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.”

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.

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?

Hi, Kevyn,
Sounds like a good argument for pro choice. I find a big flaw in the logic though. You see, tonsils or a ruptured appendix will never be a living person, they are only parts.
An embryo, on the other hand, WILL be a living, breathing human being. If an embryo is just cells like tonsils, then where does the brain come from? It's the brain, not the body, that makes an embryo human. it is a known fact that babies dream in the womb...of what I don't know, but the dream. If the baby is dreaming, then it is thinking, and if it's thinking, it is. ( I think, therefore, I am) Here's another question...if an embryo is not a human, then why does a murderer get charged with 2 murders when a pregnant woman is murdered?
Let's build a tractor. From start to finish, it is a tractor. We don't start building a sailboat and end up with a tractor somewhere along the line. If people say "what are you building?", you wouldn't say "nothing...it's just a pile of parts" No, you would say I am building a tractor.
When a woman starts showing, would she say "I have a goo of cells in my womb".
So, nothing other than an embryo will ever see the light of day and live to become a factory worker, a homeless person, mayor of a mid sized town, or even president. That alone makes the embryo "special".
I know the hardships of parenting at an early age. The way I see it, there are so many ways to prevent pregnancy today that it is just irresponsible to have sex and then k**l the baby. The dems want the v****g age lowered to 16...then let that age group be mature enough to not get k**led texting and driving, to not get hooked on drugs or alcohol, or to get pregnant when it is not desired.
Now, I think the whole reply is pretty good logic, Kevyn.

Hi, Kevyn,
Sounds like a good argument for pro choice. I find a big flaw in the logic though. You see, tonsils or a ruptured appendix will never be a living person, they are only parts.
An embryo, on the other hand, WILL be a living, breathing human being. If an embryo is just cells like tonsils, then where does the brain come from? It's the brain, not the body, that makes an embryo human. it is a known fact that babies dream in the womb...of what I don't know, but the dream. If the baby is dreaming, then it is thinking, and if it's thinking, it is. ( I think, therefore, I am) Here's another question...if an embryo is not a human, then why does a murderer get charged with 2 murders when a pregnant woman is murdered?
Let's build a tractor. From start to finish, it is a tractor. We don't start building a sailboat and end up with a tractor somewhere along the line. If people say "what are you building?", you wouldn't say "nothing...it's just a pile of parts" No, you would say I am building a tractor.
When a woman starts showing, would she say "I have a goo of cells in my womb".
So, nothing other than an embryo will ever see the light of day and live to become a factory worker, a homeless person, mayor of a mid sized town, or even president. That alone makes the embryo "special".
I know the hardships of parenting at an early age. The way I see it, there are so many ways to prevent pregnancy today that it is just irresponsible to have sex and then k**l the baby. The dems want the v****g age lowered to 16...then let that age group be mature enough to not get k**led texting and driving, to not get hooked on drugs or alcohol, or to get pregnant when it is not desired.
Now, I think the whole reply is pretty good logic, Kevyn.

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.”

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.

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?

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.