The crisis at the southern border could be allowing terrorists to enter the United States. However, the Biden administration does not seem to care. They are more concerned about home-grown terrorists otherwise known as “parents.”
On Monday, Attorney General Merrick
Garland directed the Department of Justice and the FBI to “launch a series of
additional efforts in the coming days designed to address the rise in criminal
conduct directed toward school personnel.” In plain language, he is concerned
about the increasing number of parents attending school board meetings and
demanding that schools stop indoctrinating their children.
Garland did not include any examples
or evidence of terroristic actions. GianCarlo Canaparo and Mike Howell suggested
that the memo from Garland “looks like an effort to use the FBI to threaten and
silence parents who are outspoken opponents of critical race theory in schools.”
They emphasized that being interrogated by FBI agents could be intimidating to
parents. It is possible that Garland does not intend to use the FBI but is
hoping that the memo will do the intimidating. Canaparo and Howell explained
To understand what Garland is doing with
this memo, you’ll need a short primer on the background facts and government
Starting with the facts: What is this “rise
in criminal conduct” against school officials? You won’t find any evidence
cited in Garland’s memo. You won’t find any evidence in the FBI’s crime data
The memo may be the result of a
letter sent by the National School Boards Association to President Joe Biden.
The authors wrote, “That letter made vague claims about ‘threats and acts of
violence’ against school board members from parents who oppose critical race
theory.” They continued, “The letter complained about ‘disruptions’ by angry
parents but managed to find only one example of violence against a school
official (likely a security guard), which was handled by local law enforcement.”
It is a sad day when the Attorney General answer
does the bidding of school boards. The authors call this a clear “example of
political influence seeping into the DOJ.” However, “Garland’s weaponization of
the DOJ has a problem: There is no conceivable basis for federal law
enforcement action against these parents.” Canaparo and Howell summarized the
situation as follows.
First, there is no reason to bring federal
law enforcement into this; local authorities have this under control.
Second, Garland has demonstrated,
disappointingly, that he is beholden to powerful leftist political groups and
perfectly happy to let them use the threat of federal government’s law
enforcement power to suppress their critics’ right to free speech. The promised
impendence of the DOJ is a farce.
Third, it is more important to Garland to
spend scarce law enforcement resources appeasing liberal interest groups than
on more pressing national concerns.
Fourth, some good news, parents need not
be afraid. It is their constitutional right to push back in legal ways against
schools teaching children critical race theory.
The bottom line is: “Go forth to the
school boards and make your voices heard.” Parents have the right and the
responsibility to be involved in the education of their children