no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

President Trump was infuriated with this Ivy League school after they did the unthinkable
March 26, 2019
8

American universities are doing everything they can to silence conservatives on campus.

It’s been so bad, President Trump even had to sign an Executive Order to protect Freedom of Speech for conservative students.

But what this Ivy League school did crossed the line and will make President Trump furious.

Jannique Stewart, a black, pro-life Christian with the Life Training Institute, was recently invited to participate in a debate at Cornell University on the topic of a******n.

But when Cornell administrators found out she believes in the Biblical definition of marriage, they banned her from speaking.

And according to Stewart, administrators told her that having someone on campus who believed in traditional marriage was “tantamount to allowing a r****t to speak who held pro-s***ery and pro-holocaust views.”

The Christian Post writes:

Jannique Stewart, who is African American and a pro-life speaker with Life Training Institute was invited earlier this year to participate in a debate next month at Cornell University’s Political Union, “regarding the fact that a******n is a moral wrong,” she noted in a Saturday Facebook post.

The group withdrew the invitation upon finding out that she was an outspoken defender of marriage as between one man and one woman and biblical sexuality. Her presence and participation had been officially approved and was on track to proceed until she was asked to submit a bio and those who invited her started researching her background.

“It was explained to me that having someone on campus who believed the way I did was tantamount to allowing a r****t to speak who held pro-s***ery and pro-holocaust views!” Stewart explained, outraged.
“I was also told that their concern was that many of the students would be offended by my beliefs and would not be able to focus or listen to my speech.”

Cornell University’s Political Union is wrong on two fronts.

First, maintaining a Christian worldview of marriage is not “tantamount” to s***ery and the Holocaust.

To argue such is to ostracize an entire group of people from being “accepted” in the eyes of the university.

Second, in the school’s attempt to maintain a politically correct nature, they broke one of the major PC rules.

The university’s political union “w****splained” to Jannique Stewart – an African American woman herself.

This comes right after President Trump signed an Executive Order to promote free speech on college universities.

Cornell will want to be careful or they could find themselves losing federal funding if they keep up these antics.

In a Facebook post, Jannique Stewart set the record straight, saying “The First Amendment supports Freedom of Speech not Freedom From Speech.”

MatthewlovesAyn Loc: Ohio

As a pro-life, atheist, Libertarian, I am all in favor of winning debates in the arena of ideas, and not by silencing my opponents in said debate.

Liberty Tree

The way of the left coming to America if they ever get full control.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

While I am a Christian, I whole heartedly agree with your statement.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

Pro-life atheist libertarian ?

That means you're a..........

Kevyn

Is the Pro Life a typo? true Libertarians are pro choice. Here are a couple quotes from Rand.

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

A******n is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth.

The question of a******n involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of s***ery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.

I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against a******n. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.”

By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

It's too bad that your skewed reasoning didn't progress past the embryo stage.

Kevyn

What skewed reasoning? The poster claims to be a libertarian who loves Ian Rand. I simply commented on the incompatibility of libertarian philosophy and an anti choice stance and provided quotes by Rand that are clearly pro choice. I am qurious about the dichotomy of his thought process.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

It's a clear and unobstructed example of how the left has the radical philosophy of putting people in a certain categorical bubble.

MatthewlovesAyn Loc: Ohio

If you can't answer a man's argument, don't worry, you can always call him names.
I never expect much from you and I'm never disappointed.

MatthewlovesAyn Loc: Ohio

Normally I wouldn't answer you, but part of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. The debate from the left is that "It's a woman's body ." A simple DNA test shows it to be a separate individual. This is the argument that changed my mind (just in the last decade). I have come to the conclusion that a******n violates the rights of the group of cells that will inevitably become a person. The other thing that really bothers me about the the left is they view humans as a blight and I consider them assets. We've k**led tens of millions in the name of choice. None of these people will pay taxes and support me in my old age, as I have supported previous generations. I see where you came to the conclusions you have, I just thoroughly disagree with them. Pro-choice is one of the very few arguments I have with Ms. Rand.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

In this instance I'd have to say I agree with you and, from what I can see, Wolf Counselor's post was uncalled for.

I don't believe there is a single one of us who entirely fit in anyone else's box, and if there are, I would think they were likely force-fit into it!

I, a very committed Christian, considered myself Libertarian for decades. I no longer do for the simple fact that, as a party they can't come to the most basic of conclusions that a living unborn human is a life, and not just a mass of inanimate tissue, and thus no choice should be allowed any deifferent than any other life.

I say, Kudos to you for you for making that stand. You're not alone. In fact the earliest feminists were also anti-a******n and many still are, but they aren't very popular for obvious reasons.

MatthewlovesAyn Loc: Ohio

Ayn also called Libertarians the "Hippies of the right "

She also smoked and did amphetamines, both of which I personally disavow but would never force that belief on another person.

Ayn also felt most of modern music was bereft of value, whereas I think the Rolling Stones are the greatest. She thought tap dance was the only American culturally valuable activity.

My love for Ayn is mostly in her novels. I think she put altruism in its place in the ash-pile of human philosophy. There is a possibility that I will change my handle to MatthewLovesWalterEWilliams as I have never heard him say anything I disagree will. Not always the case with Thomas Sowell, whom I also greatly admire.

bggamers Loc: georgia

To admire some it is not necessary to believe everything they say or do but to take from that which you can add to YOUR own system. I have always believed that we all sort of sift through this life for things that we can add to our own belief system so pretty much everyone is individual in that respect. But have found some people adopt a total belief system from others because they are too lazy or don't know how to develope their own identity. Personal opinion If that makes any sense

MatthewlovesAyn Loc: Ohio