A gay Central Michigan University professor has pleaded guilty for falsely claiming that a random guy at a Toby Keith concert called her a “cross-dressing fag,” punched her in the face and spat on her.
The professor, Mari Poindexter, had alleged that the man approached her at the Aug. 19 concert at the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort in Mount Pleasant, Mich., reports The Morning Sun, a local newspaper.
The man began hurling a rich tapestry of obscene slurs at Poindexter, she told police.
Later that night, the professor said, the same man ambushed her in the parking lot of The Cabin – a local bar. The man thumped Poindexter in the eye, she said, and spat on her.
Poindexter, who announced her lesbianism three years ago and has since been passionate about it, later posted a Facebook photo of herself with an impressive black eye and a corresponding story of indignant outrage. That post went viral and was reported by several news outlets.
Much pity ensued. “We’re proud of you, Mari, for taking a stand,” taxpayer-funded Central Michigan University officials wrote on the school’s Facebook page. “CMU stands with you.”
Turns out, Poindexter got the shiner because she “punched herself in the eye,” according to local police.
Poindexter’s story began to unravel when police probed the incident. Investigators sat down with her to review security footage from the bar to identify the man, court documents say. Then, when the investigators informed Poindexter that there was also surveillance footage of the parking lot, she became anxious. She said she was no longer interested in viewing any video which might incriminate her assailant.
Six days after the attack, on Aug. 25, a woman called police saying that Poindexter was threatening to kill herself with an overdose of pills, according to Central Michigan Life, the CMU campus newspaper.
Poindexter was on the phone with the woman who called police. Later in the call, police say, Poindexter admitted to concocting the story about getting punched and spat on.
Poindexter made up the story and cold-cocked herself in her own right eye “because she wanted to raise awareness about the social hardships of people in the LGBTQ+ community,” according to court documents.
The lesbian professor continues to claim that a random guy approached her at a Toby Keith concert and started ranting anti-gay insults. Her anger about this incident caused her to fabricate the rest of the story, she claims.
On Feb. 25, Poindexter was sentenced to a fine of $225 and six months of probation.
The sentence was part of a plea bargain. The original charges against Poindexter were filing a false police report and lying to a police officer.
Her attorney, Dan O’Neil, said she received psychiatric treatment after the suicide threat.
Poindexter, who taught business information systems courses at Central Michigan, is currently on leave from the school.
Officials at Central Michigan continue to support her.
“While facing mental health challenges does not absolve Mari of accountability, it helps us understand why our offering compassion rather than judgement and isolation is so important,” the CMU LGBTQ services office said in a statement.
The tall tale Poindexter told is the latest in a long series of hate crime hoaxes perpetrated by gay people.
In 2015, for example, police in Grand Forks, N.D. announced that a gay man who claimed to have been the victim of a hate crime at a University of North Dakota fraternity party fabricated his entire story. The man, Haakon Gisvold, alleged that members of the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity threw him out of a party because he is gay. Gisvold also claimed that Lambda Chi members beat him, choked him, stripped him and robbed him – all while shouting anti-gay insults. He said he hid in some bush wearing only his underwear until some kind soul came along with some clothes.
Also in 2015, a 21-year-old man in the small town of Delta, Utah grabbed national headlines for staging several anti-gay attacks against himself. The man, Rick Jones, said he said he was assaulted and had “Die Fag” carved into his arm while closing up his family’s pizzeria. He claimed his home was spray-painted and that somebody threw a Molotov cocktail through his bedroom window. The attacks, Jones told local reporters, kept happening because of his homosexuality. Police concluded that Jones staged the attacks because of inconsistencies in the evidence he presented. Eventually, Jones cracked and confessed.
Also last year, Cincinnati gay rights activist Adam Hoover was charged with a misdemeanor after he falsely said he was kidnapped and put into the trunk of his car.
In 2013, a Tennessee health food store owner who claimed that three men beat him and robbed his store in an anti-gay attack was arrested for filing a false police report. The man, Joe Williams, said the attackers were wearing ski masks. They robbed the store of $1,500, he said. They doused it in gasoline. They also scrawled an anti-gay message on Williams’ forehead and yelled anti-gay slurs. Local police didn’t believe Williams, however, and arrested him for filing a false police report.
Also in 2013, a lesbian waitress in New Jersey, Dayna Morales, claimed that she received an anti-gay message from a family on a dinner receipt. The message read, “I’m sorry but I cannot tip because I don’t agree with your lifestyle & how you live your life.” But the accused family came forward a couple of weeks after the story was first reported, saying that they did not leave the message and actually left a 20 percent tip. From there, the story weaved by Morales, a former Marine, unraveled. Friends came forward to say she lied about having cancer and about being the lone survivor in a bombing in Afghanistan. In fact, Morales was dishonorably discharged from the Marines for failing to show up to drills. She never saw combat.
And while it wasn’t a gay hate crime hoax, who could forget former University of Wyoming student Meghan Lanker-Simons, who perpetrated a social media hoax wherein she authored an unsigned 2013 posting on a Facebook page called UW Crushes reading: “I want to hatefuck Meg Lanker Simons so hard. That chick runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it. I think its so hot and makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican bitch.” There was a big rally. A school official denounced “rape culture.” Lanker-Simons hit the feminist warpath before eventually pleading no contest to a misdemeanor charge of interfering with a peace officer. In the fall of 2013, Lanker-Simons enrolled at the Gonzaga University School of Law.
Local Chicago news station WGN used a symbol of Nazi persecution as the graphic accompanying their Yom Kippur story on Tuesday night.
The WGN anchor was recognizing the Jewish high holy day of Yom Kippur, a day where Jews fast and atone for their sins. However, viewers were aghast at the picture that was used for the story, the yellow Star of David badge that Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust.
“Holy crap, @WGNNews, this is your stock photo for a Jewish holiday?? Nobody thought that’s a bad choice of photo?,” said Twitter user Marc Karlinsky.
WGN apologized, saying, they are “extremely embarrassed” they “failed to recognize” the Holocaust symbol.
“Last night we ran a story to recognize Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement,” reads an apology on their website. “The artwork chosen to accompany the story came from a graphics image bank. Regrettably, we failed to recognize that the image was an offensive Nazi symbol. We are extremely embarrassed and we deeply apologize to our viewers and to the Jewish community for this mistake. Ignorance is not an excuse. Please know we are reviewing our in house policies and changes have already been made to make sure a hurtful oversight like this never happens again. Thank you for your understanding. We promise to do better.”
The Velvet Rope Ultra Lounge went up in flames in 2012.
This week the former owner Frank Elliot was charged with arson and insurance fraud.
Elliot told local media he believed his establishment was targeted because it catered to a gay clientele
ABC 7 Chicago reported:
A bar owner admitted he set his gay nightclub on fire in Oak Park.
Frank Elliott pleaded guilty to arson and insurance fraud for the fire at The Velvet Rope Ultra Lounge in 2012.
Prosecutors said Elliott doused the bar in alcohol, wrote gay slurs on the wall, then lit it on fire.
He was sentenced to two years’ probation and has to pay back $107,000 to two insurance companies.
Progressives Today went undercover to expose the new levels of hate and race-baiting at the White Privilege Conference 2014 in Madison, Wisconsin.
The conference was filled with hate-filled rhetoric and far left lunacy.
Progressives Today released this teaser video today with much more to follow.
Excerpted from Paris, Tennessee Post Intelligencer: A man who told police he had been robbed and beaten at a Paris health food store a few days before Thanksgiving was arrested after he allegedly withheld information about the incident and has now been charged with filing a false report.
Joe Williams, 32, of 803 E. Wood St. was arrested Friday afternoon after turning himself in at the Henry County jail.
Williams originally told officers he had been beaten and robbed Nov. 20 at Healthy Thyme, which is at the same address as Williams’ home. There was also a fire, and Williams had a homosexual slur written on his forehead.
Officers later found inconsistencies in Williams’ story. Paris Police Sgt. Ricky Watson said Williams failed to bring up certain facts known to investigators on three different occasions.
“He was given three opportunities to disclose that information, and he chose not to,” Watson said.
That leaves investigators trying to determine how much of Williams’ story might have been true.
“We’ve not been able to verify or dispel any of the statements made about the actual robbery or fire,” Watson said. “We’re looking into Mister Williams, and we’re looking into whether it did or did not happen.” Keep reading
Linked at Blazing Cat Fur, Thanks!!
The Left, which includes union thugs, often bemoans “violent rhetoric” and just as often accuses the Right of “fomenting violence”.
So, how about those union thugs who are pretty adept at some of their own violent talk?
I’ve been thinking of all the damage that union thugs do. Recent posts here have shown assaults, vandalism, threats, and destruction of property reportedly perpetrated by union thugs. Videos have shown union thugs assaulting others. We have heard comments by union bosses, like, “take out the SOB’s,” seem to spur it on to even greater depths. We have also seen union organizing guides that suggest ruining the reputation of businesses, or even targeting customers. Needless to say, companies, and in the end, all of us pay for all the resulting costs.
That leads me to a question, are union bosses then liable for the actions of their members, particularly when the bosses use such violent and inflammatory rhetoric? I believe that there might be a precedent for that, and the example comes from the Aryan Nation. In the late 90′s the Southern Povery Law Center sued that pack of racist scum on behalf of Victoria and Jason Keenan, who had been assaulted by members of Aryan Nation who were acting as security near their compound. Here are some details of the case from the SPLC website.
During the trial, Dees and the legal team described how Butler recruitd followers – many with criminal records – and indoctrinated them with hate. One passage from an Aryan Nations newsletter written by Butler declared, “Hatred is our law. Revenge is your duty.”
“Butler uses white-hot words to get his followers to pick up the gun for the white race,” Dees told the jury.
So, the SPLC used inciting hatred as a means to link the leaders of hate movements to the deeds of their followers. Also, the SPLC used the same tactics against the Imperial Klans of American in 2008.
The verdict included $1.5 million in compensatory damages — apportioned among Edwards, Hensley and Watkins — and $1 million in punitive damages against Edwards.
The SPLC argued in court that Edwards and the IKA incited the racial hatred that led to the attack at the Meade County Fair in Brandenburg in July 2006.
So, in these two cases, and many others, the SPLC successfully sued hate groups, using the idea that the leaders had incited hatred to win verdicts. Of course, while the SPLC is a group that exists to smear anyone who stands against the leftist agenda, they have been successful in shutting down a great many hate groups with the idea that the leaders are responsible for the behavior of their members.
That, of course, leads me to question if a union boss saying something like, “busting some heads,” or “take the SOB’s out, and “open season,” and the thugs engaged in illegal acts, might be treated the same way in court? Wouldn’t it be incredibly ironic if a method of attack originated by a liberal group were used against another? I’d say that the irony would be off the scale.
Think on this one, I will be doing so myself. I can already see the dangers of a slippery slope among other things…………
I do not, and never will be a proponent of so-called “hate crime” legislation. But if we are to have such laws, THIS CASE qualifies
COLUMBIA, SC (WISTV) – Prosecutors say the brutal beating of a teenager last week in Columbia’s Five Points doesn’t appear to have been racially motivated, but the U.S. attorney is still reviewing the case.
Fifth Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson, who will prosecute the eight people charged with attacking 18-year-old Carter Strange on June 20 before leaving him for dead, said no evidence suggests the beating was racially motivated other than the race of the people involved. Strange is white; the eight suspects are black.
However, Johnson said his office asked U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles to review the evidence to make sure hate crime charges are not warranted.
A hate crime is legally defined as an attack motivated entirely or primarily by prejudice.
The seven juveniles charged with attacking Strange faced a judge on Monday, who granted a request that the defendants stay in jail until trial. The unnamed suspects’ next court date hasn’t been scheduled yet, according to Johnson.
The eighth suspect, 19-year-old Thyeem Henrey, appeared in court on Friday afternoon. The judge set bond at $750,000, which must be paid in full to allow Henrey’s release.
Police say Strange was jogging home just after midnight when the suspects approached him in a parking lot near Blossom Street and beat him up.
A passerby found him a block away two hours later, and called 911.
Strange said he had to have emergency brain surgery and facial reconstruction surgery after the attack, but is making a remarkable recovery. “My physical condition is amazing,” said Strange. “I mean, the condition I’m in right now is a miracle.”
If indeed these eight thugs did this, then what their motivation was does not really matter, the brutal beating they committed is all that matters. I am not sure what type of sentence they could receive. But, frankly, this ought to be attempted murder shouldn’t it? Here is my question, would a life-sentence be out of line for these monsters?
Why does their hatred of her burn so hot?
Ask them, and they’ll most likely tell you: Because she’s a moron. But that is obviously false. To be sure, her skills at extemporaneous speaking leave much to be desired. But that can be said of a good many politicians on both sides of the aisle, including George W. Bush, John Kerry and, yes, Barack Obama. And don’t get us started on the man who defeated her for the vice presidency.
Whether or not she is presidential timber–and we are inclined to think that she is not–there is no denying that she is a highly accomplished person. She is also a highly accomplished woman, what in an earlier age would have been called a feminist pioneer: the first female governor of the malest state in the country, the first woman on the presidential ticket of the party on the male side of the “gender gap.” Having left politics, whether temporarily or permanently, she has established herself as one of the most consequential voices in the political media.
They say she is uneducated. What they mean is that her education is not elite–not Harvard or Yale, or even Michigan or UCLA. They resent her because, in their view, she has risen above her station.
In this respect we identify fully with Palin, for we have been on the receiving end of similar disdain. Our education, like Sarah Palin’s, consisted of too many years at inferior state universities, although unlike her, we never even got around to graduating. The other day Paul Reidlinger took a shot at us for featuring one of his restaurant reviews under our “Wannabe Pundits” heading last month: “I was even denounced by noted high school graduate James Taranto.” (For the record, our high school diploma is a GED.)
“Denounced” is far too strong a word; “mocked” is more like it. Reidlinger writes for San Francisco Bay Guardian, whatever that is. He doesn’t say, but we surmise that he possesses advanced degrees from Stanford or the University of California, both very fine institutions. He observes that “it is a writer’s job to afflict the comfortable and complacent.” That would be an insufferably pretentious way to describe our job as a political columnist for an elite newspaper. What is a restaurant critic going to “afflict the comfortable” with? Food poisoning?
Professional jealousy and intellectual snobbery, however, only scratch the surface of the left’s bizarre attitude toward Palin. They explain the intensity of the disdain, but not the outright hatred–not why some people whose grasp of reality is sufficient to function in society made the insane inference that she was to blame for a madman’s attempt to murder Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
This unhinged hatred of Palin comes mostly from women. That is an awkward observation for us to offer, because a man risks sounding sexist or unchivalrous when he makes unflattering generalizations about women. Therefore, we are going to hide behind the skirts of our friend Jessica Faller, a New Yorker in her 30s of generally liberal politics. Over the weekend, she wrote us this analysis of Palin-hatred, which she has generously given us permission to quote:
I am starting out with a guess that this stems from her abrupt appearance on the national scene during the McCain-Obama race. She appeared out of nowhere and landed squarely in a position of extreme attention and media power. Her sex appeal might not have been as much of an issue had she been a known entity with a tremendous, watertight political résumé.
Even lacking that, her sex appeal might not have been such an issue if her demeanor on the campaign trail had been more, well, conservative. But here is this comely woman, in a curvy red suit, giving “shout-outs” during the debate with Joe Biden, giving controversial interviews without apology, basically driving in there, parking the car, and walking in like she owned the place.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. But she couldn’t have pulled it off if she were a gray mouse in a pantsuit, and because the devil in the red dress wasn’t orating like a professor, it roused an unquenchable forest fire of rage and loathing in the breasts of many women, perhaps of the toiling gray mouse variety, who projected onto her their own career resentments and personal frustrations.
I am amazed at how people still abhor her. I personally do not. I don’t feel she would be a good choice to run this country, but she does not deserve the horrific treatment she gets. I can tell you, being privy to the endless, incendiary rants this past week about her, coming from hordes of liberal women–age demo 25 to 45–they rip her to pieces, they blame her for everything, and the jealousy/resentment factor is so clear and primal. I’ve never seen anything like it.
We’d say this goes beyond mere jealousy. For many liberal women, Palin threatens their sexual identity, which is bound up with their politics in a way that it is not for any other group (possibly excepting gays, though that is unrelated to today’s topic).
An important strand of contemporary liberalism is feminism. As a label, “feminist” is passé; outside the academic fever swamps, you will find few women below Social Security age who embrace it.
That is because what used to be called feminism–the proposition that women deserve equality before the law and protection from discrimination–is almost universally accepted today. Politically speaking, a woman is the equal of a man. No woman in public life better symbolizes this than Sarah Palin–especially not Hillary Clinton, the left’s favorite icon. No one can deny Mrs. Clinton’s accomplishments, but neither can one escape crediting them in substantial part to her role as the wife of a powerful man.
But there is more to feminism than political and legal equality. Men and women are intrinsically unequal in ways that are ultimately beyond the power of government to remediate. That is because nature is unfair. Sexual reproduction is far more demanding, both physically and temporally, for women than for men. Men simply do not face the sort of children-or-career conundrums that vex women in an era of workplace equality.
Except for the small minority of women with no interest in having children, this is an inescapable problem, one that cannot be obviated by political means. Aspects of it can, however, be ameliorated by technology–most notably contraception, which at least gives women considerable control over the timing of reproduction.
As a political matter, contraception is essentially uncontroversial today, which is to say that any suggestion that adult women be legally prevented from using birth control is outside the realm of serious debate. The same cannot be said of abortion, and that is at the root of Palinoia.
To the extent that “feminism” remains controversial, it is because of the position it takes on abortion: not just that a woman should have the “right to choose,” but that this is a matter over which reasonable people cannot disagree–that to favor any limitations on the right to abortion, or even to acknowledge that abortion is morally problematic, is to deny the basic dignity of women.
To a woman who has internalized this point of view, Sarah Palin’s opposition to abortion rights is a personal affront, and a deep one. It doesn’t help that Palin lives by her beliefs. To the contrary, it intensifies the offense.
It used to be a trope for liberal interviewers to try to unmask hypocrisy by asking antiabortion politicians–male ones, of course–what they would do if their single teen daughters got pregnant. It’s a rude question, but Palin, whose 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy coincided with Mom’s introduction to the nation, answered it in real life.
Recently we were at a party where a woman in her 60s, a self-described feminist, called Palin a “moron” for having encouraged her daughter to carry her child to term and “to marry the sperm donor.” Even apart from the gross language, this was a completely irrational thing to say. First, that Palin’s values are different in no way reflects on her intelligence.
More important, why is Bristol Palin’s decision to carry her child to term any of this lady’s business? Those who claim to be champions of privacy and choice need to do some serious soul-searching if they have so much trouble tolerating the private choices of others.
What about male Palin-hatred? It seems to us that it is of decidedly secondary importance. Liberal men put down Palin as a cheap way to score points with the women in their lives, or they use her as an outlet for more-general misogynistic impulses that would otherwise be socially unacceptable to express.
Liberal women are the active, driving force behind hatred of Sarah Palin, while liberal men’s behavior is passive and manipulative. In this respect, feminism has succeeded in reversing the traditional sexual stereotypes. If this is the result, you have to wonder why anyone would have bothered.