Sioux Tribe Imposes Language Criterion For Priority Vaccinations

There is a controversy developing in North and South Dakota where The Standing Rock Sioux tribe is prioritizing speakers of its native languages for its COVID-19 vaccine distribution. The tribe insists that it wants to protect those who can preserve its language.  However, that is the imposition of a language criterion over those categories set out by the CDC for health workers, the elderly and most at risk individuals. The clear import is that prioritized individuals under the CDC guidelines could become infected and die because of the desire to protect those viewed as greater “assets” to the tribe.

Standing Rock Sioux Reservation Tribal Chairman Mike Faith was open about the tribe’s priority given those with the language capability: “It’s something we have to pass on to our loved ones, our history, our culture our language. We don’t have it in black and white, we tell stories. That’s why it’s so important.”  Tribal Health Director Margaret Gates added that Standing Rock’s native speakers are the “most important asset to our tribe and people because of the language.”

The numbers involved in this controversy are small. Only 300 people living on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation are fluent in the native Dakota and Lakota languages.

However, the tribe is using the vaccine supplied by the federal government for free to protect those citizens deemed more valuable “assets.” The question is whether it is appropriate or even legal for states or tribes to use a language criteria to prioritize certain citizens over others.

Federal and state laws do apply on Indian reservations despite their status as self-regulating states. In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court rejected the claim of exemption of tribes from the federal criminal prohibition on the sue of peyote from the general application of its criminal laws. In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988), the Court refused to bar the federal construction of a road through a site in a national forest that was sacred to Native Americans.

Conversely, in Morton v. Mancari (1974), the Court upheld hiring preferences given to Indians within the Bureau of Indian Affairs as allowed under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. There is also Talton v. Mayes (1896) where the Court declined to apply individual rights protections to a tribal proceeding.

Putting aside the application of such individual rights to tribal decisions, there remains the unassailable right of the federal government to dictate the distribution criteria for tribes.  Fortunately for the tribe, the “recommendations” on priority do not appear to be hard and fast rules. On Dec. 1, 2020, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that health care personnel and long-term care facility residents be offered COVID-19 vaccination first (Phase 1a).

The federal government should be clear on issues of prioritizing “high value” citizens. Imagine if a state like New York made such a decision based on the cultural contribution of certain races or groups. The high risk members of the tribe expected reasonably that they would be afforded the same status of others receiving the federally approved vaccine.

That is why this could present an interesting lawsuit for an injunction. That seems unlikely at this point but it could bring greater clarity to some of these constitutional and quasi-contractual issues.

194 thoughts on “Sioux Tribe Imposes Language Criterion For Priority Vaccinations”

  1. The tribe insists that it wants to protect those who can preserve its language.

    The vaccine is literally worthless except for those very few high risk individuals. It confers immunity for 4-6 months tops. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2 is mutating, something expected from RNA viruses, and the most recent known variant is being characterized as driven to evade evolutionary pressures and remain fit. All this is to say that the virus of today will be vastly different in short order precisely as a result of the vaccine. Better to have a healthy immune system and co-exist with our environment.

    Emergence of a Highly Fit SARS-CoV-2 Variant

    Plante et al. have provided evidence of the genetic and molecular basis for enhanced fitness of the G614 variant over ancestral strains, providing strong support for its role in facilitating global spread. Unlike variants in the SARS-CoV 2003 epidemic strain, those in SARS-CoV-2 may point to new mechanisms that are associated with pandemic spread in human populations. In addition to showing the critical importance of blending genetic epidemiologic studies with empirical molecular virologic studies to understand pandemic virus evolution and spread, the findings raise critical questions regarding the future evolutionary trajectories of the SARS-CoV-2 G614 variant. These questions are especially important at a time when environmental pressures, such as expanding herd immunity, vaccine-induced immunity, antiviral therapies, and public health intervention strategies, may — through selective pressure — promote virus survival and escape.

    1. RNA viruses do mutate – frequently. Most of those mutations prove impotent and fail. Successful mutations are quite uncommon.

      There were 3 significant succesful mutations early on. For almost 9 months there were no significant successful further mutations. More recently there have been two. One of which is about 0,4 more contagerous – that is more than enough to make masks and social distancing ineffective – if they ever were effective. And that is why the concern. That mutation does not circumvent the immunity of the vaccine of prior infection.

      The duration of immunity is still speculative. We know that people who have had corona virus colds within the past 2 years appear to be immune to C19. We know that people who have received the MMR vaccine appear to have some immunity to C19 that lasts for atleast 35 years after the MMR vaccine and then fades slowly after that. This appears to be one of many reasons that C19 is worse for those over 60 – as they were not vaccinated against Mumps.

      We know that antibodies to C19 disappear in a few months. But we do not know how long TCell immunity lasts.

      We also know that those who previously contracted SARS or MERS are immune to C19 – and those were many years ago.

      One of the problems is that Immunity is unlikely to be absolute.

      As an example having received the MMR vaccine appears to reduce the odds of getting C19 by 77% – which is better than most flu vaccines. Further if you get C19 anyway it appears to radically reduce the severity.

      It is likely the mRNA vaccine is similar. That its effect is not perfect and that it diminishes slowly over time. And that even if it does not afford absolute protection it increases the level of exposure needed to contract the disease and reduces the severity of the disease you get.

      1. RNA viruses do mutate – frequently. Most of those mutations prove impotent and fail. Successful mutations are quite uncommon.

        The reason we get a flu shot every year is because the virus that causes the flu, Orthomyxoviridae, undergoes what I mentioned in the above NEJM article, evolutionary pressures, namely antigenic drift. Antigenic drift is one of the most common mutations that occur in the flu virus, with the other being antigenic shift. The antigenic drift causes mutations on the virus’ epitopes which allows it to evade immune system detection.

        How the Flu Virus Can Change: “Drift” and “Shift”

        RNA mutations are a big deal in infectious diseases like influenza, HIV and apparently now SARS-CoV-2. With the COVID-19 virus already undergoing evolutionary pressures that stimulate variants, the observations of evolutionary fitness as articulated by the above NEJM article are wise.

        Perhaps you are referring to a body of scientific work of which I am not familiar, which is quite possible. If you provide citations, we can continue the conversation

        Single-Cell Virus Sequencing of Influenza Infections That Trigger Innate Immunity

        It is unclear why only some infected cells trigger innate immune responses. Two possible contributors are pure stochasticity and preexisting variation in cellular state. For instance, only some cells induce IFN even upon treatment with synthetic innate immune ligands (20–22), and the frequency of IFN induction may depend on a cell’s preexisting chromatin state (23). But for influenza virus, a third possible contributor also looms large: viral genetic diversity. The virus has evolved mechanisms to avoid IFN induction, including expressing proteins that interfere with innate immune induction (24–28) and sequestering immunogenic viral RNA (29). However, because influenza virus has a high mutation rate (30–34), individual virions often have genetic defects that could impair these immune evasion strategies. Indeed, many studies have identified mutations that increase IFN induction when engineered into a viral population (11, 35–37), and viral stocks that are rich in internal deletions in the polymerase genes induce more IFN (16, 38–42).

        1. I have no idea why you think any of what you provided is at odds with anything I asserted.

          I am not interested in the specific mechanism’s you claim – it is not especially relevant what causes mutation.

          And “Evolutionary pressure” is a shell game – mutations occur – “evolutionary pressure” merely the name we give to the mechanisms that separate successful mutations from unsuccessful ones.

          Mutations – especially of viruses are incredibly common. If you have the flu – there are likely many mutated flue viruses in your own body while you go through the flu. 99.9999% of the time those mutations FAIL.

          In nature successful mutations are both rare, and in diseases are far more likely to be benign that malignant.

          A virus that kills its host too quickly is a failure not a success. Evolution rewards mutations that improve the long term survival of the mutated thing. The most successful viruses are those that can infect billions of people – that requires not killing most of them.

          That is how evolution works.

          You cut and pastes are interesting – but they do not refute or contradict anything I have said.

    1. Liberty, why? They are a sovereign nation. They can choose how they distribute the vaccine however they see fit.

      1. Oddly I agree with you.

        If the Sioux wish to screw their own people – that is their business.

        I think what they are doing is stupid. But we jeer at stupidity, in other nations we do not go to war over it.

      2. svelaz makes a good observation. yes. a sovereign nation inside the US which has to comply with some federal laws but not others

        perhaps, a template for future peaceful separation of other communities, inside the US itself. perhaps one day the states of flyover will regain a measure of sovereignty too, a stronger measure than they have now as becoming ever more “mere appendages” of the US

        Saloth Sar

    1. Trump urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn his defeat in an extraordinary one-hour phone call.

      “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.”

        1. No. 3 House Republican Liz Cheney:

          “By objecting to electoral slates, members are unavoidably asserting that Congress has the authority to overturn elections and overrule state and federal courts. Such objections set an exceptionally dangerous precedent.”

          I wonder if the GOP is going to end up splitting into two parties — a Trump party and a party of more sane Republicans.

          1. Your actually citing Liz Chenney ?

            Regardless, objections are a process that is part of the constitution an the law.
            This is not the first time they have occured. Though it may well be the largest.
            Sen. Feinstein objected in 2004.
            Several house democrats objected in 2016.

            AND BTW congress does have the authority to do this. Both in this specific instance and more generally.
            Congress can override the courts on any decisions that are rooted in facts or statute rather than the constitution.
            That is pretty normal.

            As an example SCOTUS determined that Trump had the authority to build the wall using emergency funds.
            Congress has the authority to restrict the use of emergency funds. But they must pass a law to do so.

            I would further note that you can only overturn a lawful election – we did not have one.

          2. I would note that the republican request is a 10 day emergency audit of the election in the 6 lawless states by an independent body.

            That should be fairly easy to agree to.

            But democrats are not going to.

            1. The aren’t lawless states.

              If you think they’re lawless states, you should also be demanding that their congressional delegations (with the exception of Senators who weren’t up for election) not be seated until it’s resolved. I don’t see you doing that.

              1. “The aren’t lawless states.”

                Because you say so ?

                “If you think they’re lawless states, you should also be demanding that their congressional delegations (with the exception of Senators who weren’t up for election) not be seated until it’s resolved. I don’t see you doing that.”

                I have no problem with that either.

                Though I would note that most of these states have provisions to deal with problems in the election of senators and representatives.

                If the election of a senator or representative is found to have been effected by Fraud – they can be recalled later.

                That is not true of the president. Once Biden is sworn in he must be impeached to be removed – even if it later becomes absolutely clear he did not win the election.

                The constitution has very specific and limited means to deal with presidential election problems.

                Despite the fact that these elections were certified by the executive – the constitution provides that the election of the president and the appointment of electors is the duty of the legislature.

                Properly Pence and the house and Senate are required to confirm votes of the electors appointed by the legislature not the governor.

                The requirement to assess fraud rests with the state legislatures – not the executive – that is BTW quite reasonable as the Legislature sets the rules, but the executive conducts the election.

                It is therefore improper for the executive to determine if they followed the rules. It is the legislatures duty to determine if the rules were followed. Both by logic and the constitution.

                This is why SCOTUS was required to hear the TX lawsuit – the constitutional remedy for a lawless presidential election is for that states legislature to determine the remedy. The executive can not police itself, that violates out constitutional system of checks and balances.

                As that did not occur the next constitutional check is confirmation of the electors vote by the house and senate.
                They are free to accept whichever electors they please. The constitution and the law provide for challenges, but it lease it entirely up to the house and senate to decide what to do. They have essentially 3 choices – accept the Governors electors, Accept the legislators electors, or do not accept the electors. Which kick the election to the congress voting by state.

                This process has only been rarely used. But it is what the constitution provides. It is not a particularly appealing process.
                But it is the only constitutional one.

                You note that the representatives from these states should not be seated – SO ?
                If you wish to challenge those congressmen – do so.

                I have no problem with that – we can correct problems with representatives far easier than with the president.

                We can look into the fraud in specific congressional districts far quicker than accross the states.

                It is highly unlikely that whatever fraud occured in these states that it was sufficient to effect the election of any representatives.
                Representatives are elected by far smaller numbers of people and most won their seats by margins well outside of anything that could have been effected by Fraud.

                While the presidentical and several Senate elections in these states are under 1% often under 0.2%.

                GA is having a runoff – because for every elected office EXCEPT president GA requires a margin of victory that would require 10 times as much fraud as would be required to flip a presidential election.

                Regardless, if you do not wish to seat senators and representatives until the audit is complete – by all means don’t.

              2. Are left wing nuts completely clueless ?

                While your argument is deeply flawed – the impact on house seats is much smaller – unless you do not think that the democrat reps won Atlanta, Philadelphia, detriot, Millwaukee, Las Vegas, or Pheonix ?

                Regardless – if you do not wish to seat these congressmen and senators until the audit is complete – that is fine with me.

                Nor do I have any problem with your looking for Fraud or errors that favor Biden.

                In fact I expect any examination of the election to be thorough and look for all evidence of Fraud.

                But the biggest issues are fundimentally not resolveable except by tossing the entire election.

                If invalid ballots were accepted – that can not be corrected given that democrats running these elections completely circumvented the objection process. Normally when there is an objection, a ballot is set aside. When the objection is resolved it is counted.
                The Ballot is not even opened until the objection is resolved.

                The observer objections process was completely thwarted in these cities for mailin ballots.
                There is no longer any means to remove the illegitimate ballots from the election – we can not know who those ballots were cast for.

                The one area where there is a possibility to get redress is the negative Trump votes in GA. If those can not be explained they must be removed and Trump would win GA. Who knows there might be a reasonable explanation but so far none has been provided, and my understanding is these are computer generated adjustments – which is even more disturbing.

                Regardless, all this could have been avoided had democrats followed the law in these states.

                BTW there are credible large allegations of voter fraud even in CA. But it is highly unlikely that Biden received 5M fraudulent votes in CA.

        2. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA):
          “@realDonaldTrump’s call to the Ga. SOS was far from “perfect.” In fact, it is a violation of state and federal law. Tomorrow, I will introduce a resolution of Censure. Trump should resign NOW!”

            1. Your comment describes your own comment rather than Johnson’s.

              Have you listened to the call?

      1. I am aware of atleast a dozen claims of voting error or fraud regarding the GA election that have NOT been investigated beyond testimony to the GA legislature – each of which are more than large enough to flip the GA election.

        The negative Trump vote issue is particularly a problem as absent an explanation for the negative votes, all negative votes must be removed and that will flip the election.

        If a county or precinct reports a vote and later makes a downward adjustment to that count, that adjustment must have an explanation.

        I would further note that it appears these adjustments were NOT made by humans – but by the computer systems – and that is even more troubling. That ties directly into Sydney Powell’s claims.

        Again – we know the facts – absent the negative vote adjustments which were almost entirely reductions in Trump’s vote totals, Trump won GA. We know that there are very few reasons for reducing a prior vote count. We know that in every individual instance those reductions MUST be explained by humans – that has not occured.

        1. “I am aware of atleast a dozen claims of voting error or fraud regarding the GA election that have NOT been investigated beyond testimony to the GA legislature ”

          List them, with links to the evidence. For all we know, you’re talking about rumors, just like Trump admitted to talking about.

          1. If you can not name atleast 6 allegations of fraud or lawlessness in each of these swing states – then you are completely clueless.

            In GA

            2,506 felons voted in Georgia, which is against Georgia law.
            66,248 underaged people were registered to vote in the state, again, against the law.
            2,423 unregistered people voted, and you guessed it, against the law.
            10,315 dead people voted
            1,043 PO boxes listed as addresses.
            4926 voters registered late.
            395 ballots were from out of state.
            15700 files a National Change of address out of GA.
            40,279 GA voters had moved out of state before the election.

            There are 100+ affadvits alleging one form of fraud or another in GA. alone.

            Mailin voting is unconstitutional according to the GA Constitution.
            Voter ID is required according to GA law.

            The GA vote reporting data stream that resulted in the official tally contains over 20,000 negative Trump votes.
            There has been no explanation of that. This is particularly damning as it is pretty easy to verify with an ACTUAL had recount – not the reprocessing of ballot images that was the GA recount.

            GA law requires observers for the entire election administration process – the observers and press were told counting was stoping and they were sent away – and then counting was restarted without observers.
            This occured in EVERY swing state at nearly the same time.

            In Fulton county in one batch of 132,000 mailin ballots 105,000 went to adjudication where they could be altered without any audit trail or any means of verification short of an actual hand recount of paper ballots – which did not occur

            There are multiple affadvits asserting that election workers scanned the same ballots multiple times.
            Again there are muiltiple affavits alleging this in EVERY swing state.

            There is GA video that appears to show an election worker scanning the same ballots atleast 6 times.

            There are allegations and video of ballots being brought in card board boxes – rather than the sealed ballot boxes.

            There are affadavits that pristine ballots without the folds that would be required of a mailin ballot were counted long after polls closed in Fulton county.

            There are atleast three different statistical analysis of GA voting patterns that indicate a very high probability of Fraud.

            One done by a nationally reputable data scientist at DOJ.
            On done by a data scientist who is an independent contractor for the NSA.

            I can go on and on.

            1. I didn’t ask for you to simply identify allegations.

              Any crazy person can make allegations.

              You said “claims of voting error or fraud regarding the GA election that have NOT been investigated beyond testimony to the GA legislature

              You need to prove with evidence that they haven’t been investigated.

              1. “I didn’t ask for you to simply identify allegations.”
                Actually you did.

                “Any crazy person can make allegations.”
                Sane people can make allegations to. There was nothing more than allegations that triggered Crossfire Huricane,
                There was nothing more than allegations that resulted in a Special counsels investigation.

                That said these are MORE than mere allegations – unlike XFH and the Mueller SC – these already have credible evidence.
                An affadavit by an eyewitness is credible evidence. There are multiple affadavits of direct observations of counting the same ballots multiple times.

                The illegitimate voters that I alleged are all identified BY NAME – they can be individually verified – relatively easily.

                “You said “claims of voting error or fraud regarding the GA election that have NOT been investigated beyond testimony to the GA legislature””

                “You need to prove with evidence that they haven’t been investigated.”

                No I do not. The courts never got to hearings on the evidence.
                There is an actual case on the merits in the GA courts.

                GA law precludes that case from being dismissed on any of the stupid grounds that have been used so far.

                A Judge will have to be appointed – as the allegations are primarily with respect to Fulton county – a Fulton county Judge can not by GA law be assigned.

                That judge will be required by law to hear the actual evidence. To allow supeona’s and discovery.

                Ultimately there will be a real investigation of the merits of these claims in GA.

                This case was filed on Dec. 4. Thus far no judge has been appointed. It is near certain that one will not be appointed until long after the inauguration. But ultimately the evidence atleast in GA will actually be brought to light.

                GA law requires that any finding of fraud will require the election to be redone – GA law offers no other remedy.

                That is unlikely to happen as that would violate the US constitution.

                  1. I do not care what YOU demanded.

                    I provided you with a list of actual credible claims.
                    A long list – though a small portion of the total evidence.

                    BTW affadavits ARE evidence. And you can look them up yourself.

                    Are you actually claiming these affadavits do not exist ?

                    There attached to many of the court filings that you claim resulted in decsions on the merits rather than standing or latches.

                    Even Google can not actually hide them.

                    1. No wonder you make false claims about what I said.

                      IDGAF about a list that doesn’t include evidence.

                    2. I guess you can not read – I beleive there are 34 attachments. Scribid did not include those.

                      That does not change the fact that they exist. They are described in the brief – if you would read it.

                    3. If you are going to claim that affadavits that clear exist do not – the burden of proof actually is on you.

                      Numerous attachments are identified and described in this filing.

                      If those actually do not exist – or they do not confirm what is claimed about then in the filing then the lawyer filing the claim and likely the party he is filing for have committed a sworn falsification.

                      Though there are left wing nut efforts to disbar attorney’s merely for taking cases they do not wish heard. There is so far no effort to investigate, prosecute or disbar anyone for misrepresentations to the court.

                      Like it or not the affadavits exist. Every peice of evidence in the pleading I attached exists.

                    4. Closing your eyes and holding your hands over your ears and shouting I can not see evidence, I can not hear evidence does not make it cease to exist.

                      Further this would be far less of an issue if the elections had been conducted according to the law.

                    5. Anonymous, John Say’s “list” is a list of claims WITHOUT EVIDENCE, or, as they say on the street, BS. That is something John excels at – producing BS – and no one but he and his mother reads it all.He has actually voiced his conviction that writing is not necessarily communication and then tries to prove it here.

                    6. The description in the brief isn’t the actual evidence.

                      Link to the affidavits themselves.

                    7. “The description in the brief isn’t the actual evidence.”

                      Correct – it is proof that the evidence exists.

                      No one has ever seen a higgs bosun – but we have plenty of evidence that it exists.

                      You can argue that the evidence is poor, or that it is not sufficient to alter the outcome.

                      But you keep arguing that it does not exist.
                      That is just false – and you are hopefully not so stupid as to not grasp that.

                      If you continue to claim that evidence does not exist – there is no choice but to conclude that you are once again lying.

                    8. “you keep arguing that it does not exist.”

                      I’ve never once argued that. Why do you lie so much?

                      “If you continue to claim that evidence does not exist …”

                      I’ve never claimed that.

                      All I’ve said is that you need to link to the affidavits themselves, so we can read what they say. Are you ever going to do it, or are you only going to rant and rave about things you imagine I said?

                    9. As you appear to have backed yourself into a half way reasonable position I am going to ignore the long tedious path it took to get here, and ignore your false accusations.

                      Unless you are going to regress back to I can not see or hear anything.

                      We are agreed that there was fraud in this election.

                      That conclusion REQUIRES examining the evidence.

                      Not you demanding that others provide you with proof of something you already claim to accept.

                      There was fraud – we are then OBLIGATED to find and prosecute it and to agressively scrutinize the election process.

                      That is precisely what the courts have been thwarting.

                      It is not my burden to prove to you something you already beleive.

                      If we have a credible allegation of rape – as well as less clear allegations that there is a serial rapist – do we avoid – not only investigating the possibility of the serial rapist – but even the credible rape allegation.

                      I think there was more than likely enough fraud to alter the outcome of this election.
                      You appear to disagree – though you seem to be demanding that everyone else get you from there was a rape to there is a serial rapist.

                      That is OK. Presumably you accept that election fraud is serious.

                      This election turned on 40K votes. 2016 turned on 77K votes. Myriads of house seats have turned on 100 votes, a few races have turned on 12 votes.

                      Franken’s Senate seat in 2008 turned on 3500 votes.

                      the 2000 presidential election turned on a few hundred votes.

                      It is highly unlikely that close elections are ending anytime soon.

                      Do you think it would be wise to clean up our elections such that this kind of conflict and doubt is put aside ?

                      I have zero doubt that there ware 20 times more fraudulent votes in 2000 than determined the outcome of the election.

                      The examination of election procedures that Trump has provoked is damning.

                      In state after state our election officials are doing a very crappy job – and they know it.
                      And they are lying about it.

                      We KNOW how to conduct trustworthy elections. We have centuries of experience.

                      There is a reason that 28 states required secret ballots in the late 19th and early 20th centuries – because of the rampant fraud that arises without them.

                      Did massive fraud occur because of mailin voting in 2020 – I do not think there is any doubt of that. And I am not talking about fraud by election officials – that is a separate issue.

                      But even if you disagree – there should be zero doubt – if we did not get it in 2020 and we continue the nonsense of mailin voting – we will get it on very large scale soon enough.

                      If fraud is possible and getting caught impossible it will occur.

                    10. “We are agreed that there was fraud in this election. That conclusion REQUIRES examining the evidence. Not you demanding that others provide you with proof of something you already claim to accept.”

                      And once again, you lie about what I said. I have not claimed to accept YOUR assertions of fraud. I simply pointed out that you were lying when you said “you keep arguing that it does not exist.”

                      Here’s an example of election fraud that I accept:
                      I accept that because there’s sufficient evidence for it.

                      Just because I accept that doesn’t imply that I accept everything YOU asserted as fraud. You have to prove YOUR assertions to me with evidence before I’ll accept them. You still haven’t done that. Until you do that, I don’t commit either way. Who knows whether convincing evidence exists? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. What I know is that you’ve yet to present a link to the affidavits so we can see if they’re convincing.

                      What a waste of time you are.

                    11. “And once again, you lie about what I said. ”
                      That is not possible. You are posting as anoymous – as are several others.

                      I am making this post as anonymous to make a point.

                      It is radically different from yours – but there is no means to distingush it.

                      Anonymous could be schizophrenic saying one thing one moment and the opposite the next.

                      Anyone you can go back through the commends and find that SOMEONE posting as anonymous wrote what I said they did.

                      “I have not claimed to accept YOUR assertions of fraud.”
                      Not relevant. And potential Fraud must be investigated.

                      “I simply pointed out that you were lying when you said “you keep arguing that it does not exist.””
                      Nope there is no meaningful distinction between – “fraud does not exist” – and there was some unspecified fraud that I refuse to allow to be investigated and refuse to identify.

                      Either you are prepared to identify claims of fraud that you belive are likely true – or you are ineffect claiming fraud does not exist.

                      “Here’s an example of election fraud that I accept:
                      I accept that because there’s sufficient evidence for it.”

                      Good – but sufficient evidence for your example exists because it was investigated. There are more than 20,000 dead people registered to vote in PA. If we substract the total probable illegitimately registed voters from the PA voter registration rolls – there are less total people left than actually voted – that is if we presume that the State of PA actually knows how many people voted (which it does not)
                      So we KNOW that far far more than 1 illegitimate voter voted.
                      Further this is not difficult to investigate – and in the long run it will be investigated because PA will not be able to hide the records of who actually voted forever.


                    12. I would further note that even the case you cite – actually can not have evidence that meets the standard of proof that you claim.

                      The article claims that Mr. Bartman requested absentee ballots for several dead relatives and then used them to vote for Donald Trump and that those votes counted.

                      As out voting system exists that is not possible to know.

                      You may be able to prove that Bartman requested ballots for dead relatives.
                      You may be able to prove that ballots were cast by those dead relatives.

                      but you can not prove who those votes were cast for.

                      If right now we identified 200,000 invalid ballots cast in PA – there is not a single one that we could prove to the degree of certainty you demand was cast for any specific person.

                      Further you can not even prove that Mr. Bartman mailed ballots for dead relatives without investigations which you refuse to do.

                      I am not challenging Mr. Bartmans prosecution. But I am pointing out that the high standard of proof you demand – does not actually exist in Bartman’s case. And the standard of proof that does exist in the Bartman case – exists in tens of thousands of other cases – if you would bother to allow investigations.

                      You can not convert allegations of fraud into proof of fraud without investigating.

                      I do not care who ends up caught as a result of a REAL investigation.

                      I would further note that though false impersonation fraud occurs 100 times more frequently with mailin elections – that it even occurs in inperson elections.

                      The primary – though imperfect means that we catch false impersonation is through voter ID – verifying signatures, addresses, DOB, Drivers license numbers. Something that you refused to do and that democrats as a whole have argued is purportedly racist.

              1. I would note – it is likely that those on the left are right about SOME of these claims.

                Under serious scrutiny SOME will prove to have insufficient effect to change the election.

                That does not change the fact they are fraud and that we can only guess at the effect without investigating.

                And contra the left the duty to conduct lawful elections and to demonstrate that an election was lawful and fraud free rests with the government – not those challenging the election.

                Again contra the left – Government is NOT required to persuade 100% of people that the election was fraud free.
                It is however required to persuade about 88% of people – much more than a simple majority.

                The lower trust in government is the greater the actual amount of force is necescary to sustain government/

                We call police law enforcement – but the fact is the law is enforced by the fact that nearly everyone accepts the law and obeys by choice – we do not have sufficient law enforcement to deal with 11% of people absolutely refusing to obey even a single law.

                A law that does not have super majority support weakens government. It is too burdensome to impose.
                A government that does not have the trust of the people is simmilarly burdened and unsustainable.

          2. None of what I listed is rumor.

            The lists of allegedly illegitimate voters are available online and the list is actually growing – even though democrats have been able to verify that some of the names are errors. That is fine – that is what proper checking is for.

            Affadavits are evidence – not rumours.

            Affadavits of observed misconduct are direct evidence – not hearsay, not rumours.

            The GA system that reported vote counts – including the negative counts, part of the GA official vote tally and was publicly streamed over the course of the election – it is the source that the news used to report results and it is the source the GA sec state used to certify the election. Put simply the negative counts are part of the official count. They most be explained. Worse still – and supporting Sydney powell is that most of the negative counts for Trump coincided with identical positive adjustments for Biden. Further these were not adjustments made by humans, these were made by the counting systems themselves.

    2. Citizens in GA are demanding a grand Jury – to look into GA election fraud.

      Trump like nearly half the country beleives – with alot of evidence, that the election in GA and other states was rife with fraud.

      His efforts to persuade others, to agree or to look into that are not illegal or antidemocratic.

      They are the way our system is supposed to work.

      Citizens are allowed to challenge government, and government is required to prove its legitimacy – not the other way arround.

      I do not know if the “negative votes” issue in GA that was recently noted by data scientists – and is readily available to anyone as this data is public are determinative. But it is very concerning. There are potentially legitimate reasons that the data stream of vote counts might include negative votes – but the numbers should be very very small and atleast in GA they are NOT.

      PA also has a several hundred thousand vote discrepancy between the number of votes cast and the number of votes in the presidential election. This too MIGHT have a reasonable explanation – final tallies have not yet been provided by Several large democratic strongholds in PA – such as Philadelphia and Allegheny counties. These could result in changes to the number of votes cast – but the error should not be several hundred thousand between preliminary numbers and final numbers – that alone raises serious questions.

      There is also the huge question of why is it that 95% of PA counties reported all votes by midnight on election day – and there are STILL a few large counties that have not done so ?

      Why not ?

      Grow up. Citizens have a right to demand satisfactory answers to questions about how the election was conducted.

      a lawful election is not any election whose results you like.

      In every single state there are eyewitness accounts of election staff counting the same ballots over and over – there is video from GA that shows a pile of ballots being counted atleast 3 times.

      These claims need investigated. There is no means of knowing if the observers or video are mistaken. or if they are accurate – the scale of the problem – is this a couple of hundred votes or a couple of hundred thousand votes.

      We also know in both GA and PA that we have more total mailin votes counted than we have mailin ballots received.

      We also know that mailin ballots were sent out in very large numbers to people they should not have been.

      One black woman in Atlanta testified that she received more than half a dozen blank ballots in some permutation of her name, and that if she was unscrupulous she could have mailed in every one of them.

      This election FAILED the due process that is required for legitimacy.






        NFL Rule 15, Section 1



        Each team is permitted two challenges that will initiate Instant Replay reviews:

        The Head Coach can initiate a challenge by throwing a red flag onto the field of play before the next legal snap or kick.
        A team that commits a foul that prevents the next snap can no longer challenge the previous play. The non-fouling team can still challenge the previous play, and both teams can benefit from the review.
        The Head Coach may challenge on-field rulings listed in Section 3, except for those plays that only the Replay Official can challenge (Article 2).
        Each challenge requires an available team timeout. A team that is out of timeouts, or has used all its available challenges, may not attempt to initiate a challenge.

        A team that initiates a challenge when the team is not permitted to challenge will be charged a team timeout.


        1st Amendment

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        Article 3, Section 1

        The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

        Article 3, Section 2

        The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

    3. You mean another replay of Col. Vindman’s scamming around? Please yourself.

    4. They should impeach him again. A president can be impeached after they’re out of office, to prevent him from running for office again.

  2. The Sioux Nation is a nation state. E
    But it’s within the states and Sioux people are u.s. citizens. So have the Covid office with vaccines be on the outside edge and give the vacine to those who qualify under federal terms.

  3. It’s their country. Did you check to see if it’s one of the tribal areas that is a foreign nation? Or is it just a way to continue wiping out the original natives and their heritage. The problem as written seems more a case of turf war over who is first and second and last. Instead of getting the population vaccinated. Why do i detect the smell of another Poke ‘n’ Haunt Us power grab? Norwegians turn next?

  4. This is why the reservation system should be abolished and the reservations broken up and the land divided among the tribes. Reservations may have been appropriate in the 1880s but “native American” are full-fledged American citizens and should be treated as such. As for the vaccine, for one thing there’s no guarantee it’ll be effective and, for another, it’s to vaccinate against a virus from which well over 99% of those infected under the age of 60 recover with no problems and is only “deadly” to those in their final months and even weeks of life. By the way, I suspect most of the native speakers are in the highest priority for the vaccine anyway.

    1. No, the reservation system should not be abolished.

      You keep your promises and agreements even if they don’t quite meet your expectations.

      1. I do not have an informed position on reservations.

        But no you do not keep unsustainable or actually damaging promises.

        If you have made a promise that turns out to be unsustainable or stupid – there may be consequences – you may be subject to damages to those who were harmed by relying on your promises.

        But even courts only prefer that contracts are followed. Often that is not possible or not desireable and some other remedy must be found.

        1. John, you forget that there are people on the other end of those promises and treaties. Don’t the Indians get a say? They are people, not defective widgets to be moved out of the way.

          1. Indians do get a say. They even have a right to demand that promises be kept.

            That does not mean that they will, or that it is either a good idea or even moral to do so.

            If you demand and receive a promise from me to beat you to death with a metal rod if you smoke another cigarette – must I keep that promise ?

            There is compelling evidence that many of the promises we have made to american indians are harmful to them.

            Are we obligated to continue that harm because we agreed to ?

            That does not mean we can just walk away. But it does mean we do not have to perpetuate the mistakes of the past because we made a promise 150 years ago that has proven to be a bad idea.

            1. I don’t think we have an obligation to “improve” people’s lives according to our standards. See how that turned out with blacks.

              But we do have a moral and legal obligation to keep our promises and agreements. Show some self-respect and some respect for others. If they want your intervention they will ask for it.

              This is not a hard issue.

              By the way, any Indians who want to leave can leave the reservation and live and work wherever they want. Many do. A reservation is not a zoo. It is tribal property, like a big gated community, in some cases bigger than several states. The ‘gates’ are to keep us out; not to keep them in.

  5. Sanctuary cities. Renegade reservations. But still no sovereign counties. Maybe we should change that. It would be fun to see all these defiant communities suddenly surrounded by a sea of hostile red counties, operating under their own rules. Let’s just all balkanize everything, how about it!

  6. Prof. Turley I would disagree both with you and CDC, and the Sioux.

    We are already seeing problems distributing the vaccine.

    The objective is to get as many people as possible vaccinated as quickly as possible with the resources available.

    ANY guidelines, limitations, restrictions that result in reducing the speed with which people are vaccinated is arguably MURDER.

    We appear to have finally either consciously or otherwise come to accept that government policies have been useless in thwarting C19.
    And that we are only going to prevail through “herd immunity” – because that is what vaccinations accomplish.

    Every person we vaccinate slows the spread of C19, and slows the number of deaths.

    There is NOT a perfect prioritization model, and all prioritization models inherently SLOW the rate at which people get vaccintated.

    I would suggest that the CDC define 7 vaccination priority levels – I do not care if they do so arbitrarily.

    Doses are then provided to doctors and pharmacies.

    On Monday everyone in Priority A can be vaccinated – until the supply runs out.

    On Tuesday – if there is still vaccine left everyone in A & B can be vaccinated.

    On Wednesday – everyone in A & B & C

    and so forth.

    With each new batch of vaccine the cycle restarts,

    I do not care what the basis of the priorities is. The more important criteria is using every available dose as quickly as possible.

    If for whatever reason we are unable to use all available does on whatever we have artificially deemed is the highest priority group it is far more important to use ALL available doses than to stick to priorities.

    Just accept that the priorities are fundimentally stupid and arbitrary.

    It is trivial to argue that we should not be vaccinating healthcare workers or the elderly – but everyone that comes in contact with the elderly.

    The objective is to save as many lives as possible – not to use the vaccine as some means of virtue signalling.

    1. Uh huh.. and yet, you’re seeing many reject the vaccine, even front line health care workers. I will not be getting it. So what then, if many people just don’t want it?

      1. So don;t get it if you do not want. I am not twisting your arm. I strongly suspect that some people really should NOT get it. Possibly the ederly. The vaccine itself is not without any effects, and the effect vary – for many it is barely noticeable for others it is pretty bad.

        It is more important to vaccinate as many people as possible as fast as possible, than it is to fixate over priorities.

        We will ultimately have the debate over the last 25% of people.

        We can reduce the death rate dramatically very fast by vaccinating about 25% of the country.

        But if we are going to actually wipe C19 off the face of the earth we are going to have to vaccinate 80-90% of people and probably within the next two years.

        I would further note that if we vaccinate 50% of people – and do not see massive bad effects, and we do see significant reductions in deaths. Some of those like you who are reluctant will change their minds.

        We should not have the debate over vaccinating people by force unless we can not get enough people to chose to be vaccinated to obliterate the disease. And we do not need a 100% vaccination rate to accomplish that.

        Regardless the death rate will drop dramatically as the first 25% of people get vaccinated. After that we will have diminishing returns.

  7. So Professor Turley presents the cases both pro and con concerning the priority of treatment of individual groups. He should not be allowed to discuss the previous application of the law by the Turley haters. I suppose that eliminating hate for them is not so important after all. Sometimes it just gets too ugly here. The killer bees should fly back to their hive.

  8. If the governors of the various states can declare who is essential and who is non-essential, why can’t the leaders of the Sioux do the same?

  9. We have a resident in my assisted living home who moved down from New York City and cannot speak English. The doctor asked him what room he lived in and the yorkie said: “turdy turd and a turd”. The doctor thought he had a bad room and decided covid vaccine would be bad for this “foreigner”.

  10. Treating Native Americans as perpetual wards of the state was catastrophic for them.

    No more sovereign nations within the US. Everyone needs to be an equal citizen. Distribute reservation land to members of the tribe to own like any other SFR. Housing in reservations is dilapidated and run down. Each person doesn’t own his home, and can be asked to leave or move by a tribal council. That council also has the ability to take custody of native kids and block adoptions.

    Set aside special land as national parks. Divide the rest up.

    The goal needs to be getting Native Americans off the dole, not keep it going another hundred years. They are not thriving.

    Also, gambling g should be either legal, or illegal, for everyone. If it’s such a vice that white men are jailed for it, then it does not become a virtue if a Native American runs it.

    Equality has to mean something.

    Reservations great adults like perpetual children.

    And if we’re going to talk about keeping land with original owners, then the Sioux must return the Black Hills to the Cheyenne. Who would have to turn around and give it to descendants of the tribe they took it from.

  11. If Trump was on the Titanic he would have put on a dress and stolen a baby to get off the ship, and Turley would have said, well that would be ok, for Trump, but nobody else. But Turley questions tribe elders and their cultures ways? It’s just a defection from Turley on what the impeached President and his sycophant enablers are up too.

    1. How about a comment written with intellect, not hatred. More people would finish reading it.

      1. “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it” G. Orwell

  12. Professor are you Lakota? No? Standing Rock is a member of the Lakota nation, not state. Wasichu mind your own business.

    Wounded Knee II Veteran 1973

  13. Sue the Sioux. In the United States we have united tribes which are states within our states which have tribal lines which cross our state lines and these tribes govern without control by states or the federal government. One tribe does not fit all.
    Many Americans have some tribal genes in them from grand pa or grandma’s of the past but are not speaking the tribe language or wearing the headrests.
    The tail of tears is a story which gets mention.
    I’ve got some Ozark in me.

    Cherokee! Cherokee!
    Ain’t no tribe I’d rather be!
    Take me back to Tennessee!
    Back through Kankakee!

  14. Imagine that, Jonathan Turley, the great white father knows what’s best. I’m shocked…NOT.

    White society thinks health care workers are important. The Sioux think retaining their culture is important. But Jonathan and the U.S. Government knows what’s best and want to force them to do it “our” way. Because “our” way is best. BS.

    Stop it. Their priorities are their priorities, Who are you to say otherwise.

    This decision does not put anybody at risk. It potentially saves their culture.

  15. Just a different aspect of the ongoing discrimination going on in the US, disguised as rectifying “systemic racism” and other falsehoods.

  16. Turley writes:

    “…that is the imposition of a language criterion over those categories set out by the CDC for health workers, the elderly and most at risk individuals. The clear import is that prioritized individuals under the CDC guidelines could become infected and die because of the desire to protect those viewed as greater “assets” to the tribe….”

    Indeed, but more significantly – i.e. affecting many more people and demonstrating the CDC has no power and the politicians all – Fl Gov DeSantis went to a retirement community to announce he was going to ignore CDC guidelines and distribute vaccines to – take a guess – those over 65 before giving it to essential workers. The crowd went wild, or as wild as it gets in a retirement community.!

  17. How is that different than the Federal government giving priority to 30 year old congressional staffers.

    We are seeing an unseemly allocation of vaccines according to personal preferences, clout, and just plain connections.

    The vaccine process is exposing that the U.S. is an oligarchy and we have a “protected” class that is more equal than the rest.

    1. Bookies would not take a bet whether the rich and powerfully connected would get their shots first, they know better.

  18. NY State have done exactly that by first giving vaccine to health care/essential workers. The decision was based on their “value” to the community.

    1. There’s a practical reason to give priority to hands-on medical sector employees – to inhibit the spread in hospitals, clinics and nursing homes. The ‘essential workers’ shizz is an excuse to reduce the quantum of vaccine to ordinary whites, whom the professional-managerial element despise.

      1. AD – it is pretty trivial to justify almost any priority scheme.

        While I am not opposed to vaccinating healthcare workers you logic is not absolute

        One of the failures of C19 – that we did better 100 years ago with the Spanish flu – and even the Chinese did better today is the failure to bifurcate the healthcare system.

        For centuries it has been normal to establish separate fever clinics of hospitals to deal with epidemics.

        We do not want those with highly contageous diseases inside our normal hospitals.

        In NYC at the start of the pandemic Central park had tents, NY harbor had hospital ships and Javitts denter was setup to handle Covid patients.

        That followed a centuries old model of keeping the infectuous disease isolated from normal medical process.

        But despite allocating the resources to do so, we did not follow through and instead put C19 patients into the same hospitals as other patients – or worse still closing the hospitals to normal healthcare needs.

        My point is that spread via healthcare workers is quite easy to contain – we just failed to do that, even though we have centuries of experience.

        An additional point is that there are many arguable postions regarding priorities.

        I could easily argue that long haul truckers should be out top prioritiy as they travel long distances state to state and are a major factor spreading C19.

        While the claim that historically oppressed groups should be prioritized is stupid. It is true that the likelyhood of death appears to be higher for minorities. That a black man aged 55 is as likely to die of C19 as a white man of 65.

        If we are going to favor the elderly we should set our age priorities by race.

        We should also deprioritize those who have already had C19 or who test positive for antibodies.

        But the most important priotity of all is to vaccinate as many people as possible as fast as possible.

        a 10% vaccination rate could result in a 50% reduction int he spread of C19.

        The effect of vaccinations on herd immunity is an exponential curve with the initial 10% having far greater impact than the last 10%.

Comments are closed.