Amazon Sells ‘Brexiteers I Want to Stab’ Book

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was recently condemned for his use of “inflammatory” language by using words like “traitor” and “betrayal” to describe Remainer MPs – labels that have definitely been earned from their numerous efforts to undermine and nullify Brexit.

He was attacked in Parliament by various MPs for such “offensive, dangerous” language:

Meanwhile, a notebook emblazoned with “My Little Book of All the Brexiteers I want to Stab” is being sold on Amazon.


That sounds like a textbook example of “inflammatory” language.

It also has a politically-charged description: it’s meant to “put a smile on the face of anyone who is against Brexit” and for “all anti-brexit remainers and Pro-Europeans, Anti Leave British supporters who want Britain to remain in the European Union”.

The cover is intended to resemble the flag of the European Union.

Yet Remainer MPs, most notably Paula Sherriff, were claiming that Johnson’s rhetoric engendered “death threats and abuse every single day”. These people allegedly “quote” Johnson’s words.

Sheriff also demands that we “moderate our language,” ironically singling out Johnson as the main culprit when it’s her fellow Remainers profiting from notebooks that explicitly incite violence.

By current British political standards the use of words like “betrayal” (to describe the actions of people who have continuously attempted to nullify the results of a democratic, legitimate referendum) are classified as inflammatory yet proclaiming the desire to stab an entire group of people because of their political views isn’t.

The same MPs who castigated Johnson for his diction are silent:

And the book is still for sale on Amazon. Earlier this year, Amazon banned a multitude of books relating to homosexuality, specifically those aimed at helping relieve those with unwanted sexual attractions to members of their own sex for fear of inspiring gay conversion therapy.

Yet another prime example of the left’s double standard.

At least the notebook fits with the British political zeitgeist – perhaps it takes inspiration from Sadiq Khan’s London where stabbings are up more than fifty percent.

Ad Highlights Dem Support for Including Biological Men in Female Sports

“Is it fair?”

That’s the question posed by the Center for American Principles most recent campaign ad:

The ad is intended to inform voters in the upcoming Kentucky gubernatorial election about Democratic candidate Andy Beshear’s support for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) accommodation laws that would allow male to female transgender people access to female restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and sports. And this understandably harms women – a consequence the ad stresses by focusing on the negative impacts of SOGI laws in female sports.

Terry Schilling, director of the political action committee that released the video, articulates: “For too long, Democrats like Beshear have been allowed to advocate for such policies without any pushback from the media or even most conservatives. But no longer. We aim to present the ugly reality of Beshear’s platform to the voters of Kentucky, enabling them to make a truly informed choice this November.”

Schilling alludes to how this ad represents a new strategy the Republican party can use to advance their transgender argument against the radical left: refocusing the issue to emphasize the impact it has on young girls – someone’s daughter, sister, etc. 

Kassam explains further:

Beshear’s stance on transgender athletes is not out of line with the rest of his views. He supports universal healthcare, restoring felon’s voting rights, a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage, and other leftist policies.

Schilling highlights another of Beshear’s troubling stances: “Beshear and his fellow Democrats’ push for ‘equality’ would have a devastating impact on a huge number of Americans. Already, they are threatening to shut down many faith-based adoption agencies and women’s shelters, suing Catholic doctors for refusing to violate their consciences, and even pushing to remove children from their parents over just the slightest resistance to transgender ideology.”

It’s no wonder the ad labels him as “too extreme for Kentucky”.

The ad has generated considerable backlash.

A Beshear campaign spokesman criticized the ad as “a shameful and false attack from a shady group that will lead to bullying of our kids.”

He continued: “Andy opposes discrimination. Matt Bevin is an unhinged failure who is hurting our students by seeking to tear down public education. He even blamed teachers, without evidence, for the sexual abuse of children.

And the Fairness Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group, thinks its an indicator that Republicans are nervous about the approaching gubernatorial race: “They must have some internal polling that shows them doing poorly if they will run this despicable, dirty and false attack that has no grounding in reality in Kentucky politics or policy”.

They’re so out of touch (read: brainwashed) they can’t comprehend the concerns ordinary Americans might have about boys being able to compete in girls’ sports: they think it’s purely politically motivated.

But even outlets like Daily Wire  and National Review have praised the ad.

For the sake of female athletes in Kentucky, let’s hope this tactic is effective.

Who’s Behind Greta Thurnberg? This Radical Professor Claims to Be…

You probably know who Greta Thunberg is: the Swedish teenager who thinks anthropogenic climate change is “killing the Earth”. She “wants you to panic” about the climate, and blames your fossil fuel usage for stealing her “dreams and childhood”.

Thunberg is the latest iteration of the left’s tactic of using children to push their radical agenda. They’ve now resorted to using autistic children because their other arguments haven’t moved the needle in years.

Thurnberg is sadly just a disposable mouthpiece for an alarmist climate change movement borne more out of ideology than science, but who exactly is behind her?  

One name that pops up is Kevin Anderson, a climate scientist and professor of Energy and Climate Change at the universities of Manchester (UK) and Uppsala (Sweden).

He confessed in an interview:

“The Thunberg family approached me some time ago. Greta was already very interested in climate change. Since she started the strike, we are in regular contact.”

He further explained their relationship as frequently “discuss[ing] issues” and Greta “sends me manuscripts and asks me to check if everything is correct.”

 Anderson is overly insistent that Greta is responsible for her own content and is not merely a mouthpiece, given she’s only 16: “What you hear from Greta Thunberg’s mouth is what Greta Thunberg is thinking about and what she writes down.”

How likely is that, given his admission to her reliance on his fact-checking?

Anderson is a climate change zealot. He preaches “radical change” and believes “radical action is required immediately. In the past, he’s proposed a “rationing system” for individual carbon emissions. He’s even too radical for some of his academic counterparts:

For many years I have been deafened by the silent roar of academics unprepared to speak out, and consequently, through their silence, [they] vociferously support the status quo; that is a deeply political position. Others have been more actively co-opted by the established system, believing that we need to keep our advice in line with current economic thinking, or we will be ignored.”

Much of his work also focuses on the dichotomy between politicians’ inaction on climate change and its perceived existential nature. He was referenced in The Times several months prior to the Copenhagen Climate Summit:

Professor Anderson [and a colleague] expect politicians at the summit merely to pay lip service to scientific evidence that greenhouse gas emissions need to be brought under control within a decade, if not sooner.” 

And even policy-backed change doesn’t satisfy him according to one of his research papers:

“Put bluntly, while the rhetoric of policy is to reduce emissions in line with avoiding dangerous climate change, most policy advice is to accept a high probability of extremely dangerous climate change rather than propose radical and immediate emission reductions.”

He also attacks the inaction of those in power:

This narrative: the world is ending soon because of human emissions, and those in power aren’t doing enough to stop it, is virtually identical to Thunberg’s. 

But Anderson’s message was relegated to the confines of academia despite his belief that “climate change is an issue on which scientists cannot be politically neutral”.

That all changed once he met Thunberg.

Thunberg has Asperger’s, OCD, and autism, and has previously suffered from depression, eating disorders, and selective mutism. She describes having Aspergers as a “superpower” since it allows her to not “care about social codes”, making her a better activist. 

Anderson noticed this:

“Greta cares little about what others think of her. It does not take into account the sensitivities of interest groups or politicians.”

Exploiting it, he uses her to amplify his message beyond his classroom and conferences, a world which he reckonshas broadly abdicated its responsibility to speak truth to power, choosing instead to care about political and economic sensibilities and fine tune its assumptions to ensure its conclusions on mitigation fit within the existing economic paradigm.”

He could use her as a puppet to advance his radical agenda and filled her head with doomsday scenarios about how the world is going to end if drastic political and cultural change was not implemented. 

Greta was the missing component to Anderson’s agenda:

“She is an expert for communication. She manages to summarize vast amounts of information into concise, simple, honest messages. This expertise has been missing us so far. Greta reaches people we scientists have never met, especially children and adolescents.”

It’s sick how adults are exploiting a child suffering from a host of mental illnesses that make her especially vulnerable to such dystopian and unfounded fears about climate change and the future.

She’s become a poster child for climate change advocacy but also for how far the left is willing to go to advance their agenda – exploiting kids.

UK Govt: Banning Dog Meat is ‘Culturally Insensitive’

Dogs should be man’s best friend, but this doesn’t seem to be the case in the United Kingdom anymore.

A ban on the consumption of dog and cat meat was recently struck down by “nervous civil servants” at the Ministry of Justice who feared it would be “culturally insensitive” towards people from the Far East. 


This is the latest instance of the UK excessively prioritizing political correctness in the name of multiculturalism. And this time, the victims are innocent animals that should be kept as pets – a new low.

Understandably, many found the Ministry of Justice’s reasoning for not adopting the ban unconvincing and bizarre. Tory MP Giles Watling articulated:

“It’s not culturally insensitive because we’re not telling them what to do – we’re just telling them what we do”.

He continued:

“Dogs are our companion animals. We do not eat them, and that is a very important message to send to the rest of the world”.

The ban was inspired by animal rights activists who believed it would send a firm, disapproving message to countries, predominantly Asian, that still participate in the inhumane practice: an estimated 30 million dogs are slaughtered annually throughout Asia and over 4 millions cats are slaughtered annually in China. Following this, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) proposed the legislation earlier this year:

Ironically, the ban was intended to be symbolic. According to the former Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, the “sickening practice” is “rare” in the UK, but banning it would send a “powerful message” to countries still involved with the brutal trade.

Failure to enact the ban sets a troublesome precedent: cultural “sensitivity” is more important than respecting the rights of animals. It’s a “powerful message”, but not with its intended meaning.

It’s clear; cultural relativism and political correctness now influence government policy. And that should worry everyone (not just dogs and cats).

BBC Classroom Show Depicts Trans and Lesbians Telling Kids ‘There Are Over 100 Genders’

Another day, another opportunity for the left to push their bizarre gender agenda on children.

A new BBC-sponsored programme “Identity: Understanding Sexual and Gender Identities” is telling kids as young as nine there are “over 100 genders” they can identify as.

When the children, understandably confused, ask about how many genders exist, the teacher responds:

“There are so many gender identities. We’ve got male and female, but there are over 100 if not more gender identities now.”

It gets weirder: 

“So we know that some people might feel like they’re two different genders, so people might think they’re bi-gender, and then you’ve got some people who might call themselves gender-queer who are just like I don’t really want to be anything in particular, I’m just going to be me.”

Uh, what?

Children were also told that gender is “who you are inside”, whereas your sex is male or female.

The programme, intended for classroom use, was “created in consultation with a Personal, Social, and Health Education experts and are designed for teachers for use with children aged 9-12”. 

It depicts conversations between British children and “trusted” adults.

The only thing these adults can be “trusted” with is being willing purveyors of the left’s crusade to destroy gender as we know it: some of the adults the children conversed with included transgender activist Leo Lardie who discussed her genitalia with the group, alongside a lesbian teacher who told kids they “might be gay” if they were interested in a member of the opposite sex “in a slightly different way than you do normally to your friends”. 

Both also appeared to promote their lifestyles to the group.

Children were also warned by their teacher that “people can go to prison if it’s shown they’re disrespecting or being hateful to people because of a difference that person perceives”.

The left’s influence on the education system, especially universities, is a well-known fact. But this goes to show how their efforts to indoctrinate children begin at a much younger age, and how no topic is off limits – not even something as straight-forward as gender.

College Students Profess Support for Chinese Crackdown in Hong Kong

College students are easily triggered; they’ll protest just about anything.

A “cry in” to mourn Trump’s victory. An “Anti-Colonial Thanksgiving”. An attempt to disarm Campus Police. Even burning the flag.

With their affinity for protest, you’d think they would show solidarity with the brave protesters in Hong Kong.


Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

At Auburn University in Alabama, posters condemning the protesters in Hong Kong and professing support for police violence were plastered around campus:

Screen Shot 2019-09-03 at 2.13.16 PM.png

One poster reads: “Shame on Hong Kong. What happened in Hong Kong is NOT peaceful protest. Against all acts of violence!”

The other in Chinese and English reads: “I support the HK police. You all can beat me now.”

It appears the university’s administrators approved the posters as they had a designated posting date (August 14th) and removal date (August 28th).

Pictures of the posters were circulated via the website Reddit, as the user who originally shared them described: “This is insane. The flyers are supporting the egregious human rights violations perpetrated by the Chinese government in Hong Kong.”

The posters were placed around the Haley Center, “a classroom facility as well as home to the College of Education, AU Bookstore, administrative offices and one dining option”. The office of International Programs is also located there. 

In a statement to campus news outlet The College Fix a university spokesperson said they were “aware” of the fliers and is “looking into the matter”. However, they failed to answer if they were launching a formal investigation into the posters or if they had violated campus policy.

The protests referenced by the posters started in response to a proposed extradition bill which would have given mainland China jurisdiction over Hong Kong, effectively eliminating the rule of law. But the protests quickly became about more than a piece of legislation, catalyzed by police brutality, growing discontent over sovereignty, and the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) reaction to protesters.

Now, the protests, where American flags are often seen, have become synonymous with freedom and democracy. Even Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have issued statements supporting the protesters, representative of how West is broadly supportive of Hong Kong’s aspirations.

And while Auburn students were busy proclaiming support for police violence, thousands of college students in Hong Kong declared they would not attend class, so they could join the protests.

1 in 5 UK Teens Have Felt Suicidal, Male Suicide Rates Climb.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the United Kingdom released their 2018 suicide report, revealing a dramatic increase in suicides last year – the highest rates since 2002.

Suicide rates had been on the decline since 2013. Yet there were 6,507 suicides registered in 2018 compared with 5,821 in 2017 – an 11.8 per cent increase.

While the general female suicide rate rose, ONS determined the rise to be comparable to previous years at 5.4 deaths per 100,000 people. The rise in female under-25 suicides is considerable:

“Despite having a low number of deaths overall, rates among the under 25s have generally increased in recent years, particularly 10 to 24-year-old females where the rate has increased significantly since 2012 to its highest level with 3.3 deaths per 100,000 females in 2018.”

Nonetheless it appears as though the overall rise in suicides is predominantly driven by men.

Males comprise three quarters of the deaths (4,903 of the 6,507 suicides). The male rate has jumped from 15.5 per 100,000 in 2017 to 17.2 per 100,000 in 2018. 

Research also found 17 per cent of school children ages 11 through 16 have felt suicidal as a result of bullying.

In addition, due to bullying and harassment, 78 per cent of children surveyed revealed feeling anxious and 56 per cent said they have been unable to sleep.

The survey was conducted by The Diana Award, an anti-bullying charity in honor of the late Princess Diana.

The Diana Award has launched an anti-bullying campaign, offering free training to become an ‘Anti-Bullying Ambassador’.

 In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123 or email or In the U.S., the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at

Sofia Carbone is a reporter at and tweets at @SiCarbone_

Sweden Scraps Automatic Asylum for Syrians.

Sweden will no longer issue “residence permits” to all Syrian refugees, terminating a policy that allowed over 100,000 asylum-seekers to resettle in the country. 

The policy, championed by left-wing parties, had been in effect since 2013.

Right-leaning parties that opposed the policy change pointed out its flaws, raising concerns that “no conflict is permanent but still we give them permanent residence”.

“[F]or one immigrant that comes here we could help hundreds, maybe thousands of people, [in and around Syria] with food, with medicine, with everything” claimed former Sweden Democrat party spokesman Kent Ekeroth in 2013.

The policy change results from a reassessment of safety levels in different Syrian provinces: the entire country is no longer regarded to be universally “at risk” due to its civil war.

Those living in the Syrian capital of Damascus and the adjacent southern provinces of Quneitra, Rif Dimashq, Suwayda, and Dara’a as well as Northern provinces such as Hassakah and Latakia will no longer automatically be granted asylum. 

Certain provinces including Aleppo, Idlib, and Raqqa are still classified as having “internal armed conflict where everyone risks being affected” meaning residents of those areas will still be granted asylum indiscriminately.

The Swedish Migration agency’s press release attributes this change in classification to the fact that “the number of deaths has decreased so much” as well as the “general risk of coming to harm has decreased” in certain provinces.

It continues: “Everyone was able to get a residence permit due to the general situation in Syria as being in the territory entailed a risk. We now assess that the security situation has become slightly better.

The policy is not retroactive, as those waiting for immigration-related court hearings or wanting to renew temporary residence permits are unaffected: “This affects only new applicants for asylum. Those who are already here in Sweden and who have received protection status as a refugee or subsidiary protection will retain that status”.

Migration has long been a contentious issue in Sweden, particularly from non-Western countries.

And the number of Syrian refugees in Sweden is extremely high. Even former U.S. President Obama’s target for Syrian refugees was 10,000; Sweden has ten times that. The country often accepts the most migrants per capita compared to the rest Europe.

Consequently, no-go zones, or what the media and police like to refer to as “vulnerable”, “especially vulnerable”, or “risk areas” have become increasingly prevalent. 

Bombing and explosions have nearly doubled this year, animal cruelty in “immigrant-dense” areas has increased, and even blood supply in hospitals has been running low due to the dramatic increase in stabbings. 

Furthermore, the exorbitant cost of migration to taxpayers as well as the failure of many migrants to assimilate have caused discontent among native-born Swedes.

It’s not hard to see why a recent poll showed that “over half of Swedes reject taking more refugees”.

And this policy change appears to be a step in the right direction.

Natalie Winters is a freelance reporter

Islamic Scholar Tariq Ramadan Accused of ‘Incredible Violence’ During Rape of Journalist

Prominent Islamic scholar and Former Oxford Professor Tariq Ramadan faces a new rape allegation following two previous reports from 2017.

The 2017 allegations came from two separate women describing alleged rapes in 2009 and 2012, prompting Ramadan to take a leave of absence from Oxford University which has been in effect since November 2017.

The most recent accusation comes from a French woman who alleges Ramadan and his male assistant repeatedly raped her in his hotel room at the Sofitel hotel in Lyon, France in 2014.

The woman, who remains anonymous, is a journalist who says she ended up in Ramadan’s hotel room after being tempted by an offer for an exclusive interview.

She told a court: “It went very quickly, it was of an incredible violence”.

When she threatened to report the incident to police, Ramadan allegedly replied: “You don’t know how powerful I am.”

On Twitter, Ramadan responded to the allegations:

Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan Al-Banna, has not been immune to controversy during his career.

The first woman to allege a sexual assault was feminist and secular activist Henda Ayari, claiming that Ramadan raped her in a Paris hotel room in 2012. She was thought to be motivated to speak out by the French equivalent of the #MeToo movement, #BalanceTonPorc or “out your pig”. Ayari’s decision to publicize her account compelled other women with similar experiences to come forward.   

Following this, a second woman, a disabled French Islamic convert, accused Ramadan of luring her to his hotel room and raping her at a 2009 conference. A third woman said she received pornographic messages from Ramadan who later attempted to “blackmail” her. 

Four Swiss women also made allegations that Ramadan molested them when they were minors. The alleged victims were as young as 14 and 15.

In March 2018, a woman accused Ramadan of raping her in France, Brussels, and London between 2013 and 2014. In 2013, an American woman accused him of raping her in Washington, D.C..

Prior to the latest accusation, the most recent incident involved a Swiss women accusing Ramadan of raping her in a Geneva hotel room.

Ramadan was recently released from a French prison on bail, but it’s not just sexual assault allegations that have plagued his career.

In February 2004, he accepted a tenured professorship at the University of Notre Dame in St. Joseph County, Indiana. Ramadan, a Swedish national, had his H1-B visa revoked by the State Department under the accusation he was “providing material support to a terrorist organization” by donating to Hamas-linked organizations, subsequently forcing him to resign from the university as he was unable to attain his visa.  

At Erasmus University Rotterdam, he was a visiting professor on “Identity and Citizenship” in 2009 until he was dismissed from his position due to his “irreconcilable” involvement with Iranian-sanctioned Television show, Islam & Life.

In 2014 Ramadan claimed the attack by Islamist Mehdi Nemmouche against four visitors at the Jewish Museum of Belgium was a “deliberate” attack against Israeli secret agents.

Time magazine declared him “one of the seven religious innovators of the 21st century” and later as one of the 100 most influential people in the world (2004).

Neither his academic colleagues nor fellow Islamic leaders or organizations have spoken out against any of these allegations.

Natalie Winters is a freelance reporter

Leading LGBT Website: 50% of Satanic Temple is LGBT… ‘It’s Hard Not To See The Appeal of Satanism’

Leading LGBT website Pink News has made the stunning claim that almost half of the Satanic Temple’s members are from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender community, while claiming “it is not hard to see the appeal of Satanism”.

The recently published piece entitled ‘The Satanic Temple is in favor of equal rights for LGBT+ people’ quotes from an interview the Satanic Temple leader – Lucien Greaves – with the UK’s Attitude magazine, also an LGBT publication.

“It would be a conservative estimate to say that more than 50 per cent of our membership is LGBTQ,” Greaves began before going on to discuss how he believes, despite moves from many Christian denominations to adopt more “inclusive” policies, LGBT people feel “disenfranchised” as if religion were a political party.

“I think that’s because [LGBT people] feel disowned and disenfranchised from the traditional religious institutions. So, you have a population willing to embrace a religious identification that is boldly willing to speak out to the contrary.

“From the start, when one of our early actions was the Pink Mass, a lot of LGBTQ people were looking for another community that didn’t see them as defined by their sexual orientation.

“Within the Satanic Temple, we’re all pretty much one and the same.

“We’re all Satanists and it’s not like we have ‘tolerance’ for trans people or gay people or sex workers, we just don’t f**king care, and a lot of people in those communities appreciate that.”

Pink News said of his comments: “When most major religions still directly discriminate against LGBT+ people, it’s not hard to see the appeal of Satanism.”

This is not the first time The Satanic Temple has ignited controversy.

Co-founder Lucien Greaves appeared on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight to discuss a veteran memorial and free speech debate in a small town in Minnesota.

Carlson questioned the group’s identification as a religion, given the Temple is non-theistic. He also shared his speculations with Greaves that the group was purposely trolling and stirring up controversy.

Greaves stood by The Satanic Temple being a religion, and claimed the organization and its actions are true to its tenants.

Pink News however, the Satanic Temple’s latest major new fan after The Guardian newspaper, says: “A commitment to Satan is not required to join the Temple, although a commitment to trolling anti-LGBT evangelicals is desirable.”

“Satanists don’t actually believe in Satan,” the news site claims.

The Satanic Temple’s website elaborates on the idea: “As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions.”

The group’s continuous statements and actions on political and social stances – such as the LGBT+ statements in their latest interview – support the idea the organization may be more concerned with trolling than being a genuine religious sanctuary for those lost in other religions.

Sofia Carbone is a reporter at and tweets at @SiCarbone_