What is going on in Washington, DC, that the people entrusted with preserving the documents that guarantee our rights have no concept of what those rights are?

Just a few weeks ago, guards at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum ordered a group of Catholic school students to remove their pro-life caps or leave. They were told it was a “neutral zone” where visitors weren’t allowed to express personal political views (although I can’t imagine them threatening anyone wearing a BLM cap.) After it went public, Museum officials apologized and blamed it on poorly-trained guards, but they’re still facing a First Amendment lawsuit by the American Center for Law & Justice.

And now, it’s déjà vu all over again!

https://www.theepochtimes.com/national-archives-apologizes-after-telling-visitors-to-cover-pro-life-clothes-to-see-bill-of-rights_5048983.html

This time, the National Archives have apologized after being sued by the ACLJ for ordering four unrelated visitors who were in DC for the March For Life to remove their pro-life T-shirts or other attire or else leave. To make it even more outrageous, they were visiting the chamber where the original copy of the Bill of Rights was on display!

Apparently, judging from both this and the way they treat certain former Presidents, National Archives officials display the Bill of Rights but have never gotten around to reading it.

Once again, they blamed it on employee error and said, “We have reminded all of our security officers at our facilities across the country of the rights of visitors in this regard.”

Good, but my question is why do these DC guards all seem to have the same mistaken belief that only conservative or pro-life beliefs are forbidden in public places? That sounds like the kind of widespread attitude that can only occur when it’s allowed to seep down from on high. Maybe everyone there needs to be forced into some mandatory “diversity training,” and not the usual propaganda but the kind where they’re told that in America, we protect free speech and diversity of thought.