents the year before. Utility gas climbed even faster:
$1.425 per therm, compared with $0.985 last December. These are raw,
non‑seasonally‑adjusted numbers, and they show a region where energy affordability continues to erode.
The Gasoline Premium
Electricity costs tell the same story. Seattle households paid 13.9 cents per kilowatt‑hour,
up from 12.7 cents the year before. Utility gas climbed even faster:
$1.425 per therm, compared with $0.985 last December. These are raw,
non‑seasonally‑adjusted numbers, and they show a region where energy affordability continues to erode.
Over the past five years, December gasoline prices in the region have ranged from 16.5% to 31.9%
above the national average. That’s not volatility; that’s a structural surcharge.
See Chart 1.
The Electricity “Discount” That Isn’t
Seattle households paid 13.9 cents per kilowatt‑hour for electricity in December 2024 —
21% lower than the national average of 17.6 cents. On paper, that
looks like a win. But the gap is shrinking. Last December, electricity here was 24.9%
cheaper than the U.S. average.
The long‑term pattern is unmistakable: for the past five years, Seattle’s December electricity prices have
consistently been at least 16.2% below the national average. That’s not a sign of affordability
— it’s a sign of a region whose energy costs start lower but rise steadily, year after year, while policymakers
congratulate themselves for being “below average.”
The BLS data makes the trend clear: Seattle’s electricity prices don’t spike — they
creep. Year after year, that creep eats a little more into the margin that once made the
region look affordable on paper.
Article: Washington State Democrats Screw Up and Expose their Secret Tax Scam
Seattle, WA In Washington's 36th District, which is one of forty nine districts in the Washington State
Legislature that encompasses part of North Seattle, Ballard, Magnolia and Queen Anne. In this district there is a
state Senator named Noel Frame and two state representatives Julia Reed and Liz Berry,
which all of them are Democrats who represent this area.
We here at Peer Reviewed Politics™ are bringing up the subject of the 36th legislative district, because the
36th legislative district Senator Noel Frame, open up her mouth and inserted her foot. Its not uncommon for
everyone to mistakes from time to time, but Senator Frame, well she let the cat out of the bag and it was the
Democrats scam game plan. If you want to know what type of scam game plan it was, we don't think it would be
that hard to guess what it was. Democrats are very commonly known for either their spending and their
taxes. Their game plans never solve the problems, but they usually only make the problem worse with their
spending, so they can tax you even more.
In this case, Senator Frame accidentally sent e-mail out, not just her fellow Democrats, but ended up
sending it to Republicans too, Oops... Maybe, we probably shouldn't say accidentally sent it, because it might
imply she knows how use e-mail. Anyhow, in this secret PowerPoint plan, Democrats were trying to brainstorm
and justify a $15 billion spending tax scheme after they just had squandered billions in surplus funds, beside money they
received from tobacco companies, which was supposed to be used for those with tobacco related illnesses. Well,
the e-mail that Senator Frame sent out, ended up getting sent to Republicans, because instead of sending it to
Democrats, she replied all, which included her Republican colleagues.
So as you might imagine, the Republicans ended up getting the propaganda talking points on the scam that they
planned on sending to the corrupt media here in Washington State in order to spread and push out the propaganda
talking points to Washington State low information viewers/voters.
Do to the fact that the it was e-mailed to Republicans, the Democrats plan did not work out so well, but you
know how low information voters are, they only get their news from the main stream media and social media
sites. Luckily most of Democtats probably don't even realized that Republicans know about the tax scam and
that these low info voters are likely still unaware of the scam and what had happened in the first
place. Guess the Democrat party is lucky to have those type of voters. To bad, some of these folks
can't wake up, because if these low info voters did, we could clean up this state from all the corruption.
'We The Governed' ended up doing almost a nineteen minute video on the scam and we thought we would share it
with our readers, because its very informative and it just goes to show what Democrats are willing to do with
their smoke and mirrors.
Attribution: Peer Reviewed Politics™
| Media Attribution:
| Author(s): @Teapartier_Al on X.com - We The Governed
| Date: | Duration: 00:18:24
| Photo/Video Credit: Video - We The Governed
Vice President Candidate Tim Walz had Affair with Daughter of CCP Official
The Daily Mail of U.K. published an EXCLUSIVE story on Vice Presidential Candidate Tim Walz about having an
affair with the daughter of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) official and chairman of a labor union. According to the
DailyMail.com,
Tim Walz had an affair with the daughter of a high ranking communist official in 1989, while teaching in Foshan, Guangdong
Province, China.
Jenna Wang, is the daughter of Bin Hui who is CCP official. Ms. Wang who currently is 59 year old now
released this EXCLUSIVE story to the DailyMail.com. Within this story, Ms. Wang provided pictures and
disclosed other information to the DailyMail.com about the affair.
According what Ms. Wang told the Daily Mail, she was an English language teacher at the nearby middle school when
she met Tim Walz. Ms. Wang was attending one of Tim Walz lectures in order to brush up on her pronunciation
when she met the twenty five year old Tim Walz. Ms. Wang told the Daily Mail that Tim Walz had remove her
headphones and had whispered into her ear, 'You are very beautiful.'
Ms. Wang appear to be taken by Tim Walz looks and thought he was handsome. Over the weeks that followed
after meeting Tim Walz, Ms. Wang became enamored with Tim Walz. Ms. Wang said, Tim and her avoided Public
Displays of Affection so it would not get back to Wang's father Bin Hu. Ms. Wang stated that she was worried
about her father finding out that she was fraternizing with Westerner.
In Ms. Wang's interview with the DailyMail.com, it appears she fell head over heals for the then 25 year old
Tim Walz as she talked about getting married and starting a family with Tim Walz in the United States. When
Ms. Wang found out Tim Walz had no intentions of marrying her, she said it made her feel cheap and common, and that
she was being treated like a prostitute. Ms. Wang said she even thought about committing suicide because of
how Tim Walz had made her feel.
Ms. Wang said, she came forward because she believe Tim Walz had behaved selfishly towards her and put her
reputation and career at risk. Ms. Wang also stated that Tim Walz had lied to the public about being
in China during 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre and he has lied about other things.
The fact that Tim Walz had gone to China more than 30 times, having an affair with the daughter of CCP
official, continues to talk fondly about China, and seems not to have an issue with making false statements
to the public makes us wonder if Tim Walz is compromised.
Article: "Election Round Table 2024" on Liberty News Radio
AMERICAN FORK, UT Nationwide Broadcast Liberty News Radio and the Big Mig Show on Rumble
are proud to announce a captivating live event, "Election Round Table 2024," to be held on November 5, 2024.
This broadcast will be hosted by Sam Bushman, James Edwards, Dr. Scott Bradley, and Lance Migliaccio. The
forum will feature a panel of notable experts including Sheriff Richard Mack, Alex Newman, George Balloutine,
Lew Moore, Lowell Nelson, Dave Krieger, Peter Scoop Stanton, and others.
This Event Highlights Include:
In-depth Analysis: Deep dive into election dynamics, key issues, and candidate strategies.
Fraud Watch: Commitment to election integrity and transparency.
Stop The Steal: Emphasis on safeguarding voter rights and the sanctity of elections.
Rule of Law: Focus on the legal frameworks essential for fair and free elections.
This pivotal forum is set to be a key resource for political enthusiasts and voters across the nation, providing
a comprehensive look at the elements shaping the future of our Constitutional Republic. Tune in live to this
crucial discussion on the future of our nation via LibertyNewsRadio.com or video stream at TheBigMigShow on Rumble.
Attribution: Peer Reviewed Politics™
| Media Attribution: Liberty News Radio
| Author(s): @Teapartier_Al on X.com - Formatting-Editing / Press Release - Liberty New Radio
| Date: | Duration: 00:00:00
| Photo/Video Credit: Logo Photo - Liberty New Radio
Article: Slash Down in Pensacola, FL
Pensacola, Florida - Three NASA astronauts and a Russian cosmonaut were returned to Earth early Friday
morning at 3:29 EDT in the SpaceX Dragon capsule, splashing down in the Gulf of Mexico.
NASA’s SpaceX Crew-8, three astronauts and one cosmonaut returned aboard Elon Musk's SpaceX capsule. NASA
astronauts Matthew Dominick, Michael Barratt, and Jeanette Epps, and Cosmonaut Alexander Grebenkin were among the
crew aboard the capsule which had spent 232 days in space orbiting the Earth 3,760 times or about 100 million miles
aboard the IIS space station according to NASA.
The crew conducted research on low Earth orbit, stem cell research to study degenerative diseases, how fuel
temperature affects material flammability, and how spaceflights can affect immune function in humans.
The SpaceX-8 team had a gentle splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, South of Pensacola, Florida. The capsule was
hauled aboard a nearby recovery ship that was waiting in the Gulf for the capsule. On board the ship, were
surgeons and other support personnel to claim the capsule and welcome aboard the crew to do initial medical checks
and allow the astronauts and cosmonaut to make phone calls to their family and friends. The crew was then
taken to local medical facility for evaluation.
The two test pilots/astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore who flew the Boeing Starliner spacecraft, which
left had left Earth for the International Space Station to be on IIS for one week are still stranded on the IIS
space station. According to NASA, Williams and Wilmore were not assigned to return with Crew-8.
Attribution: Peer Reviewed Politics™
| Media Attribution: Peer Reviewed Politics™ / NASA
| Author(s): @Teapartier_Al on X.com
| Date: | Duration: 00:00:00
| Photo/Video Credit: Nasa.gov
Classified Documents Case Against Trump has been Dismissed
Fort Pierce, Florida: 🚨 BREAKING 🚨 NEWS:
Peer Reviewed Politics™: On July 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s ruled
in 93-page document that Special Counsel Jack Smith
was improperly appointed by the DOJ and so the court has rightfully dismissed the case against Former President
Trump.
According to the courts legal ruling, the order granting dismissal cites that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s
appointment was in violation of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. Also under the
U.S. Constitution, Article II § 2, clause 2, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s use of a permanent indefinite appropriation
violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Constitution, Article I § 9, clause 7. The court noted that court
did not need to address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause
grounds.
The ruling outlined, the first challenge to Jack Smith's appointment under the Appointments Clause, which provides
the exclusive means for appointing “Officers of the United States,†(SEE Article II, § 2, cl. 2.) The
Appointments Clause sets as a default rule that all “Officers of the United States†whether “inferior†or “principalâ€
must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
In the second challenge, rooted in the Appropriations Clause, also prohibits any money from being “drawn from
the Treasury†unless such funding has been appropriated by an act of Congress under Article I § 9, clause 7, (“No
Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . . .â€). According to
the ruling DOJ just can't appropriate money on its own. The House of Representatives hold the purse for this type
of funding.
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled against decades of ambiguous federal regulatory law by
bureaucracies, making it far more difficult for federal agencies to issue rules, regulations, and try to
appropriate money for themselves without an act of congress. According to Chief Justice Roberts, this
was pointed out in a famous 1803 decision of Marbury v. Madison, whereas Chief Justice Roberts stated it means
that courts, not agencies, decide what the law is, and if Congress wants to do something different, it should say
so explicitly.
In Judge Cannon's ruling she stated, "Both the Appointments and Appropriations challenges as framed in the
Motion raise the following threshold question: is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the
appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue,
the answer is no. None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment, (SEE 28 U.S.C. §§ 509,
510, 515, 533) gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to
appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith. Nor do the
Special Counsel’s strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit
authority persuade otherwise.
Looking at the law and the past arguments before the Supreme Court, including the most recent argument, Judge Cannon
is on sound ground in her ruling in this case, and its very unlikely that an appeal by the government would be
successful, if Judge Cannon ruling was challenged by the government.
We have posted the 93-page ruling below. Click on the picture to read the full document.
Attribution: Peer Reviewed Politics™
| Story Attribution: Peer Reviewed Politics™ Article - @Teapartier_Al on X.com
| Peer Reviewed Politics™ Article Author: @TeaPartier_Al on X.com
| Date: | Video Clip Duration: 00:00:00
| Photos and Video Credit: Photo of Judge Aileen M. Cannon - en.wikipedia.org / Legal decision documents - U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida
Video: Dr. Anthony Fauci, Former Director of the NIAID, Testified before Congress on Monday, June 03, 2024
Washington D.C - Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases and Chief of the NIAID Laboratory of Immunoregulation, as well as having a position of Chief Medical Advisor
to President Joe Biden, testified on Monday June 03, 2024, before House of Representatives at the Committee on Oversight
and Accountability.
Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared before the House Oversight Committee and was his first testimony since his retirement
on December 01, 2022, as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
Dr. Anthony Fauci was sworn in at the hearing an provided about a roughly a 6 minute opening statement and then he took
questions. We did not review the whole testimony of Dr. Fauci, but within 15 minutes Dr. Fauci appeared to have lied
and/or changed his story several times.
Dr. Fauci stated that he worked had worked at the National Institute of Health (NIH) for 54 years and been a
director at NIAID for more that 38 years. Dr. Fauci stated during his tenure he had dealt with and was deeply
involved in scientific and public health responses of several infectious disease outbreaks, whereas he claimed his
involvement in government service to include AIDs, Ebola HIV, Pandemic Flu, and the Zika virus, (a mosquito-borne
infection).
Dr. Anthony Fauci continued to state, that under his leadership, NIAID and he were well positioned to respond to
the Covid-19 virus. Dr. Anthony Fauci then claimed that NIAID had invested billions of dollars on
mRNA technology and imaging design for nearly two decades, whereas Fauci stated both of these things had lead us to
the swift development of vaccines for Covid-19. Dr. Anthony Fauci stated in less than 11 months after the
identification of novel virus (Covid-19), a safe and highly effective vaccines were widely available for
Covid-19.
We here at Peer Reviewed Politics™ disagree with what Dr. Anthony Fauci is claiming at this hearing about the
vaccines being safe and highly effective. There are now tons of research up to now, which shows the novel
vaccine may have likely done way more harm, then it did good. Even Doctor Robert Malone, who help develop
this vaccine, was worried about its efficacy and its affects on humans. Even the in CDC in internal documents
reveals and found evidence in late 2021 that Covid-19 vaccines were causing multiple deaths.
Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared to be postulating in his opening statement and complaining about how his actions had
been distorted. Dr. Fauci then spoke about the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 had resulted from a lab leak. Dr.
Anthony Fauci stated that he was alerted by a phone call from some several highly respected health and scientific
professionals on January 31, 2020 and he provided the names of the officials in his testimony. Dr. Fauci
stated that these officials were all concerned about the SARS-CoV-2 Gnome sequence, which he stated the Gnome Sequence
had suggested that the virus may have been manipulated in a lab.
Dr. Anthony Fauci then states that he had participated in a conference call the next day with about a dozen
international virologists to discussed this possibility vs. a spill over from an animal reservoir. Dr. Anthony
Fauci stated that the discussions were lively, and Dr. Fauci stated that there were an arguments for both
possibilities. Dr. Fauci then claimed that two participants who supposedly testified in a hearing, stated that Dr.
Fauci did not try to stir the discussion in any one direction. It should be noted here, Dr. Fauci did not in this
oversight hearing elaborate on who brought up the idea of a spill over analogy during this conference call,
either.
Dr, Fauci stated that it was decided in the conference call, that several participants would more carefully
study the Gnome sequence, but again Dr. Fauci did not elaborate on who these so-called participants were in his
testimony at this oversight hearing.
Dr. Fauci then stated that several of these participants who studied the Gnome sequence, which were original
concerned about the Gnome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 of being manipulated had later changed their minds and
concluded that most likely the outcome was from a spill over. Dr. Fauci continued to state the participants
did kept an open mind, but again Dr. Fauci didn't elaborate who these participants were. Dr. Fauci did say
that these participants did appropriately published their opinions in peer reviewed literature.
Dr. Fauci contended and maintained that he never tried to influence or get these scientist to change their minds
by bribing them with millions of dollars of grant money. Dr. Fauci said he had no input into the content
being published in papers, (The peer reviewed literature). Dr. Fauci also denies that he had tried to cover
up the possibility that this virus was from a lab.
Dr. Fauci then stated it was inconceivable that any who reads his e-mail could conclude that he was trying to
cover up the possibility of a lab leak. Dr. Fauci again stated that he was keeping an open mind to the
cause. Dr Fauci then denied that he had anything to do with Senior Advisor Dr. David Morens because of Dr.
Morens' title. Dr. Fauci also claimed that he was never advised or knew of any actions by Dr. Morens related
to Dr. Peter Daszak, Ecohealth or Dr. Morens' e-mails.
We here at Peer Review Politics noted Dr. Fauci made a lot of what you would call, "straw man claims" by
like using the term "they", except in this case, Fauci called them "participants", which is basically a no name blame
game. Dr. Fauci never names the people he is referring to, the exception when he does is when its is to his
benefit or he is trying to avoid being tied into that person. In his opening statement Dr. Fauci names of
several people who believed there was Gnome manipulation, but later in his testimony Dr. Fauci doesn't name the
individuals in the phone conference, which the participants supposedly talked about the spill over effect.
Dr. Fauci does not have a problem naming Dr. Morens, Ecohealth, and Dr. Peter Daszak, since it appears Dr. Fauci
is trying to dissociate himself from Dr. Morens by saying he was not an advisor on institute policies or to other
substantive issues. Dr. Fauci only stated that had Dr. Morens helped Dr. Fauci in writing some scientific
papers. Dr, Fauci went on to tell the oversight committee that he had never conducted official business by
personal e-mail, either. We here at Peer Reviewed Politics™ do remember that Dr. Fauci originally denied the
lab leak, but for some reason now he acts like he said nothing like this at all.
The Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz questioned and defended Dr. Fauci after Chairman Dr. Wenstrup had questioned Dr. Fauci
after Dr. Fauci made his opening statement. Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz then tried to make it appear Chairman Dr.
Wenstrup and Republicans were on a witch hunt and were vilifying Dr. Fauci. The Ranking member then tried to
inject that Republicans came up empty handed in the subcommittee about Dr. Fauci having knowledge or that Republican
can't prove Fauci was behind the funding of the 'Gain of Function' research that was being done in Wuhan, China.
Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz then stated that the subcommittee has heard three different definitions of 'Gain of
Function' research. Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz continued to claim that Republicans had relied heavily on an
overly broad definition that had no regulatory significance. Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz even tries to claim
that the Republican definition is so broad that the definition of 'Gain of Function' research even includes the
manufacture of flu vaccines. Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz then claims that NIH uses the definition provided in
regulations to determine if it is or is not 'Gain of Function' research and then Dr. Ruiz stated that witness
after witness has reminded the subcommittee that NIH refers to regulations for the definition of 'Gain of Function'
research.
Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz then proceeds to then ask Dr. Fauci about the regulatory definition of 'Gain of Function'
research according to the 'P3CO' policy and then asks Dr. Fauci according to the regulatory definitions in P3CO, did
NIH ever fund 'Gain of Function' research in Wuhan, China?
Dr. Fauci started to answers Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz question, but then started stuttering, then state as you said
congressman. Dr. Fauci then elaborated, "According to regulatory and operative definition of P3CO, NIH did not
fund 'Gain of Function' research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz then thanks Dr. Fauci for repeating the so-called NIH P3CO policy definition for the
committee to hear. Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz then referencing that Dr. Fauci had been consistent about this
since the beginning of the pandemic and that Dr. Fauci had spoke about applying a definition found in the
regulation of the P3CO frame work. Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz then asked Dr. Fauci if this was correct. Dr.
Fauci replied, "That is Correct." Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz then said that Dr. Fauci had made this clear
his 2021 Senate testimony.
For some reason this rang a bell in our memories, so we did some research here at Peer Reviewed Politics™ on
the P3CO framework and we found an NSABB Meeting Minutes from September 21, 2022, which talks about the
definition of 'Gain of Function' research was not well defined.
Just so everyone knows what these acronyms like P3CO mean, we have checked the definitions within the National
Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) Meeting Minutes; it means Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and
Oversight (P3CO) and the acronym (PPP) means Potential Pandemic Pathogen and (ePPP) means enhanced Potential
Pandemic Pathogen.
As stated, these acronyms were taken for the NSABB Meeting Minutes and so was this Paragraph 'Finding 3', which
clearly states the current P3CO policy does not adequately incorporate the local review and oversight roles
played by investigators and institutions in the development, review, and ongoing oversight of research.
These NSABB Meeting Minute's go on to make recommendations under 'Recommendation 3'., which again clearly states
the USG P3CO framework should be revised to articulate specific roles, responsibilities, and expectations
for investigators and institutions for or evaluation of research for potential involvement of ePPP's. Local
compliance procedures should be better harmonized, strengthened where needed and resourced. A USG
contact entity should be designated to assist investigators and institutions in the review process and to
provide oversight to ensure adequate evaluation.
Note: the date of these NSABB Meeting Minutes at the bottom of page 5. Clearly the date is September 21,
2022 for these meeting minutes and Dr. Fauci testified before the Senate on November 4, 2021. This is almost
a year after Fauci had testified, and supposedly made it clear to the Senate, but here in the Meeting Minutes of
the NSABB, the P3CO was not clear as Dr, Fauci and Dr. Ruiz both have claimed. Remember, Ranking Member Dr.
Ruiz had just thanked Dr. Fauci for repeating the so-called NIH P3CO framework, which Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz then
said Dr. Fauci had made the definition clear. Both Dr. Fauci and Ranking Member Dr. Ruiz have made a false
claim about Fauci's testimony in the Senate on November 04, 2021. There was not a clear policy or framework
for the definition of 'Gain of Function' research. Its very clear in the NSABB Meeting Minutes that the P3CO
framework were not clear.
The picture below is part of the outline of the NSABB Meeting Minutes document which is the minutes of National
Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). You can click on the picture to see the full NSABB Meeting
Minutes document, which discusses the flaws in the definition of the P3CO framework, whereas these minutes were done
virtually on September 21, 2022, well after the pandemic, after the Senate hearing, and well after the investigations
had started to take place in to the 'Gain of Function' research.
Its clear Dr. Fauci also had changed his response about this being a lab leak too, when responded to Rep. Morgan
Griffith’s (R-VA) questions related to the possibility of this being a lab leak, Dr. Fauci now states that he thought
it was possible, but not with NIH funding because they had nothing to do with the lab leak.
You can watch the hearing on June 03, 2024, where Dr. Fauci gets grilled by the Oversight Committee. Its
apparent that Dr. Fauci is lying and has changed his story from the Senate hearing on November 04, 2021 from not
being a lab leak, to its possible it may have been a lab leak, but the NIH had nothing to do with it.
Watch the June 03, 2024 oversight hearing here, its called A Hearing with Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Attribution: Peer Reviewed Politics™
| Media Attribution:
| Author(s): @Teapartier_Al on X.com - Oversight and Accountability Hearing
| Date: Hearing on June 03, 2024 and Article Post on | Duration: 03:47:25 / 00:02:17
| Photo/Video Credit: Committee on Oversight and Accountability
District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, Aileen Cannon Order DOJ to Show Justification and to Unseal Documents.
Click on Picture to View Document
Breaking News: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon for the Southern District of Florida issued an order today
demanding the Department of Justice (DOJ) show the reason and justification for their conduct and to Unseal
Documents in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case.
Attribution: Peer Reviewed Politics™
| Media Attribution: Southern U.S. District Court of Florida - Judge Aileen Cannon
| Article Author: @TeaPartier_Al on Twitter
| Date: | Video Clip Duration: 00:00:00
| Photo/Video Credit: Snapshot of a PDF from the Southern U.S. District Court of Florida
