Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Thought Police’

Hedieh Mirahmadi Op-ed: Be very wary of the US thought police

Commentary By Hedieh Mirahmadi, Exclusive Columnist | Thursday, May 12, 2022


It was astonishing when I first read about the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Disinformation Governance Board.

In my 20 years of government service fighting terrorism, the most complicated element of our work was protecting the sanctity of free speech while preventing radicalization. We watched young Americans leave their families to either marry a stranger or die in a foreign war but could do nothing about it because they had not committed a crime. They believed the persuasive pleas of the recruiters and wanted to be part of something bigger than themselves.

Civil rights groups, free speech activists, and others were very wary of our efforts. They claimed we were infringing on religious freedom and free speech by monitoring the recruiters’ activity. Back then, the social media giants wanted no part in censoring online profiles unless they advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. or encouraged acts of violence. We understood it as Americans; we are not in the business of policing ideas, however unpopular they may be.

The Supreme Court even established “an imminent threat” standard to ensure we did not regulate grossly unpopular or hateful speech. So, it was not until groups like ISIS and Al-Shabab were officially designated as foreign terrorist organizations that criminal charges could be imposed for recruitment and/or material support. 

Fast forward to today, and this new board is tasked with addressing the threat of disinformation. The repeated use of the word “threat” by DHS Secretary Mayorkas should be a cause for concern. It purposely creates connectivity between disinformation and the potential for physical harm, so there is a crime that can be investigated and eventually prosecuted.

We already have laws to address any potential harm stemming from intentionally providing false information. There are civil penalties in defamation and slander cases and criminal charges for perjury or obstruction of justice against government officials. However, the Constitution does not allow the government to punish the exaggeration of a story or having a different opinion from the cultural norm.

Look, for example, at all the controversy surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop. What was commonly touted as a wacky MAGA conspiracy was eventually demonstrated to be fact. Same with the research about the utility of masks in fighting off COVID infections and the risks associated with vaccines. Just because something may sound outlandish to some does not mean it’s false. The power of free speech is that the marketplace of ideas allows our opinions to evolve and change with new data. Isn’t that how we defeated slavery and gave women equal rights?

This recent push to criminalize “unpopular” speech started with the backlash against the parental rights movement. Passionate and angry parents at school board meetings triggered the Justice Department to issue a memo about prosecuting the “threat” to school officials. Soon after, DHS issued a National Terrorism Advisory, warning of a heightened terrorism threat caused by disinformation introduced by foreign or domestic actors. Consider the language of the bulletin very carefully:

“These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.”

The alarming conclusion is this: Our leading national security agency says the most significant domestic terrorism threat today is from people who share unpopular ideas with others, which could make them angry enough to commit a crime. To address this apparent threat, they create a Disinformation Governance Board to advise the operational departments of DHS on who to investigate and possibly prosecute for these alleged crimes.

I am shocked and dismayed this is happening in the public service sector, where I dedicated most of my professional career. How is the U.S. government suddenly the arbiter of “truth?” And why is lack of public trust defined now as a potential terrorism threat?

As if the unconstitutionality of regulating truth in the public square was not bad enough, the choice to govern the Disinformation Board makes it obvious who is the intended target of this effort. Nina Jankowicz, a clearly left-leaning social activist, has already labeled opponents of CRT “disinformers” and considers gender-based harassment online to be a national security threat, equal to terrorism. 

U.S. law enforcement power should never be partisan. We saw how damaging that was during the Russian collusion debacle when corruption in senior leadership tarnished the stellar reputation of the FBI. DHS and FBI officials are also never meant to be the thought police. We pride ourselves on that as Americans. Thankfully, many legislators are voicing their objections to this partisan attempt to silence opposition.

Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee wrote to DHS that the “federal government has no place interfering with the rights of all Americans to speak publicly about their political views … In fact, the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that this kind of ‘core political speech’ is the primary object of First Amendment protection.” Ranking Senator Rob Portman said, “I do not believe that the United States government should turn the tools that we have used to assist our allies counter foreign adversaries onto the American people.”

It is no secret that the U.S. has directly engaged in “disinformation” campaigns in countries worldwide to defeat communism, totalitarianism, and in many cases, terrorist recruitment. The American people should not tolerate its government now turning around to tell us what truth we can or should believe.

As Christians, even those who try to remain “apolitical” must realize we will be the greatest casualty of this effort. Our truth about who Jesus Christ is as God incarnate and that life begins with conception can easily be weaponized against us when the arbiter does not believe in God’s word. Look at the underwhelming response by law enforcement as the radical’s torch Christian nonprofits and harass conservative Supreme Court judges at their homes. Nothing is being done to stop those crimes as if their truths or legal rights do not matter.

There are dark days ahead of us, “For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). 

Hedieh Mirahmadi was a devout Muslim for two decades working in the field of national security before she experienced the redemptive power of Jesus Christ and has a new passion for sharing the Gospel.  She dedicates herself full-time to Resurrect Ministry, an online resource that harnesses the power of the Internet to make salvation through Christ available to people of all nations, and her daily podcast

Michelle Obama To High-School Grads: Monitor Your Parents For “Thoughtcrime”

Written by Pete Kasperowicz, The Blaze:

11:24 AM 05/19/2014

There can be no aspect of your daily life that’s removed from politics. Now you will be monitored by your own children for expressing unapproved opinions. You’d better watch what you say at the dinner table, Mom and Dad.

First lady Michelle Obama is encouraging students to monitor their older relatives, friends and co-workers for any racially insensitive comments they might make, and to challenge those comments whenever they’re made.

The first lady spoke on Friday to graduating high school students in Topeka, Kansas, and in remarks released over the weekend, Obama said students need to police family and friends because federal laws can only go so far in stopping racism.

“[O]ur laws may no longer separate us based on our skin color, but nothing in the Constitution says we have to eat together in the lunchroom, or live together in the same neighborhoods,” she said. “There’s no court case against believing in stereotypes or thinking that certain kinds of hateful jokes or comments are funny.”hater up

Oh, if only we could control what other people think and feel. But until that magic day arrives, all we can do is set people against each other based on race, under the guise of “fighting racism.”

“Those of you who know history will recognize this as one of the things Hitler got the children of Germany to do. They turned in their parents. Now the Obama Administration wants the same.” JB

I wonder if this extends toward hateful jokes or comments about white people? Or is that simply considered social justice? After all, those hillbillies have got it coming for possessing the same skin tone as other people who’ve said and done bad things.

Of course, this post is racist because the First Lady is black. If you don’t condemn me for disagreeing with her, you’re a racist too.


Complete MessageVOTE 02




Today’s Politically Incorrect Cartoon


Tyrannical Censorship Alert

Privilege-590-LIComplete Message




Leftist Thought Police emboldened and on a tear

David Limbaugh

Leftist Thought Police emboldened and on a tearBefore I begin, I want to pose a question to the powers that control our society today: Am I allowed to comment on issues that pertain to homosexuality if I don’t echo the views of our masters?

Will people who read this column willingly twist what I say to justify condemnation of anyone who disagrees with them? They certainly do it to many other people.

Note to those waiting for an excuse to pretend to be offended so they can cram their views down our throats with McCarthyite tactics: Please read precisely what I say and don’t draw unwarranted inferences, for there are no hidden meanings here and there is no concealed agenda.

My intent is not to comment on the propriety or normality of homosexual behavior or same-sex marriage, though I will not run from my previously stated position that I oppose formal societal sanctioning of same-sex marriage and believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. So sue me. No, please don’t. That is just an expression. Some of you might take that seriously and test your standing, and in this culture, who knows how that would end up?

What greatly concerns me is the increasing discrimination against people whose views don’t conform to the dictates of the leftist thought and speech police. Have leftists become so emboldened by their organized bullying of their opponents that they openly support outright discrimination and legal penalties against them? In their self-righteous zeal, have they morphed into the very ogres they crusade against?

So what if someone doesn’t believe homosexual marriage ought to be sanctioned? Does that person not have a right to say so without fear of formal reprisal? People who disagree certainly have a right to be offended — if you can call that a right — but do they have a right to be protected from being offended? For example, Miami Dolphins player Don Jones has just been fined and suspended by the Dolphins because he posted two tweets either critical of or making fun of Michael Sam, the first openly gay person to be drafted to the NFL. Jones will be allowed to rejoin the team only after he completes “educational training.”

“That term produces all kinds of evil thought. It conjures up images of “re-education” camps from the days of the USSR. Communist force people into these camps in order the get them to think the way the STATE wants them to think. THAT IS NPT FREEDOM AND THAT IS NOT PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM BEING OFFENDED!’

“Being offended is a CHOICE, not a right not to be offended. I am offended multiple times a day, yet I will lay down my life for the right of the “offending” people to express their thoughts and beliefs. I want the same consideration.” JB

Let’s take it a step further. What if someone believes that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful and also believes in following the Bible? Are we getting to the point that Big Brother not only gets to disapprove of such beliefs but also is entitled to punish and muzzle those who subscribe to them?

“One more time. “Are we getting to the point that Big Brother not only gets to disapprove of such beliefs but also is entitled to punish and muzzle those who subscribe to them?” “JB

Which is a greater evil and which is a greater threat to our formerly free society, to believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and same-sex marriage ought not to be sanctioned or to ban the expression of such thoughts?

“Well?” JB

Leftists can deny that they want to control thought — just as they send another “homophobe” to sensitivity training not to teach him to treat all people well but to re-educate him on the issues. Don’t fool yourselves. The left isn’t simply demanding that we treat all of our fellow men and women with respect; it’s insisting that we all march in lock step with its view of the moral propriety of such relationships.

Are there any proponents of same-sex marriage out there who are concerned by the utter totalitarianism we are moving toward? Will they stand up against it, or will they allow their views to be merged into the dangerous groupthink that is enveloping our collective psyche like the blob?

Particularly disturbing is the left’s despicable tactic to label as haters those who believe in traditional marriage. This is the worst kind of dishonest intimidation I’ve witnessed by a large group in our society in years.

I shouldn’t even have to say this, but people who oppose same-sex marriage do not hate homosexuals. They don’t dislike them. They don’t want them to be mistreated. They just don’t want society to sanction marriage outside its traditional definition.

Christians believe all kinds of behaviors are sinful but don’t consequently hate the sinners, not only because they are commanded not to hate sinners but to love them but also because if they hate sinners, they will hate themselves, as we are all miserable sinners. Is it a stretch for Christians to wonder how long it will be before the expression of some of their views will be outlawed?

“This Christian does.” JB

This appalling effort to taint opponents as haters is rampant because it is what fuels the mob mentality against dissenters and FreeSpeech1-300x204empowers the thought police.

If leftists are so intent on normalizing homosexual behavior, why are they browbeating us with the issue by glorifying homosexuals, demonizing same-sex marriage opponents and sending those who publicly disagree to re-education camps when they can get away with it? Was it really necessary, for example, for President Obama to give a shout out to Michael Sam for being the first openly gay player drafted to the NFL? So what? If homosexuality is normal, then just let it go without comment. Why do leftists have to politicize everything?

I don’t care that Sam is gay and he will play in the NFL. More power to him. I do care about our society’s becoming Stalinist. Do you?

Yes I do David. The evidence of Socialism is growing everyday.” JB

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, “The Great Destroyer,” reached No. 2 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction



Language Bandits — Subtle Enemies of Freedom

By / 24 January 2014


When you think about Orwell’s 1984, it’s easy to go right to the heavy-handed intrusive measures.  Things like Big Brother, the secret police, and midnight arrests make it easy to draw comparisons to today’s IRS and NSA abuses that would have made Nixon blush.  Or the arrest of that guy responsible for the video that “caused” Benghazi.  Or maybe the swelling pseudo-police powers of various non-policing entities now carrying firearms.

But these were not the only threats Orwell saw to citizen freedoms, were they?

A far more subtle, and in a sense, dangerous threat to those freedoms, Orwell called Newspeak.   In his own words:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.

In his book, acceptable boundaries of thought were enforced by shaping — co-opting — language.  We see this today.  Just ask Paula Deen why the word that cost her dearly in her career is ubiquitous in some music genres.  What gives anyone the right to sanitize our speech by force?

  • How else does a Christian Restauranteur’s private opinion about marriage become a national headline?
  • What about Duck Dynasty?  Runaway hit show threatened because one guy said something controversial in an interview?
  • I don’t remember that reaction in ‘08 when Obama said he was “not in favor of gay marriage”.

Instead of using words constructively, to engage conversation, or hammer out differences of ideas, activists and political hacks are short-circuiting political process.  If someone dares say something controversial, two things are considered.  First, “Who said it?”, and second, “What it is said about?”

For example, the word that brought Paula Deen to court was also used by Madonna. Difference?  Madonna is committed to the same values as the P-C police.  Likely, it will cost her nothing.

They play the same game with sexuality.  Gay is a relatively new term.  It replaced other more vulgar, or more accurate words.  Notice they chose an innocuous word synonymous with happy?  People later manufactured the word “homophobe” to bludgeon the noncompliant into submitting to the new orthodoxy. This, too, is selectively enforced.  

Where are the complaints about their treatment in places like Iran, where homosexuals are publicly executed under Islam?  Yet somehow Christians are scapegoats to be reviled for their commitment to traditional marriage.  Do they think only Christians held this view, rather than practically every cultural group in the world (other than our aggressive strain of secularism)?

Maybe I missed it, but around the time Phil Robertson called homosexuality “a sin,” Louis Farrakhan spoke of the Islamic teaching that homosexuals be beheaded or stoned. Where, exactly, was that outrage?  Has a reference to violent death from the religion so often in the news for violence less newsworthy than Phil’s private opinion?

Well, that would overlook one little fact: they aren’t interested in debate, or justice, but naked power.  Like good little thought police, they’re trying to bully people into obedience.  For now, the Islamophobe card seems enough to protect them from charges of “homophobia.”

What can we learn from this?  We can be conscious of their tactics, and use deliberate word choice to frame our own position.  For example,

  • they use ”pro-choice” rather than ”pro-abortion”, it’s more “friendly” even if the latter is more accurate.
  • “Progressive” is used to imply progress, and “forward” (another word often used).

If you use their language, you are already fighting the battle on their turf.  Worse, you may be using terminology they use to stereotype you.

  • Frame your ideas in the context of what you are for, not against.  It lets you define yourself on your own terms.

  • Don’t be afraid to take the gloves off.  If they’re going to invent accusations against you, try to “Judo” that energy back at your attacker.

  • If they call you racist, be ready to show why they are, and you are not.  If they call you a hater, make them prove it. Show them up as cowards, flinging accusations because they have no actual arguments.

Remember how Orwell’s novel had a “Ministry of Truth” that was actually a State-run Propaganda House?

Part of the fight, is to call things what they really are.  Barbara Walters — alleged journalist of no small reputation — said the following: “We thought he was going to be … the next messiah”.

That’s not objective reporting, that’s the language of religious devotion and Personality Cult.  I fail to see how that is meaningfully different from the adulation given a little Austrian with a funny mustache so many years ago.

Above all, when you are dealing with someone that no longer feels the sting of conscience (as any group that rejects the Ten Commandments must be), use ridicule!  Tweak the ego!

Since images and sound bites have become more important than ideas and substance, this can be devastating to those me-monkeys.

Image: Courtesy of: English

“Thought Police” Ban All Words!


Seattle is considering banning the words “brown bag” and “citizen” because the words offendblack people and illegals.

Daniel Greenfield responds, “When Seattle one day gets around to banning all words, because language is inherently offensive to the illiterate, and everyone is reduced to communicating with grunts and emphatic gestures, an era of true tolerance and nomadic lifestyles will be upon us.” That is hilarious Daniel! Well said.

thoughtpoliceGeorge Orwell’s “1984″ prophecy is coming true. Freedom of Speech is dying. Censorship is growing. Controlling language = controlling thoughts. Controlling thoughts is mind control. Zombies. Robots. The walking dead.

Story here.
Story also here.

When I grew up, I was banned from using certain words, not by the government, but by my father. I was banned from saying God’s name in vain, or using it as a curse word. I was also banned from saying euphemisms for God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, i.e. “golly,” “gee,” “gee-whiz,” “gosh,” “holy cow,” etc. I wasn’t allowed to say the “f” word, or the “n” word, or “sh**,” or even “crap.” I didn’t want to. I respected God and my parents and others.

Proverbs 18:21
“Death and life are in the power of the tongue…”

Dad said that the only biological systems used as ‘cuss’ words were the reproductive and the excretory systems. He said the human body was a magnificent masterpiece (Psalm 139) and that using body parts in a derogatory fashion was blasphemous to God, the Creator. I love that. I love that Dad taught me to respect God and the human body, mine and others’. Words are powerful. Using bad language affects your personality and your behavior.

I taught my children the same…


Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: