More on the DOJ’s war against protesting parents – and on fighting back
Even before January 6th, the left had been preparing the way for the new DOJ to proclaim that domestic terrorists of the right are the greatest threat to the republic. It’s long been a leftist message, just as “Islamophobia” is far worse to them than the myriad hate crimes of anti-Semitism. January 6th was a golden opportunity that may have (and IMHO probably was) aided and abetted by FBI undercover agents in the same way that the Whitmer “kidnapping” case was used right before the November 2020 election to stir up fear against the right. I’ve written many times about the connection between these things, and Glenn Greenwald has done great work summing up the situation (see this, for example).
The next step has been to weaponize the DOJ against parents protesting leftist indoctrination in the schools. Now a nonprofit organization called American First Legal has sent this letter to IG Horowitz. Here are some of the claims in the letter (which is titled “Request for Investigation Regarding Potential Improprieties Related to the October 4, 2021, Attorney General’s Memorandum”):
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized American parents’ fundamental liberty interest in and Constitutional right to control and direct the education of their own children. On this basis alone, the nationwide protests by parents against public school policies and practices—regarding Critical Race Theory indoctrination; anti-religious and anti-family gender ideology; and/or force online education and mask mandates—are entitled to the most robust federal constitutional protection. Instead, in light of the Attorney General’s Memorandum of October 4, 2021, it appears the Department of Justice is committing the full weight of its federal law enforcement resources to prevent parents from exercising constitutionally-protected rights and privileges, for inappropriate partisan purposes.
We already know that. But the letter adds this:
In early September, Biden Administration stakeholders held discussions regarding avenues for potential federal action against parents with a key Biden Domestic Policy Council official (Jane Doe #1) and White House staff (John Doe #1). Stakeholders also held discussions with senior department officials, including at least one political appointee in the department’s Civil Rights Division (Jane Doe #2). Jane Doe #1, John Doe #1, and others in the White House separately expressed concern regarding the potential partisan political impact of parent mobilization and organization around school issues in the upcoming midterm elections.
• Upon information and belief, at the express direction of or with the express consent of Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2 and other Biden Administration officials developed a plan to use a letter from an outside group (“not the usual suspects”) as pretext for federal action to chill, deter, and discourage parents from exercising their constitutional rights and privileges.
• Upon information and belief, in or about mid-September work began on development of what became the Attorney General’s Memorandum. Concerns expressed by department staff included (1) the absence of federal law enforcement nexus and authority, and (2) the constitutionally protected nature of parent protests. However, Jane Doe #2 made it clear this was a White House priority and a deliverable would be created.
• On or about September 29, citing legal authorities including the Patriot Act, the “National School Boards Association” made public a letter demanding federal action against parents citing authorities including the Patriot Act….
• On October 4, the Attorney General’s Memorandum was made public. The short time frame between the September 29 letter and the Attorney General’s Memorandum suggests that either the entire matter was precoordinated and the September 29 but pretext, or that the normal clearance process and standard order both within the department (including legal sufficiency review by the Office of Legal Counsel, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division, the Office of Legal Policy, and other components), and between the department and the White House Counsel’s Office and the Office of Management and Budget, were bypassed or corrupted.
• On October 5, there was a follow up call involving, inter alia, the White House Counsel’s Office, Jane Doe # 2, and many other Biden Administration political and career officials. The briefing included how to talk about “equity” initiatives, avoid liability for violating discrimination laws, and hide “equity” measures, initiatives, and action from Freedom of Information Act disclosure.
This is very easy to believe, based on what we’ve seen lately in terms of leftist planning and collusion by the government and the coverup of the planning and collusion. Now it also appears that someone in the DOJ and/or the Biden administration isn’t altogether happy with the program. This person (or persons) hasn’t quit, but has decided it might be more helpful to leak.
Will anything come of it? Will there be such an investigation? Will most people even hear about this, or care?
The idea of this initiative against protesting parents is not necessarily to arrest them but to frighten them into submission for fear of arrest, and also to make the gullible portion of the American public believe that such protestors are terrorists (much as they got a lot of people to think the Tea Party was composed of racists, or that Trump supporters were all white supremicists).
But here’s one person who isn’t cowed:
Solas: In the beginning, I was very nervous to go public because I had never had media attention. I had never really wanted it. But I felt like it was necessary because my school was publicly attacking me. And I felt like I had to have a public response to show them that I wasn’t just going to quietly let them walk all over me. …
They wanted to publicly humiliate me. They paid a PR firm to call me a racist in the national media. So they really wanted to ostracize me from my community…
Garland is having multilevel law enforcement meetings as if parents truly are domestic terrorists, like the National School Boards Association said we were. And it’s scary because you’re starting to see how this fits into this broader political narrative where the federal government is really trying to purge ideological opponents…
So [in] this crazy time that we’re living in, I can’t even believe it’s happening, you really learn who’s willing to put their boots on your neck, given the opportunity…
I mean, I posted a tweet that said, “Arrest me.” I mean, I dare you to do something about me going to my school committee meetings and asking questions of the people that I pay to educate my kid. I mean, I dare you, arrest parents. … Fine, go. I mean, do we really want to destroy the country?…
I mean, we have legitimate concerns and now the FBI wants to intimidate us and have a chilling effect on parents who simply want to know what their kids are learning and they want to have a say if what their kids are learning is not appropriate. So, that’s my response.
I know other people are scared—it’s not to dismiss being scared, this is the federal government and they have power over us and we need to take it seriously—but we need to not stick our heads in the sand and the fence. If they’re trying to chill our speech, then we need to talk louder and we need to talk more and we can’t let them chill our speech.
Well, I think parents need to be assured that you’re going to have more support than you think, because it’s like a domino effect. When one parent speaks out, another parent feels like it’s safe for them to speak out. And you just need one person to start that.
The whole interview is worth reading. This is a woman with guts.
No comments:
Post a Comment