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 the following.
To understand what Garland is doing with this memo, you’ll need a short primer on the background facts and government legalese.
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 either.
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