Please show me these videos. This is a fatal flaw in this article, one which renders the entire article completely nugatory. If you have no evidence of domestic terrorism, you have no article. If you give careful cites to sources supporting you (WaPo flak pieces) but no cites to support any evidence for your thesis, you aren't doing journalism, you're doing an ex parte execution. This is embarrassing.

So far the evidence you've offered is pictures of people holding up signs saying "No CRT." And, on the other side, Garland has been asked to use "other extraordinary measures" to put those sign-holders behind bars. Let's rewrite this article from a civil liberties perspective, please?

Wait, I thought trickle-up was good and trickle-down was bad. Can't you at least try to work in an astro-turf argument here?

So, effectively, CRT has pushed parents so hard that parents are desperate enough to risk going against cancel culture and actually criticize political correctness openly when it comes to their children. Congratulations.

Let us have a vote of schoolchildren on masks, shall we? It is possible that the article omits this suggestion because children usually are not sound guides to policy. More likely it omits the suggestion because children DO NOT LIKE TO WEAR MASKS.

After decades of the left using children as props for policy, this is so transparently hypocritical it actually makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

Your incredible fact-check and research department has entire libraries of periodicals and statistics available to describe potential harms to children, hospitalizations, deaths, long-term harms and risk rates and they have delivered: a quote about test results! Huzzah!

When buildings are burned and people murdered in mostly peaceful protests, this is justified anger.

When parents viciously act like terrorists by using the open mikes at school-board meetings, this is "rage."

If this really happened (hmmm?), it sounds like Antifa! So I guess radical parent protestors don't exist.

Wow, one does hate it when the governed have a say in their governance. Icky.

To restate this: at times when radicals seize control in a particular arena, conservatives accuse radicals of seizing control in that arena.

This reads more like an admission of fact than an argument.

"Spectral" here reminds me of now-Pres. Biden's comment during the debate with then-Pres. Trump about how Antifa doesn't exist. I suspect the families of those murdered by, and the owners of buildings burned down by, Antifa would beg to differ.

What an authoritarian wishes to impose it first must declare to not exist.

Oh, poor wearisome laborer, wearily repeating an argument which is... well, completely argumentatively unsupported by the article. And yet also somehow quite false! How wearying it must be to always be in the right and yet somehow have no evidence in support.

If you assign "Stamped," or "Stamped: For Kids," or discuss race from the perspective of Kendi's "anti-racism", then you are "teaching" critical race theory for every practical purpose. That is not to say this is not a valid perspective. Anti-racism is filled with falsehoods and errors; but that just makes it like many other ideologies. CRT can be a useful subject of study in itself, to dissect it; or it might hypothetically be a useful counterpoint to some ideology that racism doesn't exist at all (to the extent that patriotic views of America might have an unhealthy tendency to drift into that, rather than viewing patriotism as a call to perfect your own nation by bringing minorities left behind into full citizenship) or to the ideology of color-blindness (which has its own great value, but might usefully experience some pushback from the lived experience of minorities).

But the above complexities are irrelevant. Quite simply, to say that CRT is only a graduate school subject is utterly fraudulent.

Wow. This is your argument from authority. We've fallen a long way from citing to Aristotle or Plutarch. You think SNL is "spot-on," and that's your main argument. Again, wow. Please, Ms. Talbot, please don't quit your day job.

Is there any evidence of this? If there were any evidence of this, would it be any worse than following Sen. Sinema into the restroom--which Pres. Biden said is "part of the process"?

I am more than willing to be persuaded that there are legitimate threats. If there are real threats, the threateners should be shut down, like all threateners. Threats are not a way to run a discussion. And yet we have far more evidence of legal jeopardy from the other side--Garland--than we do of an actual subject matter of any violation.

Again, this is the rare incredible article where, reading it, one forms an opinion against the thesis propounded. Embarrassing.