DV Journal

Parental rights activist group Moms for Liberty faces slurs by federal government agencies. But The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project is standing up for it.

Thursday, it filed a lawsuit on behalf of Moms for Liberty against the Biden administration, demanding the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) produce all records concerning the parental rights organization and the Biden administration’s coordination with the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The lawsuit comes after the agencies refused to comply with the Oversight Project’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for those documents, Heritage officials said in a press release.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)  released a report that listed Moms for Liberty as an “extremist” coalition of “far-right antigovernment parents” who are known for “intimidating and harassing teachers and school officials.” It also claimed that Moms for Liberty is “one of the most recognized names in the anti-student inclusion movement,” citing the group’s opposition to critical race theory.

SPLC officials have visited the Biden White House many times, and media reports have highlighted concerning examples of federal law enforcement agencies relying on the SPLC’s “hate group” list to weaponize the federal government against American citizens.

“President Biden needs to leave the moms alone,” said Mike Howell, director of the Oversight Project at The Heritage Foundation. “But his crooked administration won’t because these parents are the only thing standing between the government and your children. We know that the radical Southern Poverty Law Center has targeted the patriots at Moms for Liberty, which resulted in an unhinged mob harassment campaign. We also know the Biden administration and their weaponized law enforcement agencies work closely with the Southern Poverty Law Center. In fact, our recent investigation discovered that SPLC employees visited the White House 11 times in the past three years, including six meetings with the president himself.

“Under our rights as American citizens, we demanded from these agencies all communications about Moms for Liberty. In clear violation of the law, these agencies are withholding this information. So now, we are fighting back for parents across the country and suing President Biden and his corrupt administration.”

Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, said, “Moms were harassed and targeted by their own federal government for speaking out during the COVID school shutdowns. The Department of Justice labeled parents of public-school kids’ domestic terrorists.’

“Then, the SPLC puts a target on our backs by falsely accusing us of antigovernment extremism,” said Justice. “Exercising our free speech rights to attend public school board meetings that decide how our public schools operate is not ‘extremism.’ It is American. We are very thankful the Heritage Foundation is standing with our moms and fighting to get the public information surrounding the Biden administration’s work with the SPLC. Why would they not comply with public records requests? What do they have to hide? We look forward to the truth coming to light.”

Moms for Liberty began in 2021 in response to COVID restrictions that forced many students to take classes online. Its members are parents, former school board members, and concerned citizens who educate and empower parents to fight for their rights. It has been active in school districts around the country, fighting against gender ideology and critical race theory.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Before the election, President Biden declared that the Department of Justice would assign federal observers in 64 jurisdictions to look out for violations of the Voting Rights Act and other federal laws. In theory, these individuals were tasked with protecting the integrity of the electoral system. But their deployment was another example of federal resources being weaponized by an administration bent on suppressing opponents.

Rather than investigating the hundreds of billions of dollars stolen by crypto-fraudsters or stemming the tide of fentanyl flowing through our borders, Justice officials stood ready on Election Day to pounce on incidents of “voter intimidation.”  

These occurrences — no matter how isolated or minor — would then be used to support the false narrative that conservatives represent a grave threat to democracy. It didn’t matter that Election Day came and went with nary a whiff of so-called right-wing extremists seeking to unduly influence voters; the left needed to continue to feed their narrative that conservatives represent an existential threat to our country.

We’ve seen this play before. Last year, the National School Boards Association sent a letter to Biden alleging that parents appearing before school board meetings posed a threat. Soon after, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered all 93 U.S. attorneys to hold meetings with local law enforcement to address the issue. The NSBA used the term “domestic terrorism” to describe the “threats” faced by school officials, and the administration jumped at the chance to attack those who opposed their agenda.

Within weeks, DOJ officials held meetings with law enforcement officials at all levels. Federal, state and local police all convened to determine what role the federal government would play in ensuring the “domestic terrorists” would face justice. A special interest close to the president had demanded action and mobilized hundreds of law-enforcement personnel, including the attorney general and deputy attorney general.

And what threats were uncovered at these meetings? In short, absolutely nothing.

Records released under a Freedom of Information Act request from Landmark Legal Foundation show local and state officials repeatedly telling DOJ that federal intervention was unnecessary and that local police presence ensured safety for all attendees at school board meetings.

In a few isolated incidents, federal resources had been used to investigate reported threats. In Georgia, for example, the Joint Terrorism Task Force deployed to examine what ultimately turned out to be a hoax rather than an actual threat directed at school officials. No matter. The NSBA and the administration had used the pretext of threats to intimidate their political enemies.

Involving the DOJ and deploying the Joint Terrorism Task Force to investigate strictly local matters like school board meetings only chills the free-speech rights of parents. Assigning DOJ observers to designated voter precincts to watch over citizen observers again treats law-abiding citizens as the problem. That parents never threatened school boards and that poll watchers never sought to intimidate voters didn’t matter. 

Look for this administration to continue to use federal law enforcement to shut down their political opponents and stifle dissent.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Sen. Pat Toomey joined the chorus of lawmakers who signed a sharply critical letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray over the unorthodox arrest of a prominent Bucks County pro-life advocate. And his attorney says the entire operation is designed to intimidate pro-life Americans into silence.

Mark Houck, 48, of Kintnersville, was charged with violating the federal Freedom of Access of Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) regarding an October 2021 incident outside an abortion clinic in Philadelphia. Philadelphia police and the district attorney’s office had declined to charge Houck at the time. A private legal action by the pro-abortion activist was dismissed in July.

Houck pleaded not guilty to the federal charges this past week. If convicted, he faces up to a maximum of 11 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and fines of up to $350,000, according to a Department of Justice statement.

Houck has been represented by the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm, which has been in contact with the FBI since he received a “target letter” in May. Houck’s attorneys informed the DOJ he would voluntarily appear in court. But according to the family’s account, a contingent of heavily-armed FBI agents showed up at Houck’s home last week pointing guns at his family, including young children.

“Given their cooperation with federal law enforcement, the family did not expect to be awakened at 7 a.m. with reportedly over 20 FBI agents surrounding their home wearing armor-plated tactical vests, ballistic helmets, and holding ballistic shields and long guns,” Toomey and his fellow senators wrote.

“The Houck family’s account of the FBI coming to their family home to arrest Mark Houck, who was already cooperating with law enforcement, is concerning,” said Toomey (R-Pa.) via Twitter.

Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for Thomas More, told DVJournal the letter from Toomey and the other senators was very “pointed,” asking why the FBI did not use a de-escalation plan Garland had put into place earlier this year.

“Just three years ago, I won a FACE case on similar facts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On that basis, they have no case against Mark Houck,” said Breen. “And his case, not involving a Mafia boss, he’s got a men’s ministry. (Houck is) what you might call an evangelist, a Catholic speaker.”

“He does not have a criminal history of any sort and when a distinguished former federal prosecutor says, ‘I will bring my client in,’ and even if they wanted to make a show of arresting him, you would not send more than a couple of agents, and those agents would not be dragging him out at gunpoint.

“They would be knocking on the door, presenting an arrest warrant, letting him get his effects and, in a dignified way, say goodbye to his family for the day, then go downtown. Under no circumstances do you send at least 20 federal agents and apparently state law enforcement as well, with shields, long guns, helmets, and the like,” said Breen.

The Thomas More Society has brought in well-known Philadelphia lawyer Brian McMonagle to defend Houck.

According to Ryan-Marie Houck, 15 law enforcement vehicles were on their front lawn.

“Can you even imagine? What if their 6-year-old had gone out with a toy gun because he saw his daddy taken away? What would have happened?” asked Breen. Mark Houck is “not a threat,” he said.

Breen believes the raid was orchestrated out of DOJ headquarters in Washington, not Philadelphia.

Asked whether it would have a chilling effect on people’s rights to freedom of religion and speech, Breen said, “Well, the only reason for a show of force like this was to send a message to people of faith, pro-life people, in an intimidating way. So that’s how I received it. We see that as an intimidation message. If you exercise your First Amendment rights, there could be a bunch of federal agents at your door.”

And Houck was not someone involved in national politics. He was an ordinary person, Breen pointed out.

“If Mark Houck was such a danger to the community, why did it take a year to go and pick him up?” asked Breen.

The alleged victim approached Houck and his then 12-year-old son while praying in front of an abortion clinic. That man “harassed” the boy, and “an altercation ensued,” Breen said.

Breen said the incident had no connection to the FACE Act because Houck was not blocking the entrance to the abortion clinic or stopping anyone from getting an abortion.

“None of that happened here,” said Breen. “This is an intimidation tactic, a meritless case, and we are going to stand up firmly against it.”

“Maybe the Justice Department thought they could roll one individual pro-lifer…but we are going to make sure he has the most vigorous defense that can be mounted,” said Breen.

“We are very grateful that the senators and congress members are looking to assist,” he said. “They are also asking the question, ‘What in the world is going on with this raid? Why are you prosecuting this guy? It’s a local matter.”

The DVJournal asked area Congress members and candidates for Congress whether they plan to sign the Houck letter.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Bucks) did not respond. Nor did Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Delaware/Philadelphia), or Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Montgomery County).

“As one of the most bipartisan members of Congress, Rep. Houlahan is constantly looking for opportunities to work across the aisle to deliver real progress for her community, not partisan talking points,” said Aubrey Stuber, communications director for (Chrissy) Houlahan (D-Chester/Berks). “The letter was never even circulated to our legislative staff for consideration, a sign that it was intended to be a partisan exercise. So while Rep. Houlahan takes oversight of our federal agencies very seriously, this letter demonstrates a lack of collaboration and bipartisanship.”

Dean’s Republican opponent, Christian Nascimento, said, “My understanding was that the local authorities either dismissed or did not pursue charges in this case. If that is true, then the DOJ should explain why the federal government felt the need to get involved, and on what evidence.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal