Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 98 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This week was quite interesting and very frightening as AG Merrick Garland has given a directive to the FBI to investigate those concerned parents who angrily protest at school board meeting across the country as domestic terrorists. One thing Covid did was point out what the schools have been doing for a long time and a lot of parents are not happy and trying to rein in study of CRT and 1690 project among other things.
Now Mr. garland was not as concerned with the BLM and ANTIFA riots and has not sent the FBI out investigating known terrorists.
So why is he hell bent on shutting down these parents who object to the way their schools that they pay for teach the kids.
Well as always follow the money. It turns out that AG Garland has a son in law who is co founder of a education service company called Panorama Education that supplies school districts with all the material they need to teach CRT. Millions of dollars are at stake here and if this is defeated in the public schools his family could lose out on millions of dollars.
Against federal guidelines he has never revealed he has a stake in this issue while making directives to quell it.
Just think this dangerous man might have been a Supreme Court justice.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,423 Posts
There is another side to the story. The parents being investigated are ones who have physically threatened school board officials, not parents who were just speaking out. I still don't get why the FBI is involved. It seems like a matter for the local police.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
There is another side to the story. The parents being investigated are ones who have physically threatened school board officials, not parents who were just speaking out. I still don't get why the FBI is involved. It seems like a matter for the local police.
I'm shocked that Tucker wouldn't tell the whole story.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I'm shocked that Tucker wouldn't tell the whole story.
No one not even Carlson is saying that any violent threats or violence are not criminal.
The FBI being used by the justice Department is the issue. And why are they being used for a local police matter?
As the article says follow the money. This is not a Justice department/ FBI issue. They have no jurisdiction in local police matters.
But the present administration cannot have the peons, the deplorables rise up and question the edicts given from the mountain of Washington DC.
Angry protest and loud speaking are not violence and not a federal crime. Perfectly fine for BLM but not regular tax paying citizens
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
No one not even Carlson is saying that any violent threats or violence are not criminal.
The FBI being used by the justice Department is the issue. And why are they being used for a local police matter?
As the article says follow the money. This is not a Justice department/ FBI issue. They have no jurisdiction in local police matters.
But the present administration cannot have the peons, the deplorables rise up and question the edicts given from the mountain of Washington DC.
Angry protest and loud speaking are not violence and not a federal crime. Perfectly fine for BLM but not regular tax paying citizens
What's unusual about the FBI getting involved in cases of terrorism? Threatening to kill your local school board member because little Timmy has to wear a mask at school is textbook terrorism.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
What's unusual about the FBI getting involved in cases of terrorism? Threatening to kill your local school board member because little Timmy has to wear a mask at school is textbook terrorism.
Once again, no one is talking about threats of murder and violence. Talking about parents getting very vocal and angry at board member's. Even then shall we consider all threats to kill someone terroristic? If that is so there ain't enough FBI guys to handle that. Your definition of terrorism and mine differ I assume. Not every crime or threat is terrorism. The left sees everyone who does not agree with their plans for America as not people expressing and using their God given rights, but terrorists.
Just listen to the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC we are all white supremist and need to be locked up for standing in the way of progress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45,327 Posts
What's unusual about the FBI getting involved in cases of terrorism? Threatening to kill your local school board member because little Timmy has to wear a mask at school is textbook terrorism.
Well, there is terrorism against a government, and then there are individual threats against individuals. Spiders terrorize me, but I don't think spiders are worthy of an FBI investigation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,423 Posts
Well, there is terrorism against a government, and then there are individual threats against individuals. Spiders terrorize me, but I don't think spiders are worthy of an FBI investigation.
Didn't you see the movie "It?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
Once again, no one is talking about threats of murder and violence. Talking about parents getting very vocal and angry at board member's. Even then shall we consider all threats to kill someone terroristic? If that is so there ain't enough FBI guys to handle that. Your definition of terrorism and mine differ I assume. Not every crime or threat is terrorism. The left sees everyone who does not agree with their plans for America as not people expressing and using their God given rights, but terrorists.
Just listen to the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC we are all white supremist and need to be locked up for standing in the way of progress.
Why make up our own definition, when the FBI has already defined it.

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.


Well, there is terrorism against a government, and then there are individual threats against individuals. Spiders terrorize me, but I don't think spiders are worthy of an FBI investigation.
Are elected members of a school board not part of the government?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Why make up our own definition, when the FBI has already defined it.

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.




Are elected members of a school board not part of the government?
Here is what a former DOJ official had to say on the matter.
I would think his opinion is based more on the facts of the law and jurisdiction. You stated violent acts. Do you consider yelling at a board meeting a violent act worthy of FBI and DOJ investigation?

Andy McCarthy: DOJ has 'no jurisdiction' over school board meetings, AG memo is 'dangerous nonsense'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45,327 Posts
Why make up our own definition, when the FBI has already defined it.

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.




Are elected members of a school board not part of the government?
And just what "ideological" goals are parents furthering--other than the goal of not having the goals of government at any level forced upon them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
Here is what a former DOJ official had to say on the matter.
I would think his opinion is based more on the facts of the law and jurisdiction. You stated violent acts. Do you consider yelling at a board meeting a violent act worthy of FBI and DOJ investigation?

Andy McCarthy: DOJ has 'no jurisdiction' over school board meetings, AG memo is 'dangerous nonsense'
Of course it depends on what is being said. If they're making violent threats, then that's terrorism. If they're just being disruptive and won't shut up, that's a trespassing charge for local LEO to sort out.
And just what "ideological" goals are parents furthering--other than the goal of not having the goals of government at any level forced upon them?
You're smarter than that. Don't play dumb.

Those parents are free to school their kids at home if they don't agree with the rules. Threatening violence is not the answer to a public policy disagreement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45,327 Posts
You're smarter than that. Don't play dumb.

Those parents are free to school their kids at home if they don't agree with the rules. Threatening violence is not the answer to a public policy disagreement.
Playing dumb is what I do best. Keeps people on their heels.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: oneshot

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Of course it depends on what is being said. If they're making violent threats, then that's terrorism. If they're just being disruptive and won't shut up, that's a trespassing charge for local LEO to sort out.


You're smarter than that. Don't play dumb.

Those parents are free to school their kids at home if they don't agree with the rules. Threatening violence is not the answer to a public policy disagreement.
As a tax payer who's taxes pay for that public education it is my right to voice displeasure as to how a school is being run even if I no longer have kids in school.
The answer of if you don't like the way the school is run, why not pull them out and put them in private or home school. Some do that. Some cannot afford to do that.
I would love it if when my kids were in school I could have put them in a private school and not paid the school tax on my property tax as i would no longer be using that service. But no you cannot do that. How about using your right to voice objection and make a change.
Personally I would more like these parents to band together and vote these Marxists off the school board and vote in people who think more in line with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
As a tax payer who's taxes pay for that public education it is my right to voice displeasure as to how a school is being run even if I no longer have kids in school.
The answer of if you don't like the way the school is run, why not pull them out and put them in private or home school. Some do that. Some cannot afford to do that.
I would love it if when my kids were in school I could have put them in a private school and not paid the school tax on my property tax as i would no longer be using that service. But no you cannot do that. How about using your right to voice objection and make a change.
Personally I would more like these parents to band together and vote these Marxists off the school board and vote in people who think more in line with them.
You have every right to voice your displeasure. You do not have a right to threaten others with violence because you disagree with them politically. That's what the FBI is working on.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
You have every right to voice your displeasure. You do not have a right to threaten others with violence because you disagree with them politically. That's what the FBI is working on.
So you believe the FBI is only investigating parents who have threatened to kill board members, or are they investigating anyone whom the board member "feels" threatened by. Big distinction there. Is this the same FBI that was charging a 70 year old grandmother with insurrection on Jan 6? The FBI has been used as a political weapon for many years and I do not trust the higher ups to do the right thing. This is a local law enforcement matter and the DOJ and FBI should keep their nose out of it.
 
1 - 20 of 98 Posts
Top