Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, stonewalled on the issue of his orders that could benefit his son-in-law’s company financially and \u2026<\/b>
\nJoe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, stonewalled on the issue of his orders that could benefit his son-in-law’s company financially and denied characterizing public school parents as domestic terrorists during an appearance before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. He also took a tongue-lashing from Sen. Jim Jordan over his political agenda. Fox News reported Garland refused to answer questions whether he sought any \u00ab\u00a0ethics guidance\u00a0\u00bb regarding Panorama Education, started and run by his son-in-law, and which is in line to benefit financially from Garland’s campaign against parents who oppose its left-leaning, pro-LGBT and pro-Critical Race Theory ideologies. Garland was asked by Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., about the conflicts of interest inherent when a government official takes action that benefits his family financially. Fox News reported Panorama reportedly has been paid $27 million from more than a thousand school districts \u2013 triggering concerns about the family’s financial fortunes and how they benefit from Garland’s decision to crack down on opposition to leftist school board agendas. Responding to a letter from a school boards group in America that described those opponents to leftist ideals as domestic terrorists, the Biden administration, through Garland, assigned the FBI to begin investigating and prosecuting those parents. \u00ab\u00a0We now know that company publishes and sells critical race theory and so-called anti-racism materials to schools across the country, and it works with school districts nationwide to obtain and analyze data on students, often without parental consent,\u00a0\u00bb said Johnson. But Garland said \u00ab\u00a0nothing\u00a0\u00bb in his memorandum has \u00ab\u00a0any effect on the kinds of curriculums that are taught or the ability of parents to complain.\u00a0\u00bb Fox explained, \u00ab\u00a0Johnson pressed the attorney general on whether he sought ethics guidance concerning his son\u2019s business before he sent out his controversial Oct.4 memo, which directed the FBI and U.S. attorney offices to hold meetings with federal, state and local law enforcement leaders within 30 days to discuss ways to combat what the DOJ described as an ‘increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation\u2019s public schools.'\u00a0\u00bb Johnson pointed out that the very basis of parental concerns about their local boards’ actions is the \u00ab\u00a0very curricula that your son-in-law is selling.\u00a0\u00bb But Garland refused to answer questions about ethics advice or guidance. And he claimed again there was no conflict of interest in his orders that, at a minimum, provide protection for the agenda of his son-in-law’s company. Merrick also claimed the DOJ didn’t label parents as domestic terrorists, even though his memo sent the DOJ after parents who dissent from local board agendas. He alleged, \u00ab\u00a0The Justice Department supports and defends the First Amendment right of parents to complain as vociferously as they wish about the education of their children, about the curriculum taught in the schools. That is not what the memorandum is about at all, nor does it use the words ‘domestic terrorism’ or ‘PATRIOT Act,'\u00a0\u00bb he said. In fact, it was the request from the National School Boards Association to Biden to act against parents that called them terrorists and asked that the nation’s anti-terror PATRIOT Act be invoked against them. Garland’s order was in response to that demand. His order, in fact, cited \u00ab\u00a0threats against public servants\u00a0\u00bb as being illegal. The problem with the description is that boards have been claiming that parents who simply protest their agenda, and vocally oppose it, citing the option voters have to recall board members and remove them, are the \u00ab\u00a0threats.\u00a0\u00bb Jordan also delivered a tongue-lashing during the hearing. He responded, \u00ab\u00a0Are you kidding me?\u00a0\u00bb after Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler claimed it was the DOJ under President Trump that was \u00ab\u00a0political.\u00a0\u00bb He pointed out the undeniable sequence of recent events, the NSBA demanding DOJ action against parents, and Garland’s response within days. \u00ab\u00a0Republicans on this committee have sent the attorney general 13 letters in the last six months,\u00a0\u00bb he said. \u00ab\u00a0Eight of the letters, we’ve got nothing – they just gave us the finger.\u00a0\u00bb He pointed out how Garland had assembled a \u00ab\u00a0snitch line\u00a0\u00bb to be used against parents within five days \u00ab\u00a0after a left-wing political organization asked for it.\u00a0\u00bb \u00ab\u00a0It that’s not political I don’t know what is,\u00a0\u00bb he said. Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, also asked if Garland supported the comparison between domestic terrorism and parents’ school board protests, and Garland claimed the DOJ was only concerned about \u00ab\u00a0violence and threats.\u00a0\u00bb However, one of the incidents that triggered the back-and-forth in politics is when a Virginia school board concealed the fact that a boy wearing a skirt allegedly went into a girls restroom and assaulted a girl. When the superintendent claimed during a meeting there was no record of such an attack, which reportedly was repeated by the same offender a short time later with another victim, the father of the girl protested, verbally and vocally, and school board members had him arrested and charged. Fox News noted that just as the hearing was going on attorneys general from 17 states sent Biden and Garland a letter demanding the government stop trying to intimidate parents into silence. \u00ab\u00a0Your recent action seeks to chill lawful dissent by parents voiced during local school board meetings by characterizing them as unlawful and threatening,\u00a0\u00bb the attorneys general wrote in the letter. It also was reported half of the eight members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wrote to Garland, scolding him for his memo calling out the FBI against parents. \u00ab\u00a0Your memorandum did not cite any specific examples of \u2018harassment, intimidation and threats of violence\u2019 that would provide any basis for law enforcement action by the Department,\u00a0\u00bb the letter read. \u00ab\u00a0We are concerned that much of what the NSBA calls threats and acts of intimidation\u2014and compares to ‘domestic terrorism and hate crimes’\u2014can be merely classified as political speech.\u00a0\u00bb In fact a poll on Thursday on the issue was released by the Convention of States Action in conjunction with the Trafalgar Group. \u00ab\u00a0The very idea that our attorney general would direct our nation\u2019s federal law enforcement to investigate everyday moms and dads who are rightly concerned about their children\u2019s education is shocking and hard to fathom. These are the tactics of totalitarians in places like China and North Korea, not here in America,\u201d said Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action. \u201cThis explains the findings in this poll, where one can plainly see that those who are aware that Merrick Garland made this announcement oppose him by large majorities, while there\u2019s a group who marked \u2018not sure\u2019 because they don\u2019t know about his announcement or don\u2019t know enough about it. The nearly 20 percent overall who support Garland\u2019s actions against parents are consistent throughout all of our polls, in which we see that roughly this percentage of voters will support practically anything the Democrats support. A scary reality in these challenging times.\u00a0\u00bb The results show only 19.8% of respondents supported Garland’s stance on the dispute. SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!<\/p>\n