Search This Blog

Saturday, May 10, 2025

Charles Barkley: Men Shouldn't Play In Women's Sports, That's Not Controversial

 NBA legend Charles Barkley, on Outkick’s "Don’t @ Me" with Dan Dakich on Thursday, said the idea of allowing transgender athletes to play in women's sports is "wrong, period."


"I support the gay community 100%. I support the transgender community 100%. But I do not, under any circumstances—it's zero—think that men should play sports against women."

"I don't even think that's controversial," he said. "There’s a lot of stuff we can argue over. That ain’t one of them."


Asked if Stephen A. Smith has a shot at being president, he added: "No, stop it."

CHARLES BARKLEY: I'm gonna make it very simple for you, Dan: Men should not play sports against women.

I'm not going to get into all the [BS] that's going on out here in the world today. You know, it's interesting—I always sit back and look at this stuff. Let me tell you something: I love gay people. I love transgender people. I'm against any form of discrimination, period.

Because you can't say, like — I love my gay friends and I love my transgender friends — but I'm not going to get into all this stuff that's going around. Men should not play sports against women. If anybody thinks they should, I think they're stupid.

Like I said, I support the gay community 100%. I support the transgender community 100%. But I do not under any circumstances—it's zero—think that men should play sports against women.

And if anybody has a problem with that, they're gonna have to get over it. I'm not going to change. I just think it's wrong. Period.

...

I’m not one of these people—if people disagree with me, I'm good with that. Hey, we disagree. I'm not mad at you. I don't hate you. I'm not going to call you names, because that's just silly and stupid.

But I'm never going to think it's all right for men to play sports against women. I don't even think that's controversial. That's the thing that's funny. Some of this stuff—like when you see these debates on television—like, "Yeah, men shouldn't play sports against women."

I'm done. I don't want to hear you try to explain it to me. No. I don’t want to hear it. I'm not going to argue with you. Men shouldn't play sports against women. I'm done. Don't try to tell me "this or this or this." Period.

...

There’s a lot of stuff we can argue over. That ain’t one of them.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/05/09/charles_barkley_men_shouldnt_play_in_womens_sports_thats_not_controversial.html

No ‘Sanctuary’ For Family Of Woman Allegedly Killed By Illegal Alien

 As Joe Abraham fights for justice for his daughter Katie and victims like her, the suburban Chicago father isn’t holding out much hope in “sanctuary” Illinois. 

Katie Abraham was killed in a car crash near the campus of the University of Illinois in Urbana the weekend of Jan. 18. She was 20 years old. 

Her killer, according to police, was a previously-deported illegal alien who was allegedly drunk when he slammed his SUV into the driver’s side of the vehicle Katie’s friend was driving as it was stopped at a red light. Julio Cucul-Bol, a 29-year-old Guatemalan national, was driving 78 miles per hour when his vehicle collided with the Honda Civic, Champaign State’s Attorney Julia Rietz said at the suspect’s arraignment, according to WCIA. Rietz said Cucul-Bol applied the brakes about a half a second before the collision; he made “little to no attempt to steer out of the way” of the car filled with four college-aged students, including 21-year-old Chloe Polzin, who died at the hospital from her injuries. 

Cucul-Bol immediately fled the scene. When U.S. Marshals ultimately apprehended him days later, he was about an hour south of Dallas, Texas, en route to the U.S. southern border, according to federal law enforcement officials. Upon his arrest, the illegal immigrant gave police a phony name, Juan Jahaziel Saenz-Suarez. His falsified paperwork claimed that he was a 27-year-old Mexican national residing in Urbana.

‘I Don’t Have Faith’

Back in Champaign County, Cucul-Bol is now facing multiple charges, including two counts of reckless homicide, a Class 3 Felony, two counts of leaving the scene of a personal injury crash resulting in death, a Class I Felony, and aggravated driving under the influence resulting in death, a Class 2 Felony

But Urbana, like Illinois, is a “sanctuary,” “welcoming” to illegal aliens and, critics charge, soft on illegal immigrant crime. Illinois laws prohibit local law enforcement from asking individuals about their immigration status and “detaining them because they lack status, and most notably, largely bar officers from cooperating with federal agents,” NPR reported earlier this year. Far-left Gov. J.B. Pritzker, whose national political aspirations appear nearly as ravenous as his appetite, “has championed sanctuary city policies that have endangered Illinois families and cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars,” Rep. Darin LaHood, R-Ill., recently said in a statement.

“I don’t have faith we’re going to have a really good outcome in the state,” Abraham told me this week in an interview on the Vicki McKenna Show on 1310 WIBA in Madison, Wisconsin. 

‘Who’s Helping Him?’

Abraham does have higher hopes for accountability from the federal government. On Wednesday, a federal grand jury charged Cucul-Bol with multiple crimes, including possessing a false permanent resident card, possessing a false Social Security card, false use of a passport, and making a false statement on a bank application. The indictment accuses the illegal immigrant of falsely identifying himself as Jahaziel Saenz-Suarez in an application to JPMorgan Chase Bank, as well as falsely using a passport, according to the Department of Justice. 

“The indictment further alleges that on January 19, 2025, Cucul-Bol allegedly possessed a Permanent Resident Card that was false and a Social Security card that was false,” a DOJ press release states. 

Cucul-Bol could, if convicted, face up to 40 years in prison on all counts. 

But Abraham wants law enforcement authorities to dig deeper. He believes a network of some kind, individuals, perhaps organizations, assisted the illegal immigrant in his efforts to escape justice. 

“Who’s helping him? How did the money move around? … How did he almost get to the Mexican border? Who’s part of the process that helped him out?” Abraham said. 

The answer is manifold. Some very powerful people in leftist circles, including Democrat politicians and judges, have been accused of helping illegal immigrants, some charged with or convicted of horrific crimes, avoid arrest. Far-left lawmakers like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y, and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., have advised illegal immigrants on how to evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. About an hour north of Abraham’s Glenview, Ill., home, social activist Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan has been charged with interference with a federal law enforcement operation and unlawful concealment of an individual subject to arrest. Dugan is accused of helping an illegal immigrant charged with serious domestic battery crimes elude federal agents who attempted to arrest the previously-deported alien outside of Dugan’s courtroom. Just days before her arrest, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers issued a controversial memo to state employees advising them on how to slow-walk ICE officials. Evers’ memo caught the attention of Trump administration Border Czar Tom Homan, who warned elected scofflaws not to “cross the line.” 

‘Katie Didn’t Get Any Due Process’

Democrats have decided to die on the political hill of full “due process” for criminally charged illegal immigrants. 

“Somehow we can follow some laws and we don’t have to follow other laws, but who’s accountable for this?” Abraham said. “You talk about this due process … Katie didn’t get any due process.”

 On Wednesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem joined Angel families at a press conference near Pritzker’s mansion and called on the rotund governor and other leftist leaders to “abandon their dangerous sanctuary policies.” 

“People who support sanctuary policies talk about love and compassion. Well, where’s the compassion for the families that stand behind me?” Noem said. 

Abraham is asking the same question. He’s spent a lot of sleepless nights in a long, cold winter into spring trying to square an absurd circle. There are no words, he said, to describe what it feels like to bury a child. Especially a young lady whose life was so full of promise, so imbued with love and joy. A young lady whose life was stolen from her in such a brutally heartless way. 

This grieving father sees a lot of accomplices in his daughter’s tragic death. 

“Do these folks not understand the pain and misery they’ve caused? And then they’re not even trying to rectify what they’ve wrought,” Abraham said. “It makes no sense to me. I haven’t had a good night’s sleep since January.” 

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Sins of omission

 by Salena Zito

Long before Thomas Edison was born in Milan, Ohio, Sir Humphry Davy, a British chemist and inventor, created the first incandescent light by passing an electric current through a thin strip of platinum. This produced an incandescent electric light to create the first “electric arc lamp” between charcoal electrodes.

Like many early innovators, Davy is often overlooked for his contributions and innovations. Edison is most often thought to be the inventor of the light bulb. Edison was famous, especially for his gadgets that modernized life, from improving the telephone to the brand-new phonograph. He created the first practical lamp that could be easily manufactured.

These sins of historic omission in American culture are much more common than they should be. This struck me a little over a month ago when the end of FiveThirtyEight, the polling forecaster, was announced. Many journalists cast FiveThirtyEight as the originator of the polling aggregation. It is not. The first polling aggregator is RealClearPolitics. And it’s not like there was the 70-year span that was between Davy and Edison, nor do we lack Google or artificial intelligence as they did.

Even Wikipedia acknowledges RealClearPolitics as the first aggregator of polls, writing, “It began aggregating polls in 2002 for the congressional midterms that year.” It called the 2008 emergence of the now-defunct FiveThirtyEight, created by baseball statistician Nate Silver, a “relative newcomer.”

Silver left two years ago. Its last owner, ABC News, laid off the site’s handful of staffers in March. RealClearPolitics was around six years before Silver’s baby. Despite suggestions that FiveThirtyEight was the OG of aggregating polls, RCP remains the standard-bearer for journalists looking to understand polling trends in big and small election cycles as they report their stories.

Calls to several reporters confirmed their reliance on RealClearPolitics to help them know what to look for when covering a race.

When reporting on elections, a reporter should objectively avoid trying to create a narrative and instead give the readers the best information he or she can find. That earns trust.

Polling voters is a multidimensional task, in many ways no different from anecdotal reporting for a story on politics that comes from various people. RCP was the first to recognize how to harness that science and make it useful in understanding how different attitudes would shape races.

The rap on RCP among legacy institutions began in 2016 when its averages started showing then-candidate Donald Trump ahead, a shocking development to some, which led to accusations that it was using substandard polls. Whatever the criticism, the truth is that its polling showed a race that was closer than other outlets that weren’t using some of these “substandard polls.”

Case in point: On Oct. 27, 2016, FiveThirtyEight’s polls-plus forecast gave former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a 75.2% chance of winning the election, while RCP had Clinton up 3 points, within the margin of error. Anyone following that race using RCP was getting genuinely informed about where that race stood and how close it was. In short, it showed you it could go either way.

Its polling of the Bush-Kerry race was spot on — same with the Obama-Romney race. But for some reason, the whole national media complex was telling the public that Trump had no chance to win when he actually had a better chance to win than either John Kerry or Mitt Romney.

In 2020, RCP showed Trump was trailing then-candidate Joe Biden by more than he was trailing Clinton. So RCP’s maps indicated that Biden was going to win, but they weren’t showing a blowout that most of the legacy media were.

On election morning in 2020, there was jawing among some legacy reporters for RCP’s polling averages — they showed a close race with Biden up by 1.2 points in Pennsylvania. Reporters expected a bigger victory. It turned out that when the final votes were tallied, two weeks later, the final margin was exactly what its average was: 1.2 points.

So people who came to RCP for that cycle saw that Biden was ahead but that Trump had a viable path to win. Then, in the 2024 cycle, this dismissal of RCP among some legacy outlets was repeated, with the same complaint from these outlets that some of its pollsters are not “high quality.”

There is an argument to be made that some polls are better than others based on their track record. Those sitting in boardrooms in Washington, D.C., or New York City may not like that some polls were more accurate about Trump than others. But you are doing your audience a disservice by not telling what the polls said and instead what you wish they said.

In the final stretch of last year’s presidential election, the New York Times took a whack at RCP, suggesting its map showing Trump winning all seven swing states was inferior because it was using subpar polls.

“Overall, Trump has made slight gains in the national polling average over the past two weeks, and the battleground state polling averages have tightened,” the story read. “Still, the race remains uncommonly close.”

Unlike its competitors, RealClearPolitics does not filter out or weigh polls that its critics allege are “low quality.” RCP likes to say that “at RealClearPolitics, high-quality polls are accurate polls.” One of its pages displays a map of the Electoral College with a winner projected for each state, even those the site currently deems to be toss-ups.

The story then said that “influential accounts have been sharing screenshots of RealClearPolitics’ scarlet-dominated Electoral College map,” often pairing it with images of a betting average site showing Trump with a 65% chance of winning.

Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic strategist and constant critic of RCP, said in the story that he believed that Republican-aligned pollsters were “flooding the zone” to shift the polling averages and deflate Democrats’ enthusiasm.

In the end, FiveThirtyEight had then-Vice President Kamala Harris with a 50-in-100 chance of winning the cycle. RCP had Trump winning six of seven battleground states. The New York Times implied that it had gamed to look better for Trump with “low-quality polling.” This isn’t hyperbole; it was in the headline that read: “Why the Right Thinks Trump Is Running Away With the Race.”

Two things appear to be happening here — the sin of omission by skipping over who the true inventor and innovator of the craft was and an effort to dismiss its competency and capability.

The job of a news organization is to attract an audience because its content is consistent in getting it right or pretty darn close. The same is true of polling. It is one thing to question polling firms and say you don’t like their methodology or think they’re rigorous enough.

But when they have a track record of superior performance and you still do not use them, or you weigh them lower, you come across as though you possess an agenda that isn’t about genuinely informing people of where things stand.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/3406583/sins-of-omission-real-clear-politics-polling-fivethirtyeight/

Top Chinese and US trade negotiators continue Geneva trade talks into evening

 U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer were continuing trade talks with senior Chinese officials on Saturday evening after some negotiators left the lakeside venue, a source familiar with the discussions told Reuters.

The talks had been under way in Geneva since Saturday morning.

https://www.streetinsider.com/Reuters/Top+Chinese+and+US+trade+negotiators+continue+Geneva+trade+talks+into+evening/24774890.html

Germany will stop reporting arms deliveries to Ukraine, Merz says

 The German government will stop publishing details of military aid to Ukraine, Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Saturday during a visit to Kyiv.

Sources with knowledge of the matter had earlier told Reuters that public information about the delivery of weapons systems to Ukraine was to be reduced to achieve "strategic ambiguity" and prevent Russia gaining any strategic advantages.

"Under my leadership, the debate about arms deliveries, caliber, weapons systems and so on will be taken out of the public eye," Merz told RTL/ntv broadcasters in Kyiv.

Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Germany's government initially reported sporadically on military aid to Kyiv. Under pressure from parliamentarians and media, it later started publishing an updated list of systems and goods supplied.

Merz, who took office on Tuesday, said Germany's commitment to supporting Ukraine in the fight against Russia's invasion would not change.

"Germany will continue to expand its financial support. I am counting on you (...) to do the same with us," Merz said, addressing other European leaders at a meeting in Kyiv.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/currency/US-DOLLAR-RUSSIAN-ROUBLE--2370597/news/Germany-will-stop-reporting-arms-deliveries-to-Ukraine-Merz-says-49905137/

Iran will not back down from nuclear rights, foreign minister says ahead of US talks

 Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Saturday that if the United States' goal is to deprive Iran of its "nuclear rights", Tehran will never back down over those rights.

Araqchi was speaking in Doha a day ahead of another round of planned nuclear talks between Iran and the U.S. in Oman.

"If the goal of the negotiations is to deprive Iran of its nuclear rights, I state clearly that Iran will not back down from any of its rights," state media quoted Araqchi as saying.

Iran has repeatedly said its right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable and has ruled out a "zero enrichment" demand by some U.S. officials.

But U.S. President Donald Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, said in an interview on Friday that Iran's "enrichment facilities have to be dismantled" under any accord with the United States.

Trump, who withdrew Washington from a 2015 deal between Tehran and world powers meant to curb its nuclear activity, has threatened to bomb Iran if no new deal is reached to resolve the long unresolved dispute.

Western countries say Iran's nuclear programme, which Tehran accelerated after the U.S. walkout from the now moribund 2015 accord, is geared toward producing weapons, whereas Iran insists it is purely for civilian purposes.

"In its indirect talks with the United States, Iran emphasizes its right to peaceful use of nuclear energy and clearly declares that it is not seeking nuclear weapons," Araqchi said.

"Iran continues negotiations in good faith, and if the goal of these talks is to ensure the non-acquisition of nuclear weapons, an agreement is possible. However, if the aim is to limit Iran’s nuclear rights, Iran will never retreat from its rights."

https://www.aol.com/news/iran-not-back-down-nuclear-173638381.html

Indian forces responding to Pakistan ceasefire violations, India foreign secretary says



India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on Saturday after U.S.-led diplomacy, but hours later India said that Pakistan had violated the truce.

Here's how the conflict unfolded between the two nuclear-armed neighbors and where it stands now:


After four days of intense military exchanges, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on Saturday, facilitated by U.S.-led diplomatic efforts.

The ceasefire came amid heightened fears that the conflict could escalate into a broader confrontation, with both nations on high alert.

But within hours, violations were reported from the main cities of Indian Kashmir, the territory that had borne the brunt of four days of fighting.


The Indian armed forces were responding to ceasefire violations by Pakistan hours after the truce was reached on Saturday, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told a press briefing in New Delhi.


The current hostilities began after a deadly April 22 attack targeting Hindu tourists in Indian Kashmir, which left 26 people dead.

India blamed Pakistan-based militant groups for the assault, prompting New Delhi to launch air strikes earlier this week on what it described as "terrorist infrastructure" within Pakistan.

Pakistan, which denies involvement in the Kashmir attack, condemned the strikes and vowed to retaliate.


India said it struck nine "terrorist camps" in Pakistan on Wednesday, claiming these sites were indoctrination centers, training grounds, and launchpads for attacks. Some of these, according to Indian officials, were linked to the perpetrators of last month's violence.


Pakistan said the Indian attacks hit six locations in its territory, none of them militant camps.


Pakistan initially claimed it shot down five Indian fighter jets during the first wave of strikes, a claim the Indian embassy in Beijing dismissed as "misinformation."

In response to subsequent escalations, Pakistan said it shot down 25 Indian drones overnight, including some over its largest cities, Karachi and Lahore.

India, meanwhile, stated that it had "neutralized" Pakistani attempts to strike military targets with drones and missiles, including targeting air defense systems in Pakistan.


Global leaders have welcomed the de-escalation between India and Pakistan.

U.S. President Donald Trump credited American diplomatic efforts and described it as a result of "a long night of talks" mediated by the United States.


European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas welcomed the ceasefire as a "vital step toward de-escalation," while British Foreign Minister David Lammy urged both sides to maintain it.

The ceasefire agreement marks a significant step back from the brink of a major conflict.

However, despite the agreement, the Indus Waters Treaty, a key water-sharing pact between the two countries remains suspended, four government sources told Reuters.

Two Indian government sources also told Reuters that other punitive measures announced by India and reciprocated by Pakistan, such as trade suspension and visa cancellations, would remain in place for now.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/india-pakistan-exchange-fire-despite-180055421.html