Garlands deployment of federal law enforcement upon protesting parents

Garlands deployment of federal law enforcement upon protesting parents

by Paul Viollis, Law Enforcement & Security Analyst & CEO of Viollis Group International

Given the Incongruity of the United States Attorney General’s decision to deflect federal law enforcement from rising crime and omnipresent threats and focus upon parents of adolescent children, one must ask themselves if this was his decision or was it promulgated from another source. More on that later. For now, I think it’s imperative that we, as American citizens, closely examine precisely what is occurring right before our eyes.

The issue: Parents of K-12 children are in protest of school boards’ decisions on mask mandates and the inclusion of critical race theory within the required curriculum. Therefore, they are voicing their concerns regarding their desire to make parenting decisions about the physical health of their children and the content that is being disseminated to their minds. Now, if that doesn’t leave you wanting to lock up every parent, I don’t know what will. Really? We, as a country, have fallen this far? Forget the commentary. Let’s stick to the mantra of this blog and have a fact-based conversation about this nonsense.

The Facts:

  1. The First Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” For the purposes of our conversation, the keyword in this directive is peaceably.

Parents have the constitutional right to protest as loud as they like, given their 1st amendment rights, provided they are not breaking laws such as what has been alleged, albeit absent any form of specificity. That said, if individuals or groups have crossed the legal line and made statements that would constitute the material elements of a criminal Statute or Penal Code, then that would clearly be a matter for local law enforcement. Only if these allegations crossed state lines would federal law enforcement come into play. Where then, does AG Garland find he has jurisdiction to deploy the manpower of both the FBI and USAO for such matters when we are staring down threats such as terrorism on US soil, gang violence out of control, an overrun border, all-time low staffing of Police and cyber-crime at an unprecedented high just to mention a few.

  1. Just when I thought I had seen the very depth of ignorance within our society, I reflect on the fact that the timing of Garland’s memorandum closely follows the timing of a letter from the National School Board Association (NSBA), which asks the Biden administration to have law enforcement treat parent and student protests of mask policies and Critical Race Theory as a form of “domestic terrorism.” That being said, let’s look at what the USA Patriot Act defines Domestic Terrorism to be: A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act “dangerous to human life” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass

destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and, if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism. So it would be at this point that I would direct the question to the NSBA, a body typically comprised of learned professionals, of where exactly you feel your blatantly inaccurate accusations fall within the aforementioned definition?

  1. Any reasonable thinking person would have to acknowledge that our country has and continues to be plagued with racism being perpetrated by all people regardless of color or creed. Any reluctance to concede that point would simply be inaccurate. That said, the only true anecdote to this epidemic is to build a bridge between all parties constructed by such tents as respectful actions and speech, decisions being made on factual knowledge, not speculation, taking the time to know someone not thinking you know them, embracing the realization that none of us are good enough to judge another, and giving everyone a fair shot at learning, working, living and loving. So then I look at CRT and ask myself, where, in this directive, can we achieve that through this definition: based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of color. Critical race theorists hold

that racism is inherent in the law and legal institutions of the United States insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans. Critical race theorists are generally dedicated to applying their understanding of the institutional or structural nature of racism to the concrete (if distant) goal of eliminating all race-based and other

unjust hierarchies. Look at this and try and be objective; is this curriculum going to help? The answer is no. It will just build the wall higher. Do we need an unbiased, fact-based curriculum? No question, but this is clearly not it.

The bottom line here is this: Parents protesting mask policies and the curriculum content to which their children are being exposed is not domestic terrorism, yet the accusing group made no comment whatsoever when crowds all over the country were burning down their cities, destroying businesses, and tearing down statues; actions which do in fact meet the material elements of DT. So, where did this decision come from? Garland is a highly respected lawyer with a sterling track record, so why this? We will probably never know, but what is for sure, what is factual, is that this is not a matter for our lands premier Law Enforcement agency but a subject that should be discussed freely with only one agenda, that being, what is best for all the children and the parameters of parents right to govern their children’s health.