What the Supreme Court Got Right in Its Indian Tribe Ruling, by Ryan McMaken

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.

Continue reading

The Great Covid-19 Deception and What You Need to Know to Survive, by Gary Heavin

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:

undefined

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.

Continue reading

Why the Marxist Left Loves Lincoln, by Thomas DiLorenzo

It’s not just that Marxists would approve of many of Lincoln’s policies, but Lincoln had an actual affinity for the work of Karl Marx. From Thomas DiLorenzo at lewrockwell.com:

“No leader of a powerful nation” should allow such a thing as “the dismemberment of the Soviet Union.”

–Marxist “Civil War” historian Eric Foner, The Nation, Feb. 11, 1991

A July 27, 2019 article in the Washington Post by Gillian Brockell was headlined, “You Know Who Was into Karl Marx?  No, not AOC.  Abraham Lincoln.”  Following up on the New York Times’ 2017 weeks-long celebration of the centenary of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the Post was doing its part to celebrate and promote Marxian socialism by crowing that “the first Republican president . . . was surrounded by socialists and looked to them for counsel.”  The message being conveyed by the Post was that this is what all American presidents should do.  They should listen to and obey the Washington Post, in other words.

Much of Lincoln’s socialilstic “counsel” came from Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune, described by the Post as “the newspaper largely responsible for transmitting the ideals and ideas that formed the Republican Party in 1854,” many of which were “overtly socialist.”

It is little wonder that the ideas promulgated by the New York Tribune, the mouthpiece of the Republican Party, were overtly socialist:  Karl Marx himself was a twice-weekly columnist for the paper from 1852 to 1862, contributing over 500 articles.  An April 1957 article in American Heritage magazine entitled “When Marx Worked for Horace Greeley” spoke of how “the organ of . . . the new Republican party, sustained Karl Marx over the years when he was mapping out his crowning tract of overthrow, Das Kapital . . . The Tribune was not only Marx’s meal ticket but his experimental outlet for agitation and ideas during the most creative period of his life.”  Without this financial support, “there might possibly – who knows?—have been no Das Kapital” and maybe even no “Lenin and a Stalin as the master’s disciples . . .”   Much of what was written in The New York Tribune by Karl Marx “went bodily into Das Kapital.”

Continue reading→

Give Me Liberty Or….

Image

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2020/07/12/give-me-liberty-or-2/

Which “Experts” Should We Believe?

Image

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2020/07/12/which-experts-should-we-believe/

Young White Mother Killed By Black Lives Matter Mob for Allegedly Saying ‘All Lives Matter,’ National Media Fully Ignores, by Cassandra Fairbanks

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.

Continue reading→

Safety First is a Bad Ideology, by Diana W. Thomas

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:

bubble wrap

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.

Continue reading

How the Pentagon failed to sell Afghan government’s bunk ‘Bountygate’ story to US intelligence agencies, by Gareth Porter

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.

Continue reading→

An Open Letter Challenge To Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey On Censorship, by Jason Sullivan and Bill Binney

You have to wonder if Jack Dorsey will ever read this letter, but it has some worthwhile sentiments. From Jason Sullivan and Bill Binney at zerohedge.com:

Open Letter to Jack Dorsey…

The American People and Social Media

“We seek a free flow of information… we are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values.”

– John F. Kennedy, February 1962

Dear Mr. Dorsey,

At the September 5, 2018, U.S. Congressional Hearing in which you gave testimony under oath, you stated, in part:

Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions, whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules. We believe strongly in being impartial, and we strive to enforce our rules impartially. We do not shadowban anyone based on political ideology. From a simple business perspective and to serve the public conversation, Twitter is incentivized to keep all voices on the platform.”

What we now know, thanks to multiple media investigations, is that; not only is Twitter engaged in censorship, but that it also openly weights its decisions by subjective terminology like “highest potential for harm” meant to obscure its motive of silencing any opposition to the mainstream narrative of both political “sides.”

Continue reading→

Does the Next Presidential Election Even Matter? by the Saker

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).

Continue reading