RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.”