Sunday, December 3, 2023
48.7 F

    Latest Posts

    Setting Brushfires of Freedom by Don Jans

    Parents Portrayed As ‘Terrorists’ Sparks Serious Action

    Bob UnruhBy Bob Unruh

    President Joe Biden departs the East Room after delivering remarks on prescription drug costs, Thursday, August 12, 2021, at the White House. (Official White House photo by Adam Schultz)

    The campaign to push leftist agenda points like Critical Race Theory and LGBT activism in public schools – over the objections of parents – now is costing a national school boards organization a key member.

    It got started with a letter from National School Boards Association to the Biden administration demanding he use the nation’s anti-terror laws against parents who object to and oppose the leftist agenda items.

    It progressed to an announcement by Attorney General Merrick Garland that he was siccing the FBI on those parents, triggering a watchdog group to start an investigation of him.

    Now the Governing Board of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association says it is finished with the National School Boards Association.

    The Washington Examiner reports the state group “severed ties” with the national group over its letter “comparing parents’ behavior at school board meetings to ‘domestic terrorism or hate crimes.'”

    Key to the dispute was an aggressive campaign by school officials in Loudon County, Virginia, against a father who challenged officials at a school board meeting who then used law enforcement officers in a brutal physical take-down and arrest.

    The issue the father was reacting to was a false claim that the school’s transgender agenda has resulted in no sexual assaults on students, when in fact the father’s own daughter had been a victim of a male dressed in a skirt who entered a restroom and attacked her.

    School officials knew of the incident, and in fact had transferred the attacker to another school where he allegedly repeated the offense.

    Yet they claimed there had been no such incidents, and the father protested. He now is preparing a lawsuit against the school.

    The Examiner report said the Pennsylvania association confirmed in an internal memo that “the final straw” in the decision to leave was that letter sent to Biden “suggesting that some parents should be considered domestic terrorists.”

    “The Governing Board of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association has voted unanimously to cancel the PSBA’s longstanding membership in the National School Board’s Association,” the memo reportedly said.

    It continued, referencing the national group’s attack on parents, “This misguided approach has made our work and that of many school boards more difficult. Now is not the time for more politics and posturing, it is time for solutions to the many challenges facing education.”

    The NSBA had asked Biden for help from federal law enforcement officials “in quenching the parental anger toward educators and school board officials in regards to mask mandates, curricula such as critical race theory, and other polarizing issues.”

    “As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes,” the letter said.

    In fact, multiple education officials in recent weeks have stated that parents have no part in the education system to which their children are subjected. And often, school boards have called in police officers to arrest parents who are opposing their agenda points.

    The investigation apparently was triggered when it was reported that Garland’s son-in-law is the co-founder of a company that sells material that promotes the radical CRT ideology in classrooms, giving Garland’s family a financial interest in an issue on which he was taking official government action.

    Garland had ordered DOJ’s National Security Division and the FBI to investigate “threatening” parents.

    According to Fox News, “Garland’s directive has been criticized for politicizing DOJ because it came just days after a controversial letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) to President Biden, suggesting that parents pushing back during school board meetings are engaging in ‘domestic terrorism.’ Now, Garland is also under increased scrutiny for his son-in-law’s ties to a company that backs CRT.”

    Stephen Miller , a former adviser to President Donald Trump who founded America First Legal, said there are concerns about “ethical conflicts” when the attorney general is making statements on issues that affect his own family’s financial fortunes.

    “AG Garland ordered the DOJ to use its vast national security powers to target parents who object to Critical Race Theory being forced onto innocent children. It is therefore exceptionally urgent that the Department disclose all records pertaining to the Garland family’s financial interest in Critical Race Theory and any and all ethical conflicts that arise from that financial interest,” Miller explained.

    Garland’s daughter Rebecca married Xan Tanner in 2018. He helped start Panorama Education, which is linked to Facebook as Mark Zuckerberg’s charitable arm gave $16 million to the company for “social-emotional” efforts.

    “Accordingly, Mr. Tanner’s financial interest in a business that benefits from CRT and gender ideology indoctrination might render the attorney general’s participation in measures to promote or protect such activities, including the October 4, 2021 memorandum, ethically problematic,” the organization said.

    WND previously reported a warning from prominent legal commentator Alan Dershowitz that Garland was improperly chilling Americans’ speech with his attack.

    Garland’s statement essentially threatened parents who are opposing their local school boards’ leftist moves, such as promoting transgender ideology and Critical Race Theory discrimination, with FBI investigations.

    “When dealing with protests, the Justice Department must be clear that the First Amendment fully protects all forms of protest, including raucous and unpleasant ones, and that generalized threats and nonviolent intimidation do not overcome this constitutional protection. Protesters must specifically threaten immediate violence against specific individuals. The Supreme Court has upheld vague, generalized advocacy of violence as protected by the First Amendment,” Dershowitz wrote at the Gatestone Institute.

    Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

    - Advertisement -
    0 0 votes
    Article Rating
    Notify of

    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    Latest Posts


    Don't Miss


    To receive the news in your inbox

    Would love your thoughts, please comment.x