Silent Majority Foundation

Updates and Insights to our 2A Cases:

Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:56:00 GMT

Current Status of 2A cases from General Counsel Pete Serrano:

As the general counsel of the organization, I’d like to assure you that our focus remains on protecting constitutional rights, and the right to Bear Arms is preeminent in our litigation. Presently, we have 4 pending firearms matters, and I believe that our court dates on two of them are ahead of the curve compared to other similar litigation. Here’s a break down of our current Right to Bear Arms litigation:

SB 5078 (>10 round capacity magazine ban)

Brumback v Ferguson (federal court, Eastern Dist. of WA). This case was filed July 2022, and our Motin for Preliminary Injunction was heard on November 23, 2022. The Judge issued an order in the matter denying our Preliminary Injunction on September 25, 2023, and she required us to put schedules for future briefing together. SMF’s approach was to get the next hearing (Permanent Injunction) before the court ASAP, with a request that the motion be heard in February 2024. The State wanted to push it out until December 2024. Earlier this week (October 30th), the Judge issued requiring all briefing to be submitted to the court by April 2024, with a hearing date of May 21, 2024. We will get the scheduling order on our website along with the September 25 ^th Order.

Washington v. Gator’s Guns (State Court Cowlitz County). This case has had interesting evolutions as it started with the State issuing a Civil Investigative Demand (a CID is a fact-finding tool available to the Attorney General where he asks questions and you answer under penalty of perjury) to Gator’s, requiring it to certify the number of the prohibited magazines since July 2022. Gator’s with our assistance, challenged the CID, including the constitutionality of SB 5078. Subsequently, the State dismissed the CID and filed suit against Gator’s for allegedly violating SB 5078. SMF/Gator’s refused to drop its challenge to the CID, so we had a hearing on the challenge to the CID in October. The Court determined that the CID challenge was moot (dead), but that before ANY briefing on whether Gator’s violated the law, the Judge wants to know if SB 5078 is constitutional, and that’s the only question before the court at this time. We were supposed to have a schedule for the briefing and hearing on the constitutionality of SB 5078 to the court by now, but, again, the State wants to stall until at least May 2024, whereas SMF/Gator’s is pushing to complete briefing and have a hearing on the constitutionality of SB 5078 by the end of 2023 or early January 2024. We have a hearing on the proposed scheduling set for 11/8/23.

HB 1240 (“Assault weapons ban”)

When the Judge in Thurston County denied our request for preliminary injunction, we filed a motion for discretionary review in the WA Supreme Court, which was filed on 10/13. The State will Answer our motion on 11/5, and we will have an opportunity to reply on 11/29. The Court will decide whether it wants to take the case in December (tentatively scheduled for 12/6). If the court denies the Motion, we will be back in Thurston County, briefing the matter ASAP. If the Court takes it, we’ve moved the case to the WA Supreme Court within months of filing the case, which is a very expedited pace.

HB 1705 (“Ghost Guns ban”)

This case was filed in Stevens County and the State moved it to Thurston County. We challenged that move and sought appeal by the Washington Court of Appeals (Division III). We briefed the issue, noting that the case belongs in Stevens County for several reasons, including the fact that the plaintiffs reside there and that any enforcement of the ban against the plaintiffs would have to occur in Stevens Co., regardless of which law enforcement agency would undertake such enforcement action. We should have a decision from the Court Commissioner on whether the challenge to moving the case to Thurston County will remain with the Court of Appeals within the next couple of weeks. Once we know whether the court will hear the matter in full, we will be able to take the next step in the case (i.e., either litigate the constitutionality of HB 1705 in the court of appeals or in Thurston or Stevens County).

Here are a few talking points on Gator’s, Guardian Arms and Does:

GATOR’S

***Side note: the briefing we develop, including expert witnesses, etc., will be used in Brumback . Of course, we will focus on WA const., here, but the facts and expert testimony will remain largely the same.

GUARDIAN ARMS

DOES 1, 3, 5 v. State (HB 1705)

Teaching them to Fail

Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:05:00 GMT

“I believe that children are the future, teach them well and let them lead the way.” This is the opening lyric to Whitney Houston’s song, the Greatest love of all. It’s always been understood that a child’s early education is paramount to their overall development. American taxpayers pay more for a child’s education than most other counties in the world, contributing roughly 6.4% of its overall GDP annually.

If there were ever a silver lining that came from the pandemic, it’s the fact that parents were able to peer through the lens of a zoom meeting and see what’s being taught to their children in public schools across the country.

A few months ago, Washington’s school superintendent released the most current district-level test scores for both reading and math. The dismal picture being painted are the consequences of Jay Inslee’s reckless school closures and lockouts; and show a drastic decline in basic math and English across every age group.

This latest assessment shows 70% of students failed to meet basic standards in math, and 52% failed to meet basic standards in English, as academic normalcy continues to elude many of Washington’s students. Children with disabilities and mental health challenges have been especially marginalized as they continue to struggle with the loss of much needed classroom time.

Many of them have given up on dreams of furthering their education, while record numbers have simply dropped out of school. This horrific trend will be felt for decades; and will continue to negatively alter the educational trajectory of a large percentage of Washington’s progenies.

In response, parents have begun pulling their children from public schools in numbers not quite seen before. They are opting for private and religious schools as a necessary alternative to what some have called, “a hopeless atmosphere” in the post lockdown public education era.

More than 41,000 families have departed public education in Washington state in favor of a more thriving educational environment, where students are the primary focus, not political or social ideologies. More importantly, an environment that is conducive to learning, and is not controlled by the teachers’ unions or partisan government officials.

It’s time for Washington parents to demand school choice and give students a wider range of options for basic education. Parents are rightfully frustrated with public schools in Washington, and simply want what’s best for their children. As public schools become less accountable to parents, and more accountable to sociopolitical groups, Washington’s children are no longer the education systems primary focus.

Charter and private schools have become popular alternatives for our children’s educational needs. As public schools continue to lower its standards, simply to funnel children through each grade level, the private schools are achieving academic excellence at every level; without lowering any of the academic standards.

It’s important everyone understand, nothing in education can ever be one size fits all. It’s going to require dedicated educators, in conjunction with parents to procure a wide range of options to reinspire this generation. School choice provides a vessel for children of all ages to achieve academic excellence and the education that best suits their needs.

This will allow parents of diverse economic backgrounds the opportunity to choose according to their core beliefs, not their zip code. When parents are given the option to choose, often, they opt for charter or religious schools, giving them the autonomy to educate their children as they see fit.

Many parents have committed to working second and third jobs to help offset the costs of a private school education; and view this as a necessary alternative. However, if school choice were an option, they would no longer need to do so. The state of Washington’s resistance to school choice has proven the assertion of many, that they care more about the dollars than they do the children. And that is simply not acceptable.

Thank you and God bless you,

Vincent Cavaleri

The post Teaching them to Fail appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

Title fight

Tue, 17 Jan 2023 21:45:00 GMT

The purpose of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 was to update Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The civil rights act banned several forms of discrimination in employment but did not address or make mention of education. Contrary to popular belief, the scope and purpose of Title IX had little to do with sports. Women’s athletics was considered irrelevant within America’s educational institutions at the time.

Lia Thomas, a transgender athlete, formerly known as Will Thomas, was recently shown winning an NCAA swimming competition in division 1 women’s swimming. There were barely any cheers after Thomas had won, and many of the attendees held up signs that stated “Save Women’s Sports” in the Georgia Tech arena. Many of them still remember Thomas competing as a male swimmer for the past three seasons for the University of Pennsylvania.

Emma Weyant, a biological female; and one of the United States top female swimmers, she finished second behind Thomas in the 500 meters. For most, myself included, believe that biologically Lia Thomas holds an unfair advantage over female athletes in the women’s category. Thomas’s genetic make-up along with his physical stature gives him an overwhelming competitive edge over female athletes. This explains how Thomas went from being ranked #462 as a male swimmer, to being ranked number one as a female swimmer.

The effects of puberty are significant, they give men a massive advantage in muscle growth, heart and lung capacity and greater bone density, among other things. Even if men take female hormones later in life, they will continue to have a significant physical size and strength advantage over their female counterparts.

Thomas, a mediocre swimmer at best in the male category is breaking women’s records and winning races by entire pool lengths in the women’s category. To be fair, Thomas isn’t to blame; in large part it’s the NCAA’s capitulation and fear of the woke mob. They’re spinelessness is making a mockery of women’s sports by allowing men to compete with women. They are singlehandedly destroying the legitimacy of women’s athletics.

Ironically, Title XII induced the flow of female athletes into organized sports within America’s institutions. Up until then, female athletes were all but non-existent in college athletics. Just think how this will discourage our daughters and granddaughters from aspiring to compete in women’s athletics. Imagine a world minus Jackie Joyner Kersee, Venus and Serena Williams, or Lindsey Vonn, to name a few. This is the woke world where biological men compete with women in athletic competition.

Women have now become the sacrificial lambs of wokeness in America.

Allowing genetically altered men to compete as women is no different than doping or any other form of cheating in athletics. The nexus of Title IX was to create fairness and inclusion across the spectrum in schools throughout America, but the NCAA’s interpretation does exactly the opposite.

Vincent Cavaleri

Silent majority Foundation

The post Title fight appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

Sovereignty of the states

Tue, 17 Jan 2023 21:41:00 GMT

The federalism argument has been at the heart of recent court decisions and great public debate. Cases such as abortion, legalized sports, marijuana, and sanctuary cities just to name a few, have highlighted the recent court docket. The tenth amendment clarifies the division of powers between the federal government and the individual states. It underscores the mandate that the federal government has only the powers issued to it by the U.S. Constitution, whereas the remaining power belongs to the individual states, or the people.

The original U.S. Constitution of 1788 contained very few specific restrictions on the way in which the power of the national government could be exercised against the people. The need to include the tenth amendment was mostly to placate the anti-federalists that were concerned about a powerful federal government. Its eventual inclusion in the bill of rights came a few years later.

Derived from the original Articles of Confederation, the tenth amendment expressly prohibits “implied power” assumed by the federal government. It hammers home the premise by stating “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled”; and leaves nothing left to postulate.

Recent court cases accurately depict the genius of the framers and ratifiers of the constitution. In 1976, a long line of cases began to emerge and give substantive constitutional context to the tenth amendment. Since then, in subsequent cases, the court has indeed found judicially enforceable limits on the power of the federal government to regulate the states.

The tenth amendment is now widely used in America’s courts when states feel they are being pressured to comply with federal statutes. Simply look at recent rulings regarding abortion, federal funding, COVID mandates and sanctuary cities, they all adhere to a strict interpretation of the tenth amendment and the separation of the powers.

Most recently, the Dobbs decision (also referred to by some as the overturning of Roe v. Wade), was highlighted and at the center of considerable controversy. This ruling laid to rest whether the tenth amendment was applicable on social issues. With government overreach at its crescendo, the Supreme Court has dealt a significant blow to those that would seek to undermine America’s Constitution, and individual state sovereignty.

You can see why the progressive left seeks to destabilize the court by adding new members, or “packing the court.”

During the pandemic, states like Florida, Texas, South Dakota, Idaho, and Georgia flexed their sovereign muscles, and proved that federalism is one of the most effective ways to combat government overreach and abuse. As the people grow more and more distrustful of government, we must rely on the individual states to remain autonomous for the sake of the people. As governments here and around the world become more centralized, the fears of our founders are becoming realized.

As we look back years from now, we will see that the tenth amendment and its strict interpretation was a safeguard against the consolidation of big government. Of all the problematic overreach taking place, Americans see intrusion of their right to self-governing as the fiercest foe of liberty. Our founders understood that the solutions to our current problems will not be found by centralizing power. The only purpose centralizing power serves is to oppress the masses.

Thank you and God bless, Vincent Cavaleri SMF

The post Sovereignty of the states appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

The judicial branch

Thu, 01 Dec 2022 22:35:00 GMT

As the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) wrapped up its 2022 session, autocracy and government overreach have been dealt a significant blow. At least six of the nine justices understood their role as the final arbiter on constitutional matters, while three of them opted for a more biased approach to their sworn duties.

Sadly, many continue to deride the Supreme Court’s decisions, simply because they do not understand the judiciary branch’s role. This courts obligation and mandate under the constitution is to interpret cases based on our founding documents language. For example, “a citizen’s right to keep or bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is the basis they must use to evaluate second amendment cases, much like the one from New York that was recently overturned.

Same goes for the Roe v Wade case recently decided in favor of state’s rights.

While many may not agree with the court’s decisions, they were undoubtably the correct ones. Despite picketers and parades outside their homes, followed by armed hitmen, they carried out their constitutional duties. The majority of the Supreme Court reminded us that their role is not to pick sides, but rule on matters of law that require constitutional interpretation. There should be no deviation from this mandate.

The framers and ratifier’s understood that a fair and impartial judiciary, one that followed the law, and was unbiased, non-partisan or refused to be intimidated was central to a people’s republic form of government. Without judicial independence, the ability to be fair and impartial would be non-existent.

Over the past several decades, many of our fellow citizens have adopted a limited understanding of the Supreme Courts role and its limitations. They believe that SCOTUS has a role in the law-making process, when it clearly does not; and a degree of supremacy over the other two branches. Neither of these views could be further from the truth.

Although the courts hold a key place in our constitutional republic, the far-left has adopted a lofty conception of their authority. Its origin can be traced to the influence of modern-day liberalism. The progressive liberals believe the court and the constitution are evolutionary instruments of social and political change. This attitude is dangerous and certainly detrimental to our constitutional republic. Their efforts to pack or expand the Supreme Court, eliminate the senate filibuster, or adding new states to the union (Puerto Rico and D.C.) are simply the latest attempts to usurp the court and America’s constitution.

With that understanding, the left’s view of the court, and its utilization to create change from within, is counterintuitive to our founding documents and to a constitutional people’s republic. SCOTUS is one of three equal branches, with no more power or authority than the other gives it. It is co-ordinate and co-equal with the others, “and that each therefore has an equal power to interpret the Constitution authoritatively in the execution of its own powers.”

America’s founding documents are suffused with definitive explanations that affirm the courts roles within the branches of government. As stated in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton goes to great lengths to spell out the judiciary role and its limitations. “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

Contrary to common belief, the court is not there to provide oversight on the branches of government. As stated in Article III, the role of the court is to assist the other branches in legally carrying out the authoritative acts of the government; and providing the legal and factual foundations if necessary.

As of the beginning of October 2022, the Supreme Court has begun its next term. Important cases on the docket include, affirmative action, voting rights, free speech and religious liberty. I’m quite confident these heroic judicial appointees will conduct themselves in a matter befitting of America’s glory.

Thank you and God bless America

Vincent Cavaleri

Silent Majority Foundation

The post The judicial branch appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

Prejudicial policies in higher education

Thu, 17 Nov 2022 22:37:00 GMT

As the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) prepares its 2023 session for deliberations, many cases on the docket, including “Affirmative Action” will have their day in front of the high court. The highlighted case, Students for Fair Admissions Inc v. President and Fellows of Harvard College will no doubt be watched with concerning eyes.

For years, many colleges and universities have adopted admissions policies that tend to favor groups or individuals, based on a prejudicial process that picks and chooses applicants according to the admission panels preferred ethnicities. As expected, this process discriminates against the non-preferred groups. In 2018, the New York Times wrote, “though these Asian-American applicants scored higher than other groups on test scores and traditional application materials, they were consistently rated lower on traits like likability, courage and being widely respected.”

These artificial character ratings consistently push Asian-American and Pacific Islanders scores beneath other ethnic groups overall scores.

This specific case before the court alleges that Harvard admissions processes discriminated against Asian-American and Pacific Islander applicants; and in doing so, has violated the civil liberties granted to all American citizens under the constitution. While Harvard denies these claims, the scoring sheets used to evaluate potential students tell a different story. It’s apparent that students of certain ethnicities were favored based on an arbitrary and insular process.

Harvard has called the case “politically motivated” and believes that colleges and universities should have the autonomy to have the “freedom and flexibility” to create their version of a diverse campus. This sounds ominously like an admission of guilt.

States like Washington and California have passed affirmative action laws in the past, only to have them overturned by voters at the ballot box. Additionally, court cases across the country have ruled in favor of student plaintiffs claiming a discriminatory process in schools where racial admission policies were used against them. Most schools end up settling out of court. Last year, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona stated, “I believe students should have an opportunity to apply and get into colleges based on their own merit.”

For the most part, Americans agree that discrimination of any kind is repugnant; especially in taxpayer funded institutions. To allow a school’s admissions team to have carte blanche to determine their version of fairness or diversity, creates a structurally bigoted foundation in our nation’s educational institutions.

I’m quite sure this SCOTUS will understand the constitutionality of the current prejudiced practices of many universities and colleges. If prior rulings from 2022 are any indication, they will undoubtably move the needle back towards America’s founding documents as our process demands.

Currently, America sits on the precipice of one of its most expansive high-tech revolutions; and must have the best and brightest leading the charge into the future. The implications of falling behind would be catastrophic for generations to come.

We must get back to teaching our young people that good old-fashioned competition is healthy and necessary if you want to succeed in this life. This is how America has retained its world dominance for centuries. Finishing ninth does not warrant a trophy anymore; and we can now see how detrimental peddling mediocrity is to the advancement of a culture.

Martin Luther King Jr stated, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” MLK’s message has been quoted countless times since it was first spoken and provides insight into his prayerful constitutional amendment on equality.

No matter what your viewpoint on higher education admission practices, all policies born from bigoted principles will manifest into far-reaching discriminatory practices.

Thank you and God bless you

Vincent Cavaleri

The post Prejudicial policies in higher education appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

Meet Karen Osborne

Mon, 31 Oct 2022 22:58:00 GMT

We are stoked to announce another attorney joining team SMF!

After home schooling her four children, Karen Osborne, JD, went back to law school at William and Mary in Virginia. While there she had the opportunity to intern at the Constitutional Sources Project, Goldwater Institute in Arizona and Home School Legal Defense Association. The year after law school she worked for Freedom Foundation. The advocacy provided by these organizations solidified her desire to help others defend Constitutional Freedoms and Natural Rights. Along with the other attorneys and staff at the Silent Majority Foundation, she will continue this legacy as they pursue a wide variety of cases and issues to help defend America’s constitution and theological foundation.

The post Meet Karen Osborne appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

SMF Continues to Fight Federal Mandates

Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:32:00 GMT

We’ve filed the opening brief in the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals to continue the battle to protect individual right of choice, see our brief by clicking the link below!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rphx2we2uiqfq7y/Opening%20Brief.pdf?dl=0

The post SMF Continues to Fight Federal Mandates appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

Medical Freedom Event with MAFA

Mon, 03 Oct 2022 19:45:00 GMT

On Saturday, October 1st, Make Americans Free Again (MAFA) in SW Washington hosted a wonderful event to support SMF’s efforts to protect your health(care) through our advocacy and litigation efforts protecting medical freedom.

Silent Majority Foundation is currently representing MAFA member, Scott Miller, P.A., in defending his medical license that was suspended because of his early intervention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 in his patients and his willingness to speak against the mainstream COVID-19 narrative.

Mr. Miller’s efforts have been nothing short of heroic throughout the pandemic, and we are proud to represent him in an effort to preserve his license as well as the licenses of other medical professionals who are willing to speak out against the mainstream COVID-19 narrative.

The post Medical Freedom Event with MAFA appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

Lawsuit Challenging SB 5078

Thu, 29 Sep 2022 19:19:00 GMT

On July 14, 2022 , SMF filed Brumback v. Ferguson in Yakima County Superior Court to challenge Senate Bill 5078, Washington’s “high-capacity” magazine ban. SMF partnered with attorney, Scott Brumback, who is also a plaintiff in the case. Our second plaintiff is a firearms retailer, Gimme Guns, out of Selah. We’re excited about this case for these reasons:

We believe that the facts, our approach, and the new US Supreme Court analysis lead to the perfect storm to challenge SB 5078.

AS SOON AS we served Attorney General Bob Ferguson with the lawsuit, Mr. Ferguson had the case moved to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

NOW , this case sits in Federal court. The Alliance for Gun Responsibility filed a motion to intervene to join as a defendant, which was granted by the court. With intervenor status granted, we have double the battle to protect your rights! !

WE NEED YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT to help staff and fund our legal team. Consider donating to the Second Amendment Legal Fund .

The post Lawsuit Challenging SB 5078 appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

Welcome Maureen West!

Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:48:00 GMT

Maureen West, JD, RDH is a previous Colorado Assistant Attorney General who served as legal counsel to over a dozen healthcare regulatory boards for 15+ years. During her tenure as an AAG, she handled numerous high-profile cases. She is also a healthcare practitioner (registered dental hygienist) and an adjunct professor at the University of Denver in the Healthcare Administration Masters Program all of which uniquely position her to handle cases effectively and efficiently before state medical and nursing boards.

The post Welcome Maureen West! appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

Jurisprudence on full display

Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:42:00 GMT

Never in our history has the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) played a more vital role in protecting America’s Bill of Rights. With Joe Biden in the White House, America’s Constitution is merely another impediment to hurdle over. His record setting executive orders have sought to bypass the legislative process and usurp our founding documents, and the due processes therein.

In all the years of the Presidency, never has one man issued so many executive orders, proclamations, declarations, and decrees during their first two years on the job. As a matter of fact, Joe Biden has issued more than the last four presidents combined. In what’s becoming an autocratic process from the White House, we have seen job killing executive orders, congressional bypassing proclamations and declarations; and he now has his sights on dismembering the Second Amendment.

In a recent speech he called on congress “to enact common sense gun law reforms”, despite state constitutional protections. He followed those comments up by saying “This administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed the call to act.” Joe Biden and the progressives intend on deploying the same unconstitutional sidestepping tactics as they have on the existing 85 executive orders, 64 presidential memoranda and 210 proclamations already issued since he took office.

The second amendment to the constitution was clear and concise when crafted, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Our founders came from tyranny and understood the need for its citizenry to protect themselves from all enemies foreign and domestic. The framers intentionally eliminated ambiguity in the language, as the recent Supreme Court ruling has shown. Over the last century, Supreme Court rulings on the matter have been consistent in validating the second amendments language.

In June of 2008, the Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 reaffirming the rights of a citizen to bear arms. District of Columbia v. Heller was a death blow to the anti-gun lobby because it clarified and codified every component of a citizen’s right to legal gun ownership. The progressives have been plotting to undermine this ruling for the last 13 years.

Democrat led cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and even the District of Columbia, to name a few, have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, yet they lead the nation in gun violence. It seems the bad guys do not have a problem finding guns. As a matter of fact, these cities lead in most every violent crime category that is tracked by the justice department. For the first time in over half a century, we have seen year after year, record setting increases, as the innocent victims continue to pile up on their watch.

We are fortunate for now that a majority on the Supreme Court are constitutionalists. The court should never be in the business of legislating from the bench. Their role is clear, they are the final arbiter in the judiciary process, and the legal branch of constitutional oversight. Their role is to interpret the constitution, not to pick and choose which parts it agrees with.

Despite death threats, picketing and parading of their homes and deliberate intimidation under threat, I applaud the six justices that understood their oath before God and the American people. Proving once again that the mob is no match for, we the people.

Thank you and God bless America

Vincent

The post Jurisprudence on full display appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

Big Tech, Big Government a Big Problem:

Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:28:00 GMT

Many of us have warned of the rise of socialism/Marxism in America. Something that seemed incomprehensible or unfathomable a few years ago, is making its big push here in the good old US of A. The plan to usurp America’s free society was hatched many years ago; and was simply waiting in the weeds for the match to be lit. With the collaboration of corporate America, big tech, and academia the plan has come full circle. Simply add corrupted elected leaders to the mix and the recipe is essentially complete. It’s like pouring hot coals on dry grass.

In the 1930s Adolf Hitler seized power in Germany as the leader of the National Socialist Workers Party. Some may scoff at using Hitler as an example, but the components are strikingly similar. Hitler initially didn’t control the spread of information via government censorship, but rather through his brigades of street thugs “the brown shirts”, who would intimidate and physically abuse and prevent opponents from speaking publicly. Sound familiar? This tactic parallels the efforts of groups like “ANTIFA” and BLM with help from the more than willing media (don’t worry, they’re peaceful protesters). The use of corporate America to facilitate the message by means of identity politics or cancel culture has allowed them to become a financial stakeholder and profiteer in this technocratic takeover.

Corporate America now relies heavily on its executives to implement its agenda voluntarily, but also through intimidation by online brigades of activists and journalists who take the initiative to launch negative PR campaigns and boycotts to advance their societal structure. Just look at “My Pillow” CEO Mike Lindell. Lindell was an avid Trump supporter and outspoken conservative business owner. Despite having a great product and being incredibly successful, Bed Bath and Beyond and Kohls dept stores decided to discontinue carrying his products, even though it is financially beneficial to both parties; his political view is the wrong color.

Since 01/25/21, Twitter has permanently suspended his personal and business accounts. See how that works? Get down on your knees or be doxed and cancelled! If that doesn’t work, rioters and looters will come and pick through your bones at some point. Lindell is not the first and won’t be the last. This alarming trend is encouraged and rewarded, mostly in the big government blue states, where they have carte blanche to abuse others. In the world of the oppressive regime, independent or dissenting opinion cannot exist. Lindell’s only crime is being a successful conservative that found success without government handouts or programs. He must go!

While there are no laws targeting dissenters specifically, it seems apparent that selective political voices are being targeted for obliteration, through the utilization of corporate and social warfare. The modern day “tech brown shirts” suppress speech through de-platforming or embedding searches into oblivion. Companies like Facebook and Twitter have virtual immunity to suppress speech with little or no repercussions. They deploy thousands of censorship bullies and use terms like, “fact checkers”, “false or partial information” to discredit or dispute anything that doesn’t align with their ideology.

We are witnessing unprecedented constitutional abuses on a national scale. Recently the ACLU and the Electronic Freedom Foundation have condemned the recent conduct of these tech giants and stated, “they won’t stop there.”

American society has always been deeply ambivalent about questions of free speech. On the one hand, our history is filled with examples of overt government censorship, from the 1873 Comstock Law to the 1996 Communications Decency act. On the other hand, the commitment to freedom of imagination and expression is deeply embedded in our national psyche, buttressed by the First Amendment, and supported by a long line of Supreme Court decisions. The ACLU is correct in its assertion that “they won’t stop there.” Time for everyone to stand up to oppression on every level. I assure you, one day it will be your turn in the autocratic vat.

Thanks, and God bless…. Vincent

The post Big Tech, Big Government a Big Problem: appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

Response to WA Office of Financial Management Vaccine Requirement for State Employment

Mon, 08 Aug 2022 15:12:00 GMT

On August 4, 2022, Silent Majority Foundation, along with Pacific Justice Institute, Informed Choice of WA and Joy Lockerby of Lockerby Law, PLLC, collectively wrote Brandy Chinn and OFM rulemaking staff in opposition to the proposed rules they intend to implement through WSR 22-14-104. This rule creates a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for employment of all State employees.

Select this link to read the full comment.

The post Response to WA Office of Financial Management Vaccine Requirement for State Employment appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

The Woke War on Title IX and Women’s Sports

Mon, 01 Aug 2022 02:37:00 GMT

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was intended to ensure that female sports/activities received fair, adequate, and ample funding. 50 years later, woke companies, like ESPN, celebrate 50 years of Title IX (with its Fifty/50 campaign celebrating Title IX), while simultaneously “equitably” eviscerating women’s sports by celebrating biological males who participate in women’s sports. The ESPNs of the world only touch on the surface issue with the woke attack on women’s sports. Not surprisingly, the Biden administration is attempting to annihilate Title IX in the name of equity by “ ensuring that schools have grievance procedures that provide for the fair, prompt, and equitable resolution of reports of sexual harassment and other sex discrimination; and to addressing discrimination based on sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity, in educational environments. ” To achieve its ideation of “equity,” the administration will “ propose amendments to its regulations implementing Title IX to address these issues .” As is the case with most Biden administration policies, this “update” seeks to protect the few while ignoring the many.

This issue is prominently on display with Lia Thomas, a male with gender dysphoria swimming, and dominating, female competitions. If Thomas were a single case, the issue would not likely garner any attention, but the issue has trickled down to Washington high school and club level sports. Look to Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (“WIAA”) Policy 18.15, which provides that “All students should have the opportunity to participate in WIAA activities in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on a student’s records.” More importantly, private clubs, like the Greater Seattle Summer Swim League, is in the process of adopting its version of the WIAA policy–the trickledown effect is already occurring.

Problematically, these policies promote an inherently unfair situation where biological males dominate women’s sports, leading to an unfair situation in women’s sports. This inherent unfairness was a determining factor in the international swimming regulatory body, Fédération Internationale de Natation (“FINA”), adopting its policy that limits male-to-female transgender athletes to participate in FINA competitions insofar as these individuals have “not experienced any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later.” FINA provides an application process to ensure that the athletes are met on a fair, not an equitable, stage. FINA’s Policy was adopted through scientific study, using its Science Group, which “reported that biological sex is a key determinant of athletic performance, with males outperforming females in sports (including Aquatics sports) that are primarily determined by neuromuscular, cardiovascular, and respiratory function, and anthropometrics including body and limb size.” While the policy promotes fairness in competition, it opens the door to forcing minors into making life altering decisions prior to the age of 12, risking potential significant collateral damage.

As the woke world rails against women’s sports to create an “equitable” platform, I applaud FINA for taking a fair and scientific approach to adopting policies that protect the integrity of women’s sports; however, cannot be the end of the conversation. To fully embrace Title IX, women’s sports must retain its autonomy, such as creating open category for trans swimmers may be the best solution to protect the integrity of women’s sports.

The post The Woke War on Title IX and Women’s Sports appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .

Thoughts on Whose Children are They

Mon, 01 Aug 2022 02:27:00 GMT

As Whose Children Are They sweeps local theaters throughout the nation, the video raises an important question each of us must be ready to answer. With men like United States Attorney General Merrick Garland and Washington State Superintendent Chris Reykdal in “leadership” positions who want you to believe parental rights are secondary to state and social interests, each of us must be ready to protect our children against these woke cultural influences. In this article, I discuss a recent experience where Silent Majority Foundation (SMF) successfully helped a parent retain her rights against a woke school district who had received a criminal “No Trespass Letter and Agreement to Prosecute” from the sheriff’s office.

In February, we received an email from the parent asking for help in challenging the No Trespass Letter. Not knowing what to do, she asked whether we could assist. SMF got to work. We asked the parent for records of correspondence with the school district and video/photographic evidence that would prove her claims, and she had it. SMF drafted a Notice of Appeal of the district’s decision, using the parent’s records as factual support. The Notice of Appeal was filed with the County Superior Court within a week, and within two weeks of filing the Notice of Appeal, the court scheduled a hearing.

A couple of days prior to the hearing date, the school district asked to settle the case and rescinded the No Trespass letter. The parent rejected the district’s offer to settle, wanting the court to decide the case. In court, the judge asked the school district’s attorney why the district issued such a harsh penalty and stated that the No Trespass approach is the school district’s last step, not its first. The judge ruled in the parent’s favor and dismissed the No Trespass Letter and Agreement to Prosecute. The parent has returned to her child’s campus.

So, what are the takeaways:

Silent Majority Foundation is here to help. You can contact us at: info@silentmajorityfoundation.org or find us online at: www.smfjb.org or www.silentmajorityfoundation.org .

God bless,

Pete

The post Thoughts on Whose Children are They appeared first on Silent Majority Foundation .