RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/hate-group-smears-parental-rights-groups-as-hate-groups/

Apart from pro-lifers, the anti-family Left hates nothing quite so fervently as parents who believe they should have more authority over their own children than the government does. And so the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – a fear-mongering, corrupt, discredited but influential smear organization that demonizes mainstream conservatives as “hate groups” – has placed a dozen parental rights organizations on its “hate map” as “antigovernment extremist groups.”

According to the SPCA’s annual 2022 Year in Hate and Extremism report, the burgeoning, Florida-based Moms for Liberty organization was added to the Center’s hate list along with 11 other parental rights groups. These purportedly dangerous mothers now join 701 other “antigovernment” entities – as if “antigovernment” is an unreasonable stance to take in the wake of the totalitarian pandemic lockdowns, the weaponization of the FBI and the Department of Justice against the Obama and Biden administrations’ political enemies, the Department of Homeland Security’s abandonment of border security, and on and on. In light of the havoc the current regime is intentionally waging against the American people, it’s difficult to imagine how anyone could be pro-government.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is the same organization, by the way, that does not list the domestic terrorists of Antifa or Black Lives Matter among its so-called “hate groups.” It does, however, name Freedom Center founder David Horowitz among its “extremists” – indeed, the SPLC rather melodramatically calls him “the godfather of the modern anti-Muslim movement.” (As Horowitz himself has stated many times, neither he nor the Freedom Center is “anti-Muslim” but pro-freedom, which does put the Center proudly at odds not with all Muslims but with anti-democratic sharia law and with anti-Western jihadists. The “godfather” label is an amusing touch, painting Horowitz as some kind of Vito Corleone-style crime family patriarch).

Back to the demonization of parental rights groups. Categorized under “Locally driven right-wing mobilization” (because grass-roots community organizing is only acceptable when the Left does it, don’t ya know) the SPLC report reads, “Schools, especially, have been on the receiving end of ramped-up and coordinated hard-right attacks, frequently through the guise of ‘parents’ rights’ groups,” the SPLC’s report claims. “Hard right,” by the way, is the SPLC’s favorite scare label for anyone to the Right of Lenin.

ttps://www.frontpagemag.com/trump-indicted-for-crime-every-admin-in-last-40-years-was-guilty-of/

Selective criminalization is unequal justice. Selective criminalization aimed at political opponents is political repression.

Every administration since President Ronald Reagan’s has mismanaged classified documents, according to National Archives and Records Administration officials who spoke to a congressional committee behind closed doors in March.

Mark Bradley, who directs the agency’s Information Security Oversight Office, said that since 2010, his office has gotten more than 80 calls from libraries that have found classified information in papers belonging to members of Congress.

For example, Sen. Edmund Muskie, D-Maine — who left Congress in 1980 and was secretary of state in the last year of President Jimmy Carter’s administration — included 98 classified documents when his papers were given to Bates College.

Biden seemed to have dumped classified documents just about everywhere he set foot. Never mind Hillary and her server. Or the other manifold examples.

Since old dogs never learn any new tricks, this is once again a process crime created by the Dems investigating Trump. Indicting presidential associates on process crimes is one thing, but going after Trump on a process crime is unrealistic. But then this isn’t about actually winning the case, but winning an election.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/davidhasanyi/2023/06/09/nothing-to-see-here-but-a-credible-whistleblower-accusing-the-president-of-bribery-n1701816

President Joe Biden has been accused by a credible informant of allegedly taking $5 million in “a bribery scheme with a foreign national” while he was the sitting vice president. That seems like a pretty big story, but what do I know?

Apparently, there’s a document laying out the accusation in some detail, and not one cooked up by an oppo-research firm for the Republican National Committee and then disseminated to saps in the media to try and delegitimize a presidential election. No, it’s in an unclassified FD-1023 form, used by law enforcement to record credible tips. Granted, it’s not in the possession of BuzzFeed, but rather the vaunted FBI, which refuses to hand it to Congress for some reason. And there is no curiosity on the part of establishment media to find out what it says.

I know, I know, it’s getting tedious asking people to imagine the thermonuclear media blast they’d be swept up in if a Republican president had been accused of bribery by an FBI informant. This is the way of the world. To this point, the debate over the proper pronunciation of Ron DeSantis’ last name has gotten more coverage than the president possibly pocketing millions of dollars through shell corporations.

Though, I suppose that’s not exactly right. Biden’s Praetorian Guard have begun to preemptively frame chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, as some devious nut for demanding the FBI hand over documents. This is what they did to Devin Nunes, who turned out to be correct in his assessment of the Russia collusion investigation.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023/06/08/biden-melts-down-during-presser-when-asked-about-bribery-allegation-gives-unbelievable-answer-n758118

As we reported earlier, Joe Biden held a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of the United Kingdom on Thursday. He needed note cards to just do his greetings with Sunak, and he got confused about what the prime minister’s position was. That raised fresh concerns about his mental ability to do the job.

Then the White House decided to throw caution to the wind and had him answer a few questions. Of course, he had a pre-approved list as he usually does, so he may also have the questions and answers in front of him as well.

But even that didn’t stop Joe from being Joe (that is, putting his foot in his mouth). Biden completely blanked out on part of what the question was that a reporter just asked him.

This, even though he appeared to have cards and at various points during the press conference, looked to be reading off them/referencing them.

He also seemed to have no idea how many people there are in Africa.

The staff was trying to get the reporters out of the room, but they were able to get in a couple more questions before he left the room. That’s where it truly went off the rails.

That’s when Biden started getting disturbed and testy when he was questioned about corruption—specifically what Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) said about evidence that he sold out the country. A reporter asked, “Bribery allegations. Congresswoman Nancy Mace says there’s damning evidence in an FBI file that you sold out the country. Do you have a response?” Biden’s response was unbelievable.

Biden smirked, and said, “Where’s the money?” He then called it “a bunch of malarkey.” His smirk shows he thinks he’s untouchable, that he won’t be held accountable for anything.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/06/09/how-do-we-get-back-the-lockdown-time-stolen-from-us/

Our sense of incarceration from the pandemic lockdowns was caused by more than being unable to live as freely as we had before the diktats were issued. Like inmates locked in a prison, we lost track of time. It was stolen from us by “leaders” who willingly traded our liberty for a perception of safety, and in too many cases in exchange for satisfying their authoritarian urges.

A study published late last month by Scottish researchers “found a large error for estimating the timing of events that occurred in 2021” when they questioned participants about the past events.

“The findings show that participants were less able to recall the timeline of very recent events coinciding with COVID lockdowns” and “are consistent with poor perception of event timeline reported previously in prison inmates.”

Though the authors, from the University of Aberdeen, acknowledged that “​​drawing a comparison between the prison environment and pandemic related restriction might be seen as an extreme case,” they were still confident “that there are similarities in the extent of social isolation in both situations.”

This isn’t the first research paper to reach this conclusion. A University of California, Irvine, study posted last August in an online science journal concluded that “the passage of time was altered for many people during the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from difficulty in keeping track of days of the week to feeling that the hours themselves rushed by or slowed down.”

Previous studies had found that “these distortions have been associated with persistent negative mental outcomes such as depression and anxiety following trauma.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/racial-gerrymandering-supreme-court-allen-v-milligan-john-roberts-clarence-thomas-gingles-alabama-7b595b78?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

Chief Justice John Roberts has wisely led the Supreme Court away from the political thicket of partisan gerrymandering, writing in Rucho v. Common Cause that he sees no “judicially discernible and manageable” standards to police it. But with an opportunity to clarify the law on racial gerrymandering, the Chief passed.

This is unfortunate, given the muddled status quo. The upshot of Thursday’s 5-4 split in Allen v. Milligan is to send Alabama back to the drawing board to create a second black-majority U.S. House district. Yet other states have tried that approach, only to be admonished by the Court that their maps were drawn with too much emphasis on race.

Alabama has seven House seats, with a black majority in one. That divides out to 14%. Yet the state’s voting-age population is 26% black. Alabama argued that when it redrew its House map after the 2020 census, it enacted only “race-neutral adjustments for small shifts in population.” But a federal district court ruled that the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requires a second majority-black district, for 29% representation.

Section 2 of the VRA says voting practices must be “equally open” and can’t give racial minorities “less opportunity” to “elect representatives of their choice.” The precedent for vote dilution is Gingles (1986), which set up a multipart test. The minority group must be “sufficiently large and compact” and “politically cohesive.” The “totality of circumstances” must suggest the political process isn’t equally open.

The trick is that Section 2 also explicitly says it creates no right for any group to have its members “elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.” Other High Court rulings have called racial gerrymandering “odious,” applying strict scrutiny if it’s a “predominant” factor for mapmakers. Alabama said its critics could draw two black-majority districts “only by starting with a ‘nonnegotiable’ racial target and backfilling with other redistricting criteria.” Sure sounds “predominant.”