Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Olympics approves two men to box against women

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

The Olympic Committee approved two male boxers to fight as ‘women’ after previously failing gender tests and being disqualified for having male chromosomes: Lin Yu-Ting of Taiwan and Imane Khelif of Algeria.

“This is France!” Emmanuel Macron crowed on X as the Olympic Opening Ceremony in Paris unfolded. That, unfortunately, was what everyone was afraid of.  

The ceremony featured a blasphemous representation of the Last Supper, featuring drag queens as the disciples and Barbara Butch, an overweight lesbian DJ, as the Lord Jesus Christ. The International Olympics Committee has already issued a pseudo-apology and deleted the video from its YouTube channel, but Butch was quite clear that this was a deliberate inversion.

There was more, but suffice it to say that after that ceremony, it is no surprise that the Olympic Committee has approved two male athletes to compete as “women” who were previously disqualified from the Women’s World Boxing Championships in March 2023 in New Delhi, India, for having “XY chromosomes”: Lin Yu-Ting of Taiwan and Imane Khelif of Algeria. At the time, president of the International Boxing Association (IBA) Umar Kremley announced that a number of boxers were being disqualified after “a series of DNA-tests” conducted “uncovered athletes who were trying to fool their colleagues and pretend to be women.” 

IBA released a public statement announcing that “a boxer from Algeria, Imane Khelif, was excluded from the IBA World Boxing Championships due to the failure to meet the IBA eligibility criteria.” The Algerian Olympic Committee called the IBA’s decision a “conspiracy” to deny Algeria a gold medal and noted at the time that they hoped Khelif could fight in the Paris Olympics.  

After the disqualification, Mexican boxer Brianda Tamara posted about her experience boxing Khelif at the championship on X. “When I fought with [him] I felt very out of my depth,” Tamara said. “[His] blows hurt me a lot, I don’t think I had ever felt like that in my 13 years as a boxer, nor in my sparring with men. Thank God that day I got out of the ring safely, and it’s good that they finally realized.” There are now serious concerns that female boxers could be injured by Khelif and Yu-Ting. Here is Khelif fighting in an earlier match—clearly far stronger than the opponent: 

Taiwan’s Lin Yu-Ting, who previously won five gold medals in women’s boxing tournaments, was also disqualified and stripped of a bronze medal. Now, at the Paris Olympics, Khelif is scheduled to fight Angela Carini of Italy on August 1, with Yu-Ting to be paired off with a female fighter the following day.

Marshi Smith of the Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS) spoke with Reduxx about the issue: 

The IOC’s decision to end sex-verification screening in 2000 has caused distrust and confusion in women’s sports ever since. Its 2021 decision to offload the responsibility for international eligibility criteria to individual sporting bodies has resulted in varied standards and widespread chaos among athletes, coaches, officials, and the public. In boxing, the recent contentious split between the IBA and the IOC has now placed Olympic eligibility power into the hands of national boxing federations, allowing countries like Algeria and Taiwan to set their own standards and continue placing male boxers in the ring with female athletes in combat for women’s Olympic medals. 

This, said Smith, has led to a truly ugly scenario. “The physical abuse of women on an Olympic stage eliminates the integrity of all Olympic events and risks lifelong injury or even death for female athletes. This deceit cannot be allowed to continue.” A 2020 study by the University of Utah concluded that a man’s punch is, on average, about 160-170% more powerful than a woman’s punch. 

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture WarSeeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of AbortionPatriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life MovementPrairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Daily Caller

Trump Floats Reimbursing Oil Companies If They Put Up Big Bucks In Venezuela

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Anthony Iafrate

Following the removal of socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump said the U.S. government might reimburse oil companies that invest in Venezuela.

In a Monday afternoon phone interview, Trump told NBC News’ Kristen Welker that an expansion of the U.S. oil industry in the South American nation could be “up and running” in less than a year and a half, but this would require “a lot of money.” Hours after announcing Maduro’s capture Saturday, Trump said in a press conference that the U.S. is going to “run” Venezuela until there could be “a safe, proper and judicious transition” — a remark that sparked much discussion over exactly what will come next for the country.

“A tremendous amount of money will have to be spent, and the oil companies will spend it, and then they’ll get reimbursed by us or through revenue,” Trump said in his interview with Welker, referring to rebuilding the beleaguered oil infrastructure in post-Maduro Venezuela.

The president did not specify how much money is required for oil companies to upgrade the infrastructure, NBC News reported. Trump previously said he was going to “have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure and start making money for the country.”

“It’ll be a very substantial amount of money [that] will be spent,” Trump added in his interview with Welker. “But they’ll [the oil companies will] do very well. And the country will do well.”

Trump told the NBC News host that Venezuela producing oil is “good for the United States because it keeps the price of oil down.”

He also told Welker that his administration did not brief oil companies before carrying out the surprise attack that deposed Maduro.The companies, though, “were absolutely aware that we were thinking about doing something.”

Welker, on NBC News’ “Meet The Press” Sunday, asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio, “Why does the United States need to take over the Venezuelan oil industry?”

“We don’t need to. We don’t need Venezuela’s oil,” Rubio said. “We have plenty of oil in the United States. What we’re not going to allow is for the oil industry in Venezuela to be controlled by adversaries of the United States.”

“Why does China need their oil? Why does Russia need their oil? Why does Iran need their oil?” the Secretary of State asked. “They’re not even in this continent. This is the Western Hemisphere. This is where we live.”

Also on Sunday, a Venezuelan man in Buenos Aires, Argentina went viral while celebrating the end of the Mauro regime, after he pushed back against critics who said the U.S. is only interested in Venezuela due to its status as an oil-producing country.

“Those who say that the U.S. is only interested in our oil, I ask you: What do you think the Russians and the Chinese wanted here? The recipe for arepas?” the man asked in Spanish, naming a popular street food in Venezuelan cuisine. “Impossible.”

Continue Reading

Business

President Trump And The Doomsday Glacier… a blow to the planet, or to funding for climate alarmism?

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Steve Milloy

President Donald Trump is driving climate researchers literally to the ends of the Earth as they try to save their taxpayer funding. Expect to see a slew of hand-wringing reports about, and even perhaps from, the Thwaites (aka “Doomsday”) glacier in West Antarctica.

The glacier got its nickname from a Rolling Stone reporter in 2017 in an article titled: “The Doomsday Glacier:  In the farthest reaches of Antarctica, a nightmare scenario of crumbling ice – and rapidly rising seas – could spell disaster for a warming planet.”

Past the ominous title, the scare is that the Thwaites is melting and could raise sea levels by 10 feet, which would submerge about 2-3 percent of the global land mass, excluding Antarctica.

Last May, the Trump administration announced it would cut funding for the Nathaniel B. Palmer, a football field-long icebreaker that has been taking researchers to study the Thwaites glacier. In its 2026 budget request, the National Science Foundation said it was terminating the lease. There is no replacement ship on the horizon.

Researchers wanting to go to Antarctica, where it is now summer, have had to scramble for ships. This scramble has been made more challenging because ship owners and researchers, afraid of losing taxpayer funding, are also taking reporters and their crews along to dramatize the budget cuts using the backdrop of the scariest thing they can imagine – the Doomsday glacier.

New York Times reporter Raymond Zhong has already filed articles since Dec. 30. PBS has a reporter aboard a ship sending alarmist reports. Undoubtedly, there are other reports on their way as well.

Will the Doomsday glacier live up to its name? Or will it be another in a long line of failed, if not dishonest, apocalyptic climate predictions?

It seems to be true that the Thwaites glacier is melting. But there’s much more to consider just than that.

The rate of melting is very slow. A 2023 study estimated that over the next 50 years, the Thwaites glacier might add as much as a few millimeters (about one-tenth of an inch) to global sea level over the next 50 years. That is a far cry from the claim of 10 feet of sea level rise.

Next, the fate of the Thwaites doesn’t seem to have anything to do with emissions or “global warming.” Research indicates that there are 91 volcanoes under the West Antarctic ice sheet. Not surprisingly, the Thwaites glacier is melting from the inferno beneath.

Of course, the Thwaites couldn’t be melting at the surface because there’s been no warming in West Antarctica since the late 1990s. In fact, West Antarctica has cooled by about 3°F since 1999.

Another recent study reported that the Thwaites glacier started melting in the 1940s as the result of an El Nino, a little-understood, but periodic natural warming of the Pacific Ocean: “The glacier retreat in the Amundsen Sea was initiated by natural climate variability in the 1940s. That ice streams such as Thwaites Glacier and Pine Island Glacier have continued to retreat since then indicates that they were unable to recover after the exceptionally large El Niño event of the 1940s,” the researchers concluded.

The more one reads about the Thwaites glacier, the easier it becomes to understand why they have to call it the “Doomsday glacier.” Once you understand the non-threatening reality, the only way to make it scary is to give it a scary name and hope people are too frightened to look past it.

Three cheers for Trump for defunding this and other climate research. As these researchers lose their funding, maybe they can move to Hollywood and try writing disaster scripts.

Steve Milloy is a biostatistician and lawyer. He posts on X at @JunkScience.  

Continue Reading

Trending

X