It did not take long for the White House to backtrack on the initiative, which was referred to as the “Ministry of Truth.” It was not difficult to see that the group’s purpose would be to target information that went against the Democrat-approved narrative on issues like the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines.

Nevertheless, it appears there are some in positions of power who believe this concept is a good idea. In Washington, attorney general Bob Ferguson is seeking to establish his own commission whose objective would supposedly be to target threats of “domestic extremism” and “misinformation.

The state’s legislature is considering HB 1333, which would “create a left-wing Domestic Violent Extremism Commission in the AG’s office,” according to journalist Jason Rantz.

The members of this commission would be tasked with recommending “solutions to combat disinformation and misinformation, address early signs of radicalization, and develop a public health-style response.”

Rantz argues that this is not a public health issue. Instead, it is an effort to “legally penalize, or legally commit, political adversaries.”

The attorney general’s office defines “domestic violence extremism” not only in terms of actual violence, but also in terms of “online disinformation” and “anti-government ideologies.” That last term should give you a clue as to what this commission’s true objective is, shouldn’t it?

The proposed legislation would require that the commission “extend an invitation to participate” to representatives from the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and, for some reason, a “representative from a federally recognized tribe.”

Rantz noted that a member of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) conducted a presentation for a state House Committee to provide “local and regional examples of extremist behavior.”

“It was primarily focused on white supremacy violence and propaganda, even though the state has seen minimal incidents by these hate mongers,” Rantz wrote, also pointing out that the presentation did not “include a single mention of Black Lives Matter or Antifa violence.”

The journalist also observed that the presenter “criticized a bail fund purportedly used to bail out members of right-wing Proud Boys,” but did not give the same treatment to efforts on the part of high-profile progressives like Vice President Kamala Harris to do the same with Black Lives Matter rioters.

The bill further explains that the commission will evaluate “any future data-tracking recommendations around domestic violent extremism” and “ensure data is not disproportionately used against black, indigenous, and people of color communities.”

Interestingly enough, the bill requires participation from a slew of different groups including Planned Parenthood, the Council on Islamic Relations, and the American Civil Liberties Union. What do all these groups have in common? You guessed it: They are far-left organizations, which lets us further know what the state government’s intentions are.

During an interview with PBS, Ferguson claimed the federal definition of domestic terrorism is “too narrow for the great threat that we see with the increase of radicalization” and that his people are “trying to broaden that term to address things that are not specifically a threat to somebody, but where the state can take some action in prevention.”

Talk about saying the quiet part out loud!

This man is straight up admitting that he and his team are seeking to expand the definition of domestic terrorism so they can target a wider swath of Americans who happen to hold political views he doesn’t like. And yes, that is what this whole thing is about, dear reader. If you have been paying attention over the past few years, you know that the definition of terms like “misinformation” and “disinformation” can be translated as such: “Any viewpoint, argument, or opinion that contradicts that which far-left progressive types believe.”

This is a scary proposition for conservatives and libertarians residing in Washington. If it passes, it will essentially empower the state government to start the process of using its authority as a weapon against those that progressives deem to be enemies. There can be no doubt that these people will abuse their power in a politically-motivated fashion. The fact that other states might pursue similar endeavors might also contribute to the conversation on national divorce that has once again reared its head in the national discussion. But one thing is for sure, if progressives have their way, red areas of the country might start looking even more appealing to those who are not Marxists.