The Face of Evil - Attorney General Merrick Garland's Attack On Free Speech

What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist

The First Amendment, U.S. Constitution:

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.

That’s it, 45 words, 14 of which comprise the free speech clause “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” It’s so simple and clear that I’m stunned so many fail to grasp its meaning, or if they grasp its meaning, ignore it. But they do, and as a result our free speech rights are under attack.

The most blatant recent attack on free speech comes from none other then U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. You remember him, the one Obama, Schumer, and so many other ‘progressives’ told us would make a great Supreme Court justice. Either they were wrong, or Garland transitioned from a person worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court to a partisan totalitarian in record time.

On September 29. 2021 the National School Boards Association (NSBA) sent a six page letter to the Biden Administration stating school boards are under “imminent threat” from parents, whom they equated to domestic terrorists. The evidence cited to support the dangers these alleged Tesla driving mom-terrorists pose? Well, there was a “resident in Alabama, who proclaimed himself as ‘vaccine police,’ [and] called school administrators while filming himself on Facebook Live.” Sort of like a CNN employee interviewing someone while claiming to be a journalist? Then their was the pro-mask student who was ridiculed at a board meeting, not sure how this is a threat of violence, let alone one directed at board members. Of course there are vague allegations of disruptions to school board meetings, including a person mocking board members as Nazis by giving them the Nazi salute (poor taste but protected speech), and horrors-of-horrors, a board member in Ohio was called a traitor. Oh, can’t forget the “watch lists” and spreading of the dreaded “misinformation.”¹ That’s it. No, I’m not joking, that’s it.

Based on these allegations, none of which are illegal and all of which are protected speech, the NSBA requested the DOJ, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center, and Postal Inspector investigate parents who dare express displeasure over schools teaching CRT, pornography, and imposing mask and vaccine mandates. Alas, it does not end there. The NSBA also asked the government to use several federal laws, including the Patriot Act against those who exercise their constitutional rights! Yea, why not? We have some vacancies at Guantanamo Bay.

To sum things up, the NSBA is demanding the federal government use the full power of six federal agencies to investigate and prosecute parents for the nonexistent crime of engaging in sometimes rude but always protected speech. One phrase, three words…go to hell.

Though the NSBA’s letter is beyond stupid, it is not an infringement of free speech - it’s a private organization and they can write whatever nonsense they please, and make fools of themselves whenever they like. The violation of our free speech rights came on October 4, 2021 when the Attorney General (AG) responded to the NSBA’s demands by sending a memo to the FBI and Assistant U.S. Attorney Generals instructing them to take action against parents who dare to participate in local governance. The DOJ then released a statement further explaining what action will be taken to stop the widespread rise of these free speech-parents from becoming a danger to their children and our nation.

Garland’s letter and the DOJ statement are perfect examples of denying people their constitutional rights by creating a “chilling effect.” Justice Brennan defined this doctrine in 1967 as those actions that have a “chilling effect upon [the] exercise of First Amendment freedoms generated by vagueness, overbreadth and unbridled discretion to limit their exercise.”² Under this longstanding doctrine, it’s unlawful for a state actor, such as the AG, to engage in any act that would cause people to refrain from exercising their free speech rights. Garland’s threats to have the DOJ and FBI investigate people for engaging in free speech is enough in-and-of-itself to create a chilling effect. However, Garland goes further and implicitly, if not explicitly threatens them with federal prosecution. Garland’s actions are unlawful, unconstitutional, and unconscionable.

What’s more, there are no jurisdictional grounds for Garland’s actions. There have been raucous school board meetings where parents opposed CRT and pornography in schools (including books containing graphic images of pedophilia sex acts);³ mask and vaccine mandates; and the conduct of school board members themselves (Loudon County, VA for example). However, the NSBA did not cite any actual threat or act of violence made against any school board member anywhere. To be fair, the NSBA seems to have missed the threat made by the mayor of Hudson, Ohio. At a school board meeting the mayor informed all board members that he had spoken with a judge who agreed that material being used in the high school curriculum constituted child pornography, so the board members could resign or be charged with distributing child pornography.

The only complaint the NSBA raised that even comes close to requiring law enforcement action is disruption of board meetings. Depending on how the NSBA defines ‘disruption’ the local police may be justified in removing and in some extreme cases arresting a person. However, nothing the NSBA alleged is beyond the abilities of local law enforcement, nor does any allegation provide federal jurisdiction. That alone makes Garland sending in the DOJ and FBI unconstitutional.

Garland’s actions are not innocent mistakes. They are intentional and direct attacks on the constitutional rights of Americans and a stunning encroachment of the federal government into an area - education - that’s constitutionally reserved to the states under Art. I, sec. 8 and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. There can be no denying that these constitutional violations are for the sole purpose of silencing opposition to policies supported by the Biden Administration or its political allies.

If Garland has extra manpower he desires to unleash, then I suggest he start by investigating and prosecuting those who harassed Senator Sinema in a bathroom while videoing her; or Hunter Biden’s violation of federal firearms law and the conflict-of-interest in the sale of his “art;” or the attacks on the ICE facility and federal courthouse in Portland. The FBI and DOJ have jurisdiction over all of these crimes and unlike attending a rowdy school board meeting, they are all unlawful and some violent. Yet Garland prefers to unconstitutionally invade the jurisdiction of the states and tackle the nonexistent problem of the mythical Tesla driving terrorist-moms who’ve done nothing more than exercise their First Amendment right to express opposition to policies their school boards adopted and the Biden Administration supports. I hate to say it, but if our courts and governmental institutions don’t quickly reign in Garland and his out of control DOJ and FBI, then perhaps it is time for widespread civil disobedience.

I used to think the DOJ and FBI needed to be reformed. I was wrong. They need to be abolished and rebuilt from the ground up. I would have said “burned to the ground” and rebuilt, but Garland, the DOJ, and the FBI can no longer distinguish between literal and figurative speech; and since I prefer to avoid the prospect of spending the winter in Guantanamo Bay, I decided to use the word “abolished” instead. However, I am open to the use of tar and feathers…

*Subtitle is a quote from Salman Rushdie.

To read more by the Wondering Rebel click here.

1. The NSBA did allege one person was arrested for assault and disorderly conduct at one meeting, in one state. Made it sound like he assaulted a board member or other people in attendance. He did not. The person seems to have been arrested for hitting a cop as they were escorting him out of the meeting. He was arrested by local cops and the incident handled. Hitting cops is not protected speech and he should have been arrested. However, it is hardly an act of terrorism.

2. Walker v. City of Birmingham (Dissenting Opinion, 1967)

3. A parent spoke a Fairfax County school board meeting about two books containing graphic images and stories of pedophile sex acts, one between an adult and 4th grade boy. The books were in the libraries of junior high and high schools - making the books available to students as young as 12 years old. ( video of this meeting is here but contains graphic images from the books).

Parents confronted the Hudson, Ohio high school board for using the book ‘642 Things to Write about” in high school. The book includes assignments such as "write a sex scene you wouldn't show your mom," "rewrite the sex scene from above into one that you'd let your mom read," and asking students to drink a beer and describe how it tastes.