No, the Supreme Court didn’t just give half of Oklahoma to an Indian tribe. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:
The US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Jimcy McGirt was wrongfully convicted in an Oklahoma state court of three serious sexual offenses. McGirt argued that his trial should have taken place in federal court because he is a member of the Seminole Nation and the crimes in question took place on Indian tribal lands, which are not subject to state law in certain cases.
The court agreed with McGirt and it recognized these tribal lands as potentially constituting much of the eastern half of Oklahoma, including parts of Tulsa. The implications of the ruling are sizable, although not as sizable as the media is making them out to be.
The media is now filled with headlines like “Court Rules That about Half of Oklahoma Is Native American Land” and “Court Rules That Large Swath of Oklahoma Belongs to Indian Reservation.”
Headlines like these are likely to conjure up images of non-Indians being rounded up and kicked off reservation lands, homes expropriated, and worse.
But Thursday’s ruling doesn’t even come close to handing over control of private property in eastern Oklahoma to a tribal council. In fact, the court’s ruling explicitly states up front that the decision is narrowly applied to matters of jurisdiction in criminal law.
You can follow all the official guidelines for preventing yourself and your family from contracting Covid-19 or for treating it if you do, or you can do things that actually work. From Gary Heavin at ronpaulinstitute.org:
Friday July 10, 2020
I’ve been speaking with my friends who include medical doctors and other highly educated people about the treatments that they would seek if they were diagnosed with Covid 19. Most of them had no idea what course of treatment they or their families might seek. This conundrum is in part due to the massive volume of information that is being thrown at us. Much of this information is deliberately deceptive. I am writing this article to cut through the deception so that you and your physician can make informed decisions if and when the time comes.
This article has two purposes. First, it’s imperative that you understand the great deceit that Big Pharma, their minions at the FDA, CDC, NIH, the WHO, the MSM, and officials in high government positions are perpetrating on you, your family, and likely your doctor.
The second purpose is to assure that you are armed with the necessary information to insure that you receive the best treatment options from your health care provider. Knowledge is power.
Allow me to repeat, you need to know you are being duped and you need a plan for you and your family if you become infected with Covid 19. So let’s get to it. Let me begin by stating that I’m not a medical doctor and I m not offering medical advice. I do have a bachelors of science degree in health, nutrition, and counseling. I’ve written two NY Times bestselling books on women’s health and fitness and I have been awarded an honorary doctorate degree. However, you will need to determine your treatment options with your personal physician.
There is a double standard, or maybe a triple or quadruple standard, about which murders get reported. From Cassandra Fairbanks at thegatewaypundit.com:
A 24-year-old mother was killed by a Black Lives Matter mob in Indianapolis last week, allegedly for saying “All Lives Matter.”
Unlike Charlottesville, or any violence from the right, this killing was reported so quietly that barely anyone even noticed.
Jessica Doty Whitaker was shot and killed following an altercation with Black Lives Matter thugs who were upset that she and her fiance had said “All Lives Matter” last Sunday.
“According to the victim’s family, the shooting started with an argument over Black Lives Matter and language. Eventually the two sides separated and walked away from each other, until witnesses claim the killer opened fire from a nearby bridge and ran away,” Fox 59 reports.
“It was squashed and they went up the hill and left we thought, but they were sitting on St. Claire waiting for us to come under the bridge and that’s when she got shot,” the victim’s fiancé Jose Ramirez told the station.
Her grandfather posted on Facebook that “multiple black assailants” shot her in the head.
At what point do the costs of preventing or ameliorating a risk outweigh the benefits of doing so, and does it matter if someone else is bearing the costs? From Diana W. Thomas at aier.org:
When you walk out of your house, or enter the public street, you are on shared ground, a community space. During the pandemic of 2020, community spaces that are private venues, like Disney, have closed down just as often as community spaces that are public venues, like schools and playgrounds.
Public and private distinctions do not make a difference. Risk is the key factor to understanding why common spaces are closed and likely to remain so, at least in the way we were used to. In what is called the asymmetric loss function, a decision maker’s cost of a mistake in one direction is many times greater than the cost of error in the other direction.
Individuals with asymmetric loss functions are extremely risk averse when it comes to potential losses. Individuals often employ asymmetric loss functions in everyday life. For most people being 30 minutes early for a flight, for example, is much less costly than being 30 minutes late.
But, because people are different, individuals decide for themselves how late they can arrive and risk missing a flight. Things get trickier when decisions regarding risk tolerance are made for common spaces and groups, because one size doesn’t always fit all. Weighing downside risks too heavily can be socially costly, because some valuable private activities are prohibited.
Historically and across cultures, individual risk-taking is associated with growth and prosperity while minimizing risk and emphasizing potential social losses is not. In the last several decades, public tolerance of risk has shifted towards lower socially acceptable levels of risk-taking and in the long run, these changes may leave us all worse off.
US intelligence agencies didn’t buy the Bountygate story, but the New York Times did. From Gareth Porter at thegrayzone.com:
Another New York Times Russiagate bombshell turns out to be a dud, as dodgy stories spun out by Afghan intelligence and exploited by the Pentagon ultimately failed to convince US intelligence agencies.
The New York Times dropped another Russiagate bombshell on June 26 with a sensational front-page story headlined, “Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says.” A predictable media and political frenzy followed, reviving the anti-Russian hysteria that has excited the Beltway establishment for the past four years.
But a closer look at the reporting by the Times and other mainstream outlets vying to confirm its coverage reveals another scandal not unlike Russiagate itself: the core elements of the story appear to have been fabricated by Afghan government intelligence to derail a potential US troop withdrawal from the country. And they were leaked to the Times and other outlets by US national security state officials who shared an agenda with their Afghan allies.
In the days following the story’s publication, the maneuvers of the Afghan regime and US national security bureaucracy encountered an unexpected political obstacle: US intelligence agencies began offering a series of low confidence assessments in the Afghan government’s self-interested intelligence claims, judging them to be highly suspect at best, and altogether bogus at worst.
Whoever wins, the US empire will continue its deep decline, both domestically and internationally. From the Saker at unz.com:
Just by asking the question of whether the next Presidential election matters, I am obviously suggesting that it might not. To explain my reasons for this opinion, I need to reset the upcoming election in the context of the previous one. So let’s begin here.
The 2016 election of Donald Trump
The first thing which, I believe, ought to be self-evident to all by now is that there was no secret operation by any deep state, not even a Zionist controlled one, to put Donald Trump in power. I would even argue that the election of Donald Trump was the biggest slap in the face of US deep state and of the covert transnational ruling elites this deep state serves. Ever. My evidence? Simple, look what these ruling “elites” did both before and after Trump’s election: before, they ridiculed the very idea of “President Trump” as both utterly impossible and utterly evil.
As somebody who has had years of experience reading the Soviet press or, in another style, the French press, I can honestly say that I have never seen a more ridiculously outlandish hate campaign against anybody that would come even close to the kind of total hate campaign which Trump was subjected to. Then, as soon as he was elected, the US neo-liberals (who are not liberals at all!) declared that Trump was “not their President”, that Trump was put into power by Putin and that he was a “Russian asset” (using pseudo-professional jargon is what journos typically do to conceal their abject ignorance of a complex topic) and, finally, that he was a White racist and misogynist who will deeply divide the country (thereby dividing the country themselves by making such claims).
Posted in Collapse, Economy, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Government, History, Imperialism, Politics
Tagged 2020 election, Deep State, Joe Biden, President Trump