ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 9 of 14
« First < 56789 10111213 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>U.S. AG Instructs FBI to Investigate Parents Who Challenge School Boards
BucEyedPea 06:42 AM 10-05-2021
Full title, that would not fit:
U.S. Attorney General Instructs FBI to Begin Investigating Parents Who Challenge School Board Policy and Decisions

With zero specific citations to support the claimed threats, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has now instructed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, aka political state police) to target and investigate any parents who challenge local school board policies. [DOJ Announcement Here]] The objective appears to be an overt threat to intimidate parents who are actively engaged in their child’s school education.

On behalf of militant teachers unions, the Biden regime does not want school policy (COVID) or indoctrination lesson-plans (Critical Race Theory) to be challenged. To execute their objective the intensely political FBI has now been activated against parents in all 50 states. [Targeting Memo Link]

The goal is to label dissident parents, non-conforming free range citizens, as “Domestic Terrorists.” The FBI will use the assembly of Big Tech social monitors to identify the targets for investigation. If parents do not want to see their child forced to wear a mask or have a needle injected into their arm while being told their skin color makes them less worthy of life, that person will become a target of the federal police.



https://theconservativetreehouse.com...and-decisions/

Notice how they embellish upset or angry parents as "violent" while antifa and BLM are considered peaceful protestors. We sure dodged a bullet with Garland not being put on the SC. This guy is a fascist political operative. The Democrats are fascists and we don't really have an opposition party to them.
[Reply]
cosmo20002 02:57 PM 10-06-2021
Originally Posted by banyon:
Yeah the "Constitutional lawyer" who hasn't ever appeared in court on a Constitutional case. He lost in Wesley Snipes tax evasion case (calls it a "win" despite his client going to prison for 3 years). And he represented that kid from the high school group that had the face off with the native american.
:-) Didn't know that. Hilarious.
But exactly the kind of credentials you would expect from a BEP subject matter expert.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 03:02 PM 10-06-2021
Some folks are in heavy, serious denial. You'd think so-called "liberals" would wake-up but nooooooo. Because their true colors are showing. Authoritarians.
[Reply]
banyon 03:03 PM 10-06-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Some folks are in heavy, serious denial. You'd think so-called "liberals" would wake-up but nooooooo. Because their true colors are showing. Authoritarians.
Let us know when the first Federal Prosecution occurs of a parent who didn't like this weeks school lunch menu. I'll wait.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 03:03 PM 10-06-2021
Originally Posted by Pennywise:
The fact that a dildo inserted into my anus makes me cum in no way establishes conclusively that I am gay.
Ok, let's say 99.9999999% chance you are gay.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 03:06 PM 10-06-2021

[Reply]
Easy 6 03:08 PM 10-06-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
Ok, let's say 99.9999999% chance you are gay.
So where are you at on this issue, Doug?

You ok with it, or no?
[Reply]
staylor26 03:14 PM 10-06-2021
(Somebody embed please)

https://youtu.be/MWb4DWj3aIc
[Reply]
Easy 6 03:16 PM 10-06-2021

[Reply]
staylor26 03:18 PM 10-06-2021
Originally Posted by Easy 6:
Thanks. He goes over some of the incidents that are being used as examples, and as we already know, they’re blown out of proportion.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 03:26 PM 10-06-2021
Originally Posted by Easy 6:
So where are you at on this issue, Doug?

You ok with it, or no?
If the Justice Department was actually going to target people for speaking their minds at school board meetings, it's not even a question. That would violate the most important constitutional protection in the history of mankind: The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

But that's not the case. Garland's memo says:

"The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate. In the coming days, the Department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.

Coordination and partnership with local law enforcement is critical to implementing these measures for the benefit of our nation's nearly 14,000 public school districts. To this end, I am directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance ofthis memorandum. These meetings will facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response."

https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download

This isn't a bill in Congress to enact new legislation. This is the AG saying that, according to him, there are a lot of threats being made against public officials, those threats are crimes, and they need to be addressed.

So, if John Q Citizen says to the school board president, "keep CRT in your curriculum and you'll likely find yourself out of work come election day," there is nothing illegal about that, and no law enforcement official in his right mind would try to argue otherwise.

On the other hand, if John Q Citizen says, "keep CRT in your curriculum and you'll likely find yourself with a burned down house," that absolutely needs to be addressed, and if it violates the (existing) law, it should be prosecuted.

What is your position?
[Reply]
jdubya 03:34 PM 10-06-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
If the Justice Department was actually going to target people for speaking their minds at school board meetings, it's not even a question. That would violate the most important constitutional protection in the history of mankind: The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

But that's not the case. Garland's memo says:

"The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate. In the coming days, the Department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.

Coordination and partnership with local law enforcement is critical to implementing these measures for the benefit of our nation's nearly 14,000 public school districts. To this end, I am directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance ofthis memorandum. These meetings will facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response."

https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download

This isn't a bill in Congress to enact new legislation. This is the AG saying that, according to him, there are a lot of threats being made against public officials, those threats are crimes, and they need to be addressed.

So, if John Q Citizen says to the school board president, "keep CRT in your curriculum and you'll likely find yourself out of work come election day," there is nothing illegal about that, and no law enforcement official in his right mind would try to argue otherwise.

On the other hand, if John Q Citizen says, "keep CRT in your curriculum and you'll likely find yourself with a burned down house," that absolutely needs to be addressed, and if it violates the (existing) law, it should be prosecuted.

What is your position?
If the above example happens, why cant they leave it at the local law enforcement level? As the video above shows, there doesn't really appear to be anything substantial at all that the locals cant take of with fed help. Is there any precedence of school board meetings needing help from the FBI, national security, Dept of Homeland security?
[Reply]
Easy 6 03:43 PM 10-06-2021
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
If the Justice Department was actually going to target people for speaking their minds at school board meetings, it's not even a question. That would violate the most important constitutional protection in the history of mankind: The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

But that's not the case. Garland's memo says:

"The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate. In the coming days, the Department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.

Coordination and partnership with local law enforcement is critical to implementing these measures for the benefit of our nation's nearly 14,000 public school districts. To this end, I am directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance ofthis memorandum. These meetings will facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response."

https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download

This isn't a bill in Congress to enact new legislation. This is the AG saying that, according to him, there are a lot of threats being made against public officials, those threats are crimes, and they need to be addressed.

So, if John Q Citizen says to the school board president, "keep CRT in your curriculum and you'll likely find yourself out of work come election day," there is nothing illegal about that, and no law enforcement official in his right mind would try to argue otherwise.

On the other hand, if John Q Citizen says, "keep CRT in your curriculum and you'll likely find yourself with a burned down house," that absolutely needs to be addressed, and if it violates the (existing) law, it should be prosecuted.

What is your position?
My position is to let local LE handle it, pretty simple really

Getting the feds involved only serves to scare law abiding citizens away from these meetings... and lets not forget that Garlands son in law and daughter stand to directly benefit from the continued use of CRT curriculum

That is a DIRECT conflict of interest, and he has no business whatsoever being anywhere NEAR this issue
[Reply]
banyon 03:46 PM 10-06-2021
Originally Posted by jdubya:
If the above example happens, why cant they leave it at the local law enforcement level? As the video above shows, there doesn't really appear to be anything substantial at all that the locals cant take of with fed help. Is there any precedence of school board meetings needing help from the FBI, national security, Dept of Homeland security?
As I indicated above, a lot of the threats are online and social media. Most of the tough guys are behind a keyboard and not at the meetings.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 03:48 PM 10-06-2021
Originally Posted by jdubya:
If the above example happens, why cant they leave it at the local law enforcement level? As the video above shows, there doesn't really appear to be anything substantial at all that the locals cant take of with fed help. Is there any precedence of school board meetings needing help from the FBI, national security, Dept of Homeland security?
That I couldn't say. Seems like a local issue to me. But it could violate some federal statute, I don't know.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 04:13 PM 10-06-2021
Originally Posted by Pennywise:
I have a fictional child predator / child killer for an avatar.
Yes you do, you sick fuck.
[Reply]
Page 9 of 14
« First < 56789 10111213 > Last »
Up