Garland Issued Parents As Domestic Terrorists After One Letter


It was recently announced that the National School Board Association (NSBA) spoke with President Joe Biden weeks before Attorney General Merrick Garland classified anti-mask mandate anti-Critical Race Theory parents as “domestic terrorists” in a letter to the FBI.

The NSBA had requested that Biden use federal law enforcement agencies against parents and investigate any of them for “domestic terrorism and hate crime threats.” They even pushed for the Biden Administration to use the Patriot Act, in order to use any “enforceable actions” against parents.

After the NSBA’s letter to Biden, AG Garland created a task force of officials from the FBI and the Justice Department to investigate any “alleged crimes” at school board meetings. He then sent the infamous “domestic terrorism” letter, in which he told the DOJ to treat concerned parents as domestic terrorists. While radical left members praised the memo, some school board members were upset and said it only “enflames tensions” more between school officials and parents.

Yet AG Garland recently admitted that the “baseline” for him targeting and potentially charging parents came from the NSBA letter to Biden, not any real and concrete evidence. Rep. Jim Jordan asked Garland during a House Judiciary hearing if the NSBA evidence was his only source as a reason to pull together a task force and investigate claims of violence and terrorism.

“So you read the letter? That’s your source? Is there some study, some effort, some investigation someone did that, said there’s been a disturbing uptick, or you just take the words of the National School Board Association?” Rep. Jordan asked.

Garland confirmed that he only took the word of the NSBA before pressuring the Department of Justice to use federal laws and enforcement against school parents. While the NSBA claimed that the federal action was “needed” to deal with the growing number of threats and acts of intimidation across the nation, most of the incidents did not even escalate to any arrests or charges on a local level. Garland previously pointed out how there had been threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, but couldn’t provide any specific examples.

Garland tried to defend his memo in front of Rep. Jordan by claiming that the NSBA represents thousands of school boards and school board members. But multiple school board associations and officials said they were unaware of the NSBA letter before it was published and that the protests they’ve experienced have not warranted any law enforcement beyond the local and state levels.

Garland is also being criticized for questioning parents who speak out against CRT, the radical-left ideology that believes the U.S and all institutions involved are inherently racist. It was recently revealed that Garland’s son-in-law even distributes CRT-related platforms to thousands of schools through his company. Talk about a conflict of interest.

Rep. Mike Johnson even pointed out the potential conflict of interest from his letter, adding that there need to be ethical guidelines for these types of inquiries. Instead of addressing some of the most pressing issues in the country. Rep. Johnson pointed out that the Biden-Garland Justice Department is being weaponized and advancing far-left policies. He said they are attacking Republican-led state actions and eroding their constitutional norms, adding that there need to be more federal regulation and objective third parties to review the activities.

“We need objective third-parties to review our activities. You don’t get to make that decision yourself. It doesn’t matter. You’re the chief law enforcement of this country; this raises questions in the minds of millions of Americans, and your impartiality is being called into question,” Johnson said.

Garland, however, has pushed back that he has not engaged in any conflict of interest and would not submit to an ethics review. . Some would say there is no good investigating any of these corrupt officials when they have not faced any consequences over the last year. Refusing to submit to an ethics review is an answer enough.