Defending freedom is what we do
By: Chris Woodward (OneNewsNow.com)
It’s great that we have groups willing to supplement and support state attorneys general in opposing Biden initiatives and restrictions upon our liberty, rights, and freedom. It’s wonderful to have great legal organizations willing to defend American like us who believe and identify with us as groups and individuals on all of the key issues of the day, especially social issues.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A law firm promises to be a necessary adversary against the Biden administration to defend First Amendment freedoms of speech, religion, the sanctity of life, and parental rights.
"With God's help, we don't just stand. We win," Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) says in a television ad that senior counsel Matt Sharp says will continue to air for several days to come.
"I think a lot of people are familiar with Alliance Defending Freedom's work of representing Jack Phillips, the Colorado cake artist, or churches across the country being shut down as a result of the overly restrictive COVID orders, but we wanted to let Americans know that they really have no greater friend when it comes to protecting life or First Amendment rights," Sharp tells One News Now.
Executive orders that will undermine those freedoms have already been signed, and Biden has made promises indicating more is to come, so ADF wants to let people know "we're going to be an adversary when necessary against the Biden administration to defend these First Amendment freedoms."
Sharp goes on to advise anyone who thinks the new administration does not concern them to not get too comfortable.
"It may one day be one of your relatives who is in the wedding industry and finds themselves subject to lawsuits or government threats of fines and even jail time in some of these cases for living out their beliefs about marriage, for not being willing to help celebrate a same-sex wedding," the senior counsel poses.
He says anyone with a daughter or granddaughter in sports should also be prepared.
"We can all be concerned about our daughters finding themselves walking up to the starting line, and there is a biological male competing in the female category," he asserts. "All the work that our daughter and granddaughter has done is down the drain because of a policy that allows a biological male to compete."
HolcombADF's concerns about biological males being allowed to compete in women's sports is not new. In addition to calling it unfair and a violation of Title IX, ADF attorney Christiana Holcomb has consistently touched on why biological males have an advantage over their female competitors.
"We know from both common sense and from science that males are generally bigger, faster, [and] stronger," she notes. "They have bigger lungs and hearts and stronger muscles, denser bones -- all of which together gives them a physical advantage over their female competitor."
Sharp says the ADF ad, which can be seen on Fox News and several other networks, is to let people know that they can partner with the firm and " defend freedom for every American ."
Tags
Who is online
109 visitors
I still have all my freedoms, just like everyone else. Name one freedom that's been undermined, or otherwise prohibited, revoked, ect.!
I hear ya. "They're taking away our freedoms". Then they cant name one.
That's a standard and recurring response to the question of which rights are being taken away. Sometimes followed by a persecution complex and/or a blame game.
That too.
So basically, this whole seed boils down to bigotry...
eeeek! lefties are taking away all your freedom thumpers, send them all your money quick!
If you don't want them queerosexuals invading your lives, donate now and we will go to court and battle for our bigotry.
Unlike some wackadoos, I would not deny money or a job just because I didn't like someone's lifestyle.
Not very savvy business people.
Actually, rather stupid.
Stupid nicely sums up baseless complaints about losing rights and sweeping generalizations.
Would you take my picture, cause I won't remember..
Sure
Would you take my picture, cause I won't remember...
I would love to.
Would you take my picture, cause I won't remember...
No, you look gay...
Any confession from me would probably make you burst into flames.
So here goes...
What epistemic commitments are you compelled by law to violate?
So where does your 'no matter how minor that role might be to some' scenario start and end Xx?
Can those that grow flowers demand that their product no be used in a 'gay' flower arrangement?
Can a wheat grower demand that their product no be used in a 'gay' wedding cake?
Can a gas station owner demand that their product no be used fuel a limo rental or to deliver the flowers or catering or 'gay' wedding cake?
The list could go on and on.
How are we all to know the limitations that your 'closely held beliefs' put on that whole range of products Xx? Should products be labeled, signs posted and advertising include a notice of some kind?
... like organized religious groups have done before, and still do.
But, but, you said:
All those 'sources of origin' are expressing themselves, are they not?
Their expression would 'support such a thing' in SOME 'way shape or form' would it not?
Remember it was YOU who claimed that it didn't 'matter how minor that role might be'.
Are you retracting that Xx?
Because unless you are, my questions aren't 'ridiculous' and they stand.
You've shown very little respect or understanding for the separation of church and state. Unless it benefits you somehow, right?
Thanks for that tidbit, MAGA.
Who do you know that is coercing individuals against their will into homosexual acts and expressions? Have you filed a complaint with your local constabulary? If not, why not?
Meh, God hates Christians, Jews and Muslims equally ... and women? Don't get me started, they might as well be scallops.
Orwell pointed out quite presciently, a society that prevents freedom of discussion through tacit agreements to ignore unpopular thoughts and events in favor of an approved narrative can be just as corrosive to an informed populace as explicit censorship. As our society comes to rely more and more on electronic communication that is controlled by a handful of multi national billion dollar corporations that operate in ideological lockstep, the danger pointed out by Orwell comes closer to fruition. As Orwell wrote: "But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI [Britain’s wartime Ministry of Information] or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion." He continued, "Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban."
Oh how I hate when such bullshit is falsely attributed to Orwell.
Not very cogent of you.
Really Sean. Do you have a link where Orwell pointed out what you claim. Please don't tell me to read 1984. It's not on my list until mid year, for the about the 10th time...
Orwell didn't 'suggest' that in 1984 either Xx.
1984 isn't about 'big government' either Xx. Whoever told you that lied.
So Dulay - what do you suggest Orwell means?
‘Big Brother’ controls every aspect of people’s lives. It has invented the language ‘Newspeak’ in an attempt to completely eliminate political rebellion; created ‘Throughtcrimes’ to stop people even thinking of things considered rebellious. The party controls what people read, speak, say and do with the threat that if they disobey, they will be sent to the dreaded Room 101 as a looming punishment.
Orwell effectively explores the themes of mass media control, government surveillance, totalitarianism and how a dictator can manipulate and control history, thoughts, and lives in such a way that no one can escape it.
https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2016/may/29/1984-george-orwell-review#:~:text=1984%20is%20a%20dystopian%20novella,every%20aspect%20of%20people's%20lives.
1st, you're asking me what I think Orwell means by quoting someone else's 'book review' about what THEY think that Orwell means.
Seriously, I've READ 1984 MANY times and I have read essays about Orwell and his writings during my studies of American literature. I don't rely on others opinions, I formulate my own.
That statement alone should convince you that Orwell's 'Big Brother' is about CONTROL, not 'tacit agreements to ignore unpopular thoughts and events'.
In 1984, there is no such thing as 'tacit agreements' or 'unpopular thoughts or events'. 'Big Brother' CONTROLS. PERIOD, full stop.
Good - glad you gave me something that I can wrap my head around.
I've read 1984 a couple of times also, but the "opinion" of the Guardian Cliff Notes for young'n's kinda got I and others in my Lit classes wondering - could this really happen?
I'm not sure. The media is one indication - corporate (Apple/Facebook/Amazon) kinda show me how control can be started??
Thanks for the response.
It's not. Try and keep up. 1984 is not the sum total or Orwell's work.
That's comedy right there. What's next, your exposition on The Old Man and the Sea and other great Japanese literature?
15 HOURS ago I asked you:
Unless and until you post that link, there is NOTHING for me to 'keep up' with Sean. All you are doing now is deflecting.
Oh and I have READ the 'sum total' of Orwell's work.
How so Sean?
The Old Man and the Sea isn't Japanese literature, great or otherwise Sean.
So how about you stop deflecting and address your bullshit about what you claim Orwell 'pointed out quite presciently'.
When I think of the media's ability to control information, I think of 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington'. The big wigs used their control of the media to try to silence Mr. Smith but the 'little guys' fought back. Of course, that plot relies on one of the 'bad guys' having a conscience, something seemingly lacking in todays body politic.
I think the genie is out of the bottle now. We are so reliant on social media that we will find a way to communicate and get the truth out, despite 'corporate' control.
I for one cannot see a time when today, the government could so clamp down that it could keep a lid on the truth for long. Just look at North Korea's failed attempts at keeping it's secrets even though it's own population is cowed. Our own security lapses [Snowden/Manning] have been epic in our most secure government systems.
So, back in the day it was the FCC that censored television and radio.
Which conservative people gave a green light, even applauded.
People fought against it and fought for change, slowing winning more and more.
We went from not being able to show a married couple in the same bed to a middle aged male cop showing his bare ass on primetime.
Now these people that use to applaud the old rules are now complaining about censorship, just because they believe hate speech and/or political speech should be protected.
So, bare ass no, hang em high, yes.
That fact proves that we aren't:
'Tacit agreement' is the antithesis of coerced compliance.
Characters in 1984 didn't have a 'tacit agreement to ignore unpopular thoughts' they were FORCED to stifle all thought unauthorized by Ingsoc, the ruling party of Oceania.
It seems that some here hold to 'Ignorance is strength'.
You are aware Orwell wrote things other than 1984, right? That's quite a strawman you've created.
But, in many cases, "Ignorance is Bliss"?
Why yes, YES I do Sean.
You are aware that you have failed to provide one iota of proof of what you claim that Orwell 'pointed out' right?
So now you're using the term strawman improperly. You're on a roll Sean.
Only for the ignorant.
Sometimes, it seems to be preferred. Go figure.
How droll. A typical Pee Wee Herman response and juvenile at that!
Once again you prove my point, and your inability to formulate any logical argument or rebuttal.
How childish!
As Oscar Wilde so aptly noted: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness."
You should consider yourself flattered, Gordy. Mediocrity has recognized your greatness.
Good point. Although, mediocrity might be giving too much credit. Such imitation is kindergarten level mentality. I tend to have greater expectations from grown adults.
Can you really expect more from someone who is desperately trying to figure out how to nail his other hand to his own cross?
Actually yes, I do expect more. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a rational, adult level discussion or response to a post. But I'm not surprised by childish replies. It's not the first time they've been employed. It just shows the type of mind & person one is dealing with, for all to see.
It's not unreasonable to expect such from any rational adult commenter here on NT. However, after numerous childish rebuttals from some it has become apparent that we can't expect anything other than more childish rebuttals and getting a rational, adult level discussion is frankly impossible in this case. If you scroll up and read the rational comments and questions to the seeder over the last 3 or 4 days there's not one rebuttal that would meet the level of an "adult discussion".
I tend to agree.