Attorney General Garland and the “Unobstrusive” Federal Monitoring of School Board Meetings

In the 1946 move, “Terror by Night,” Sherlock Holmes assures Lady Margaret that, while he and Dr. Watson would be hanging around, “we’ll be as unobtrusive as possible.” Lady Margaret correctly responds “That would be a novelty from a policeman.” That scene came to mind when Attorney General Merrick Garland testified in Congress to assure members that he does not believe that parents protesting at school board meetings are domestic terrorists. He insists that there was nothing to be worried about because the FBI would simply be monitoring what these parents say or do at school meetings. Promises of such “unobtrusive” investigations or operations ignore the obvious: any national enforcement or monitoring effort is by definition obtrusive, particularly when it comes to free speech.

Garland’s testimony came after the Justice Department announced that it would be creating a national effort to “address threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,” including “open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.” It came shortly after the National School Boards Association asked for such action, including the possible use of the Patriot Act against individuals deemed threatening to board members. While the Justice Department memo itself does not mention domestic terrorists or the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s press release pledged to include the National Security Division in the effort.

Garland repeatedly assured the members that he knows of no basis for alleging domestic terrorism in these school board meetings. He further pledged that he will not use such laws against parents objecting to critical race theory or other issues at these meetings. However, those answers only begged the question of why the Justice Department has pledged this broad effort to monitor and respond to threats at these meetings. If these are not matters of domestic terrorism, why is the Justice Department implementing this effort? The letter does not cite any pattern of criminal threats or their interstate or federal profile.

There is no question that any such threats need to be aggressively prosecuted.  Moreover, some threats using interstate communications or interstate conduct can satisfy federal jurisdiction, but such local threats are rarely matters of federal enforcement. Indeed, I raised the same concerns when the Justice Department took over rioting cases in Wisconsin, Washington, and other states.

When asked about alleged sexual assaults in Loudon County, Virginia in school bathrooms involving a transgender student, Garland insisted that such violence sounds like a “local case” and the Justice Department would not be involved. Yet, the Justice Department just announced it would get involved with any such threats or violence in school board meetings. These meetings involve core political speech on issues that are deeply dividing the country. If the Justice Department is going to launch a national effort to address possible crimes in such meetings, it has a heightened duty to explain the basis for an effort based on federal criminal conduct.

State and local laws offer ample means to address criminal threats or violence. Only a handful of such cases have been cited, largely cases of unruly or disruptive conduct in the meetings. While General Garland pledges fealty to the First Amendment, there is a fair concern over the impact of his memo on such free speech activities. First Amendment cases are often more concerned with the “chilling effects” on free speech as opposed to direct government action. Recently, the Supreme Court struck down a California law requiring the reporting of charity donors. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court that “When it comes to the freedom of association, the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough.”

Telling parents that the Justice Department is monitoring school board meetings creates an obvious chilling effort on speech. It is like a police car following you on the highway for miles just to see if you violate any law. It has an impact on how you act. Indeed, the purpose of the National School board letter seemed designed to have that effect. The Justice Department then amplified that effect by quickly announcing it would carry out the national effort and released a press statement referring to various departments being brought into the fight, including the National Security Division. While Garland may pledge to be as “unobtrusive as possible,” it would be quite a “novelty” to succeed.



235 thoughts on “Attorney General Garland and the “Unobstrusive” Federal Monitoring of School Board Meetings”

  1. Could any constitutionally oath-sworn official pass a “First Amendment test”? Could any official correctly distinguish between legal and illegal speech or assembly? Until officials can pass such a test, they have no business monitoring anyone. How can police something you aren’t an expert on?

    This is not to disparage the subordinate officials following orders from above, but agency leaders rarely provide this education to their constitutionally oath-sworn constitutional officers. If they can’t pass the test, they shouldn’t be policing speech or thought. They took a supreme loyalty oath which includes following the First Amendment restraints on authority!

    1. The oath has no teeth. So let’s give it some teeth. If those that swear fidelity to the constitution vote in favor of a bill that is ruled by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional, then they should lose a committee seat for the first offense. For the 2nd offense, they should lose voting privileges for the term. For the third offense, they should lose their eligibility for reelection and a lifetime ban for public service.

        1. Tar & feather come to mind as well.

          How about a civics literacy test for those elected. The power of their vote would be equivalent to their score. Or, require voters to take the same test. The individual elected would have voting power equal to the average of their constituents.

      1. You’d likely need to amend the Constitution for such a rule.

        In addition, many people who swear an oath to the Constitution are not legislators, and even for those who are, SCOTUS chooses not to hear the majority of cases that are appealed. Many bills that are instead determined by Circuit Courts of Appeal and State Supreme Courts to be unconstitutional.

      2. Olly, that’s a great idea. The entire premise of a civilized society is that there are publicly posted laws (not secret laws) so that citizens can attempt to comply with the rules. If citizens stay within the legal lines, they are left alone by the government. If citizens cross the legal lines of the law, then and only then, it’s “probable cause” of a crime under the 4th Amendment.

        The investigator then files an affidavit (under legal penalty of jail time) that the facts and evidence merit a search warrant to search computers, cell phone tracking, physical searches, etc. If a judge or magistrate agrees the judicial-warrant is granted.

        What appears to be happening today, is legal First Amendment activity is viewed as “probable cause” to investigate the citizen. A judicial warrant is never applied for or granted and a citizen is investigated and blacklisted FOR LIFE for complying with the law – NOT violating any laws.

        The U.S. Supreme Court has a top duty to permanently end this type of Cointelpro style blacklisting. Merrick Garland also has a duty to end this illegal practice that subverts the constitutional rule of law. Congress outlawed this practice in the 1970’s during the Church Committee Reports following Watergate, when Senator Frank Church exposed wrongdoing by J. Edgar Hoover.

        A nation simply can’t have a civilized society with secret laws and shadow government that subverts the public laws.

  2. OT —

    SCOTUS has granted cert with an accelerated schedule in two cases about SB8, the TX abortion law. Arguments will be heard on Nov. 1 in:

    Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, No. 21-463
    Issue(s): Whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.


    U.S. v. Texas, No. 21-588
    Issue(s): Whether the United States may bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit Texas Senate Bill 8 from being enforced.

    Will Turley finally address the horrendous TX law that attempts to evade judicial scrutiny by outsourcing enforcement to the general public?

    The court chose not to stay enforcement of the law in the interim. Once again, Justice Sotomayor appropriately takes the court majority to task for this failure:

    1. Steve Vladeck (UT Austin law prof, has argued before SCOTUS):
      “FWIW, this is #SCOTUS moving *stunningly* fast. The last time I can recall so little time (here, 10 days) between the Court agreeing to take up a case and the oral argument was in December 2000, in Bush v. Gore.”

      Not much time for amici to pull together briefs, but I expect there will be some.

      Here are the SCOTUSblog case pages:

      Max Kennerly (trial lawyer):
      “The district court devoted 90 pages to explaining why it was enjoining Texas’s abortion bounty law, pp 22-112 … The injunction was thrown out by the Fifth Circuit, which SCOTUS just affirmed, without either providing even a single sentence explaining why.”

      Justice Sotomayor is right that “every day the Court fails to grant relief is devastating, both for individual women and for our constitutional system as a whole.” Letting the Fifth Circuit stay stand, without reason or explanation, is wholly inappropriate.

      1. America is not a society of laws.

        America is a fraud, a society of crimes against its Constitution, against legislated and fundamental law, since 1860.

      2. Justice Sotomayor is a dangerous person who has no business sitting on the highest court of the land. She does not even have a basic understanding of the Constitution.. or she simply ignores it. This is person who actually believed in FORCED LABOR.

        “On May 16 at an American Law Institute meeting, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that she was in favor of forced labor – at least to the extent of compelling lawyers to do enough pro bono work so that poor people in America can have legal representation when they need it.May 24, 2016”

        1. She is not a dangerous person. She has an excellent understanding of the Constitution.

          She said “If I had my way, I would make pro bono service a requirement” for lawyers. They would be paid for their time, just as current pro bono lawyers are.

          Perhaps you also object to MD and DC requiring that students complete a certain number of volunteer service learning hours in order to graduate from high school. Perhaps you also object to a military draft. Perhaps you object to diverse professions requiring people to complete paid internships as part of their degree requirements (for example, doctors). Perhaps you object to prison labor in the US. Etc. That you object to these things does not make them unconstitutional.

    2. So what you’re saying is that the Supreme Court should support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and enforce the “law” NOW, but it should have subverted and supported the violation of law and fundamental law as far back as 1860, when Lincoln illegally denied fully constitutional secession through malice and violence, commenced an unconstitutional war with a sovereign foreign nation, unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus as Chief Justice Taney told him, confiscated legally deeded property and failed to deport illegal aliens, which the freed slaves became in 1863 under the Naturalization Act of 1802, and the Supreme Court should have supported the “progressive” nullification of the Constitution and the imposition of communism as the American welfare state, which is in egregious and clear violation of Article 1, Section 8, which restricts the power of Congress to tax to “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity, and provides Congress the power to regulate only money, commerce and land and naval Forces, and the 5th Amendment right to private property which is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute?

      So you’re saying the SCOTUS should deliberate the unassailable power of states to legislate abortion, murder, etc., and it should ignore centuries of violations of fundamental law by rogue liberal governments which have eliminated the entire American thesis and “…fundamentally transform[ed] the United States of America…” into a one-party communist state, a communist Gulag?

      What? SCOTUS should engage in more corruption on behalf of the global communist Deep Deep State, or it’s time for the Supreme Court to finally do its sworn duty and support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution as it severely limits and restricts government while implementing maximal, individual freedom and self-reliance?

  3. “We tend to look at the Justice Department and the FBI as our personal team of Brownshirts to achieve our political ends.”–Merrick Garland, testifying under the influence of sodium pentothal.

  4. “He insists that there was nothing to be worried about because the FBI would simply be monitoring…”

    Like FISA?

    Garland refused to respond directly to questions that involved parents. I think from his lack of answers, we can assume he is trying to hide the truth.

    They want to look at our checkbooks.

    They want vaccine passports.

    Everything points to a fascist-style government.

    1. Alan, are you aware that Trumpists over-use the term ‘fascist’ to the point where said term essentially means NOTHING?

      In fact, the current definition of ‘Facist’ could be: ‘An empty cliche used by American conservatives to describe any government policy they don’t like’.

      1. “Alan, are you aware that Trumpists over-use the term ‘fascist’ to the point where said term essentially means NOTHING?”

        Yes, but that is the nature of our government today. I also am aware that paint chips can have lead in them, so I advise people not to eat paint chips.

        1. Anonymous, Republicans control half of government today. And policies like the Texas Abortion law are widely considered irresponsible in the minds of many people. Any law that depends on citizen snitches for enforcement is North Korean in nature. So don’t pretend Republicans aren’t behing the most onerous of policies.

          1. “Anonymous, Republicans control half of government “

            1) So what?
            2) One vote is all that is generally needed to promote a certain policy.

            Do you have any understanding of how government works?

        2. Anonymous,

          “ Yes, but that is the nature of our government today.”

          You don’t even know what fascism is.

          1. Really? Does that mean you are ready to debate the meaning of fascism and its relationship to socialism and nazism? Italian fascism sprang from socialism. Additionally the Marxist concept of class warfare wasn’t the only concept of how the change would occur. It was felt by Marx to be the most likely in the near future. All we are seeing is another type of warfare.

            Now let us hear your take on fascism. LOL

            1. Anonymous wants us to forget real history and think Hitler and Stalin were friends. It’s what’s known as ‘Trumpist-Revisionist History’. It only goes back to 2016. But this is the type of history militias want schools to teach.

              1. One doesn’t judge political association based on who is friends with whom. You don’t know what you are talking about and are ignorant to that fact.

            2. Anonymous, fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

              So how is it that the left are fascists?

              Antifa are anti-fascists. Shouldn’t you be supporting antifa if you consider our current government fascist?

              1. Firstly nazism and Italian fascism are related to socialism. Look at their respective histories. Gentile was a socialist and created what we know today as Italian fascism. I can’t remember the names of the important socialists responsible for nazism.

                Let us create a comparison.


                4)libertarian / classical liberal

                Who supports big government? 1,2,3
                Who supports small government? 4

                We can start off there. Do you wish to differ with my characterization? Then we can go to the next major feature.

                  1. No one said they were the same. You made that up. They have many characteristics in common and their founders were frequently socialists. Ask Giovani Gentile and he will be a major figure responsible for the books defining Italian fascism (He even wrote the one said to be authored by Benito Mussolini.)

                    Do you have someone better that could knowledgeably correct Giovani Gentile?

              2. , fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian

                Right and left are meaningless in this discussion. Are you talking left and right in England? 1900 or 2000, western hemisphere eastern hemisphere?

                my politics are constitutional republicanism. Freedom from Govt overreach, Federal govt of enumerated, limited power (hint a govt that has zero jurisdiction connected to local school boards)States control and rule the feds, not the other way around.
                Am I left or right?

              3. “Antifa are anti-fascists.”

                Nobody is that gullible.

                Your description of fascism is grossly over-broad (and “far-right” is meaningless).

                Fascism is a type of statism — government control over the individual’s life and property. What distinguishes it from, say, communism is that under fascism, the individual retains title to property (and nominal rights) — but they are “rights” in name only. The government has total control over the use and disposition of those “rights.”

                Here is a description of Nazi Germany’s brand of fascism:

                “What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.”


                If that sounds familiar, it should. Fascism is the brand of statism suffocating America. (See bakeries, restaurants and other businesses under Covid fascism, speech under Garland, private property use restricted by governments, and the entire “Green New Deal.”)

      2. Anonymous:

        Gentile, the father of Fascism, learned much from Marxism. However, he disagreed in the inevitability of class warfare. Instead, he wanted government to take away individual rights for the “greater good”, in his case the good of Italy.

        in the Left’s case, they would deny individual rights for the “greater good”, as THEY define it. They seek a global hegemony, and socialism. The rhetoric is socialist and decidedly anti-capitalist.

        They would deny the right to free speech to anyone who disagrees, including their own. They will turn on a dime and attack J K Rowling for declaring that women are more than “people who menstruate”, against a theater professor who urged people not to jump to conclusions when they read a list of names on a whiteboard, and against Jon Stewart for pointing out that the origin of Covid-19 was probably the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where they were studying gain of function in bat coronaviruses at the epicenter of the pandemic. They eat their own if they don’t toe the party line on every single thing.

        They claim they want to emulate capitalist Scandinavia, yet they want to employ the policies of Venezuela and North Korea.

        Antifa, on the other hand, labels anyone who disagrees with them as Fascist, and capitalism in general as fascism. They don’t seem to understand that their attacks on free speech is ironically fascist. They assault little old ladies, and impoverish minority business owners, crazily thinking they are fascist.

        If you want to take away individual rights, to empower government, for the “common good”, as defined by the hard Left, then you’ve got Fascist tendencies.

        Defending the individual rights set forth in our Constitution, and seeking a limited government, by definition, cannot be Fascist.

      3. Anonymous, it’s part of the interchangeable number of denigrations of things they don’t like. First it was socialist, then Marxist, then communist, then back to Marxist now fascist. Ironically ANTIFA are anti-fascists. They are essentially aligning with Antifa OR they ARE unknowingly being members of ANTIFA.

        Given that the majority have no idea what those terms mean makes it that much more humorous.

        1. “First it was socialist, then Marxist, then communist, then back to Marxist now fascist.”

          No matter what alias or lack of alias you write under everything remains the same. You are ignorant and do not realize the close relationship between Marxism, communism, socialism, nazism and fascism.

          When you destroy your brain with drugs, alcohol or lead, the results are the same; ignorance.

          1. Anonymous,

            “ No matter what alias or lack of alias you write under everything remains the same. You are ignorant and do not realize the close relationship between Marxism, communism, socialism, nazism and fascism.”

            There is no close relationship between those ideologies. There is a reason why they are all their own distinct categories. The right is often ignorant of the distinctions between all of them and rather than make an effort to understand their differences they resort to being lazy and just conflate all of them as being the same.

            PS, I’ve never used an alias.

            1. “There is no close relationship between those ideologies. “

              Who was the accepted founder of Italian fascism? Giovani Gentile. What was his ideology? Socialist.

              That is a close relationship.

              1. Anonymous,

                “ Who was the accepted founder of Italian fascism? Giovani Gentile. What was his ideology? Socialist.”

                “ What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments has been a complicated and highly disputed subject concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets debated amongst historians, political scientists, and other scholars since Benito Mussolini first used the term in 1915. Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that “trying to define ‘fascism’ is like trying to nail jelly to the wall”

                He applied a different construct a personal interpretation of socialism. One often forget that socialism isn’t one specific ideology either. There is democratic socialism and there’s the socialism that the nazi party used.

                Like I said. There is a reason why there are distinct categories that are unique in their own. Those using the terms, especially ignorant republicans, conflate. those terms as being the same.

                1. Yes, defining fascism is difficult, but it has defining characteristics that differ drastically from the classical liberal/ libertarian. It is the characteristics that determine the different brands of fascism. No ideology is entirely pure, but Marx at times referred to socialism and communism interchangeably. The meanings behind socialism have radically changed.

                  Democratic socialism incorporates some of socialism and is a new construct. Democratic states such as Sweden often pointed to HAVING private property. Capitalism depends on private property. Libertarianism and classical liberalism also rely on private property. There are varying degrees and types of control over businesses in the fascistic states, fascism, nazism, socialism and communism. Though some would say, the state ceases to exist in a pure communist state.

                  When you look at the various ideologies, you need to note the similarities and differences of their significant characteristics.

                  There is private property and less central control in classical liberalism, libertarianism and capitalism (economic).
                  Nazism, socialism, fascism have central control. These forms of government look towards larger government and powers over what is printed along with freedom of speech.

                  Separate nationalism from the ideologies because all of the ideologies can be nationalistic and militaristic or not. Part of the split between Stalin and Trotsky had to do with their perception of nationalism and militarism along with expansionism.

                  In the end, fascism is hard to define because it can be defined in many different ways, but Italian fascism, nazism, and socialism come from the same seed.

                  I will sign my alias because this is a legitimate discussion.

                  1. Svelaz, I note all the big words and statements you make, but in the end, I note you never reply to any facts that prove your contentions wrong. Above are several similarities between the various fascist ideologies. You ran away from the truth again.

                    You can run away, but you cannot hide unless you choose to change your icon again and deny the change.

                    The characteristics labeling these various ideologies won’t change, so you either have to fess up to your ignorance now or later or fess up under a new alias.

                    Does ignorance have your tongue?

            2. “PS, I’ve never used an alias.”

              If a previous alias lied, why wouldn’t a present alias also lie?

              (By the way, sometimes people with multiple aliases screw up. Look for yourself.)

              1. Anonymous, still doesn’t prove I used aliases. I’ve never used one here. On the other hand. You have. Everyone knows it.

                  1. We know who you are and your brothers and sisters, even this one. You have a long list of names. When I write something important, I use my Identifiable alias. When I write to you I don’t bother because seldom do you say anything of value.

                    I’m hoping you engaged in the discussion of fascism because that would be of value, but based on past experience I don’t think that engagement will occur in the emails that I have yet to read.

            3. ” . . . the close relationship between Marxism, communism, socialism, nazism and fascism.”

              Your reply: “There is no close relationship between those ideologies.”

              So, if you look at a group of bananas, apples, and oranges, do you conclude: There is no close relationship among them? That there is not a broader concept that unites them all?

              There is, in fact, an essential common denominator among those political concepts. They are all types of statism — the notion that government exists to control and rule the individual’s life and property. Their distinctive characteristics are merely variations on that theme.

        2. “. . . the majority have no idea what those terms mean . . .”

          The majority have no idea what any political concepts mean, e.g., capitalism, rights, government, statism, censorship, et al. And it’s not “humorous.” It’s tragic.

          However, general public ignorance does not negate the fact that those terms do have objective definitions and specific meanings.

  5. “[T]he Justice Department [] monitoring school board meetings creates an obvious chilling effort on speech.”

    Which, of course, is every fascist’s goal: To suffocate dissent.

    And the tyrant’s dishonest strategy is always the same: Create a seemingly plausible pretext (“threats against school administrators”), while leaving the key concept (“threats”) intentionally undefined (or non-objectively defined). That gives the fascists unlimited power to declare that a “threat” is whatever they claim it is.

    It is no accident that the Biden administration kowtows to the CCP. Birds of a feather.

  6. School Board Meetings Under Attack

    School Boards have become the targets of so-called ‘Christian’ activists who are little more than White Supremicists. In many cases these groups are incensed by the possibility that ‘Critical Race Theory’ is being taught.

    Although ‘Critical Race Theory’ reads ‘Critical Of Whites Theory’ to conservatives, there is no specific academic curriculum known by that name. The term only refers to a broad set of ideals regarding the history of Black Americans and which issues should be covered in the teaching of history.

    But reams of misinformation have been generated to demonize Critical Race Theory. Consequently so-called White ‘Christian’ groups are targeting school Board meetings for ugly demonstrations to intimidate school board members. The Anti-Vaxer/Mask forces are also a big factor. These arch-conservative elements seek to make school boards the brunt of many grievances.

    The truth is that school board positions, in most communities, are volunteer jobs that pay only minor stipends if ‘any’ compensation. Yet school board members now feel like pawns in culture wars. Many are receiving death threats; especially non-Whites.

    One suspects the forces intimidating school boards are largely the same people harassing abortion providers; so-called White ‘Christians’ linked to far-right militias. Yet cynics like Johnathan Turley portray these forces as ‘victims of liberal over-reach’. They are not!! America’s educational system is doomed if school board members find themselves chronically under siege.

    1. Anonymous:

      Yes, CRT is being incorporated into curriculum. It’s called by different names, such as Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.

      Anything that judges or discriminates against students based on race is unethical and immoral. Of course parents object to racist curriculum. Why don’t you? Why aren’t you out there at school board meetings, protesting racial discrimination? Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Atheist parents have all been protesting the racist additions to curriculum, as well as other hard Left bigotry making its way into classrooms.

      All schools should ban any curriculum or policies that discriminate based on race. Note the “based on race” aspect, as that’s key. If 3 Philipinno and 1 Caucasian student break into a classroom, it’s not racially discriminatory to reprimand all 4 equally because the rule was applied equally.

      But the anti-Christian bigoted Left try to portray parental involvement in schools as a Christian movement. Actually, if you put your ear to the ground, you would discover that many Democrats are getting sick of the hard Left turn in public schools, and are very concerned at how it is harming children.

      Do you support harming children?

      1. Karen, what are you babbling about??? Do you even know..?
        Name a school district that is teaching a ‘racist curriculum’.

        The truth is that most schools put great emphasis on reading and arithmetic at the expense of Social Sciences. Not much history is being taught anywhere.

        1. Anonymous:

          You clearly have not researched this issue. Any curriculum that discriminates against students based on race is a racist curriculum. It has been repackaged as Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, yet it is founded on the racist principle of judging students based on race.

          Before you condemn parents who object to the CRT based curriculum, you should spend a few minutes looking into it. It is YOUR JOB to get informed.

          It doesn’t matter what they call it – CRT, EDI, or Sparly Rainbows. What matters is that parents do not want curriculum to racially discriminate against anyone.

          1. Karen, concerned parents can always campaign for school board positions and work within the system. But this idea that school board meetings need to be a battle zones is Trumpist / militia thinking.

            1. Anonymous – voicing displeasure is not a “battle zone” unless used metaphorically. It’s simply free speech. When school boards are not responsive to parent concerns, then they are recalled or voted out. That’s been happening, as part of the democratic process.

              People die or are maimed in actual battle zones. If you’re using the term metaphorically, then absolutely elections and school board meetings are battle zones.

              You might not like this process, but you should not mischaracterize a democratic process of voicing displeasure, and recalling or voting out unresponsive school board members as some sort of domestic terrorism. That’s slanderous propaganda.

              If and when any individual makes a terrorist threat or otherwise breaks the law, then they are charged. It’s propaganda to claim that upset parents are terrorists.

              People including Republicans, moderate Democrats, the vanishing breed of actual Liberals, and Libertarians are all fed up with hard Left policies. They’re pushing back. Expect this to happen more and more, especially as crime goes up due to the defunding of police, gas goes up due to the attack on domestic energy, and kids come home from school crying because their teacher told them they were oppressors due to their skin color.

      2. “Yes, CRT is being incorporated into curriculum. It’s called by different names, such as Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. ”

        No, Karen, CRT is not a synonym for equity, and it’s not a synonym for diversity, and it’s not a synonym for inclusion.

        EdWeek: “The core idea [of CRT] is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.”

        Every state has curriculum standards, and I bet that all of them require social studies teachers to teach about things like slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement. Teaching about these things requires that teachers and students discuss race. Teaching about these things is not teaching CRT.

        Sounds like you have a misunderstanding of what CRT is and isn’t.

        1. “EdWeek: “The core idea [of CRT] is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

          CRT is injecting racism into our children. Enough examples have been provided on this blog that ATS already knows what has happened in many schools. He makes sure he omits mention of that in his answers. That demonstrates he is being deceptive and lying by omission, pretending these examples never occurred.

          That is a hateful attitude towards children. Only despicable people can be so mean.

          By the way, the school systems were teaching the Civil War etc. long before CRT entered the school system. Only racists provide the type of rhetoric ATS provides.

        2. Anonymous, don’t fall for this. Don’t be a cog in a wheel. This is not a misunderstanding of CRT. Democrats are pushing propaganda that CRT does not exist outside of academia. The most rudimentary research will show that this is not true.

          Stop accepting what you’re told and look it up. Attend school board meetings. Review No Left Turn in Education. Ask parents what they’re worried about. Ask for curriculum examples that parents object to. If all you do is tell parents to disbelieve their own lying eyes and ears, then you’re willfully blind.

          Make an effort to understand.

          Schools already taught about slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil War… It’s a spurious claim that somehow children were shielded by a Democrat-run public education system from the realities of slavery. Rather, they’ve been shielded from the global phenomenon of slavery, which still exists today. Girls as young as 12 in Afghanistan have been ensalved, forced to marry Taliban soldiers against their will. Slavery still exits in Africa.

          CRT is not simply discussing the real facts on the terrible institution of slavery, which has existed since the dawn of mankind. Rather, it involves the philosophy that all white people are racist oppressors and all minorities are oppressed, that our nation was founded on racism even thought the 1619 Project has been thoroughly discredited.

          1. Karen, you are debating Humpty Dumpty. When ever you point out the real facts proving him wrong, he chages the definitions of everything.
            Schools are not teaching CRT yet the teachers union has set aside $million do defend teachers being disciplined for teaching something that only get discussed in colleges

          2. I did look it up, Karen. That’s how I came across the quote that I included from EdWeek.

            If you don’t like that brief description, we can move on to longer discussions of what “critical race theory” means, who introduced the phrase and where, etc., such as this Encyclopaedia Britannica discussion:

            You claim “This is not a misunderstanding of CRT.” So present the definition of CRT that you are using and identify the source of your definition, and let’s see whether it is consistent with the encyclopedia. If need be, we can also turn to the primary documents: articles by the researchers who coined the phrase/concept.

            “Stop accepting what you’re told and look it up. … Make an effort to understand.”

            I am already doing those things Karen. Stop being so condescending. It’s not productive.

            “it involves the philosophy that all white people are racist oppressors and all minorities are oppressed, that our nation was founded on racism”

            No, it doesn’t claim either of the first two things, only the third, and you cannot honestly deny that racism was built into the founding of the US (for example, at our founding, voting rights were limited to white male property owners — this is clearly a racist choice, just as it is a sexist choice and a classist choice).

            So there’s clearly a problem with your understanding of what CRT is, since you’re making false claims about it. How about you try again: present a definition of CRT that doesn’t make false claims about it.

            BTW, by “minorities,” were you referring only to racial minorities in the US, or also you including other minorities (ethnic minorities, religious minorities, etc.)?

      3. I doubt ATS would directly support harming children, but when it comes to his ideology ATS is dangerous to children.

      4. Yes, CRT is being incorporated into curriculum. It’s called by different names, such as Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.

        You might find this article interesting regarding the Left’s Equity, Diveristy, and Inclusion fundamentalism. The author explains today’s challenge for Conservatives having any influence in the academy.

        This request, though unusual, made sense. Christendom is a fiercely independent confessional college and a bastion of conservative Catholicism. It refuses all federal funding in pursuit of its educational apostolate, and its faculty make a yearly profession of faith and oath of fidelity. Thus the orthodoxy of the faculty is central to the mission of the college; its students, alumni, and donors expect nothing less. As a practicing Catholic, I was happy to write the statement and overjoyed to accept the job.

        Less than a decade has passed since I was on the job market, but the world has changed dramatically. What was peculiar to Christendom in 2013 has become common practice in 2021. It is now difficult to find a job posting in the humanities that does not require some sort of profession of faith—albeit in a radically different creed.

        Consider this recent job posting from my alma mater:

        Purdue University’s Department of History is committed to advancing diversity in all areas of faculty effort including discovery, instruction, and engagement. Candidates should address at least one of these areas in a separate diversity and inclusion statement, indicating their past experiences, current interests or activities and / or future goals to promote a climate that values diversity and inclusion.

        1. Thank you for the link, Olly.

          Here’s what I find interesting about Equity. College students who promote EDI will typically object if you tell them that no matter how hard they study, they must share their grade points with those who don’t study in all, in order to make grading equitable. Everyone gets a C regardless of if they ever cracked a book.

          Otherwise, it would simply be equality, where anyone of any race, creed, or background could study and take the test with the same questions and grading system as anyone else. The grade they got on the test would depend upon their mastery of the material.

          Threaten to give an A college student a C in the class, and they backpedal away from equity really fast.

    2. Can I presume that the Asian’s indians, blacks, and hispanics speaking out against the indoctrination of their children are “white supremecists” ?

      I doubt most of these parents are familiar with harvard law review articles on Critical race theory.

      But they are incontrovertably more familiar with the actual curricula being used to teach their children – and they do not like it.

      What is a “so called christian activist” ? While I have seen no evidence that religion played any consequential role in those protests – SO WHAT IF IT DID ?

      MacCaullffie got this conflict down quite well.

      Who decides what your children are taught ? Parents or the state ?

      This entire conflict boils down to that.

      You can choose whichever side of that divide you wish.

      Democrats as a whole have chosen “the state” – in doing so they are pushing every parent that is offended by the states education of its children into the open arms of the republican party.

      1. John, we know the Anti-Abortion movement began as a White backlash to school busing. And the same dynamics are behind all these school board disruptions. It’s White conservatives fearing that their grip on America is weakening.

        1. Too much lead in the paint chips.

          The anti-abortion movement started because of induced abortions.

        2. John, we know the Anti-Abortion movement began as a White backlash to school

          You’re just making up stuff up to get attention.

    3. Your remarks are obvious hateful nonsense – and what you call misinformation from end to end.

      Is the parent who was arrested for disorderly conduct when he tried to confront a school administrator who publicly denied that the parents child had been repeatedly sodomized by a person with a penis in a skirt in a LCSD school – a white supremist ? A christian Activist ?

      Does it even matter ?

      Is it OK in your world to rape the children of christian activists or even white supremecists ?

      Is it OK for the school administration which is a manditory reporter of for the abuse of children to fail to report and to publicly lie about it ?

      You rant about democracy – guess what this is democracy in action. One school administrator and one school board member have resigned, others face recall – voters will get to decide – you keep claiming that is how democracy works.

      In fact the entire leftist ideology is logically and intellectually flawed. While modern progressivism and facism and nazism are somewhat different ideologies – they make the same claims to legitimacy.

      Why do school boards get to choose how children are educated ? The Nazi’s and fascists and communists claimed that the indoctrination of children was the exclusive domain of the state and that parents had no role beyond what the state dictated.

      You want to rant about labels like CRT – while ignoring that what is relevant is that parents are offended by what their children are ACTUALLY being taught – regardless of what label you give it.
      Again 1984 was not supposed to be a howto manual.

      If as you claim this is some inconsequential disaffected minority – some will move their kids elsewhere and this will end.

      The danger to the left – to democrats, is that these raucous school board meetings are a reflection of widespread loss of confidence in government to do their job well.

      Again if you actually believed the democratic principles you rant about – you would by trying to figure out if these large numbers of angry parents were a true reflection of opposition by a democratic majority or even a significant minority.

      1. John say,

        “ Why do school boards get to choose how children are educated ? ”

        Because parents voted for them. I would think you would recognize the obvious answer.

        That’s their job. They set the standards and criteria. Parents who voted them into the board gave them the power to make those decisions. If some don’t like what they are doing they can run themselves or vote someone else in or they can choose to educate their own children thru home schooling or choose private school who have their own boards who decide how they will be educated.

        1. That’s their job. They set the standards and criteria. Parents who voted them into the board gave them the power to make those decisions

          You have not been to a single school board meeting.

          If a board member would raise a topic for discussion(they cant because they only discuss agenda items and the Superintendent rules the Agenda) The Superintendent would listen, then explain why it was wrong, if there was push back, the Super would remind the room the Super has a Doctorate….stay in your lane, proles.

    4. While I strongly suspect your claims about the identifying characteristics of your opposition are incorrect – what does it matter ?

      TX just effectively banned abortion. I hear those on the left rant about how evil this is.

      Yet, TX did nothing different that the Loudon Country school board did. Elected officials decided based on their personal politics – which certainly the TX legislators did not hide when they were running for election, to impose a political objective on its citizenry because an election gave them the power to do so ?

      What distinguishes what occurred in the LCSD and what occured in TX ?

      You seem incredibly hypocritical to me.

      You want obeisance to government when it acts as you wish, but you claim to be a champion of individual rights over government powers when that suits your whim.

      Do you have any actual principles ?

      If Rights come from government – then the TX government has rescinded the right of women to an abortion just as LCSD has rescinded parents right to determine the education of their children.

      Remember Hitler and Mousolini were elected.

      1. “TX did nothing different that the Loudon Country school board did. ”

        More BS from you.

        “What distinguishes what occurred in the LCSD and what occured in TX ?”

        Texas passed legislation that — if it is found to be constitutional — will allow any state to evade judicial review and act in ways that would otherwise be unconstitutional simply by outsourcing the enforcement of the law to the public. LCSD has done nothing of the sort. Which is why the Supreme Court has fast-tracked cases re: SB 8 for argument on Nov. 1, whereas there is no case before SCOTUS about LCSD.

    5. Apparently you are quite ignorant about school boards in this country.

      I recall a “seige” 40 years ago when an affluent local school district decided to include a pool in the gymnasium they were building.
      Half the members of the school board were removed in the next election over their support for the pool.

      Constant “seiges” by parents and constitutuents have not “doomed” the US education system.

  7. All School Boards are local.

    State Laws cover criminal acts at the local level.

    Parents coming together at the local level to seek redress of grievances re school matters is not a matter for the FBI or DOJ to stick their noses into.

    If the Left can see a “national movement” of Parents as organized as the NSBA is….and that movement had an Agenda item calling for violence….then perhaps the FBI and DOJ would have a legal right to get involved.

    Unless and until the Parents organize across State Lines…..and remain Local entities or even intra-State entities….the DOJ and FBI should bow out and stick to real crimes and not imaginary crimes.

    1. Ralph,

      “ Parents coming together at the local level to seek redress of grievances re school matters is not a matter for the FBI or DOJ to stick their noses into.”

      There is nothing wrong with parents airing their grievances at school boards. It’s when they become violent or start making threats that is the problem. The fact that the proud boys have been organizing or encouraging these confrontational approaches to board members and school staff brings the DOJ into the issue. Turley is either unaware or poorly informed about the nature of the DOJ’s involvement. This has nothing to do with chilling free speech. It’s about the increasing violence of parents and threats against the school staff and board members.

      1. Svelaz – NO, the Proud Boys are not the reason why parents are angry and upset at school board meetings. It’s because parents are angry at school board policy.

        I live in a rural area, where parents have been very upset at school board meetings. They are allowed to be upset. At our own meeting, no one has been making any threats other than to pull their children out of school. And they’re doing it, too, in record numbers.

        Democrats are trying to deflect blame from themselves, pointing the finger at the Proud Boys so they won’t have to face legitimate, sincere criticism. Joe Biden reached a new low when he cooperated in labeling upset parents as domestic terrorists, and is sending the FBI after them. This is Fascism unfolding in America.

        Teachers unions don’t want parents to fight their agenda. They don’t want them to be able to remove their kids, and thus funding from the schools. The Left wants to maintain its stranglehold of control.

        The problem is that this is injurious to children. Thanks to the far Left, transgenderism, and its inherent high suicide risk, is skyrocketing among youth, at levels never before seen in history. Because this leads to castration, sterilization, and often suicide, this is a bad thing. Schools are teaching children to hate America, and hate each other based on race. This is a bad thing..

        Children belong to their parents. It is up to parents to teach their children values. It is not the school’s purview. More than half of CA students are not reading at grade level. The public schools are failing in their core mission – teaching ELA, science, and math. They’ve turned civics and history into Marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-Western-civilization propaganda. They’re turning out students who think the US is worse for women than Afghanistan. Who don’t know that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system, while socialism has impoverished people and led to massive murders and deaths everywhere it’s tried.

        Public schools cannot do their job. They are focused on propaganda instead of teaching children how to think and reason.

        It’s appalling. If you learned more about it, one would hope you would be appalled, too, and demand better.

        The Left wants an end to capitalist prosperity, and to usher in the failure of socialism. That’s the end goal. That’s the goal of the Russian and Chinese active measures that Democrats so happily go along with. America will become impoverished and weak, and all our freedoms will be gone. Gas prices are through the roof as Biden reversed our energy independence. It’s becoming more and more expensive to keep our houses cool in summer and warm in winter as we add more expensive and unreliable wind and solar. It costs half a million dollars in some states to junk a wind turbine after its useful life of 25 years. What a waste. Terrorism has been emboldened by our weak bumbling in Afghanistan. China is growling about war on Taiwan. Iran is moments away from developing a nuclear weapon, which was its goal all along. We tried to tell Democrats the Iran Nuclear Deal was suicide. We have chaos and murder out of control, as people shoplift with impunity and gangs and murderers have less to fear from a defunded police. There’s talk of restitution, where the descendent of a black slave owner will be given money paid for by the descendants of Irish slaves.

        The Left is going to plow our good fortune into the ground. Biden is already telling us to adjust our expectations. To no longer expect store shelves to be full, or for gas to be affordable. Lower your expectations, and eventually, you won’t see anything wrong with dumpster diving for breakfast.

      2. The only examples of actual violence I am aware of are the responsibility of the schools.

        The idiotic move of arresting the one person confronting a school administrator regarding the sexual assault of his daughter in school, has resulted in exposure of the fact that LCSD – a mandatory reporter has been covering up sexual assaults in its schools for atleast 2 years.

        One of the school board members has resigned – atleast in part because her social media threats targeting parents.

        Further you use the term “threat” as if it is carte blanche to bring in the FBI – it is not.
        Even if there were real criminal threats against school board members – those would not be a federal matter.

        But there were not. Absolutely parents “threatened” school board members – threats such as having them recalled or voted out of office.

        You do not seem to grasp that the vast majority of threats are perfectly legal.

        In fact the left engages in threats all the time.

      3. But for shallow thinking it appears you do no thinking at all.

        Law enforcement requires reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed to initiate an investigation.
        And all investigations are scope limited to that crime.

        Can you cite any action that meets the criteria necescary to open an investigation ?

        The DOJ/FBI must meet an even more rigorous standard AND the alleged crime must violate federal law.

        Nothing even claimed without evidence thus far meets that criteria.

    2. Just because a movement is national does not justify federal law enforcement intrusion.

      There would have to be a national CRIMINAL movement.

      1. John say,

        “ Just because a movement is national does not justify federal law enforcement intrusion.”

        Yes it does. The obvious reason is because the federal law enforcement involves national issues. Hence the “federal”.

        “ There would have to be a national CRIMINAL movement.”

        Not necessarily true. A movement which has publicly and actionably promoted violence, even by its own admission merits federal scrutiny. Just as antifa and other left wing extremists. It’s precisely within federal law enforcement purview.

        The proud boys along with like minded groups such as three percenters, the oath keepers, etc. have engaged in violence at protests and promoted violent actions against government.

        They have committed crimes of violence before which put them under federal watch lists of potential terrorist actions.

        The proud boys own leader was an FBI informant. He’s in jail right now for his crimes at the Capitol in Jan 6th.

      2. The Proud Boys are a national group.

        Some of them have already been charged with federal crimes committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

  8. It should not be lost that Garland, and Democrats in general, genuinely believe that parents voicing their unease at school boards that dictate the “content” of their children’s education is a national issue, and federal “oversight” is necessary, even long overdue. Democrats don’t hide from that position; they’re proud of it.

    1. It should not be lost that you are mischaracterizing what’s going on. The actual concern is about violence and threats of violence, not parents “voicing their unease.”

      1. First – nothing even alleged constitutes a FEDERAL crime. This is not the Business of the FBI.

        Do you have evidence of ACTUAL threats of violence that meet the constitutional requirements for criminal threats ?

        Do you have instances of actual violence initiated by parents that constitutes criminal conduct ?

        So far the only parent I am aware of that has been charged – was the parent of the girl who was raped in a girls bathroom by a boy wearing a girls skirt. That parent was charged with disorderly conduct after the school administrator LIED and claimed no such event ever occured – there is now evidence of multiple events, and one School Board member and this school administrator have both resigned over their involvement in covering this up. Further the alleged disporderly conduct was initiated by a Trans activist and the sheriff was directed to intervene by the school administrator who was lying.

        It is likely there will be a criminal investigation of the Loudon country school district over this as they are MANDATORY reporters and it appears that they have repeatedly been covering up instances of sexual violence within the school district.

        This is the ONLY real crime.

        This is probably a legitimate Tittle XI claim against the School Board that the FBI might has some legitimate jurisdiction to investigate.

        But none with respect to parents.

        To be perfectly clear – Parents are completely free to THREATEN School Board members.

        The first amendment protects even THREATS.

        What it does not protect is clear. immediate, specific threats of unjustified VIOLENCE ?

        Do you have evidence of those ?

        “If you continue this unwise course there will be consequences” – is a threat that is fully protected speech.

        One of the problems is that those on the left equate their personal fear with misconduct.

        School Boards should be afraid – possibly even afraid of violence.
        Their actions are WRONG.

        The American revolution was an actual violent insurrection, The Son’s of Liberty and the Concorde and Lexington militias were actual para military groups.

        “People should not fear their government – Governments should fear the people”

        1. “This is not the Business of the FBI.”

          Monitoring domestic violent extremists IS part of the business of the FBI. Several Proud Boys have already been charged with federal crimes, including violent crimes and conspiracy in the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6.

          1. Again, ATS, you are either ignorant or lying. Fascists can create all sorts of issues that do not exist. Then again you like fascists, for according to you they are good for the little guy (people).

            In this case, the little people are school children, where one was raped and the guy, who was the father, was arrested because he became distressed at the lies of the school board. Those big guys (fascist type) sent the rapist to another school to do it again.

            Let us make it clear. Your voice supports the rape of school girls. That makes you a horrible person.

              1. “I don’t assume that you or others on this blog are domestic violent extremists.”

                But, you will have your leadership treat them as if they are.

        2. John say,

          “ First – nothing even alleged constitutes a FEDERAL crime. This is not the Business of the FBI.”

          Apparently you are poorly informed as to the function of the FBI. They are in the business of counterintelligence and surveillance in entities that pose a threat to the government or national interests. Their business is to investigate which involves surveillance and intelligence gathering on top of law enforcement.

          “ To be perfectly clear – Parents are completely free to THREATEN School Board members.”

          Yes they are, but that entirely dependent on the types of threats they make. Threatening harm or injury are not protected speech.

          “ School Boards should be afraid – possibly even afraid of violence.
          Their actions are WRONG.”

          No, school board’s actions are not wrong and promoting violence against them is certainly wrong. You’re supporting intimidation thru threats if violence by making that statement.

          School boards have the authority to make rules and that includes mandates or requiring vaccinations. They are elected officials who were put there by the parents themselves. Some may not have voted at all.

          “ Do you have instances of actual violence initiated by parents that constitutes criminal conduct ?”

          Here are a few,

          “ Amid an overheated debate about mask mandates in Texas schools, one parent assaulted a teacher by tearing a mask off her face, Eanes Independent School District Superintendent Tom Leonard said in a statement Tuesday.”

          “ A concerned male teacher went to the principal’s office. An argument ensued and the father struck the teacher, according to the superintendent.

          “The teacher had some lacerations and bruising on his face and a knot on the back of his head,” Gibson said.

          He was treated at a hospital and returned to work the following day. Still, the incident has shaken teachers and the community.”

          “ According to KPRC 2′s sister-station KSAT, one teacher at an Eanes Independent School District campus was physically assaulted by a parent and had her face mask ripped off while a teacher at another campus was verbally attacked and told to take off her mask because an upset parent couldn’t understand what she was saying.”

          Violence is violence no matter how much you want to split hairs in those incidents. They are not acceptable.

    2. Absolutely correct and very important.

      For those on the left, the constraints on the power of govenrment do not have anything to do with the rule of law, or the rights of people.

      The legitimacy of govenrment actions rests solely on the conformance of those actions with their ideology.

      When people oppose schoolboards that seek to thwart leftist ideology – the people are good and the schoolboards evil.
      But when people oppose schoolboards that seek to advance leftist ideology – the people are evil and the schoolboards good.

      1. “For those on the left, the constraints on the power of govenrment do not have anything to do with the rule of law, or the rights of people. ”

        What complete and utter BS.

        1. Anonymous,

          “ For those on the left, the constraints on the power of govenrment do not have anything to do with the rule of law, or the rights of people. ”

          What complete and utter BS.”

          A agree. John oftentimes goes to great lengths in order to crudely contort rationale in order to justify a poor argument.

  9. More Fascism from the Left.

    Any threats or acts of violence should be handled by local law enforcement.

    The public education system believes itself immune from parents. It believes it has power over our children that circumvents us parents. It has forgotten that it works for us, and that if we don’t like what they’re doing, we’ll take our children, and their funding, elsewhere.

    Don’t like Common Core, because it makes students less college ready in math? The Teachers Unions got Common Core to be mandatory in private and charter schools, to take away a competitive advantage.

    Don’t like schools teaching CRT, sending 8th grade girls out for abortions, or turning sex ed into an instructional class on S&M? The FBI will be there monitoring your complaints and taking note of your name.

    My son learned so much during our homeschool year in 2020 that he’s learned zero so far back in public school. It’s the end of October. Months of school, and it’s still just boring review.

    Parents are realizing that homeschooling can work. There are so many options now. Some parents are pooling resources to hire teachers, in mini cooperative private schools.

    The next step will be the Fascist teachers union demanding that their bought and paid for politicians abolish homeschooling.

    Parents need more control over their children’s education. We should emulate some European countries, in which students can take their public funding anywhere they choose. Schools have to compete with each other for students. No parent should have to ask permission to leave a school district. A school either has room for a student that meets their requirements, or it doesn’t.

    1. “Any threats or acts of violence should be handled by local law enforcement. ”

      Depends on who they’re coming from. Some of them are coming from the Proud Boys, a national far-right paramilitary group, and it is appropriate for the FBI to investigate that subset and coordinate with local law enforcement on that.

      1. Anonymous:

        The Proud Boys got their name from a Broadway musical song, that went something like “proud of my boy”… It was formed as a means to teach Gavin McInnes’ coworker, a shy, timid young man, how to be more manly and talk to girls. They made it as cliche manly man as possible to get him in touch with his inner Cave Man. Throw your shoulders back and be proud to be a man.

        After awhile, Proud Boys friends started giving McInness private security at speaking engagements, where the Fascist Leftists would try to threaten, intimidate, or assault him to prevent his speaking. You know how the Left despises the free speech of those with which they disagree.

        Eventually, it morphed into combating Antifa in general, as police in deep blue states were told to stand down and allow Antifa to riot, destroy businesses, loot, and even commit arson with impunity. It turned into a vigilante group. There are some memorable videos of Proud Boys shouting at police sitting in their cruisers to do their jobs, while Antifa destroys small businesses in the background. But police cannot do their jobs, not in Democrat cities where they are ordered to allow rioters free rein, and will be prosecuted for intervening.

        It has been said the Proud Boys are racist, which is news to the many minorities who participate, and run, the PBs. They espouse views that value the West, and manly men – at level Cave Man, so it makes the Left insane.

        Vigilante groups fill the unmet need for law enforcement and security, made void by Democrat policies. I in no way advocate for breaking the law, which should apply equally to everyone. That said, I know a great many people here in CA, absolutely fed up with the Democrat induced lawlessness, who are glad that the Proud Boys push back hard against Antifa. Without them, they’d riot with impunity. Antifa views capitalism as Fascist, anyone who disagrees with them as Fascist, and they particularly think Proud Boys are fascist because they prevent them from destroying capitalist small businesses. However, the PB are not actually fascist, as they don’t believe in restricting free speech, or having the government control your life.

        Unfortunately, any group that opposes far Left ideology can also attract extremists in the other direction. PB’s leadership regularly expels those who engage in white supremacy. During clashes with Antifa, there have been members of the Proud Boys who have broken the law, and were charged accordingly. There have been extremists attracted to the PB message of patriotism and efforts to stop the Left’s white-bashing. Likewise, the Democrat anti-American messaging has attracted those who want to destroy the entire country and usher in Communism or Socialism. That’s the problem with messaging; you can’t control who likes it.

        1. None of which has to do with my point:

          Some of the threats are coming from the Proud Boys, a national far-right paramilitary group, and it is appropriate for the FBI to investigate that subset and coordinate with local law enforcement on that.

            1. Anonymous, this is one of multiple instances.

              “ Proud Boys Are Teaming Up With Anti-Maskers to Threaten School Boards Over COVID Mandates”


              The proud boys are known to be one of the primary instigators of the Jan 6 assault on the Capitol. Teachers and school staff have already been assaulted by parents or allegedly by proud boys members. The FBI has every reason to keep an eye on such meetings because the proud boys have been involved in organizing many of the protests.

              1. Svalez, no they’re not. Didn’t you read how the conspiracy theory was totally debunked about Jan 6? Most of the Jan 6 protestors simply wandered inside.

                1. Some wandered insides.
                  Others broke in.
                  Some who broke in planned ahead of time to do so.
                  Some attacked law enforcement in order to break in. I have given you a link to testimony under oath about this, and you chose not to respond.

                  As long as you focus only on those who wandered in and ignore the rest, Karen, you are avoiding discussing the events in their entirety, and you are ignoring the most dangerous events.

              2. Svalez:

                In case you didn’t read your own link, your article described how parents objected to the mask mandate, booed a parent who supported the mandate, and decided they wanted to elect a new school board.

                That’s called activism.

                Your article said, “That same month, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio attended a school board meeting in Florida’s Miami-Dade County. Tarrio told WPLG Local 10 News that members of his group were there to speak against masks, vaccine requirements, and “critical race theory.””

                That’s called free speech.

                School boards are still trying to deny that they have incorporated aspects of CRT into curriculum, even though the evidence is indisputable. There is no excuse to racially discriminate against children, or to make white children apologize or feel guilty for their race. That’s abusive.

                “In Nashua, New Hampshire, phobias of critical race theory and masks met head-on in a late July school board meeting. There, uniformed Proud Boys held signs ostensibly condemning critical race theory, while another man, who was not a local parent, spoke against masks until meeting moderators turned off his microphone.”

                AGAIN, holding signs is called free speech.

                In your entire article, I found one comment where the journalist alleged that one person said they should kill all the communists. That’s pretty usual rhetoric in modern times, where it’s normal to say kill all the white people, kill all the capitalists, etc. If there was a legitimate threat and not hyperbole, then that one person should be investigated.

                Basically, your article breathlessly recounted how members of Proud Boys held signs, and criticized school boards and CRT. That’s not domestic terrorism. If you don’t understand what domestic terrorism is, you could fly to Kabul and spend a week there loudly proclaiming you believe in rights for women and gays, and that you love America. Good luck to you.

                You seem to be very intolerant of people holding an opposing point of view. Why aren’t you out there protesting schools who make first and second graders feel suicidal, by telling them they were born bad because they’re white, or that black kids will never amount to anything because they were born oppressed by their white peers? Perhaps you should spend some time researching how this CRT has impacted both white and BIPOC small children. If that doesn’t upset you, it should.

              3. Actually Svelaz the FBI/DOJ have already publicly stated there is no evidence at all – and they looked really hard that ANY group or planning went into Jan. 6th.

                I would further note there was no “assault on the capital”

                Had 100,000 or 10,000 or 1000, or even 100 armed people “assaulted the capital” – there would have been a very different outcome.

                WE have spent nearly a year ranting about 1/6 – not because of what DID happen – little of consequence happened, aside from the fact that the capital itself was highly unusually partly locked down prior to a protest, something that I do not think has happened in my lifetime, there is little to distinguish 1/6 fromt he Kavanaugh protests.

                At the same time 1/6 DID put the left on notice of what COULD EASILY happen.

                Chris Cuomo famously and correctly noted with respect to BLM riots that this country would founded violently.

                Few are ranting about the insurrection at lexington and concord.

                After 1/6 terrified democrats wrapped the capital in high fences and barbed wire – that speaks volumes about democrats views on citizens.
                Then they gave purity tests to those in the military and national guard.

                After all how can an authoritarian regmine that requires force for survival last when those tasked with providing that force refuse to obey.

              4. The sexual assault at school of students including the daughter of one of the parents is very well documented.

                Do you have actual evidence of proud boys assaulting a teacher or school board member ?

                I can list myriads of examples of political violence and intimidation by those on the left.

                You are currently doing that to two of your own senators.

                Do you have similar examples that are not from the left ?


          1. Do you have an example of a specific criminal threat made by those in the proud boys ?

            You do not seem to grasp what constitutes justification for law enforcement action.

            It is NOT sufficient for you to FEEL threatened – that is your problem.

            It is not even sufficient for the proud boys or others to have actually threatened you.

            To justify law enforcement to act there must be a clear credible immediate unjustified threat to INITIATE VIOLENCE.

            Do you have an example of such a threat from the proud boys or anyone ?

            Many parents have “threatened” the school board and administration – and in some instances carried through with those threats.
            Many members of the Loudon School Board face recall and atleast one has resigned.

            Parents are completely free in “threatening” school board members with consequences for their conduct.

            They are NOT allowed to “threaten” unjustified violence.

            Finally I would note that even an actual credible threat of violence – would be a matter for local and state police – not the FBI, not DOJ.

            Garland has overstepped – pretty significantly.

            As have you. You keep insisting that it is legitimate to investigate the proud boys.

            Have you learned nothing from the past 4 years ?

            Government may not investigate whoever it pleases.

            There is a constitutional burden that government must meet to conduct an investigation of private citizens.

            That burden is not met by claiming “far right militia”
            it is not met by your feelings of trepidation
            it is not met because they oppose your prefered policies.

            There must be reasonable suspicion that an actual crime was committed.

              1. It is my understanding that one of Proud Boys leaders—or former leaders—is an hispanic homosexual male. It is rarely reported tho, as it conflicts with narrative on both extremes of political spectrum. I will try and fins a link.

        2. Even if the Proud Boys were actually racist, and white supremecists,

          Those do not constitute justification for the FBI to investigate any more than being Communist would.

          People and groups who hold repugnant views are STILL free to express them – without fear of government

          What they are NOT free to do is use force without justification.

          Antifa does that as an actual element of their values and beleifs – that alone is sufficient to investigate.

          Proud Boys advocates the defensive use of force – that is NOT sufficient to investigate.

          Actual instances in which the proud boys use force without justification are investigateable – if there are any.

          But it is Antifa not the proud boys that advocates the lawless use of force.

          If Proud Boys was actually using force defensively to protect real Nazi’s and Antifa was using force offensively to support Mother Therasa,

          It would STILL be only Antifa that the FBI could justifiably investigate.

          There is no justification for FBI investigations of parents opposing leftist lunatic school boards.

      2. Your ignorance is astounding.

        There are REAL “far right para military groups” – nearly all of which are ZERO threat – unless you actually attack them.
        The Proud Boys are NOT one of those.

        Though I would suggest considering your OWN language.

        What part of “far right para military group” – constitutes the slightest justification for the FBI to get involved ?

        Many of us Civil Libertarians defended those on the left when the FBI claimed justification in “investigating”
        Left leaning groups – even militant ones. Such as the communists and Black Panthers – or Martin Lither King.

        Government is not there to investigate people or groups based on their politics – left, right, far right, or center.
        They are not there to investigate people or groups based on their excercise of legitimate legal and constitutional rights – such as protest and or gun use or ownership.

        The Wolverine Chapter in Michigan that purportedly planned to kidnap Witmer – would have constituted a group the FBI would be justified in investigating – except that the Plot to act illegally orriginated with the 12 FBI agents and informants out of the 18 total members of the group.

        As with purported domestic “jihadi” groups, the only actual threat posed to the US is manufactured by FBI Informants.

        Whether you like the proud boys or not – they are NOT a “far right para military group”.
        Aside from being a culture club for diseffected working class males, their primary activity is putting themselves between other protest groups and Antifa – which is a good thing.

        1. John say,

          “ Your ignorance is astounding”

          No, yours is. The proud boys are a white supremacist group that has a history of violence and fervent anti government sentiment. They are often found at anti fascist demonstrations and were prominent at the Jan 6 insurrectionists attempt. All wearing military gear. Bulletproof vests, helmets, goggles, and employee tactics well known in the military.

          “ The organization glorifies political violence against antifa[28] and leftists, re-enacting political assassinations, wearing shirts that praise Augusto Pinochet’s murders of leftists and participating directly in political violence.[40][13] In April 2016, McInnes, who believes violence is “a really effective way to solve problems”, has said: “I want violence, I want punching in the face. I’m disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough.”

          They are a mishmash of libertarians and far right conservatives who advocate political violence. For these reasons the DOJ and the FBI have legitimate reasons to keep them under surveillance. In Canada they are considered domestic terrorists.

          It is well reported that they have been actively antagonizing parents by stoking fears about CRT and mask mandates thru deliberate misinformation. There’s plenty of evidence to assert the DOJ’s surveillance of that group. They openly condone violence.

          1. Absolutely PB is frequently found providing defensive services for other groups when those groups expect to be confrtoned by antifa.

            Contra your BS – Antifa is an organization that ACTUALLY is founded on violence.

            Wherever Antifa is one can expect violence. Any protest that expects to encounter antifa particularly in places where the police have been ordered to stand down would be wise to seek the assistance of groups like the proud boys.

            I find it interesting that you fixate on Pinochette.

            Pinochette lead one of the least violent military coups in south america against a communist leader that was defying the Chilean supreme court and destroying the country.

            Pinnochette relatively quickly started to cede power to civilian authorities and the Chilean military Junta did not last long and ended bloodlessly.

            More protestors are murdered in venezeulla each year by far than during Pinochettes entire rule.

            If you wish to be critical of Pinochette – fine, there was some violence to his Junta – though in comparison to most anything else in south america – right or left Pinochette was relatively bloodless.

            It is probably stupid for the proud boys to hold pinochette in high esteem. But leftists seem to think Che Guevera was some hero when he murdered personally more cubans than Chileans died under Pinochette and then exported violence throughout sount america.
            And leftists wear Che Guevvera Tee Shirts all the time – and no one is starting an FBI investigation over a Che tShirt.

            As to Political assassinations – how many has the US government, the CIA participated in ?
            Again this conduct might be questionable – but it is NOT the basis for an FBI investigation.

            You seem completely incapable of distinguishing between what you find offensive and what is actually criminal.

            I find your remarks deeply offensive and atleast as ignorant as those of the Proud Boys – yet I do not expect the FBI to investigate you.

            Violence is sometimes and effective way to solve problems. Do you beleive that people are not permitted to defend themselves ?
            That is violence – it is also justified.

            You are constantly confused about fundimentals of right and wrong.
            You keep making arguments that essentially assert that all threats are crimes or all violence is criminal.
            Few threats are crimes. Most are perfectly legitimate.
            Violence is not often justified. But it is justified in self defense and defense of others. The proud boys primarily engage in violent self defence or defense of others.

            Where the do not – they should be prosecuted. Just as pretty much all antifa violence requires prosecution.

          2. BTW – do not even bother to link to wikipedia on a politically devise subject – even the founders of wikipedia have disowned it as having been overrun by the left.
            On almost any politically devisive subject Wikipedia is going to be completely one sides and correction is impossible.

            It is not even worth reading on political issues.

            I did not even bother to click on your link.

            I am very familiar with proud boys. While I have problems with them – they are mostly juvenile and should grow up.
            At the same time your remarks are nothing more than defamatory rubbish.

            There are a few real world instances of actual misconduct by the proud boys.
            You are sufficiently inept you can not even find those to support your case.

          3. Any sentence that asserts some nexus between libertarians and far right conservatives reflects intellectual senility.

            There is no form of libertarianism that is in anyway compatible with the actual far right.
            In fact there is not any form of anarcho-capitalism – which is farther right than libertarianism that is compatible with the far right.

            Wow! McGuiness spoke of violence. That is proof of WHAT ?

            I noted to you that Self defense and defense of others are justifiable violence.

            I will separately note that the whole purpose of the declaration of independence is to JUSTIFY political violence, insurrection.

            Lexington and concord were political violence.

            Antifa and Marxism are premised on the presumption that political violence is often justified.

            You keep waving arround the term violence – as if doing so proves something – it does not.

            I doubt I agree with McGuness regarding when political violence is justified – but I completely accept that the american revolution was justified therefore it is inherently true that political violence is SOMETIMES justified.

            I strongly suspect that McGuiness and the PB get visceral pleasure from beating the pulp out of Antifa.
            So long as those in Antifa initiate the violence – I do not care.

          4. “For these reasons the DOJ and the FBI have legitimate reasons to keep them under surveillance.”

            Nope. There are specific requirements of the law that must be met to investigate anyone or group.
            The burdern is even greater if you wish to spy on them – and surveilance is spying.

            If you are involving the federal govenrment – the burden is even higher.

            Have you learned absolutely nothing from the collusion delusion ?

            And if you can not make a cause regarding the proud boys – which are berely involved in this,
            how do you expect to justify investigateing parents ?

            “In Canada they are considered domestic terrorists.”
            Inn canada you can go to jail for calling a boy a boy.

            Not an especially good example.

            Why is it that left wing nuts seem to think that citing examples of government idiocy and misconduct from other countries supports their arguments ?

            Nazi Germany consider jews to be the equivalent of domestic terrorists. Does that help your case ?

          5. Svelaz – can you try thinking a bit more about what you right before you post. You keep making stupid presumptions.

            “It is well reported that they have been actively antagonizing parents by stoking fears about CRT and mask mandates”
            While you have not provided proof for this assertion – I am happy to aggree with it.

            Absolutely people have engaged in the process of political persuasion on issues such as the education of children or mask mandates.

            “thru deliberate misinformation.”
            Lets see there have been 14 RCT’s – that is randomized control trials in the 21st century regarding masks.
            13 of the 14 found masks complete ineffective – even against respiratory viruses such as the Flu which are far easier to stop than Covid – though we have never succeeded. The 14th RCT found a statistically significant 12% benefit to masks over 100 days. That would be about a 3% benefit over the course of a year.

            Of course you need about a 97% effectiveness rate per exposure to accomplish anything beyond delaying the inevitable spread of Covid.

            One of the most disturbing things about Covid public policy is that even with a transmission rate of 2.4-3.8 (not the 6-8 for Delta), it is mathematically self evident that NOTHING is going to work.

            One of the problems that Biden is having with the vaccine is that it was POSSIBLE that the Vaccine would be effective with a Transmission rate of 2.4-3.8. but at transmission rates of 6-8 nothing works. Covid will spread faster than you can possibly vaccinate people.

            According to Gallup less than 40% of people trust the CDC – is that any surprise ? I would note the studies I identified regarding masks are all available on the CDC web site – and yet the CDC is still recomending masks.

            THAT is misinformation.

            You left wing nuts pledge fealty to science – but you have no clue what actual science is.
            Science is NOT faith in experts. It is inherent skepticism that is resolved by compelling evidence.
            Both Science – and logic which science rest on require skepticism – an initial presumption that any claim is false until proven true.
            That premise should be self evidently correct. Of all the possible assertions – nearly all will always be false.

            “There’s plenty of evidence to assert the DOJ’s surveillance of that group.”
            Then you would have no problem providing it.

            “They openly condone violence.”

            I openly condone violence – that is neither a crime nor a predicate for investigation.

            The details matter – you do not seem to grasp that.

            Is it OK for people to use violence to defend themselves ?
            To defend others ?
            The US invaded afganistan in response to their role in 9/11 – was that justified ?
            The US fought the axis in WWII and WWI – were those justified ?
            If you use violence you must justify it – and most uses of violence are not justified.
            But merely acknowledging the usefulness of violence is NOT a crime – it is just a fact.

        2. You can have your personal opinions, but I don’t have to agree with them. Frank Meeink, who testified under oath before Congress “I am a former White supremacist and neo-Nazi gang member. After I served my time in prison in 1994, I decided to leave the skinhead movement, now with the antibodies to the virus of hate. … A lot of the old neo-Nazi groups have now become more groups, like the Proud Boys.” Neo-Nazis are far right. In another hearing on paramilitary groups, the article “Nevada County GOP Canceled Meeting Amid Fear of Proud Boy Insurgency” ( was entered into the record, and it discusses “far-right paramilitary groups like the Proud Boys.”

          Violence is not legal (unless in self-defense) and investigating violence and serious threats of violence is legal.

          1. I am pretty clear regarding the difference between opinions and facts.

            As liberal Lion Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said – you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

            Mr. Meeink offered an opinion. It is irrelevant whether it is testimony or not.

            The proud boys did not exist until 22 years after Meenick left prison.

            I am glad that Meeink has left Skin heads and neo-nazi’s.
            Though I would note he is not alone.

            When I was young every year 9000 KKK members met once a year at a farm near my northern home.

            Today there are more Antifa in portland than KKK in the country.

            At Charlotesville I beleive they managed to get 5 KKK members for the 2017 “unite the right” rally.

            I am not a fan of the proud boys, nor patriot prayer nor myriads of other loosely right wing groups.

            My disdain does not make them “far right”, nor does it make them paramilitary.

            There is an actual surge in paramilitary groups in the US. A few of these are “left wing”.

            But most are “right”.

            These groups are significantly different from the militias of the 90’s. They are disporportionately made of law enforcement, ex law enforcement, military and ex military, they also include a significant portion of women. Unlike 1990’s militias they are closely tied to law enforcement. We saw alot of this in the Summer of 2020 with rioting in cities nationwide. It was beyond the ability of police to handle the task of restoring order on their own. In many places the police made heavy use of these paramilitary groups to provide additional manpower particularly for tasks that were lower skill and lower risk. This is not much different from private security people, or event parking directors.

            They are not “far right” – frankly the “far right” barely exists today. Atleast if you use “far right” in the same way it has been used in the past 50 years.

            Of course if by “far right” you mean “pro-life” – that would be most catholics and evangelicals in the country – even though most of those are on the left on many other social issues.

            Or By “far right” do you mean groups that expect us to enforce the immigration and other laws that currently exist. Or that seek to see the Southern boarder wall which Congress authorized in the 1980’s but has subsequently failed to fund ?

            Or By far right do you mean groups that beleive the constitution and particularly the 2nd amendment mean exactly what they say ?

            Or by far right do you mean groups that beleive that Russia is a fading power, and that China is currently the most serious global threat ?

            Regardless, I would challenge you to find any definition of “far right” that did not encompass 1/3 of the country and would not have been called moderate 40 years ago.

            Yet you bandy about phrases like “far right” or “neo nazi” or “white supremacist” as if these are both of consequence and can be found easily under most bushes.

            I suspect that your definition of “far right” would encompass about 100M americans. 1/3 of the country is NOT far right, nor are they “extremist”

            And this is one of the fundimental problems with the left that got Trump elected in 2016, and could easily get him re-elected in 2024.

            The left is bat$hit crazy in this country today. Glenn Greenwald used Pew and Gallup data to demonstrate that over the course of the past 20 years they left has been moving quickly TOWARDS authoritarian positions – as the right moves almost as quickly away from them.

            This is what is driving a wedge between traditional liberals – like David Rubin, Alan Dershowitz, Glenn Greenwald. Matt Taibi, Bari Weis, Tulsi Gabbard and todays left.

            When I was in school the far left took over offices in the Berkely campus to demand free speech. Today the left pressures colleges to silence people. Liberals and the ACLU fought to protect the right of actual nazi’s to march through Skokie. Today the left and the ACLU fight to prevent Comics from telling jokes they do not like.

            Grow up Svelaz – it is the left that has gone crazy. It has abandoned its core values. it has become racist, hateful and intolerant.
            “Do your own thing” has turned into “do what I say”

            “Violence is not legal (unless in self-defense)”
            False. First – as you recognize – self defense is legal – it is also a right.
            So is defense of others. I would note that law enforcement engages in violence all the time – so blanket statements about the legality of violence are FALSE.

            But you have this problem constantly – you make broad blanket statements that often sound good – “the FBI can legally investigate threats” – sounds good, It even sounds correct. But it is not. And with the least amount of thought that is obviously true.

            I also note you are slowly changing your language. Before you said the DOJ/FBI could investigate threats – which takes little effort to demonstrate as false. NOW you are arguing that the DOJ/FBI can investigate “serious threats of violence” – that is closer to true.
            Probably close enough to point out that you do not have “serious threats of violence” – you certainly have not provided any.

            So far you have Gavin McGuniness making a remark about violence that does not constitute a threat or a clear expression of intent to do anything illegal – I beleive a decade ago. Gavin BTW is no longer part of the proud boys.

            You have not established that Proud boys has anything to do with anything of this.

            I suspect there may be some members of proud boys at the periphery – just as there are near certain antifa members at the periphery.

            But the core of this conflict is between parents and schools – administrators, school boards, and teachers who seek absolute power over other people children. The “totalitarians” are trivial to find here and they are not the parents.
            I would further note that we are ALSO dealing with an unjustified state use of force to thwart individual rights.
            That is lawlessness – and an abuse of government power. It is also pretty much a text book right out of the declaration of independence JUSTIFICATION for the use of violence against government.

            Need I remind you that among the many conflicts leading to the revolutionary war was Taxes on tea, and numerous other government deprivations of individual rights.

            I am not expecting this country to explode into open revolution anytime soon. But I AM going to make absolutely clear to YOU and those on the left – that you ALREADY have crossed the lines that the declaration of independence laid out for justifying VOILENCE against government.

            Absolutely the FBI can investigate people who have reached the point at which they are ready to respond to government FORCE with violence.

            In fact I would encourage you to do exactly that, though you need no encouragement. You already have justified to yourself using the FBI to investigate parents. And you are stupid enough to think that ends well for you ?

            I would encourage you to continue the delusions that you have of gestapo like power – and to act on them. The more you act like the authoritarians you are the sooner we can dispose of you.

            Let me ask you to do a thought experiement – pretend that you had the ability to pass and impose whatever laws you want.
            that tomorow you could have whatever legislation you wanted.

            How long do you think that would last ?

            If you pass a law that 100% of all people obey no matter what – you do not need that law, and you do not need police to enforce it.

            Any law that you pass that does not have universal support REQUIRES FORCE to enforce it. We do not have today the manpower to enforce the laws already on the books. Accross the country people knowingly and unwittingly violate laws all the time.

            More laws means either more lawlessness – which undermines government, or the use of more force – which undermines government.

            I am happy to see you do stupid things like push the FBI and DOJ into investigating parents.

            What I find amazing is that you are completely clueless as to how stupid an idea that is.

      3. Just to be clear – it is NOT appropriate for the FBI or any other law enforcement to investigate ANY group – left or right, paramilitary or not that has not actually committed a crime or where there is no evidence that they are actively plotting to commit an actual crime.

        We may not legitimately target groups based on ideology or based on legal activities they conduct.

        Not left, not right.

    2. There is a standard that must be met for a “threat” to be criminal. That standard is actually fairly difficult to meet.

      People make vague threats all the time – “If you go forward with this, there will be consequences” as an example.

      That is NOT a Criminal Threat. A criminal threat must be specific, near term to immediate, and it must be credible.

      Further The Federal government does not have a general police power,. That rests with state and local police.

      Finally AG Garland’s memo has a clear chilling effect on the first amendment rights of citizens.

      There are many criteria that Government must meet to restrict first amendment rights.
      Among those are that the Government action must be the least infringing means of accomplishing an otherwise legitimate government purpose.

      The AG can not intimidate myriads of citizens legitimately exercising their rights in order to thwart real credible threats – that todate do not exist.

    3. My Children were Cyber Chartered.

      15 years ago when we put our daughter into a Cyber Charter – because the public schools were failing her, Cyber Charters were subject to very little government constraint.

      My daughter could learn at her own pace, and in the fashion that best suited her. That capability was built into the approach that her cyber school used – and it was incredibly effective for her.

      But as time went by The state – at the direction of teachers unions imposed more and more rules on Cyber Charters.
      These BTW were NOT supported by Cyber School Teachers who were not unionized.

      Gradually these took away many of the advantages that Cyber Schools had in tailoring the means of learning to the needs of the students.

      And yet Cyber Charters STILL out perform Brick and Mortar schools significantly.

      Cyber school students on the whole performed in the top half of students in the state.
      This does not sound impressive until you consider that most of the students in my kids cyber charters came from failing schools in the state or were kids that were discipline problems.

      Education is another example of the failures of leftism.

      As with most everything else – One Size does not fit all.

      My wife and I wish we had the ability to home school rather than cyber charter our kids. Had we done so, we could have better tailored their education to their own need and most effective means of learning. but Homeshooling was more than we could manage.
      Even cybershool was only an option for us because we both worked primarily from home – more than a decade before Covid.

      One size does not fit all.

      Each Child’s needs are unique – and frankly public schools and teachers are NOT even close to best at determining that.

      While it is true that public school teachers were responsible for my children 5-6 hours a day.
      Each of those teachers had 20-30 other kids to manage concurrently.

      Teaching is not easy and those who do it well deserve our respect and admiration.
      But it is NOT true that my kids teachers better understood my childrens needs.

      Further my kids teachers – even the best of them, were never the advocates for my children that my wife and I were.

      Even the poor and poorly educated single minority women who sent their children to cybercharters to save them from gangs and failing schools, had a better understanding of and a better commitment to their children than their teachers.

      Most teachers are wonderful people and we owe much to them. In rare instances with neglectful and bad parents they may be the last hope for some kids.

      But the overwhelming norm is that parents care more and no more about what their kids need than teachers.

      Parents are sometimes constrained by reality and lack of resources – but rarely by lack of understanding or interest in the best for their children.

      Schools, teachers, and the state should focus on their job – education.

      NOT parenting.

      I would note that for all criticism of parents – the state has FAILED in the education of our children.

      By all measures our schools cost more and more and deliver less and less.

      What does it matter if our children become the model CRT Adults if they can not read, write, or do basic math necescary to lead productive and happy lives.

  10. I think many had a higher opinion of Merrick Garland when he was a potential Supreme Court candidate. He has demonstrated an unimpressive lack of command ( or perhaps intent to command) the Justice department in the last days of testimony. One factor not noted by any commentators, is the matter of priorities,,,,an issue which pervades the agenda of many agencies under the Biden administration. Garland several times made statements about the need to increase funding for this aspect or their mission or that. It seems that they have an agenda that is greater than their capability to execute. Practical leadership would suggest you analyze real data to determine which of the many targets for Justice department activity is a current, real and growing problem, and then you would adjust your resources and capability to address them and then make the case for more funding if necessary. Given all the issues with DOJ and FBI activity, taxpayers( and congress) should expect that matters like parent threats of violence or “white supremacy” may appear on the list,….but certainly would be well down the priorities based on actual data.
    I also am very disappointed in DOJ in articulating and behaving with due respect to federalism and the 10th amendment of the Constitution. It seems it is OK in Merrick Garlands mind to range beyond the boundary of federal government authority, except when he is trying to excuse non action on.a matter????

    We should expect far better leadership from the Attorney General. DOJ and the FBI’s performance in last decade has been deteriorating, not because of the challenges but because of willful mismanagement, mission creep and no apparent self imposed accountability for mistakes.

  11. What Turley doesn’t realize as many others as well is that these incidents at school board meetings aren’t just some random bouts of opposition. What Turley isn’t aware of is that these protests and disruptive behavior at school board meetings are organized by proud boys members. They actively encourage and participate in these protests and aggressive opposition during these meetings. Because tge proud boys are already known to be associated with the Jan 6 insurrection attempt and their well known propensity to be violent it gives the DOJ a credible reason to monitor these meetings.

    Parents have been violent towards school staff and board members and that includes making terroristic threats. This isn’t about just about going after parents the right wing media wants their audience to believe, which ironically is exactly what Turley is always complaining about media not being objective.

    The DOJ is correct in stating that they can monitor such meetings when most of the opposition is organized by known anti-government outfits such as the proud boys. They are after all a white supremacist organization recognized as a domestic terrorists by Canadian authorities.

    “ Proud Boys Are Teaming Up With Anti-Maskers to Threaten School Boards Over COVID Mandates”

    1. They are after all a white supremacist organization recognized as a domestic terrorists by Canadian authorities.

      Would that be the same Canadian authorities that arrested Pastor Pawlowski on multiple occasions and recently sentenced him to 6 months probation, suspended his travel within his own country and compelled him to speech that violates his conscience? And according to your Daily Beast article, these so called domestic terrorists were OMG! displaying banners and signs protesting mask mandates for children as well as critical racist training.

      Following many run-ins with the police for defying unlawful coronavirus regulations, a well-known Canadian preacher was ordered to lie and go against his convictions to state that “vaccinations are saving lives, that masks work, that doctors and scientists are all for the restrictions.”

      While Artur Pawlowski, the brave pastor of Calgary’s Street Church and The Cave of Adullam in Alberta, Canada, avoided jail time on Wednesday, the Christian Post reports that he was slapped with $23,000 in penalties and 18 months of probation for breaching court orders and coronavirus regulations that forbade him from conducting in-person church services.

      Probation terms include doing 120 hours of community service, not being able to leave Alberta, and what his lawyer described as “suppression of freedom of expression.”

      And yet a pro-life prayer vigil on the University of North Texas campus was disrupted by approximately 200 Antifa activists.

      “They harassed us, they were throwing things at us,” she said. “They were chanting things. They brought all sorts of instruments that they were playing to drown out whatever we were saying. They brought their megaphones, they brought whistles.”

      Neidert said some of the protesters tried to pick fights with the pro-life students, told them to kill themselves, and followed them to their cars to harass them.

      In one of the videos obtained by Fox News, the pro-life students chant, “Christ is king!” to which a protester responds by chanting, “F*** your God!”

      In another video, a protester screams through a megaphone that she “loves sacrificing children.”

      Now how do you define domestic terrorists again? It’s pretty stupid to accept a domestic terrorists definition from a government aggressively taking action against those protesting the violation of their civil rights.

      1. I do not give a $hit about labels.

        Government may investigate ACTUAL Crimes.

        Not people that some think are disreputable.

        Not groups that offend the feelings of some ingroup.

        Canada especially right now is NOT a credibly example of sane rational government.

        Unfortunately neither is the US.

        What is it that our leaders, or their “”experts” have told us about ANYTHING that has actually proven correct ?

        Trump was not plotting with Russia in 2016 – Clinton was.
        Putin did not favor Trump – he favored Clinton and Biden – as did the Chinese.
        VP Biden and his sons Conduct in Russia, Ukraine, China and many other places was NOT Debunked Right wing conspiracy Theories, nor Russian Disinformation – it was FACT – facts which get worse by the day. There are now emails indicating that as Vice President Joe Biden’s finances and bank accounts were intermingled with his Son Hunter’s. There is no longer a shred of Plausible deniability that Joe Biden was not aware of his Son’s activities or that he did not personally benefit from them.

        And I can go on and on.

        56% of americans beleive that it is atleast somewhat likely that the 2020 Election was stolen.

        I do not know if that is true, it may be impossible to prove.
        But it is crystal clear it was conducted lawlessly, and in a fashion to make large scale fraud easy.

        But what is most important is that the left, the media, and democrats have LIED to us all so much about so many things – that no wise person trusts them.

        Those on the left – even those outside of government do not seem to grasp that their own lies and censorious conduct have destroyed peoples trust in them and the institutions they control.

        When Clinton and myriads of other democrats claimed large scale Election Fraud in 2016 – I did not believe them, but i supported actual inquiry.

        Today if the left is trying to supress something – large portions of the electorate are likely to presume it is true.

        We are in the midst of a holy war over covid, masks, vaccinations, lockdowns etc.

        Increasingly – in the US and throughout the world our leaders and their psychophants in the media undermine their own credibility by providing bad advise and then failing to correct it even when it is obvious.

        Getting vaccinated is probably a good idea for many people – especially older people and those at risk.
        But the lie that it is absolutely necescary for everyone, that you will die if you do not vaccinate,
        that Kids will fie by the thousands if we do not vaccinate them – all these lies DECREASE the people willing to get vaccinated.

        Those on the left seem to think that trusting authority is manditory.

        Trust is ALWAYS something you must earn – and you must do so over and over in everything you do.

        The NIH is now admitting that it funded Gain Of Function research on Bat Corona Viruses in Wuhan specifically seeking to engineer the spike protein to be able to better infect humanized mice.

        While this is not absolute proof that the epidemic was the result of a lab leak – it gets us 95% of the way there.
        A year ago the odds against a zoonotic jump to humans were 1:13B – now they are several orders of magnitude worse.

        But beyond where the pandemic originated – Dr. Faucci has LIED about it, under oath, repeatedly.

        This was self serving perjury. It was open and knowing.
        It should be prosecuted
        At the very least Faucci should be fired,

        And no rational person should ever trust anything he says ever again.

        Finally, those on the left should grasp that power and authority do NOT confer integrity and trustworthyness.

        Trust is earned – and not by telling us what we want to hear – but by telling us the TRUTH.

  12. If the letter is the only reason that Garland is acting then we have a truly awful situation. First, there have been reports that the white house has helped draft the letter which really lowers the bar for investigation to anybody who is a critc.. Second, it sets up federal government action with the excuse that people feel threated. When feeling threatened becomes the basis for action it makes it possible for impressionable hysterical people to talk themselves into feeling scared. Even worse is using feeling threatened to set up the possibility of simply saying that one feels threatened as a political tactic. Third, we now have a series of threat hoaxes, quite common in my university and becoming more prevalent in the age of the internet, and also due to the ease of making copies to post on highly visible places and irresponsible reporting by partisan news people. These have become ubiquitous political tactics. All of this leads to “guilt by accusation” which combines gross stupidity and the Leninist evil where monitoring and supressing critics evolves into terror. In this case parents become counter-revolutionaries needing quashing.

  13. “Garland repeatedly assured the members that he knows of no basis for alleging domestic terrorism in these school board meetings.”
    His source: The Waterboard of Education

Leave a Reply