Kassam In Daily Caller: Boris Johnson’s Brexit Deal Isn’t A Declaration Of Independence; It’s A Surrender To The EU

“Jean Claude’s the boss here,” are the words with which United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson ended his press conference alongside the European Commission President on Thursday.

He was trying to get reporters to calm down as they shouted their questions following the announcement of the “new deal” between Britain and the EU just two weeks before the next deadline.

But while the British prime minister was only being polite in trying to quell the chuntering of the press, he may have failed to belie the truth about his “great new deal.”

But it’s not great. It’s not new. And it’s not a deal.


Kassam in Daily Caller: New Report From Stephen Moore Shows The Need To Make Uranium American Again

The dirty little secret in Washington, D.C. is that almost everyone in the establishment basically answers to a foreign paymaster.

It’s why Democrats got so hot under the collar about their Russia narrative. Between the attempts by the European Union — supported by the usual suspects — to annex Ukraine into the European Union, and the Democrats’ own dealings in the Eastern European state, they had to hit first for fear of being hit hardest by any foreign collusion investigations.

The same applies for China, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and beyond. John McCain doesn’t just turn up in Kiev during a revolution for nothing. He was — paid or unpaid — supporting an EU strategy to empire build in the largest globalist project of a generation.


Kassam In Daily Caller: Trump Transcript Shows Him Trying To Stop Corruption, Nothing Else

The White House has released the transcript of Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. What it reveals is damning, but only for former Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the establishment media.

Instead of being some threatening phone call where the U.S. president holds aid or other threats over the head of the Ukrainians, the call actually displays Trump’s commitment to one of his key 2016 campaign pledges: draining the swamp.

Contextually, the remarks are in fact pretty tepid.

The pair exchange pleasantries about Zelensky’s recent election results. They exchange unpleasantries about German leader Angela Merkel. Then Trump asks the Ukrainian president to look into what really went on with the Democratic Party’s email hack of 2016.


READ: Transcript of Trump Call With Ukraine President That Prompted ‘Impeachment’

The White House has released the transcript of the hyped President Trump phone call with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky.

The transcript reveals President Trump and the Ukrainian President both agreed that in order to effectively “drain the swamps” in both of their countries, action needed to be taken around key corruption issues.

One mention was made of improper actions bragged about by Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden during a Council on Foreign Relations event.

At no point did President Trump attempt to force the Ukrainian President to do anything, with threats, or otherwise, as the media has suggested. In fact, the Ukrainian President appeared to agree that it was a matter of importance in investigating the actions of many Washington, D.C. swamp dwellers, including his own former ambassador.

Biden told a Council on Foreign Relations event that he even threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine if his son was not done the favor in a business deal.

Biden admits in the clip:

“I remember going over and convincing our team, others, to convince that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

“So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

Democrats have alleged President Trump did the same thing as Biden claims to have done, though the transcript below shows Trump did no such thing.

Democrats will now be forced to either walk back their impeachment claims, or continue with them against the evidence.

The transcript can be read below:

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).

Report Expresses Concern for Facebook Moderators’ Human Rights (While They Revoke Yours)

Facebook is notorious for censoring individuals based on their political beliefs. But The Guardian newspaper has rushed to the defense of the company’s moderators, saying they are left with “psychological scars” and “pushed towards the far right by the amount of hate speech and fake news they read every day.”

One of Facebook’s contractors told The Guardian: “I think it’s a breach of human rights. You cannot ask someone to work fast, to work well and to see graphic content. The things that we saw are just not right.”

Another moderator expressed concerns over a shift in political views due to exposure to the censored material:

“Maybe because all this hate speech we have to face every day affects our political view somehow. So a normal person, a liberal person, maybe also a progressive person, can get more conservative, more concerned about issues like migrants for example.”

According to Facebook moderators, and The Guardian, becoming right wing is a violation of human rights.

There is legitimately graphic and concerning material on Facebook the employees describe, such as the sexual exploitation of minors in private conversations.

However The Guardian dedicates just as much if not more of the article to Facebook moderators shifting in their political views than them having to see genuinely graphic and inappropriate material.

The newspaper has essentially equated the psychological impact of viewing right wing material to that of viewing the sexual exploitation of minors.

What is The Guardian‘s real concern? Do they genuinely care about the human rights and mental health of the employees, or do they just fear the right?

Sofia Carbone is a reporter for RaheemKassam.com and tweets at @SiCarbone_

Sadiq’s Sh*thole: London Rail Station Deploys Body Scanners

A busy London railway station has deployed body scanners for the first time.

The capital’s transport network has rarely ever seen the deployment of scanners such as those now at Stratford Rail Station, which is owned and operated by Network Rail.

The move follows years of massive crime increases under Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan, previously best known for his spirited defense of anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan:

Commuters have experienced the first use of body scanners to screen for weapons at a British railway station, as local authorities stressed they had sought assurances from police that the public were made aware of their rights. The technology – which can detect weapons including guns, knives and explosive devices concealed under clothing at distances of up to 30 feet – was in use on Tuesday in the lead-up to evening rush hour at Stratford station in east London , one of the capital’s busiest transport hubs.

Source: Body scanners screen for weapons at Stratford station

Ilhan Omar Just Basically Admitted to Marrying Her Brother

The media wants you to believe that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) marrying her brother to commit immigration fraud is a conspiracy theory. Except Omar’s just took actions that kind of prove the theory’s legitimacy.

Media Matters calls it a “baseless smear”, of course. Fact-checking website Truth or Fiction proclaims “there is no credible evidence”. The leftist Daily Beast thinks it relies on “Pizzagate-levels of delusion.

Unsurprisingly, any attempt to look into the validity of such claims are deemed “racist”. 

But the newest development in this ongoing saga proves otherwise: her REAL name seems to be Ilhan Nur Said. 

A now deleted tweet linking to an Instagram post from 2013 shows Omar wishing her dad a Happy Father’s Day. 

The issue? Her surname is “Nur Said”, not “Omar”.

Screen Shot 2019-09-17 at 11.02.59 AM.png

That’s the same surname as the man she married in 2009 that many believe to be her brother: Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.


Previous reports alleging she entered the United States in 1995 as a “fraudulent” member of the “Omar” family are corroborated by this development:

“That is not her family. The Omar family is a second, unrelated family which was being granted asylum by the United States. The Omars allowed Ilhan, her genetic sister Sahra, and her genetic father Nur Said to use false names to apply for asylum as members of the Omar family.

Ilhan’s genetic family split up at this time. The above three received asylum in the United States, while Ilhan’s three other siblings — using their real names — managed to get asylum in the United Kingdom.

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar’s name, before applying for asylum, was Ilhan Nur Said Elmi.”

Many suspect the reason for changing their surname was because her father worked for the genocidal, socialist dictator Siad Barre in Somalia and could not receive citizenship due to those connections.

This tweet is the newest evidence that Omar’s path to US citizenship likely involved foul play. And it’s pretty damning.

A spokesman for Omar issued this less than convincing statement:


Yet the Washington Post brands Omar (Nur Said?) as “quintessentially American”.

Certainly an interesting take on what being “American” means: marrying your brother, committing immigration fraud, and being related to a socialist dictator’s henchman.