Biden's Department of Injustice and Intimidation

Biden's Department of Injustice and Intimidation

October 22, 2021

The Loudoun County School Board may be in the market for a new superintendent, thanks to a bombshell memo about the district's cover-up. According to emails, not only did Scott Ziegler know about the sexual assault by a boy in a girls' restroom, he alerted the board to it that same day -- which, for people keeping track, was three weeks before he publicly told parents there'd been "no incidents" related to gender neutral bathrooms. The revelation, which only confirmed most locals' suspicions, has Loudoun's leadership in a swirling mess of their own making.

"This afternoon," Ziegler wrote the day of the incident, "a female student alleged that a male sexually assaulted her in the restroom." (A hospital rape kit later confirmed the "allegation.") Ziegler spent the rest of the message talking about the disruption caused by the girl's father, Scott Smith, noting that "the school's counseling team is providing services for students who witnessed the parent's behavior." Because apparently, seeing an angry dad is more traumatizing to students than knowing they aren't safe in their own restroom!

The superintendent's memo is just the latest chapter in a drama that now reaches all the way to the White House. On Thursday, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland took his own turn in the hot seat at the House Judiciary Committee, delivering what Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) called the most "ill-prepared" remarks he'd heard in 20 years. "It's very surprising... He [offered nothing but] simple talking points over and over and in response to [a] very serious series of questions..." Squeezed by both sides, Garland seemed completely oblivious to what has been headline news for weeks. Asked about the Loudoun County situation -- one of the incidents that prompted the DOJ to unleash the FBI on local parents, Garland feigned ignorance. "It sounds like a state case, and I am not familiar with it, I'm sorry," the attorney general responded.

At that, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) pounced, reminding the country's top law enforcer that the Loudoun County incident was one way his agency had justified their local crackdown. "This arrest of a 48-year-old plumber, [Scott Smith], became the poster boy for the new 'domestic terrorism' the Biden administration... has concocted to destroy anyone who gets in the way."

A few hours later, on "Washington Watch," Roy's frustration bubbled over. "You inserted the Department of Justice into state and local activities, and then you try to claim that you don't know the facts of the very underlying state and local activity upon which you base your determination to engage it. It defies any kind of common sense, and I think now we see why it's a good thing that Mr. Garland is not on the United States Supreme Court."

If Garland didn't know about Smith and his daughter, he was the only one. New emails, obtained by a parents' group FOIA request, show that the White House had been colluding with the National School Board Association for "weeks" on the letter that helped rationalize the DOJ's local overreach. The Washington Free Beacon broke the story late Thursday that Joe Biden's team had indeed been conspiring behind closed doors with the activist group. While members of the NSBA's own board weren't consulted about the letter (which, as some complained, used "extreme" language and called for action beyond "what many of us would consider reasonable"), others from the NSBA had been "in talks" for "several weeks with White House staff."

Suddenly, the speed-of-light response by Garland's team started to make sense. If it was the White House's idea to use the NSBA as an excuse to act, it's no wonder they moved so quickly. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) couldn't help but point out the fact, explaining that no other complaint gets this kind of rapid response. "Republicans on this committee have sent the Attorney General 13 letters in the last six months," he said. "Eight of the letters, we've got[ten] nothing..." But when a Left-wing activist group tells the White House to jump, Biden asks how high. "If that's not political, I don't know what is," Jordan said angrily. "Where [are the] the dedicated lines of communication with local leaders regarding our southern border?"

Johnson threatened to get authorities involved. "Your memo appears to have been motivated by politics more than any pressing federal law enforcement need, and that is concerning to us. [It's also] worthy of an investigation," he said before pointing to the possible conflict of interest with his son-in-law's stake in the radical curriculum America's parents are protesting. "Remember, he's the chief law enforcement officer in our entire federal system. He's supposed to always jealously guard his character [and] the appearance of propriety. And now," Johnson argued on "Washington Watch," "people are questioning [his impartiality] that he's using the full weight of that heavy office to bear down on parents for merely exercising their free exercise rights. But, more importantly, it appears that his own daughter and son-in-law have a direct financial interest in stopping those parent protests."

Garland, meanwhile, tried to diffuse the outrage, claiming that the FBI wouldn't follow through with its threat to open a "snitch line on parents" as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) called it. "I think parental involvement is very important in education," the weary AG tried to claim. That didn't appease conservatives, who have watched Biden turn his vast powers against political opponents of all stripes. "The old fashioned word for it is corruption," John Daniel Davidson wrote in the Federalist. "Corruption of our institutions, the rule of law, the administration of justice, the separation of powers."

At the end of the day, the Left's agenda is obvious. They don't want anyone interfering in the nationwide indoctrination camp they've been running for years in the public schools. But, as Roy pointed out, parents are on to them. They've awakened "to what's been happening with critical race theory, with this transgender nonsense. And the American people aren't having it." They're ready to hold everyone accountable -- starting this November in Virginia and rolling straight into 2022.

Tony Perkins's Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

Giving Shots in the Dark

October 22, 2021

Before sticking someone with an injection needle, you should be reasonably confident the results will be positive. That should be common sense, but the Biden administration has forgotten. In preparing to roll out vaccinations for children aged 5-11, the Biden administration has collected 28 million COVID vaccine doses. Not that the FDA has approved the vaccine for school-age children, but the Biden administration is ready to inject them as soon as the green light is given. When asked whether we know enough about the vaccine's effect on children yet, Brown University professor Dr. Andrew Bostom replied, "Absolutely not," was his reply.

COVID is "so rare in children," explained Bostom, that researchers can't gather enough data without employing "meaningless surrogates like, did the kid develop sniffles?" There certainly isn't enough data to have the confidence of a clinical trial. Additionally, "the limited data we have... tells us nothing about long term consequences," warned Bostom. Given the lack of reliable data, "there's certainly not consensus" in the medical community said Bostom. Yet the Biden administration seems determined to vaccinate children anyways, whether the science supports their effort or not.

In a letter published in the Boston Medical Journal, medical researchers in Canada, the U.S., and France present a sizable portfolio of arguments against vaccinating children. According to the CDC, an estimated 42 percent of children aged 5-17 had already contracted COVID by March 2021, and thus now have a stronger immune response than a vaccine could provide. Most children who contract COVID are asymptomatic, while, in a Pfizer trial, 3 in 4 children aged 12-15 years experienced negative side effects from the vaccine. The only conceivable benefit to vaccinating children, they conclude, is to protect adults from contracting COVID. Even then, "an extremely high number [of children] would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one severe case." But, they argue, "it is ethically dubious to pursue a hypothetical protection of adults while exposing children to harms, known and unknown."

Sadly, "there's not enough dissenting voices to just slow down the momentum." This is surprising, as maximum-mandate magnate Anthony Fauci has now been caught in another lie; the National Institutes of Health have admitted that U.S. tax dollars were funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan laboratory, which Fauci denied early and often. Why would the U.S. government trust the word of a serial liar over scientists with untarnished reputations? It's all about power. Bostom agreed that the full weight of the cancel culture is brought down on scientists who dissent.

But the cancel culture axe doesn't just fall on scientists who oppose vaccine mandates. Vaccines were made available to the general public on a voluntary basis first, but once distribution stalled the mandates began. Last night, President Biden reiterated his support for cities to fire first responders who refuse to get the vaccine. (Local mandates save him the trouble of inventing a constitutional justification.) Vaccines will next be made available on a voluntary basis to children. How long before the vaccine is mandated for children?

Already the administration's attitude is that parents should rejoice that the government is finally here to save them. "I also think that parents across the country have been waiting for a vaccine for a long time," said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. But surveys show only a third of parents want their kids vaccinated immediately. In California, parents have already begun keeping their children home from school in protest of Governor Gavin Newsom's proposed vaccine mandate for children. As petty tyrants begin to flex their power, the war over vaccinating children has only begun.

Texas Teaches Perseverance in the Fight for Life from 1973 to Today

October 22, 2021

In the Biden administration's latest attack on the Texas Heartbeat Act (SB 8), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to place a hold on the law until legal challenges have been heard. In addition to requesting the Supreme Court to vacate the Fifth Circuit's stay of the district court's preliminary injunction, the DOJ took the unusual step of filing a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment -- that is, the DOJ asked the Supreme Court to rule on the issues before the Fifth Circuit. In its response, the State of Texas said the Supreme Court should not vacate the Fifth Circuit's stay. But if the Supreme Court were to take the extraordinary step of deciding the substantive issue, Texas would ask that Roe and Casey be overturned.

With the Court gearing up to hear oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case (concerning Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban) on December 1, Texas has become the second state currently asking the Court to overturn Roe and Casey. On Thursday, Attorney General Ken Paxton said:

"The Court erred in recognizing the right to abortion in Roe and in continuing to preserve it in Casey. Properly understood, the Constitution does not protect a right to elective abortion, and any laws affecting abortion should be subject only to a rational-basis test. The heartbeat provisions in SB 8 reasonably further Texas's interest in protecting unborn life, which exists from the outset of pregnancy... If it reaches the merits, the Court should overturn Roe and Casey and hold that SB 8 does not therefore violate the Fourteenth Amendment."

Earlier today, the Supreme Court agreed to allow the law to remain in place for now and to hear oral arguments regarding SB 8 on November 1, but the question will be limited to whether the United States may "bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced."

In other words, the Court will not be addressing the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade - for that, America will have to wait for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Instead, the Court will rule on whether the federal government has the authority to stop a law with the unique private citizen enforcement mechanism employed in SB 8.

Thankfully, the Lone Star State has proven through five decades of pro-life perseverance that backing down from the fight is not an option. Now, as the Dobbs case brings renewed hope that Roe could be overturned and jurisdiction over abortion legislation could be returned to the states, it is more important than ever that the nation follows in Texas' pro-life footsteps.

Prior to 1973, abortion in Texas was legal only to save the life of the mother. Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as "Jane Roe," desired to electively abort her third child after putting her first two up for adoption. At the urging of pro-abortion lawyers, McCorvey challenged the ban on abortion in Texas and took her complaint all the way to the Supreme Court. In his oral argument, District Attorney of Dallas County Henry Wade asserted that the unborn child's right to life surpassed the supposed right to privacy of the mother. Unfortunately, the Court did not agree and issued a decision that overturned state restrictions and made abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy the default nationwide.

The tragic Roe decision has been responsible for the deaths of more than 62 million babies. Texas has stood firm against this evil from the very start. It responded to abortion's legalization by establishing more than 230 pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) to provide an alternative for women considering abortion. Texas now has more PRCs than any other state in the nation -- and with the Texas Heartbeat Act going into effect in September, these resources are being put to good use. The legislation, which prohibits abortion after a fetal heartbeat is able to be detected (around six weeks gestation), is estimated to be saving about 150 lives each day. One pregnancy resource organization in Texas stated that it had seen a threefold increase each week in women seeking their assistance since the law went into effect.

The Texas Heartbeat Act was made possible by the coordinated efforts of legislators, judges, and a governor who recognized the human dignity of the unborn. Although this ideal team of public officials might not exist in every state, each election is an opportunity for citizens to take a stand and guide their state into following Texas' example.

On November 2, many key victories for the pro-life movement could be won. Sitting Democratic governors in Virginia and New Jersey could be exchanged for pro-lifers. In Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court seat of a current Republican is up for grabs and must be maintained by a justice who will protect the unborn. Next year, the state will also have the opportunity to replace pro-abortion extremist Tom Wolf with a governor who will protect all Pennsylvanians -- including those in the womb.

As the Dobbs case approaches the Supreme Court, with an outcome expected in 2022, and the increased pressure on the Court added by Texas today, it is more important than ever that pro-lifers hit the polls and elect people who will support pro-life laws. The day of reckoning for Roe is near, and the states must be as ready as Texas when it comes.