false rape accuser: Jackie Coakley

Charlottesville Police Chief Timothy Longo said Monday that his department was “not able to conclude to any substantive degree” that the University of Virginia gang-rape described in a Nov. 19, 2014 Rolling Stone article actually happened.

Longo disputed several points made in the article, including the accuser Jackie’s claim that she received no help after reporting the incident to campus officials. The police chief said that police spoke with Jackie in May 2014, after she claimed to school officials she suffered a second attack.

At that time, Jackie claimed a group of four men called her name and threw a bottle at her head when she turned around. She claimed at the time that her roommate had to pull shards of glass from her face.

The roommate denied this to police. The injury was described as an abrasion and not the result of blunt-force trauma.

Jackie refused to file a report with police at that time.

After the Rolling Stone article was published, police again tried to interview Jackie, but she brought a U.Va. dean and a lawyer and refused to speak. Another officer at the press conference said that a follow-up message from the lawyer said in no uncertain terms that Jackie would not cooperate with the investigation.

Longo also said the Charlottesville police tried to obtain records from Jackie’s meetings with U.Va. Dean Eramo, but that Jackie wouldn’t sign a waiver releasing them.

Longo then detailed what has already been reported by other news outlets that Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity where Jackie was allegedly raped, didn’t throw a party the night described in Rolling Stone. Further, Jackie’s claim that her date that night took her to the party fell apart when it was discovered the various people she claimed as her date did not exist.

Longo emphasized that “the case is not closed by any stretch of the imagination,” and are looking for anyone who has information to come forward.

One clue as to the origins of Jackie’s rape claim came from her first meeting with a school dean in 2012. Her grades had been falling, and after being asked about them, she brought up the rape claim.

Longo did bring up one point that I know will anger activists, and that is the importance of police involvement in rape and sexual assault allegations.

“Having police involvement in the early stages of an investigation is extremely, extremely important,” Longo said, because evidence disappears and witnesses forget.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/police-no-evidence-to-support-rolling-stone-gang-rape-story/article/2561907

American shit music: Mac Miller Hit With $150,000 Lawsuit for Unauthorized Aquarian Dream Sample on “Therapy”

Mac Miller was recently hit with a $150,000 lawsuit for an unauthorized Aquarian Dream sample featured on “Therapy.” The track was featured on his 2014 mixtape Faces.

According to TMZ, the soul/funk band’s Jacques Burvick is suing Miller for using the group’s song “Yesterday (Was So Nice Today)” from theirFantasy album.

Burvick claims Miller’s reps admitted to trying to contact him to get permission, but when they were unable to reach him, Miller used the song anyway.

“Therapy” has reportedly been downloaded more than 700,000 times from Miller’s website oldjewish.com.

Forking over the $150K should not be too much of a hassle for the Pennsylvania rapper. In October, Miller dropped his indie status and signed a $10 million deal with Warner Bros.

Last September, Kendrick Lamar was hit with a similar lawsuit when Eric Reed and Willie Jones sued the rapper for ripping off their music for his 2011 track “Rigamortis.”

Reed and Jones composed a song called “The Thorn” in 2010, which features the same “infectious rhythm and commanding horns” heard on Lamar’s “Rigamortis.”

The two musicians sued for at least $1 million as well as all profits from and rights to the song.

Jay Z recently agreed to pay 50 percent of the royalties from his song “Versus” to Swiss jazz musician Bruno Spoerri. He accused the Roc Nation head honcho of using his instrumental “On the Way” for the track featured on his album Magna Carta Holy Grail.

Readers: What do you make of the situation? What do you think of artists sampling music without authorization? Was Mac Miller wrong for using the sample despite his reps’s attempts? Is $150,000 a reasonable amount, although Miller did not make any money off the song?

Sound off in the comments section below to let us know your thoughts.

http://www.musictimes.com/articles/32675/20150322/mac-miller-hit-150-000-lawsuit-unauthorized-aquarian-dream-sample.htm

 

I.LEAD 2015 Ottawa convention – Organizers, speakers, sponsors, and booths

On March 21, 2015, the United Muslim Organizations of Ottawa Gatineau (UMO-OG), an umbrella organization including many Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations operating in and around Ottawa, will hold its third I.LEAD conference at the Palais des Congrès in Gatineau (20132014). According to the About page of the event, The aim [of the conference] is to explore everyday issues impacting the lives of our community in ways that are welcoming, non-judgmental, and relevant.” The issue of “radicalization” is one of the main topics on the program of the conference. Key speakers Yahya Michot, Ingrid Mattson, and Faisal Kutty are scheduled to address it.

 

http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/i-lead-2015-ottawa-convention-organizers-speakers-sponsors-and-booths/

Robin Rinaldi’s Wild Oats Project Shows Why Women Should Not Sleep Around

Recently, author Robin Rinaldi made waves with the publication of her memoir The Wild Oats Project, about how she spent a year sleeping with men and women with the permission of her husband after badgering him into entering an open marriage. Her reason for cracking up a nearly two decade-long marriage? Boredom. I kid you not:

I broke the news to Scott that I wanted an open marriage in early 2008, a few months after his vasectomy. “I won’t go to my grave with no children and four lovers,” I told him repeatedly. “I refuse.”

I haven’t read The Wild Oats Project, mainly because if I need to induce vomiting, ipecac is both less expensive and less painful. But Rinaldi’s press blitz about the book gives away its crucial (and entirely expected) twist: after concluding the “project,” Rinaldi divorced her loving husband and ran off with one of the men she’d slept with. Turns out that lotsa cocka is as conducive to a woman’s happiness as a Glock in the mouth is to brain function.

 

I haven’t read The Wild Oats Project, mainly because if I need to induce vomiting, ipecac is both less expensive and less painful. But Rinaldi’s press blitz about the book gives away its crucial (and entirely expected) twist: after concluding the “project,” Rinaldi divorced her loving husband and ran off with one of the men she’d slept with. Turns out that lotsa cocka is as conducive to a woman’s happiness as a Glock in the mouth is to brain function.

 

The enthusiastic response to Rinaldi’s masturbatory memoir—notwithstanding this amusing negative review from the Washington Post—is a prime example of the double standard in sex writing. Men like Roosh and myself who write about our experiences sleeping with girls abroad are libeled as “sex tourists” and “rapists.” Meanwhile, female typists like Rinaldi and Lena Dunham can brag about committing disgusting acts—frommolesting their little sisters to divorcing their husbands out of boredom—and not only get published by major companies, but get movie deals.

More importantly, The Wild Oats Project puts the lie to a popular myth in society: that women need to slut it up in order to be fulfilled. “Sowing her wild oats” was supposed to be a fun experiment for Rinaldi, one that would strengthen her relationship with her husband. Instead, it ended her marriage. She’d be happier if she’d just behaved like an adult and stayed with her man.

more at

http://www.returnofkings.com/59301/robin-rinaldis-wild-oats-project-shows-why-women-should-not-sleep-around

Warriors against human nature

http://spectator.org/articles/62156/warriors-against-human-nature

She has blue hair and a pierced nose and her name is Michelle. During last year’s National Young Feminist Leadership Conference (NYFLC), Michelle was one of the attending college students who used social media to complain that the event was too normal. “Next year, less binary, more queer feminism,” Michelle urged on Twitter, and several other young feminists expressed similar sentiments about the annual D.C. conference sponsored by the Feminist Majority Foundation. Perhaps you don’t understand what Michelle meant by “binary” in this context, and maybe the phrase “queer feminism” strikes you as rather odd, but this is the language and ideology promoted in the academic bastions of Women’s Studies programs at colleges and universities across the country nowadays. There was no shortage of queer feminism when the NYFLC convened this past weekend at the Crystal City Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. The opening session Saturday featured two speakers urging the young feminists to reclaim “Our Sexual and Gender Identities.” One of those speakers, lesbian activist Darlene Nipper, gave a speech that was an emotional moment for blue-haired queer feminist Michelle, who gushed on Twitter: “Glad my tears from Darlene Nipper’s speech didn’t ruin my eyeliner.” Nipper was followed by a transgender atheist from the University of South Carolina known as Rukia Brooks, a member of the university’s Feminist Collective. The inclusion of such persons (“Rukia” was born male and is in a pre-surgical stage of the “transition” process) in feminist ranks has been somewhat controversial. Radical lesbians like Professor Sheila Jeffreys and Professor Janice Raymond have especially complained about demands that they accept “transwomen” as valid substitutes for actual women. Yet the agenda of Feminist Majority’s conference for college girls was all about being “inclusive,” so the fact that Rukia Brooks has a penis did not disqualify him/her from the ranks of women victimized by the oppressive patriarchy. Sharing a sense of victimhood has long been a central organizing principle of feminism. It was University of Illinois-Chicago Professor Sandra Bartky who declared that “Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization… to see oneself as a victim.” Thanks to the academic trend of Queer Theory, this kind of consciousness is potentially available to nearly everyone. Much credit for this innovation is due to Professor Judith Butler, who used French postmodernist philosophy to celebrate sexual deviancy in her 1990 book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Professor Butler’s jargon-strewn treatise is simultaneously (a) unreadable and (b) a feminist bestseller, because it is assigned coursework for students in Women’s Studies programs. More than 700 U.S. colleges and universities offer such programs, enrolling a combined total of 90,000 students annually. Women’s Studies courses are the academic engine that drives what has been dubbed the Feminist-Industrial Complex, generating a lucrative demand for books like Professor Butler’s Gender Trouble, which annually sells thousands of copies simply because it is required reading. Quite strange reading it is, too. Professor Butler declares that the division of humanity into male and female is an artificial illusion, the gender binary produced by the heterosexual matrix. Therefore, those characteristics we think of as naturally male (masculine) and female (feminine) are not natural at all, according to Queer Theory. Instead, these categories are imposed on us by the oppressive demands of the male-supremacist system of patriarchy. According to Professor Butler’s doctrine, a person with a penis and XY chromosomes — genetically male — can escape the gender binary and be just as much a “woman” as any person with XX chromosomes and a vagina. At least that’s what Professor Butler seems to be saying in her opaque scholastic prose, and it’s how her theory has been widely interpreted by delusional young people like Rukia Brooks. They invent new identities for themselves(“genderqueer” and “demisexual” are among the proliferating labels) and then claim to be victims of oppression (e.g., “transphobia”) if others do not recognize their self-declared status. At George Washington University, conservative students in the campus chapter of Young America’s Foundation (YAF) were labeled a “hate group” for refusing to play along with this victimhood game. University officials demand that YAF leaders undergo “training sessions” to teach them “about gender identities and sexualities,” and the group could be banned from campus in they don’t comply. Totalitarian thought-control programs are necessary to 21st-century academia because the dogma promulgated on campus so clearly contradicts common sense. Feminists have recently popularized the phrase “rape culture” to describe any discussion of human sexuality that does not conform to feminist ideology. Promoting the demonstrably false claim that America’s university campuses are plagued by a “rape epidemic,” feminists strive to silence the voices of those who dispute this claim. When columnist George Will cited evidence that feminists were lying about the prevalence of rape, he was denounced as a “rape apologist.”At Reed College in Oregon, a student was reportedly banned from class for arguing against the same feminist lie, namely the statistical claim that 1-in-5 female college students are victims of sexual assault. “In fact, rape on college campuses is — like rape everywhere else in America — plummeting in frequency,” University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds wrote in December, dismissing the “1-in-5” statistic as “thoroughly bogus.” Bogus though their arguments may be, feminists have never let facts get in their way. The kind of fanaticism necessary to believe that the categories male and female are a “gender binary” illusion goes a long way in contemporary academia, where dissent against feminist ideology is harshly punished. Larry Summers was forced to resign as president of Harvard University after a 2005 incident in which he suggested that “innate differences” between men and women explained the relative shortage of top female scientific researchers. Whatever differences actually do exist, feminists seem determined to eradicate. During a lunch break at this weekend’s Young Feminist conference, journalist Gabby Morrongiello overheard a conversation among attendees in which one described a radical feminist gesture: “She had her breasts removed so men had one less reason to objectify her. Such a cool idea!” “I nearly spat out my salad,” Morrongiello told me in a brief phone interview Sunday. A member of the George Washington YAF chapter, Morrongiello attended the feminist conference as a correspondent for Campus Reform and noticed lesbian couples in the panel audiences “canoodling” during the discussion. As a result of Supreme Court decisions inLawrence v. Texas (2003) and Windsor v. United States (2013), homosexuality has now gained the status of a constitutional right, which means that disapproval of lesbian canoodling is effectively prohibited. This new dispensation, which we might call the Compulsory Approval Doctrine, has the consequence of abolishing religious liberty. “Marriage equality” requires universal recognition of same-sex unions. Woe be unto the baker who, for religious reasons,refuses to provide a cake or the florist who refuses to provide flowers for a gay wedding. What this agenda means for the future was in evidence at the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference, where college girls attended a “Sex Positivity” panel discussion about “exploring and deconstructing gender norms” that included Bevin Brandlandigham of the Queer Fat Femme blog. Young feminist leaders also had a “Queering Your Campus” panel offering “inclusive discussions… to organize on campus for gender-neutral restrooms or housing” and “sustain a queer campus community.” That panel was moderated by Nancy Aragon, “a proud queer feminist” who is a National Campus Organizer for the Feminist Majority Foundation. The conference also featured the “LGBTQ Frontiers” panel teaching “what true liberation and equality for LGBTQ people looks like.” That panel was moderated by Carmen Rios, the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Communication Coordinator, who has described herself as a “raging lesbian feminist.” In between gay advocacy and “deconstructing gender norms,” the young feminist leaders also found time to celebrate abortion, to demonize men as “perpetrators” of sexual assault and other forms of “violence against women,” and to denounce Christianity in a panel entitled “Keep Your Religion Off Our Backs!” There was even a panel on the so-called “GamerGate” controversy, stigmatizing male videogame players as “misogynists” for opposing feminist attempts to control the billion-dollar video gaming industry. What is now emerging as the feminist agenda for the 21st century is a war against human nature. The ideology promulgated within America’s institutions of higher education is not only anti-male, but anti-heterosexual. Male college students are now routinely accused of “date rape” — often many months after the alleged incidents — and deprived of their due-process rights by university administrators who impose punishment without any evidence of wrongdoing other than the say-so of a female accuser. A student a Cornell University, who was expelled his senior year in such a case, has recently sued the university. Meanwhile, at Columbia University, Emma Sulkowicz got academic credit for a protest against the administration which refused to punish Paul Nungesser, the classmate she accused of sexual assault. Sulkowicz’s protest made her a feminist icon, but when Cathy Young interviewed Nungesser for the Daily Beast, it was obvious that there was no evidence to support Sulkowicz’s claim. Males need not even touch a woman, however, to incur feminist wrath. Masculinity itself is now commonly branded “toxic” by feminists, and males who even glance admiringly at females are condemned for “objectifying” women with “the male gaze.” Targeted by such implacable feminist hostility, many young men have simply retreated. The prevalence of anti-male attitudes in academia is certainly one reason why men are less likely to attend college and less likely to graduate. Women are now 33 percent more likely than men to obtain a bachelor’s degree, and in some majors — including education, psychology, and health professions — women get more than 70 percent of the diplomas. Yet the effects of feminism’s anti-male agenda aren’t limited to university campuses. Dr. Helen Smith has observed that men are now “boycotting” marriage and fatherhood. In her 2013 book Men on Strike, Dr. Smith describes how men, “sensing the backlash against them,” have responded to “the lack of incentive today’s society offers” for involvement in relationships with women and children. This male retreat from responsibility is rational, Dr. Smith insists, because of the punitive attitudes toward men that have become a matter of public policy in American society. No amount of “success” in their war against human nature can ever satisfy feminists, however. The declining presence of men on college campuses does not prevent feminists from disparaging the remaining male students as sexists and potential rapists, nor do feminists hesitate to prohibit as “harassment” any manifestation of male sexual interest in women. Having triumphed in academia, where federal Title IX legislation is wielded as a weapon against anyone who dares oppose them, feminists now look forward to obtaining hegemonic power throughout society. It was no accident that Democrats made accusations of a Republican “War on Women” a central theme of Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, as he was re-elected with the largest “gender gap” ever recorded by Gallup. Nor is it an accident that Hillary Clinton’s only plausible rival for the 2016 Democrat nomination is Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Yet the political consequences of feminism’s ascendancy are not merely a matter of elections and legislation because, as feminists have been saying for decades, “the personal is political.” Hatred of men has become so pervasive that a feminist expects applause when she announces that she aborted a male fetus because she did not wish to bring another violent oppressor into the world. Indeed, feminist ideology discourages motherhood, per se, so that the “child-free” woman has become the symbol of female empowerment. Of course, the average young American woman today has little hope of having a traditional family even if she wants one. The advance of feminism’s anti-male agenda in our society has steadily eroded opportunities for a young man to succeed in life, to obtain an education, to pursue a career or earn an income that would enable him to support a wife and children. There are thus fewer reasons why women should want to associate with males, whose very existence feminists regard as oppressive. In other words, just because feminist ideology seems crazy doesn’t mean it hasn’t been successful in undermining the foundation of Western civilization. No one should be surprised that “queer feminism” was so prominent at a conference for college feminists. What surprised me were the rumors that there were heterosexual women attending the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference. As far as I know, however, no man had the courage to investigate if those rumors were actually true.   ABOUT THE AUTHOR