Posted on 11/06/2015 4:21:52 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Video from investigative journalism outfit Project Veritas (PV) released Thursday morning shows a Cornell administrator shredding a copy of the U.S. Constitution after a PV journalist posing as a student told the administrator the document is triggering.
Elizabeth McGrath, Cornell’s Lead Title IX Investigator, is seen in the video feeding pages from a pocket-size Constitution through a paper shredder after the undercover journalist says it would be therapy for her. McGrath asks the journalist if she would like to participate, an offer she declines.
I have my own personal reasons why the Constitution is very triggering for me, the PV journalist tells McGrath. In response, McGrath calls the Constitution a flawed document and calls those wrote wrote the Constitution flawed individuals. The video cuts to her saying the Supreme Court Justices who voted against same sex marriage were, you know, really out of their minds…
When McGrath suggests the document be left with her, the PV journalists asks if they could shred the document as therapy for her, to which McGrath responds, Absolutely. Right before the shredding, McGrath says, Free speech means freedom to destroy whatever you want to as well. Vice President of University Relations Joel Malina released a statement on the video, reading in part, Whatever personal views [McGrath] may have shared in order to connect with a ‘student’ who appeared to be in crisis, as an employee of Cornell University she was appropriately focused on addressing the apparently urgent need of the person before her and not on any larger political context. At the time of publishing, a request for comment delivered to McGrath had not been immediately responded to.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecornellreview.org ...
Communists have a lot of problems with freedom and liberty. Slavery of the “little people” is more to their tastes.
WTF is triggering? Why can’t anyone seem to either speak English any more, or think clearly.
Someone get these idiots off of my planet!
Not too far away from stuffing people they find “triggering” into a wood chipper.
What I think most people don't realize is that when slavery was outlawed the net result was to render the poor into a commons, making them nobody's legal responsibility if they cannot assume that charge themselves. The obvious result led directly to the welfare state, particularly as churches started to fail. The welfare state then made the poor so expensive to hire that nobody could afford them, thus assuring both a monopoly and a steady supply of dependents. Then it set about enlarging that supply via laws intended to destroy the family.
Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment citizenship clause effectively declares all American citizens, "subjects." And there I thought we fought a revolution to end subjugation.
These are weak, easily led people with no moral or ethical center and any real bully would walk all over them.
He doesn’t know the good work O’Keefe has done.
Thanksgiving should be interesting.
You forgot to mention to begin, support and continue a welfare state/safety net, one needs to make (economic) slaves of others.
IOW: They made slavery of SOME illegal to make slaves of us ALL.
That is because it is not necessary. There always will be people who cannot take care of themselves.
IOW: They made slavery of SOME illegal to make slaves of us ALL.
That was the point.
Instead of a war, people who didn't want slavery should have ponied up and bought their freedom. In an act of covetousness to take the property of others, they became property themselves. That is why the Tenth Commandment is there.
And he's still voting Democrat...
Maybe his corpse votes Democrat now, along with other dead guys. Definitely not while living, though!
;)
Sorry to hear the latter. I'd blame Cornell indoctrination but, if any thing, the public schools are worse these days.
Around here we constantly advocate the wholesale rubblizing of Barky's hypertrophied superstate. Couldn't we be arrested and jugged under that statute?
Not practical under the economics of the times. I have a good history of Texas that cites a close estimate of the hypothetical value of Texas slave holdings in 1860. It was $160,000,000 -- more than the sum of all other improved property in the State. It was just an insane number, and that was just Texas and their (primarily) sugar cane hands.
Compared to the $11.6 billion dollar cost of the war?
"Not practical" in the sense that, Quincy Adams's power play having been set in motion, you would never have convinced anyone involved it its realization, not John Brown nor any of the Secret Six, not Abraham Lincoln or any of the governors he spent hours locked in secret councils with in March and April 1861 -- and evidently before that, too, given what happened in e.g. Missouri -- nor any of Lincoln's cabinet at any time in the last 10 years leading up to the war, nor any of the leading Abolitionists, like Wendell Phillips, the Beechers, and Frederick Douglass, that a huge outlay of treasure such as you suggest, assuming your numbers arguendo are reasonably close to a sale value, would be worth the expenditure to forfend the coming hecatomb.
By that time, I think group-dynamics students would tell you, the players on both sides were already heavily invested in violence -- "martial law", "reorganizing the Southern States", "defending States' rights [and we're gonna whoop 'em], or pick your euphemism -- and ready to go to war after years of mutual recrimination, suspicion, aversion, and plain old hatred.
By the way, one of the more active areas of ACW studies in the last 10 years has been research into Abolitionist and Unionist propaganda and the way its dispensers used it to foment the war and foreclose any chance of reconciliation (such as the language with which Popular Sovereignty, Lecompton, Dred Scott, and the Constitution itself [famously, by Garrison] were reviled in Northern States).
Eventually Southerners were using similar language, and at that point -- the trial of John Brown -- the Union was over and the molten mass of People and their melting institutions were ready for Lincoln's and the industrialists' hammer.
So what I mean is, even on a fair showing of comparative values, at no time after Lecompton, say, would a proposal of redemption and emancipation, even if fully capitalized, stand a chance of acceptance by both parties, who were on the verge of seeing the arbitrament of the sword, to borrow Longstreet's words, as the superior mechanism of settlement.
I'll give you that, but my take on that "power play" goes back to Hamilton.
By that time, I think group-dynamics students would tell you, the players on both sides were already heavily invested in violence -- "martial law", "reorganizing the Southern States", "defending States' rights [and we're gonna whoop 'em], or pick your euphemism -- and ready to go to war after years of mutual recrimination, suspicion, aversion, and plain old hatred.
I think that's fair. It doesn't negate the hypothesis. It was a musing on the applicability of Torah when it comes to matters of liberty. This was clearly a Masonic wet dream: Liberty atomized to the individual. It doesn't work that way, but it did lead directly to our existing passe via the atomization of liberty's principal institution, the family, in the name of individualism. Funny how it was collectivists who pushed that.
Could we be arrested?.......
No way....we are defenders of the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.