A man who had his genitals surgically removed and his crotch made to look somewhat like that of a woman, is a top weightlifter in New Zealand, beating all actual women and claiming he's a female in spite of science. The guy claims he has no physical advantage over the women he beats in competitions but this may actually be part of his delusion that he's a female. Speaking to Newshub on Friday, Laurel Hubbard said that he "transitioned" to female four years ago and anyone who has a problem with that better watch out or he'll kick their butt. Hubbard, 39, believes that there's no "fundamental" difference between a biological male and his female competitors, and to suggest otherwise would be "disrespectful" of his delusion, and to the women he beats in competitions. Newshub, in an effort to be politically correct with pronouns said, "But some of her rivals' coaching staff have publicly questioned whether she has an unfair psychological advantage, having previously lifted heavier weights as a man." Hubbard, for his part, replied: "Look, I've heard that and I think it's incredibly disrespectful to the other competitors." "I don't believe there is any fundamental difference between me and the other athletes, and to suggest there is is slightly demeaning to them," he added. Hubbard took home two silver medals in the women's World Weightlifting Championships. He lost to Sarah Robles, an actual woman and, I'm happy to note, is an American. The "female" weightlifting champ said he doesn't let the social media "trolling" get to him." Hubbard was formerly a men's weightlifting champion before he had his penis removed.
Belfast -- Father Desmond O'Donnell (no relation to Rosie that we are aware of) said Christians of all denominations should realize that Christmas and Easter no longer has any sacred meaning. "We lost Christmas, just like we lost Easter, and should abandon the word completely," the defeatist priest told The Belfast Telegraph. "We need to let it go, it's already been hijacked and we just need to recognize and accept that." "I am simply asking that space be preserved for believers for whom Christmas has nothing to do with Santa and reindeer," he bloviated. The good priest went on and on about his religious experience of "true Christmas" and how superficial losers see Christmas: as a fun holiday of giving and red nose reindeer. These people need to stop using Christ's name but they deserve to have a holiday (a word derived from the words 'holy day'). "I'm just trying to rescue the reality of Christmas for believers by giving up 'Christmas' and replacing it with another word [like, umm . . . 'Festivus']." "I'm all for Christians choosing to celebrate Christmas by going out for meals and enjoying a glass of wine, but the commercialism of anything is never good." Unless you consider growth as good. "Faddah" O'Donnell (as Jimmy Cagney might refer to him) is a registered psychologist and author and said that he didn't intend his words to be a criticism of non-Christians. Merry Christmas! Now let's go shopping for our loved ones. Tweet
Debates basically do nothing to challenge either candidate--this is just my opinion because the candidates always have pat answers to most questions they anticipate. I think we should be able to ask questions that are not so politically correct and I've come up with a few that I'd like to ask Obama that will not be asked in the townhall debate tonight. I'm certain that these questions are relevant and would be difficult for Obama to address honestly. 1. Why do you have Muslim Brotherhood representatives in the White House and anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan visiting you on a regular basis? I don't know whether or not Obama actually is a Muslim, but does that really matter when it seems clear that he would do exactly the same thing a Muslim would do if he was the President of the United States? 2. Regarding the 9-11 attack in Libya where our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, was killed along with three other Americans, why does the buck stop at Hillary Clinton and why did you go campaigning in Vegas the following day? I feel (which is a liberal word) that in spite of what Obama says he knew about the event, he should have acted like a president rather than a campaigner. 3. Why did you use executive privilege on the Fast and Furious debacle where Eric Holder obviously was involved and did everything he could to keep us from knowing the truth?
4. You have spoken about there being no "Red America," nor "Blue America," only the United States of America. That's wonderful, but why do you then divide us with talk about the "Millionaires and billionaires," and the "one percent"? Isn't that divisive and hasn't it caused the country to be severely divided? 5. You have claimed that you have been the most supportive president of Israel yet you spoke ill of Benjamin Netanyahu in an open mike that you didn't know was on. You have met with the King of Saudi Arabia and other Islamic leaders, including the Muslim Brotherhood, yet you didn't meet with Bibi Netanyahu when you had the clear opportunity and the crisis in the Middle East was festering with unrest. 6. Immediately after becoming President, you sealed your school records and spent over a million dollars in legal fees to do this. What was the reason for sealing your records and would you now be willing to show us your college records, including your theses to give us a clearer picture of your political thinking and the source(s) of your college funding? 7. Regarding Solyndra, when it was clear that economists predicted the company to fail is February of 2012, why did you go ahead and invest our money in this company and why then did you allow private investors to recoup their losses before us, the taxpayers? Is there or is there not a law specifically delineating the fact that taxpayers are the first to be reimbursed with investment money? 8. Why couldn't you carry out your promise to turn the economy around in four years along with the unemployment rate? You said that you would be a one term president if you couldn't and clearly you did not. Anticipating your response that the economy has turned around, the facts speak otherwise. I realize that I've asked more than eight questions, and I'm sure you can think of others that might shake Obama's tree. I'd be happy to see them if you'd like to comment here. Tomorrow's Presidential debate will be moderated by CNN's Candy Crowley, a liberal who will likely put her two cents into the town-hall meeting and reduce it to a detailed analysis of Republican lies. The VP debate felt like Ryan was debating both Uncle Joey and Martha Raddatz--let's hope we don't see a similar thing happen here. This will be an incredibly important debate because Obama has to outdo Mitt, and Mitt has to simply stay on his game with the truth and a aggressiveness. My other blog New York
Canuck
My latest novel,Jihad
Joe,is about Islamic
terrorism and suspense. In it I challenge the precepts of the religion
through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who
is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three
Gitmo prisoners. Of course, American policy demands we never give in to
terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.
I subscribe to several blogs that focus on Islam and it concomitant terrorist activities, but I find that I am not reading the articles like I used to and sometimes I don't even open the site. The reason is simple: horror overload.
The Pot Calling the Kettle
How many times do you have to read about a group of Muslims going on a religious rampage and burning down a Christian church, often with people worshiping inside? How often do you need to hear about gays being hung in the streets of places like Iran? How many Jew-bashing rants do you need to hear? How many lies about "the religion of peace"?
My novel, Jihad Joe, required a significant amount of research on Islam's Koran and Hadith, and it became an excellent learning situation. What I learned is that the religion of peace only lives up to its hype when it isn't challenged by outsiders. But when it is, there is nothing peaceful about it. The Koran, the Islamic holy book, is filled with killing, looting, slavery, and anti-Semitic spewing. Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, killed a woman who admitted her sin to him and was pregnant from it. The prophet of Islam killed her after her baby was finally weaned from the breast. The prophet of Islam, in an example of infinite mercy, was personally responsible for the brutal slaying of 900 Jews from the Qurayish tribe. After he killed the men and those boys who had reached puberty, he made slaves of the tribe's prepubescent children and the wives of the slain men. This is not how we typically see prophets, but it certainly is typical of how we view 7th Century Bedouins.
Can You Koran?
Then we have the Koran, a book that was written by Allah before time and books began, and whose perfect words could not be disputed, even in light of the fact that there are numerous fallacies and mistakes in the "perfect" book. Simple examples: the sun doesn't set in a black mud puddle; the stars will not fall to the earth at the end of earth's time; and shooting stars are not Allah's weapons against his enemies. And if the book was so perfect, why did Allah have to allow for abrogation (changes) to make the latter text "better than what came before it"? But if you try to challenge the Koran to a group of Muslims, say on a street corner in Dearborn, Michigan, you might end up in the hospital if you're lucky.
And still the religion persists because Mohammad built in a few failsafe mechanisms to ensure its longevity. Prayer five times a day with all of the faithful facing in the same direction. No questioning of the religion or risk being blasphemous, and other rules that were designed to increase the power of the faithful and enslavement of the nonbelievers.
My next blog, "Little Mosque on the Prairie Fairytale" will speak more about Islam, Muslims, and what they want us to believe.
Peace out.
If you are interested in terrorism and suspense, I have provided 2 links (below) for a hard copy (soft cover) edition and an eBook edition of my latest novel, Jihad Joe. It's a story about Zed Nill, a New York based reporter, taken hostage by Islamic terrorists. He must escape, or be beheaded the following day . . . the clock is ticking.
Like politicians, the media can sometimes be hypocritical. Just kidding--they're usually hypocritical, so let's look at it for what it is. Back in the days when president Bush declared war on Iran, the leftist media was on him like wet on water, white on rice, and stink on Biden, and the public never looked beyond the surface of what took place. It's almost as if the media holds the queue cards and the public follows with booing or applause, depending on the story. Here we have the New York Times (you know them, "All the news that fits, we print"), whose own history of honest reporting had come into question like the global warming hoax where their reporters claimed that the north pole was melting in one story they told. It started, as you probably recall, with Al Gore and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, a movie so filled with inaccuracies, the British court ruled that in order to show it in their schools, the children would have to be informed of this first.
But the start of The Times and their lying probably began with William Duranty in the Stalin era when he intentionally failed to report on the millions of people dying in the Ukraine under Stalin's reign. (An Inconvenient Problem). This, to me, seems unforgivable, but most people are probably unaware of this journalistic sacrilege.
The fact that The Times undeniably favors the leftist left, and consistently discredits, disfavors, and generally just disses the right, is simply a matter of record, or lack of record, if that is what they must use to promote their politics. (I never thought there would come a day when I would use the term 'their politics' when discussing news reporting.) When the Marines pulled out of Iraq, where they left after a decisive victory under then president GW Bush, especially in the area of Fallujah, where they displayed incredible military skill and courage, The Times buried the story deep inside its folds. Whether you were for or against the war in Iraq is irrelevant. What is important is the fact the this rag of a paper went to lengths to forgo giving credit to the valor of the Marines, and thus to President Bush. It's shameful.
But The Times represents just a fraction of the leftist lefty media. A study often cited by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is a book published in 1986: The Media Elite, co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. The authors surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks and found that most of these journalists were Democratics whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. So is it any wonder that the Tea Party, the Repulican Party, and anyone not on the left side of the left, would be targeted by these clowns?
So what can you do? Simple. Get your news in a variety of places. Use the blogs, Twitter, follow people you like and agree with, but also follow those whose opinions differ and see what they have to say. Don't read The New York Times without reading Pajamas Media, for example. (I suggest forgoing The Times altogether just to put those charlatans out of business.) But be informed about both sides. If you come to conclusions that suit you, then stick with them until they stop sticking. That can only happen by reading both sides, keeping an open mind, and cliches like that.
Well, it's almost Holiday Time when all the children adorn the holiday tree with holiday balls and lights to make this holiday season something to almost remember, but I forget what. I went holiday shopping today and bought holiday gifts-the kids especially love this time of year because they're the ones who enjoy the holiday magic. I'm most grateful that this season has not offended others of different religious backgrounds who don't want to actually call this holiday anything more than that--a holiday. But it occurs to me that the word 'holiday' comes from the old English term, Holy Day. Well, I don't know who it's holy for anymore, but I can tell you that even Canada is following the new traditions of the USA and have renamed the old holiday (it starts with a "C" for certain people, and an "H" for others who were almost annihilated by a guy in World War 2) but I think it's just better to allow these holiday terms to remain unspoken lest we offend those who come from different parts in the world in the hope and spirit of turning Canada into Mecca.
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to all, and to all a good night.
Posts
