Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is defending Rashida Tlaib’s controversial remarks on the Holocaust. Hoyer is accusing the president and Republicans of taking her comments out of context, and has claimed they owe her an apology.

Meanwhile, reformist Imam Tawhidiis is speaking out against Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. One America’s Jack Posobiec has more from Washington.

Jamie Glazov Confronts Cultural Marxists and Islamic Supremacists From a Christian Point of View

“We Are Always Being Deceived” by Psychopaths, Whether Liberals or Jihadists


Trump Urges Big Tech Censorship Victims to Share Stories

Trump administration builds dossier of social media bias ahead of 2020 election

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Trump administration is gathering evidence of big tech censoring people over their political beliefs ahead of the 2020 election.
On Wednesday the White House urged Americans who’ve been subjected to social media bias due to their political affiliations to come forward and tell their stories.
“SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH,” the website, launched by the White House, reads. “Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear ‘violations’ of user policies.”
“No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.”
The website is the latest indication the president plans to hold tech companies accountable for acting as publishers in their regulation of free speech, especially as companies like Twitter have claimed to be open “public square” forums.
Companies including Facebook and Twitter have recently been criticized by the president for banning social media personalities like James Woods and Paul Joseph Watson seemingly over their conservative political opinions.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The bill that just passed the Alabama State Senate banning almost all abortions in the Yellowhammer State was designed specifically to challenge the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. The bill — House Bill 314, the “Human Life Protection Act” — declares that a fetus is a human being with all inherent rights, and that a provider performing an abortion that ends that life could be sentenced to life in prison. There are no exceptions for rape or incest; the only one is when “an abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk” to the mother.
The bill’s sponsor, Representative Terri Collins, called the bill a “direct attack” on Roe v. Wade, adding, “The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the court in 1973 that said the baby in the womb is not a person. This bill addresses that one issue. Is that baby in the womb a person? I believe our law says it is.”
The ACLU of Alabama, along with the National ACLU and Planned Parenthood, is preparing a lawsuit to challenge the bill even though it has yet to be signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey. She is expected to sign it, but even if she doesn’t, the strong majorities in both houses that passed the bill would be more than sufficient to override her veto.
The legislation was drafted by Eric Johnston, head of the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition. Johnston has been leading the pro-life movement for 30 years and sees that the stars are aligning in Alabama for such a bill. Previous attempts to curtail or restrict abortion in the state have just nibbled around the edges. For example, legislators in the past have imposed a 48-hour waiting period before performing an abortion; they have mandated that a pregnant woman receive counseling before undergoing the procedure; and they have required minors to receive consent from a parent or a legal guardian before having an abortion.
Said Johnston of the new bill, “Why not go all the way?”
The bill comes after the passage of the “fetal heartbeat” bills in Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, and Georgia, which ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat can first be detected, around the sixth week of a pregnancy. It comes after the appointment of two conservative judges to the Supreme Court by the Trump administration. It also comes after voters in Alabama approved an amendment to the state’s constitution in 2018 declaring that the “public policy of this state is to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.”
If those stars remain aligned, the ACLU will succeed in having a lower court rule the law unconstitutional, setting the stage for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, noting that: 
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.
In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, (1968), Katz v. United States, (1967), Boyd v. United States, (1886), … and in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, in the Ninth Amendment, or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
Blackmun then concluded: 
This right of privacy, whether it is founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
Blackmun then rolled out a litany of reasons to support a decision by a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy prior to term:
The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and Direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future.
Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.
In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation. 
John Hart Ely, whom the New York Times considered to be a constitutional scholar “of dazzling originality and wide influence” in its obituary in 2003, called the ruling “frightening”:
What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem at issue, [or] any general value derivable from the provisions they included.... 
Blackmun likely rues the day when he closed his opinion with this:
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. 
Despite his disagreement, since that majority opinion was rendered in January of 1973, more than 60 million babies have been aborted in America. That’s nearly 20 percent of the country’s present population. Or, to put it another way, the war waged on preborn infants by Roe v. Wade since 1973 has claimed forty-four times the number killed in all the wars of the United States from 1775 to the present.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Ireland’s government health body has a section on its website that advises women to flush their aborted babies down the toilet.
Yes, really.
In a section entitled “pregnancy remains,” the Health Service Executive, which uses public funds for the provision of health and personal social services for everyone living in Ireland, tells women how to dispose of an unwanted fetus.
Following a referendum last year, it is now legal in Ireland to get an abortion during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy and later in cases where the pregnant woman’s life or health is at risk.
“If you have an abortion before 9 weeks of pregnancy, you can decide how to dispose of the remains. They can be flushed down the toilet or wrapped in tissue and disposed of as you wish,” states the HSE website.
I used to say that we live in a society which treats its young like a medical waste product.
I was wrong – it’s worse than that.
We live in a society that treats its young like literal shit.
Welcome to clown world!


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
During a May 10 interview on Fox News, Vice President Mike Pence renewed his calls for the removal of Minnesota’s radical Muslim Democrat congresswoman Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Speaking on Fox and Friends, Pence recalled that Omar “has made statements, anti-Semitic comments … against our most cherished ally Israel, that ought to be rejected by every American.”
As reported by, among those comments was Omar’s statement in late February, in which she “complained about why it wasn’t ‘OK’ for her to talk about the ‘political influence’ Jewish Americans have had in ‘influencing’ U.S. policies.”
Said Omar in reference to the Jewish lobby in America: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. I want to ask why is it okay for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil fuel industries, or Big Pharma — and not talk about a powerful lobbying movement that is influencing policy?”
In March, members of Congress on both sides of the isle denounced Omar’s comments as “anti-Semitic,” and Republicans even fronted a resolution condemning Omar by name for accusing Israel of buying influence, recalling her Twitter comment that “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” — referring, apparently, to $100 bills.
That resolution was in response to an earlier Democrat version which broadly condemned anti-Semitic comments, but which failed to cite Omar specifically. “Democratic leadership failed to primarily and directly address Representative Omar’s anti-Semitic remarks in a resolution that should have been specifically about anti-Semitism so as to address the rising threat thereof,” the GOP resolution read.
One Democrat congressman who challenged Omar directly was Eliot Engel of New York, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on which Omar sits. “I welcome debate in Congress based on the merits of policy,” said Engel, who is Jewish, “but it’s unacceptable and deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens because of their political views, including support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.” He added that “we all take the same oath. Worse, Representative Omar’s comments leveled that charge by invoking a vile anti-Semitic slur. Her comments were outrageous and deeply hurtful, and I ask that she retract them, apologize, and commit to making her case on policy issues without resorting to attacks that have no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee or the House of Representatives.”
While Omar offered an apology of sorts, it did not address her bizarre reference to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks during a speech to the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group with ties to terrorist organizations. In that speech she referred to the deadly attacks that killed more than 3,000 people as a day when “some people did something.”
During his May 10 Fox News remarks, Pence also noted that Omar had recently attempted “to blame the United States of America for the deprivation and the poverty brought on by the dictatorship in Venezuela.” Such comments, said the vice president, “just tell me that … the people of Minnesota will decide whether or not she remains in Congress. But Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has no place on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”
Pence’s latest comments are a repeat of ones he made in March, demanding that Omar be removed from her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “Anti-Semitism has no place in the Congress of the United States of America,” Pence said at the time. “Anyone who slanders this historic alliance between the United States and Israel should never have a seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee.”


Kid’s Cartoon “Arthur” Features GAY Marriage! Indoctrination?

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
BOSTON, Massachusetts, May 14, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― A children’s cartoon series featured a homosexual “wedding” for its season premiere episode yesterday.
“Arthur,” the longest-running animated series for children in the USA, began its twenty-second season with the surprise “marriage” of Arthur the Aardvark’s teacher Mr. Ratburn to another man.
In the episode, Arthur and his classmates are intrigued to discover that their teacher is getting married and begin to investigate who his bride might be. When the children appear at the ceremony, they discover that Mr. Ratburn doesn’t have a bride. Instead, he walks down the aisle of the wedding tent on the arm of a male aardvark named Patrick.
The adult aardvark winks knowingly at the viewer whereupon 8-year-old Arthur and his classmate exchange delighted smiles.
A parent who watched the episode yesterday evening and contacted LifeSiteNews and contrasted the reactions to the cartoon characters to those of her children.
“The [cartoon] children are a bit surprised but mostly nonchalant about the whole thing,” she wrote from Topeka, Kansas. “Needless to say, in the real world, our children were shocked and confused.”
ImagePBS cartoon ‘Arthur’ featured Mr. Ratburn ‘marrying’ a male in its May 13, 2019 episode.PBS / video screen grab
Other adults and teens, however, took to Twitter to expressed their glee over the new twist in Mr. Ratburn’s portrayal.
“DID ARTHUR REALLY HAVE A GAY MARRIAGE AND I MISSED IT? THAT’S SO FREAKING COOL Y’ALL,” said former child star, now House of Representatives intern Joshua Rush, 17, on Twitter.
Rush played “Cyrus Goodman” of the “Andi Mack” show, the first same-sex attracted main character on the Disney Channel. The character was 12 years old when he was introduced to the show.
“Arthur,” which features anthropomorphized animals, is aimed at children aged four to eight. It is broadcast on PBS Kids, and its educational purpose is purportedly to interest children in reading. The show is based on the Arthur adventure books by Marc Brown. Mr. Ratburn was originally based on Brown’s own middle school algebra teacher.
This is not Arthur’s first foray into the adult world of same-sex partnerships. According to Variety, an “Arthur” spin-off  show called “Postcards from Buster” featured a female same-sex couple in 2005. The then-Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings wrote a letter of protest to the tax-funded PBS, underscoring that the show was meant to prepare children for school.
“We believe the “Sugartime!” episode does not come within these purposes or within the intent of Congress, and would undermine the overall objective of the Ready-To-Learn program — to produce programming that reaches as many children and families as possible,” Spelling wrote in 2005.
“Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the life-styles portrayed in this episode. Congress’ and the Department’s purpose in funding this programming certainly was not to introduce this kind of subject matter to children, particularly through the powerful and intimate medium of television,” she continued.
PBS dropped this episode, but it was aired by some of its affiliates.
Today PBS Kids states on its website that its goal is to make “a positive impact on the lives of children through curriculum-based entertainment with positive role models and content designed to nurture a child’s total well-being.”
“PBS KIDS encourages children to interact as respectful citizens in a diverse society,” the channel continues.
“By involving parents, teachers, caregivers and communities as learning partners, PBS KIDS helps to empower children for success in school and in life. PBS’ bottom line is measured by how much it contributes to the welfare of America’s children.”
The “Arthur” episode yesterday marks another victory by LGBT activists to insert homosexual “representation” into beloved children’s shows.
To respectfully make your views known to the creators of “Arthur”, please contact: 
Jonathan Abbott President and CEO, WGBH One Guest Street Boston, MA 02135 E-mail: Arthur Audience and Member Services Phone:  617-300-3300


“How does a sitting mayor in Indiana who’s gay find a date?” Mr. Buttigieg said.
Did They Sue Anyone For Refusing to Make the Wedding Cake, or Other Foods?
“Pete came out in May of 2015, and he and I met in August,” Mr. Glezman said. Mr. Buttigieg’s modest aim at the time was “dating a little outside the television viewing area of South Bend.” Mr. Glezman joined Hinge because, he said: “I wanted a platform where you’re not necessarily inundated with hookup culture and sex.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes,
In the south, it has been traditional for a young lady (debutante or “female beginner”) of high status to “come out” into adulthood.  It’s a formal rite of passage into society of an educated, wealthy, sophisticated young lady now ready for the privileges and responsibilities of  adulthood.  It is a recognition of her availability of being a wife and mother—in that order.  This coming out takes place at a ball and elegant dinner.  During the evening, the debutante displays her ability to walk, sit, dance, and eat without tripping over her gown or dropping a croissant down the front of her dress.
Homosexuals also have a “coming out” but not as elaborate as the southern ladies. Most southerners pay little or no attention to the social elites’ fancy affairs since they are busy making a living.  However, arrogant homosexuals seem to think that all of us want to know about when they “became aware of their sexuality” and feel a need to announce it to the world.  As if we care.
Pete Buttigieg is mayor of South Bend, Indiana and is “married” to Chasten Glezman, a teacher at Montessori Academy near South Bend. Pete calls Chasten his “husband” but since that is asinine, aberrant, and not accurate, I will refer to him as his “lover.”  I do that knowing I will be reminded that Time magazine gave him some credibility with a cover photo of Pete and his lover.  However, Time’s rush to gush is typical of the leftist media who are willing to promote anything that is anti-biblical, anti-common sense, and anti-decency.
Glezman admitted that he and Pete met online, had their first date in South Bend in September of 2015, then he “moved to Indiana and started living with Buttigieg in 2016.”  Obviously, they lived together before “marriage.”
In December of 2017, the “couple” announced their engagement and were “married” in June 2018 in the Cathedral of St. James (Episcopal) in South Bend.  (That says much about everyone involved.)  Following their ceremony, the couple stopped by for a short visit at a LGBTQ Pride Week block party; and then went to their wedding reception where they danced the night away with 200 guests.
Their ceremony was livestreamed on YouTube and featured a reading from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the landmark 2015 same-sex “marriage” decision that made perversion legal if not moral.
I don’t hate Pete or his lover or any other homosexual, but I will not give them a pass when they or others suggest that “gayness” is not perversion, that it is normal, maybe even admirable.  Nor is it bigotry to explain to uninformed readers what “gayness” is.  However, with my demand to know the extent of Pete’s “gayness,” I will become the object of ridicule and rebuke, and rejection.  Maybe, even more death threats. But if you love homosexuals more than you fear retaliation, you tell them the truth.
 And this article will be rejected by some of the sites that normally publish my articles—for telling the truth! No doubt, I will be held in more disdain for revealing the disgusting things that homosexuals do than the homosexuals who do those disgusting things! You can expect the homosexual crowd to have a hissy fit because of this article. That is as predictable as tomorrow’s sunrise.
To emphasize my point: Pete and his lover chose to make their perversion a very public matter. They really worked at it.  Pete said, I’m gay as a—I don’t know, think of something really gay—that’s how gay I am.”  Remember, Pete brought this up so I, as a voter, have a right to know just how “gay” Pete is.  After all, he wants to be President of the United States and I want to know where he stands on important issues.
Since studies show that about half of homosexuals were seduced into perversion by age 14, I wonder if Pete would totally renounce and repudiate such a revolting practice.  Just a simple disavowal with appropriate disgust thrown in will suffice.
All homosexuals are aware that their lifespan is about 20 years less than for normal people so voters should know that a homosexual president may not live to finish his term.  Moreover, 70% of homosexuals admit to having at least one STD plus they are infected with other contagious diseases such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, etc.  About 20% of homosexual men are infected with HIV and about half of them do now know it.  Don’t voters have a right, even an obligation, to know a candidate’s health status since the candidate’s health is always an issue?  Is a homosexual candidate an exception?  If so, why?
Will he release his complete medical records?
Since homosexuals do many dangerous things it seems wise, considerate, thoughtful, and loving to suggest they cease such dangerous activities.  After all, we strongly suggest that one should not smoke, eat much red meat, not drink, and not gain weight since those are deadly activities.  Why is it unreasonable, unkind, or untoward to demand the same of homosexual candidates?
Pete admits to using marijuana while at Harvard and wants to make smoking weed legal, but does he still use marijuana, use tobacco, drink hard liquor, overeat, lose sleep, and refuse to exercise?
Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous as reported in a six-month study of daily sexual diaries by Corey and Holmes in the New England Journal of Medicine.  In that study, homosexuals “averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.”  It is known that even the most devoted and long-lasting homosexual relationships are usually not monogamous. Each partner normally reserves a night out each week to “play the field.” Will Pete admit that that is too “gay”?
Studies show that almost all homosexuals practice oral sex and about half ingest semen which is as dangerous as ingesting raw blood exposing them to hepatitis A and B, gonorrhea, and HIV. Moreover, about 90% of homosexuals practice rectal sex and two-thirds do so on a regular basis. Furthermore, 17% of homosexuals admit to rubbing or ingesting the feces of homosexual partners. Will Pete admit that too is too “gay”?
About 23% of “gays”  (according to the largest study ever conducted) participate in golden showers where they urinate on each other, splash each other with urine or drink urine.  Now, it is a person’s own business if he has a taste for urine, but we have a right to know what Pete thinks about that. Is he “that gay”?
Will Pete repudiate the 41% of “gays” who practice fisting where one rams his fist into the rectum of his partner?  Or, at times, they use carrots, bottles, flashlights, (even gerbils!) or other objects often requiring a trip to the hospital for removal. Surely, Pete will repudiate that.
Will Pete repudiate the 90% of “gays” who practice rimming which is so disgusting that I won’t continue to explain it? In doing research for my book, AIDS: Silent Killer!, the owner of a chain of homosexual bathhouses told me that often the same man is “rimmed” 20 times in a single night. Will Pete repudiate such a disgusting practice?
Surely, Pete will repudiate the 37% of homosexuals who practice sadomasochism, the 90% of homosexuals who use illegal drugs, and the 66% who admit to restroom sex.
Franklin Graham was right when he said about Pete, being gay is “something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized.” In declaring that fact, Graham was showing love and concern for the mayor because God judges sin—all sin even the sin that shouldn’t even be named. Perversion results in judgment with horrible, eternal results.
If you haven’t noticed, they are no longer “gay” in Sodom.
Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for eight years. Boys’ book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is available here. Follow Dr. Boys on Follow Dr. Boys on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D. and TheGodHatersTwitter, and visit his blog.
(Publisher’s comments: Any decent and God fearing person should be embarrassed to read such that we have published on TOL today, however the reason the sodomites are becoming accepted in polite society is because people do not really have a clue what they do and what they are recruiting our children to do, and be assured they have never ceased their goal to turn the entire world into a “queer” society. The Zero Population growth crowd is also using them to advance their political agenda.)
Websites Links