Mattress Girl Emma Sulkowicz Given ‘Woman of Courage’ Award

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Andrew Burton/AFP

by CHARLIE NASH28 Jun 2016268

Feminist icon Emma Sulkowicz, known for her infamous “Mattress Girl” rape allegations and protest demonstration, was awarded the 2016 Woman of Courage award by the National Organization for Women last week.

In 2014, Sulkowicz carried her dormitory mattress around campus in protest after she claimed that a fellow student raped her at the college in 2012. The mattress was carried everywhere, including to Sulkowicz’s graduation, prompting a huge media storm surrounding the student who media dubbed “Mattress Girl.”

However, in early 2015 it was reported that Sulkowicz had repeatedly told her “rapist” she loved him through leaked text messages after the “attack”, with the alleged rapist Paul Nungesser eventually being pardoned by the campus due to lack of evidence. Nungesser was repeatedly threatened, harassed, and assaulted during the lengthy campus trial, and Nungesser reported multiple rescinded job offers and missed opportunities due to the accusations.

Sulkowicz claimed that Nungesser had beaten her in bed after agreeing to mutually consensual sex, before he allegedly forced anal upon her. Nungesser, however, denied this story and claimed that their sexual encounters were entirely consensual. Nungesser theorized that Sulkowicz’s claims against him were due to the fact that he had decided to split up with her shortly after the encounter.

After gaining mass media attention, Sulkowicz broke into the spotlight again in 2015 after releasing a supposed recreation of the rape in a bizarre sex tape form, where she could be seen performing fellatio on an overweight man before being beaten in what she claims to have been a consensual tape.

Two days after the alleged assault,Sulkowicz texted Nungesser saying “I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr”. The following month, Sulkowicz messaged Nungesser saying “I want to see yoyououoyou”, and on her birthday in October after Nungesser had wished Sulkowicz a happy birthday, the infamous Mattress Girl replied with “I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!”

Numerous other inconsistencies in Sulkowicz story, including the texts above, meant that the campus trial was eventually thrown out, though not before it permanently tarnished Nungesser’s name and reputation. And now Sulkowicz is being rewarded for it.

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

“Sulkowicz did what many rape victims cannot do; she channeled her fear into a public demonstration and brought attention to her rapist’s despicable act and highly inadequate punishment” announced National Organization for Women president Terry O’Neill. “Emma is an inspiration to all of us.”

“I never imagined that someday I would be honored by such an immensely important organization. It feels like a dream” said Sulkwicz to artnet News. “It’s truly humbling. People should check out NOW’s amazing history, because we really do owe so many of our rights to that organization.”

Despite the lack of evidence and the fact that the case was dismissed by credible authorities, Sulkwicz still maintains her story on the alleged assault, and is still hailed as a feminist icon.

Charlie Nash is a reporter for Breitbart Tech and former editor of the Squid Magazine. You can follow him on Twitter @MrNashington or like his page at Facebook.

Read More Stories About:

Social Justice, Tech, Emma Sulkowicz,Mattress girl, University Of Colombia

Library of Congress to Eliminate Terms ‘Illegal Alien’ and ‘Alien’

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Office of US Rep Henry Cuellar

by CAROLINE MAY31 Mar 2016292

The Library of Congress is dropping the terms “illegal alien” and “alien” from its subject headings after a group of college students and the American Library Association protested the words’ usage.

As early as May, the Library of Congress will begin revising its subject headings and replacing “Aliens” with “Noncitizens” and heading references to “Illegal aliens” with “Noncitizens” and “Unauthorized immigration.”

“[The Policy and Standards Division of the Library of Congress] concluded that the meaning of Aliens is often misunderstood and should be revised to Noncitizens, and that the phrase illegal aliens has become pejorative,” the Library explained in its Executive Summary about the changes.

“The heading Illegal aliens will therefore be cancelled and replaced by two headings, Noncitizens and Unauthorized immigration, which may be assigned together to describe resources about people who illegally reside in a country,” it added.

The Dartmouth Coalition for Immigration Reform, Equality and DREAMers (CoFIRED), a Dartmouth student group that has been pressing for the change, declared the move a victory for their cause and called on additional institutions to cease using use term “illegal” to describe illegal immigrants.

“We call on both politicians and media outlets to follow the precedent set by the Library of Congress,” Dennise Hernandez, Co­Director of CoFIRED, said in a statement. “It is way past time that we all recognize that referring to immigrants as “illegal” is an offensive, dehumanizing term and that there is no excuse to continue using it.”

Recently the trend has been to eliminate references to “illegal aliens.” Last year California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law legislation to remove the term “alien” from the state’s labor code. 

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX)

12%

 introduced legislation this Congress that would eliminate the terms “alien” and “illegal alien” from federal statute and agency materials.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Immigration, Social Justice, illegal alien, illegal, undocumented immigrant, Library of Congress

In Defense Of Donald Trump’s Heidi Cruz Tweet

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio Facebook.com/SmythRadio

AFP

by MILO YIANNOPOULOS25 Mar 201611597

There’s been a lot of pearl-clutching lately over Donald Trump’s tweet about Heidi Cruz, in which he compared a flattering picture of his own wife to a particularly dour-looking snap of Cruz’s. Critics say Trump’s not-so-subtle attack on Heidi’s looks was un-presidential and uncalled for.

They’re wrong.

The first point to be made is that Trump didn’t start the wife-baiting. Make America Awesome, a Trump-opposing PAC founded by the mannish Liz Mair, started circulating a particularly raunchy image of Melania Trump, urging GOP primary voters to back Cruz. While Cruz didn’t authorise the ad himself, it was retweeted by many of his supporters. As always, the super PACs acted like a ninja assassins for its candidate. “It wasn’t me, your honour – it was those dastardly, nefarious PACs!”

Feminists call this sort of behaviour slut-shaming. I call it sexy-shaming. I’m really not sure what’s achieved by pointing out that your opponent has an attractive wife. Isn’t that a sign of success? Indeed Melania isn’t just a great beauty: she’s proven herself to be eloquent and willing to speak up about immigration, and she is the only non-dwarf (sorry Jeb) spouse to have gone through legal immigration, unless you count Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) himself of course.

Is there any reason to attack her looks, besides the jealousy of women who apparently have neither looks nor brains?

Trump’s critics have accused him of being over-the-top in his response.  Surely, say his critics, insulting a rival’s wife for being too ugly is simply crass, classless, and rude.

I agree. It’s all of those things. But that’s agood thing.

For decades, politics has been a competition of grievance. Politicians and activists win public sympathy by pretending to be hurt and offended. Those who are the most convincingly wounded win the day — and it’s the left, the masters of faux-offendedness, who tend to beat the competition.

Trump’s crass tweets and objectionable comments may not be comfortable reading for old-fashioned conservatives who appreciate decency and good manners, but they are helping to break the language codes that were primarily set up by the left, for the left. Trump is destroying old notions of what’s acceptable and unacceptable to say, and the primary losers of his new paradigm will be left-wingers and establishment types.

If Republicans learn anything from the unbelievable failure of Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, it should be that “presidential” and “nice” don’t go together.  Isn’t it strange that elections follow the same rules as dating? Nice guys finish last. 

Republicans typically reject the “everybody gets a trophy” mentality that has invaded our culture, but if you insist, we can add up to the attractiveness quotient of Cruz’s wife and all of his alleged mistresses and compare the total with Melania. That ought to at least earn him a participation trophy.

To beat Hillary, Republicans must focus on getting more people under the tent, which means snagging Democrats. Would Trump gain the support of blue-collar working Democrats by tearfully apologizing to Cruz after the senator’s minions attacked his wife? He could actually alienate them with that behaviour. Outside of the D.C beltway, respect is gained by standing up for yourself, and punching back twice as hard.

You also need balls to tame the beast of political progressivism. Trump is facing attackers from all sides. GOP establishment members planning convention shenanigans to steal the nomination, RINOs like Rick Wilson promising to vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump, and Soros-funded goons from Black Lives Matter and MoveOn planning attacks on the democratic process.  The Donald knows that the best defense is a good offense, and that’s exactly the style we need to win the election.

Trump isn’t just changing politics, he’s changing culture. The grievance wars have created a daily reality of fear for people who fall foul of the hyper-offended, even when the offense is unintentional. When actor Drake Bell cracked a joke about calling Caitlyn Jenner “Bruce,” he faced an internet lynch-mob of people who were offended on Jenner’s behalf and was forced to apologise.

Taking offense is a sort of one-upmanship. If you’re offended, especially on behalf of an allegedly “marginalized” group, it signals you’re a part of the educated, progressive elite. This, from people who’ve never read a book outside 2 years of a Gender Studies degree.

This is the consensus that’s prevailed in politics and culture for more than a generation. There are only two significant forces that are putting up a fight against it: the anonymous pranksters of the internet, who reside on websites like 4chan and 8chan and delight in deliberately offending people, and Donald Trump.

Because Trump’s campaign is almost entirely self-funded, he has leeway to be a total asshole on the public stage. He doesn’t have to worry about what polite society thinks of him, because unlike the other candidates, he isn’t thinking about the next fundraising dinner in D.C.

This has given him the unique ability to smash our culture’s stifling language codes with a sledgehammer. In the process, he’s certainly lowering the tone — but it badly needs to be lowered. Only by totally ignoring people’s feelings can we end the left’s culture of grievance, offense, and victimhood.  It’s what I’ve been doing for years, and it’s what Trump is now doing on the national stage.

Sure, the rudeness is uncomfortable to decent conservatives who appreciate good manners and a civil tongue. But if we really want to beat the left, we need Trump’s crassness. A few mean tweets about Heidi Cruz is a small price to pay to end a quarter-century of grievance culture.

Follow Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) on Twitter and Facebook, or write to him at milo@breitbart.com. Android users can download Milo Alert! to be notified about new articles when they are published. 

Read More Stories About:

Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Tech, Social Justice, political correctness, heidi cruz,Melania Trump, Daddy

Obama’s Justice Department Sues Ferguson City When Council Rejects Draft Deal

AP

by LEE STRANAHAN10 Feb 2016Ferguson, MO293

Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced Wednesday afternoon that the federal Department of Justice will sue the cash-strapped city of Ferguson, Missouri, because the city council rejected an expensive deal negotiated by federal officials.

The rejection “leaves us no further choice,” Lynch said in her prepared statement, adding that Ferguson residents “have waited decades for justice. They should not be forced to wait any longer.”

With support from local residents, the racially mixed council rejected the deal unanimously because of its impact on the city’s budget.

The deal between the Department of Justice and the city of Ferguson was drafted after President Barack Obama’s administration investigated the city following the 2014 shooting death of Mike Brown, an 18-year-old black man who had accosted a store owner and then a white police officer. Widespread local misinformation about the shooting led to local riots and looting, as well as angry protests by the Black Lives Matter movement across the country.

The department’s investigation last year exonerated police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Brown but also criticized the criminal justice system in Ferguson. The report found that Ferguson was using the police department and the court system to generate revenue through ticketing.

The deal reached last month would have required a number of expensive changes, including raises for the police, training, and the hiring of an independent monitor. The costs would have required a tax increase on citizens. But after parts of the city were set fire by Black Lives Matter protesters, Ferguson has had a budget deficit of about $2.5 million.

At a meeting in Ferguson on Tuesday night that was monitored by top DOJ officials via a video, angry residents and city council members said that Ferguson could not afford the deal.

The council rejected the deal, partly because pay raises for police could cause a costly effect on pay for other municipal employees. The council offered some changes to the deal, and black councilman Wesley Bell said, “This is a way to meet the demands of the D.O.J., make progress with reform and keep lights on in the city.”

Wednesday’s decision by the Department of Justice shows that they are playing hardball. The move by the DOJ will likely cost Ferguson millions of dollars.

The aggressive moves by the Obama Department of Justice against Ferguson are part of a wave of lawsuits filed by the DOJ against police departments around the country.

Ferguson officials said that they plan to continue reforms, including the creation of a civilian oversight panel, despite the lawsuit.

Follow Breitbart News investigative reporter and Citizen Journalism School founder Lee Stranahan on Twitter at @Stranahan.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Eric Holder, Law Enforcement, Obama, Black Lives Matter,Social Justice, loretta lynch, anti-police,taxes, Department of Justice, lawsuit, DOJ,Riots, criminal justice reform, police shooting, Darren Wilson, Ferguson Effect,Hands Up Don't Shoot, Mike Brown,Ferguson Missouri