Yep, the next "insurrection" will be a real one. Man (or woman) the pitchforks!
Posted on 10/30/2021 7:16:34 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
‘This Isn’t La-La Land!’: John Kennedy Presses Garland Over School Board Memo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6jzembojzg
‘Maybe This Will Refresh Your Memory’: Hawley Presses AG On Dad Arrested At School Board Meeting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jILwhennws
What started as a joke is now a rule.
How do you know a liberal is lying?
Their lips are moving.
The guillotine is the only answer. Their slimy lips will never move again.
Just for clarity: the memo he denies at 1:28 is from his Montana attorney. The memo he claims authorship of at 2:00 is his own. Two different memos.
We’re a banana republic. No doubt. There are two solutions: separation or CW2. I honestly can’t see any other options.
GO JOHN KENNEDY!!!
Revenge: School Board Endangers Children of Parents Who Speak Out, Demands They Publicly Disclose Home Addresses
If we’re not living in la-la land I don’t know what it could be
I’m also kinda disturbed at how incompetent Sen. Kennedy is... and most of the Republican senators I’ve seen. Garland denies that his memo asserts that these threats of violence and intimidation are real or that the incidents cited by the letter that prompted his memo amount to threats of violence or intimidation. And Kennedy simply begs the question. This makes Kennedy look like a good guy to most of our side, but also makes him look like an incompetent bully badgering Garland to the other side. Garland denied what Kennedy is asserting.
Of course, Garland is lying, but Kennedy doesn’t expose why he dismissed Garland as a liar. Garland’s memo does not pose the question of WHETHER threats of violence have become a criminal justice-problem, but rather characterizes what it asserts IS happening as criminal threats of violence.
“In recent months, there HAS (1) been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who
participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools. While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views (2).”
(1) “[H]as” affirms that these threats are real, and, in this context, that what is real does constitute criminal activity.
(2) Given that 15 of 20 references cited by the letter which Garland admits prompted this letter are constitutionally protected and even politically both valid and reasonable, his failure to define “intimidate” is problematic. Truly, while he did not author the Montana memo, that memo shows that his own direct subordinates, with their background in law, misunderstood “intimidate” to include non-violent attempts to compel school-board members to consider electoral reprecussions. In other words, whereas “threaten” is modified by the word “violent” so as it is understood that “threatening” to unelect school board members is understood not to be a CRIMINAL threat, it is not similarly clarified that intimidation refers to intimidation by threats of criminal violence, and not merely to intimidation by threats of electoral removal, or revelation into public discourse of unprofessional, or of electorally unwise actions.
In fact, while Garland disagrees with Kennedy’s characterization of the Justice Department’s behavior as “chilling,” Kennedy fails to effectively refute claim that the Justice Department is concerned only with criminal behavior. But the memo states, “The Department... is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, AND prosecute them when appropriate.” Adding “And... when appropriate” plainly suggests that the Justice Department plans to “discourage” threats even when the threats CANNOT be prosecuted.
NOTHING in the memo suggests any doubt as to whether there is a spike in threats and intimidation that is real, violent, and criminal.
LaLaLand……..
Yes, yes, it is.
People need to be taking their kids out of state run schools and either homeschooling them or banding with like minded parents to create their own private schools instead of hurrah-ing like Mel Brooks’s character, Gabby Johnson, in Blazing Saddles whenever some do-nothing politician 3,000 miles away tosses them a bone with no meat on it every so often.
Yep, the next "insurrection" will be a real one. Man (or woman) the pitchforks!
Excellent!
I agree with your take. Many of these Q&As come across as badgering and fail to expose the substance of the problem.
Kennedy should put you on his staff.
It’s all theater. All these Senators want is a sound bite they can use to advance their beltway careers.
I'm guessing most (if not ALL) 'threats of violence' against democrats, liberal school board members and etc etc. etc. are MADE BY DEMOCRATS TO GAIN PITY AND ADVANTAGE. They're about as likely to be true as Jussie Smollett running into two Trump supporters at 3 AM on the South Side of Chicago - carrying a noose and a bottle of bleach.
Until there are tangible consequences of Garland’s actions, it IS la-la land.
There won't be, and it is.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a party that actually represented the right, even a little? All we have is one that promises to be a little less terrible than the other but at least they'll throw out some fiery but empty rhetoric to keep us pacified while they slowly help advance leftism.
I TOTALLY AGREE
I homeschooled 11 of out 14 children. We had adopted two sibling families, totally 11, to keep them together.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.