US Civil Rights Commissioners Ask Blistering Questions About Garland Labeling Parents as 'Domestic Terrorists'
Merrick "The Vindictive" Garland
Article by Mike Miller in RedState
US Civil Rights Commissioners Ask Blistering Questions About Garland Labeling Parents as 'Domestic Terrorists'
The more I see Attorney General Merrick Garland in action the more I count America’s lucky stars that the then-Senate Majority Leader kept this guy the hell away from the United States Supreme Court — which no doubt still angers the chief law enforcement official of our country. Shudder the thought.
Before we continue, let’s get one thing straight.
While the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the president of the United States and is the chief legal counsel of the President, the Attorney General is not the president’s personal lawyer nor that of the president’s party; the Attorney General is the federal government’s chief lawyer. That applied to Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr under Trump — much to Trump’s chagrin — and it applies to Merrick Garland, as he has admitted. The problem being Garland is not practicing what he preaches. And now “the rest of the story.”
As reported by Fox News on Saturday, four out of the eight members of the U.S Commission on Civil Rights have penned a letter to Garland, ripping the Attorney General for his recent ridiculous memo in which he labeled parents who protest at school board meetings over the indoctrination of their kids with the disease of so-called “critical race theory,” child vaccination mandates — and whatever the hell else their First Amendment rights guarantee — as “domestic terrorists.” Hilarious on its face; ominous in practice.
SPEECH NOT 'TERRORISM'
— Linda Marie Lovison (@lilo623) October 17, 2021
Members Kirsanow, J. Christian Adams, Gale Heriot and Gilchrist of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sound the alarm over Attorney General Merrick Garland's response to parents' school protests#MerrickGarland @TheJusticeDept #DOJ https://t.co/bfCODiwPcV
The members who signed onto the letter include Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, J. Christian Adams, Gail Heriot, and Stephen Gilchrist, noted Fox. They wrote, in part (emphasis mine):
Your memorandum did not cite any specific examples of ‘harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence that would provide any basis for law enforcement action by the Department.
We are concerned that much of what the NSBA (National School Board Association) calls threats and acts of intimidation—and compares to “domestic terrorism and hate crimes”— can be merely classified as political speech.
The members were also adamant about Garland’s insistence that protesting parents represent a national security threat — again, a preposterous notion.
We have combed the internet for signs that parents petitioning school boards are anything approaching a national problem. Nearly all of what we have seen so far makes us proud to be Americans: Parents care about the education of their children, and they are not willing to allow them to be indoctrinated into a radical ideology.
Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, and the entire Democrat Party were unavailable for comment.
The scorching letter wrapped up with a series of blistering questions:
It is always possible that a few of these parents have gotten out of hand and made threats that they should not have. If so, law enforcement is entirely appropriate. But is there evidence that state and local law enforcement is not up to the job?
Why is federal intervention needed here and not in the thousands of other unrelated cases of overheated exchanges that occur regularly across the country? Why does this case call for federal intervention?
Is it surprising to you that concerned parents across the country view your memorandum as an endorsement of the NSBA’s description of their protests as comparable to “domestic terrorism”?
And finally, the Civil Rights Commission members asked Garland to provide specific examples of so-called “domestic terrorism” committed by parents protesting for the wellbeing of their children:
We now ask you to provide us with specific examples of “harassment, intimidation and threats of violence” that you purport allow for law enforcement action and an explanation of why this is a situation that calls for federal intervention in particular.
U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners: 1, Merrick Garland: 0. Final score. Game, set, match.
Thanks for playing, Mr. Garland, now put up or shut up.
Post a Comment