You are basically giving evidence of what I claimed -- these people were reported to the FBI for making "threats." They weren't investigated for just going to a school board meeting but because specific complaints were made about things they said or wrote. The FBI had no control over reports where the reporter indicated that there was no clear threat made. If you look into it a bit deeper, when they found out there was no actual threat, the investigations were quickly concluded.
Also, to be clear, my understanding of FBI procedure is that when they initially "investigate" (and what is called an investigation in these articles), they are "following up on a report/complaint." For the FBI, the "investigation" doesn't actually become an investigation until they have verified the report -- at which point the investigation is officially opened. Most of these people were not "investigated" (using the FBI terminology), instead the agents followed up and found that the "threats" were not serious and no investigation of those that made the threat occurred.
Yes, he pushed a 72-year old man who ended up going to the hospital. Yes, Houck was acquitted. The fact remains, he wasn't arrested for protesting -- he was one of several there that day, yet he was the only one who ended up arrested.
The problem is that what you claimed -- "targeting regular Americans who dared to go to a school board meeting, be in Washington DC on Jan 6, 2021, or pray at abortion clinics?" -- didn't happen. Americans who were believed to have threatened school board members and were reported, the reports were investigated to ensure there was no threat to those officials. Yes, most of the reports ended up being misunderstandings or exaggerations, but that isn't on the FBI or DoJ -- and they definitely did not simply target people who went to school board meetings.
You have one example of "pray at an abortion clinic" and a elderly gentleman was pushed and sent to the hospital. Regardless of how you feel, that is one example. And, from what I've seen, that is the only example of someone arrested while "praying." The fact is, people who protest peacefully and do not interfere with those entering and exiting are not arrested -- just like none of the others were arrested, other than Houck, who were protesting that day.
And I notice you wisely didn't even try to defend the Jan 6 idea. The fact is, people aren't investigated or arrested for simply attending or "praying" -- there has to be something else. Things like entering a building illegally or making things that someone felt was a threat to the safety and well-being of another. Don't try to gaslight us that you were correct when you purposely attempt to mislead by claiming people were just going to a place or praying.
That's exactly what happened....the
Biden Administration knew about/ possibly colluded with Randy
the National School Board Association's president and CEO sent
the letter to Biden on Sept. 29 without approval from the organization's board. The letter said that the acts of some parents at school board meetings across the country could be considered "a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."
"The letter makes clear that the White House was aware of the letter before it was released, while raising questions about whether the White House colluded with the association on the letter to prompt federal action. The letter has sparked allegations that the Biden administration is trying to stifle dissent among parents who oppose mask mandates and the teaching of critical race theory at America's schools. School board meetings have become battlegrounds for factions of parents torn on those issues."
I'd show you the letter itself where Weingarten said , but the NSBA removed it from its website. But its undoubtedly out there in screenshots.
Here are some of the emails:
https://defendinged.org/wp-content/...e_NSBA-Letter-to-President-Biden_Redacted.pdf
Here is a relevant snippet confirming the allegation of "parents as terrorists":
"
Many of us have been put in a position now of explaining or defending this action of our association as we are asked by
members of our community if we consider them domestic terrorists for showing up to our meetings and expressing their
opinions. As a Member of this Board, I can defend the intent, but not the approach or much of the tone or content. And
it makes me chagrined to have to say that. I have learned in my own state of Ohio that is filled with diverse views that it
does me no good to ignore the views of my neighbors and not try to find common ground rather than sow division.
This letter has created a new and renewed firestorm. We have given our loudest critics more ammunition to criticize
us. I believe this letter was created unfortunately in the same kind of vacuum that has fueled the recent criticism of this
Board and our Association.
We can, and should do better, but we can only do that if we work together and collaborate for our common good rather
than acting without our full consent and counsel. We owe that to our association and our membership if we are to
continue and succeed.
Sorry for the length of this, but what happened with this letter and the backlash I am seeing has made me reflect on my
service on this board to this point, and how we have gone about our business that goes beyond this letter, and has
caused me concern. If we don’t do better, the very survival and relevance of NSBA is at stake.
John W. Halkias
Director, Central Region NSBA
