Monday, February 13, 2012

Random Shots - A Purple Squirrel, Drunk Indians, and More!

First Shot!

Drunk Indians!

OK folks, here you go! The dilemma of what comes first - the chicken or the egg?

In this case, it has to do with intoxicated Indians and the stuff that's making them that way! So which comes first?

Well, the Oglala Indian tribe has decided to sue some of the world's largest beer makers - claiming that the beer makers "knowingly" contribute to devastating alcohol-related problems on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

That's right! According to the Associated Press story, the Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota has said that it is demanding $500 Million in damages for the cost of health care, social services, and child rehabilitation caused by chronic alcoholism on the reservation - which just so happens encompasses some of the nation's most impoverished counties.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court of Nebraska, and also targets four beer stores in Whiteclay, a Nebraska town near the reservation's border. Whiteclay only has about a dozen residents, but the stores there have sold nearly 5 Million cans of beer in 2010.

Friends, 5 Million cans of beer is a lot of beer! And no, I'm not trying to play down the problems that alcohol brings with it, but that is a lot of beer to consume by only a relatively small number of folks.

I just can't help myself from asking who was forcing them to drink that much booze?! But wait, no one was forcing anyone to drink irresponsibly.  They did it on their own!

That little fact did not stop the Oglala tribal leaders and activists from blaming the Whiteclay businesses for what they are calling "chronic alcohol abuse and bootlegging on the Pine Ridge reservation." And by the way, legally alcohol is banned on the Pine River reservation.

The tribal leaders are saying that most of the stores' customers come from the reservation, which spans southwest South Dakota and dips into Nebraska.

Owners of the four beer stores in the town of Whiteclay were unavailable or declined comment when contacted by The Associated Press.

A spokeswoman for Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide said she was not yet aware of the lawsuit, and the other four companies being sued - SAB Miller, Molson Coors Brewing Company, MIllerCoors LLC and Pabst Brewing Company - did not immediately return messages to the AP.

The Oglala lawsuit alleges that the beer makers and stores sold to Pine Ridge residents knowing they would smuggle the alcohol into the reservation to drink or resell. The beer makers supplied the stores with "volumes of beer far in excess of an amount that could be sold in compliance with the laws of the state of Nebraska" and the tribe.

The Oglala reservation is the size of Connecticut and has struggled with alcoholism and poverty for generations, despite an alcohol ban that has been in place since 1832.  The Pine Ridge reservation did legalized alcohol in 1970 - but restored the ban only two months later. An attempt to allow it in 2004 died after a public outcry.

The lawsuit says one in four children born on the reservation suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The average life expectancy is estimated between 45 and 52 years, the shortest in North America, according to the lawsuit. The average American life expectancy is 77.5 years.

The lawsuit states that "The illegal sale and trade in alcohol in Whiteclay is open, notorious and well documented by news reports, legislative hearings, movies, public protests and law enforcement activities. All of the above have resulted in the publication of the facts of the illegal trade in alcohol and its devastating effects on the Oglala Lakota people, especially its children, both born and unborn."

Supposedly, Nebraska lawmakers have struggled for years to curb the problem and are considering legislation this year that would allow the state to limit the types of alcohol sold in areas like Whiteclay. The measure would require local authorities to ask the state to designate the area an "alcohol impact zone."

If that happens, then the Nebraska state liquor commission could then limit the hours alcohol sellers are open, ban the sale of certain products or impose other restrictions.

This is really a bad situation for the Indians there. They want to drink - that's obvious from the amount of beer they've consumed. Like I said, 5 Million cans of beer is a lot of beer!

But I don't know how you can get a way with banning the sale of alcohol to Indians while at the same time say it's OK to sell to other folks who may be White, Brown, or Pink from San Francisco. That in itself reaps of segregation and Jim Crow laws.

Besides, again it comes down to the chicken or the egg. What is the problem here, Indians who willingly drink too much or the availability of beer in general. Folks, I've known drunks in my lifetime who would easily drive 30 miles or more if it meant that they can find a bar that's open when others are closed.

I really think the tribe should take some responsibility for the actions of their folks out there and place more burden on them to knock off their drinking.

I'm sorry if I don't sound very sympathetic, I just think that we as a society can't keep blaming other things for our problems. We give too much power to things that simply exist and don't have any power.

It's as nonsensical as anti-Gun groups blaming guns for killings, yet I for one have never seen a gun just jump off a table - get into a car - drive for two hours - walk up to a person - be angry - get more angry - then shoot someone all by itself. There has to be a man or woman involved to make it happen.

It's the same as drinking, and trust me when I say that I used to drink a lot, yet I've never seen a can of beer follow a man home and force that man to drink.

Sorry, but to me, it just sounds like more of the blame game.

Second Shot!

Brian Dead Socialists!

You would think that the Occupy Protesters, since they are mostly University students, would learn something about those who created the Marxist-Leninist idea of Socialism and Communism.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was a Russian Marxist revolutionary and Communist politician who led what became known as the "October Revolution" on Russia in 1917. 

In 1893, at the age of 23, Lenin became a "Professional Revolutionary." Later, he became the leader of the Bolsheviks. He then helped create, and then headed the Soviet state during its initial years from 1917 to 1924.

He worked to create a Socialist Economic System that would later fail because it limited individual freedoms by enslaving generations of Russians to the Soviet Government.

As a politician, Lenin was a fiery speaker. As a leader and politician, he was ruthless in his methods to bring into effect the theory and philosophy of Marxism. This produced Marxism–Leninism, which was his application of Marxism

Lenin died 21 January 1924, suffering from a degenerative brain disorder known as neurosyphilis.

Neurosyphilis is an infection of the brain and the spinal cord. It usually affects people who have had untreated syphilis for many years - usually about 10 to 20 years.

So really, since he only started being active in the Communist revolution about 10 years before he died, it is possible that he may have been suffering from the brain damaging effects of syphilis long before he ever decided to trumpet the virtues of a Socialist State.

At the time of Lenin's death, his brain was less than a quarter of its normal size.

And yes, that just goes to prove that Lenin was pretty much Brain Dead while he was pushing Communism on the rest of the world - not unlike most Liberal Socialist today!

Third Shot!

The Purple Squirrel!

Folks in Pennsylvania have caught a purple squirrel!

Yes, that's right! A bright purple squirrel was trapped by a Pennsylvania couple. And now, well now the experts are offering all sorts of colorful theories - but no solid reason.

Percy and Connie Emert from Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, trapped the brightly colored critter while trying to keep the birds safe in their backyard feeder - reported

They told the weather service they had no explanation for its deep purple color saying, "We have no idea whatsoever. It's really purple. People think we dyed it, but honestly, we just found it and it was purple."

Experts who were questioned by Accuweather had several theories for the unusual look, but no hard answers. Indeed, Krish Pillai, a professor at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, told Accuweather he thought the coloring was dangerous for the animal.

"I’ve got to think one of the suggestions might be it fell in a Porta John that had blue coloration." said Henry Kacprzyk, the Pittsburgh Zoo curator.

"This is not good at all. That color looks very much like Tyrian purple. It is a natural organobromide compound seen in molluscs and rarely found in land animals. The squirrel (possibly) has too much bromide in its system," he said.

The port-a-potty theory seems to have its fans, but then who knows? 

For us around here, we have a lot of gray tree squirrels. In Livermore California, where I lived for a while, there were a mess of gray/brown ground squirrels. Over in Menlo Park California, I've seen a what someone told me were "Russian black squirrels." And yes, while traveling I've see red squirrels.

Of course, I've seen some really odd squirrels in San Francisco. In my opinion, the city is full of squirrelly folks!

Fourth Shot!

OK, I guess the mighty have spoken!

Obama's Chief of Staff said that there will be "No more compromise, contraceptive rule is done deal!"

So despite concerns from Catholic and other Christian leaders and lawmakers, according to the Obama administration they are done "negotiating" and will finalize its plan requiring religions to provide free contraception to women working and studying at religious institutions.

Jacob Lew told "Fox News Sunday" that the compromise offered last week to address objections by the Catholic Church is clear and consistent with the president's "very deep belief that a woman has a right to all forms of preventive health care, including contraception."

"We have set out our policy," Obama chief of staff Jacob Lew said matter-of-factly. "We are going to finalize it in the final rules, but I think what the president announced on Friday is a balanced approach that meets the concerns raised both in terms of access to health care and in terms of protecting religious liberties, and we think that's the right approach."

Late Friday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement declaring the new policy of "grave moral concern" and urged Congress to overturn the regulation.

"Today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religions institutions and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions," the bishops said in a lengthy statement.

The bishops noted that the change appears to make no consideration for religious insurers or self-insuring religious employers -- or for religious for-profit employers and secular nonprofit employers.

"In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services," the bishops said.

The conference also reiterated its original objection made to the Department of Health and Human Services last year when it began developing the rule.

"All the other mandated 'preventive services' prevent disease," the bishops wrote, "and pregnancy is not a disease."

But Jacob Lew does not agree! Instead he believes that the policy holds true to the "core principles of our country." He noted that the revision had earned support from liberal Catholics and lay groups.

Check out this statement that he made, and see if you find the same problem with it that I did. "The solution that we reached is consistent with those core principles. That's why it got the support of a range of groups from the Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities to Planned Parenthood," he said.

Planned Parenthood, the Pro-Abortion Group! What the hell do they have to do with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and our Religious Freedoms?  They believe in killing babies! They get 46% of their money from the American Taxpayer through appropriations voted on by Democrats in Congress! 

So what do they have to do with the discussion of Religious Rights of Americans? Nothing!

But no, that didn't stop Obama's chief of staff from going on to say that the Obama mandate isn't just about preventing babies. "There are many health conditions in women that are affected by whether or not contraceptive health is available," he said.

That's right! He really said that, but he didn't offer any example of what he's talking about. Besides, how does a Federal mandate for all religious organizations to provide birth control and abortion assistance not have anything to do with anything other than preventing or killing babies?

In defending the Obama mandate, Lew said, president Obama is authorized to implement the mandate under the Affordable Care Act passed by Democrats in Congress in 2009. Its also know as Obama Care!

Then to add insult to injury he threw in some good old fashion liberal idealism, saying that by shifting the mandated birth control and abortion coverage requirements to the insurance companies doesn't hurt a religion's bottom line.
In other words, the Obama White House doesn't have a clue as to what concerns the Catholic church on this issue.

Allow me to help them understand the situation. It's not about money! It is a moral issue!

It's about our religious doctrine that says that we Catholics don't believe in birth control or abortion - especially if abortion is used as a form of birth control.  And yes, let's not fool ourselves by saying that abortion is not a form of birth control. Most pro-Abortion groups hesitate to admit it, but abortion is the ultimate in birth control.

In a statement issued separately from the conference, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, said the uproar over the mandate has made clear that Americans believe in upholding the principle of religious liberty.

"Regardless of whether or not they agree with Church teaching on a particular issue, people believe strongly that the government should not force the Church and its institutions to do things it considers morally wrong. Hopefully, the ultimate resolution of this issue will reflect this longstanding American principle. No matter the outcome, we must continue to be vigilant against the encroachment of government on the free exercise of religion," he said.

All of this makes me wonder if Obama's lack of upbringing has had a profound impact on how he views America - and our basic liberties. Fact is that he was raised a Muslim, in a foreign country, and then when he came to Illinois - his formative years were completed by living with grandparents who were both Atheist and Communist sympathizers.

He is a product of his life, just as we all are. In my opinion, Obama's anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, pro-Socialist outlook on life is what is guiding his policy making. And yes, it has divided America like nothing has since the Civil War.

It's what happens when a person with no principles
meets a person with principles -
they want to know if you're keeping yours and why?!

Last Shot!

This is a sad story about an old Liberal women who is hired to interpret the laws of the United States.

That old Liberal women is Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And yes, now we find out that she does not think that our Constitution should be used as a model by those who may be struggling to establish democracies of their own.  

Why? Well, I gather that she thinks its out of date and not very specific as to what the government will do for its citizens. And no, I guess just granting freedom might not be that big a deal to the old gal.  

My friends, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court interpret the law. That's what they do. When we say "the Court," meaning the U.S. Supreme Court, we mean the Justices of the Supreme Court.

When we say "The Court" decides "sticking points" in law, or hand down a "final" decision on the matter, we mean "the Justices."

Supreme Court Justices hear a limited number of cases, and interpret the law relative to the United States Constitution. They also have Original Jurisdiction, as the nation's first court, over conflicts between the states.

They are also responsible for interpreting the Constitution and federal law, and monitoring how those rules are applied in the real world.

Their main functions are to interpret the Constitution and to examine challenged laws to ensure they comply with Constitutional mandates.

Obama mandating Catholics to provide birth control devices and abortion pills goes against their religious beliefs. Government oppression cannot be forced upon any religion because religions are protected by our Constitution.

If the whole of Obama Care goes before the Supreme Court, they cannot pick and chose what is Constitutional or not. No, instead they must look at the entire law and weight it as being against the Constitution or in accordance with the Constitution.

The Constitution is what keeps Presidents like Obama from being Dictators.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently visited Cairo where she told Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model when designing a Constitution for their country.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."

As Egypt prepares to write a new constitution, Ginsburg, who was traveling during the court's break to speak with legislators and judges in Egypt as well as Tunisia, spoke to students at Cairo University, encouraging them to enjoy the opportunity to participate in the "exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state."

When asked about models for the Egyptian people, Ginsburg said Egyptians "should certainly be aided by all the Constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II."

She then pointed not only to South Africa's constitution, but to Canada's 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Why not take advantage of what is else there in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others," Ginsburg added.

Indeed, Ginsburg's comments are not that foreign to her overall judicial philosophy. She had previously stated that she looks at Foreign Laws when deciding on an American case.

She has said, "the notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification." 

Ginsburg told that to an audience at the American Society of International Law in April 2005. What she failed to mention is that forgien laws have nothing to do with Americans in the same way that laws governing Americans have nothing to do with laws in foreign countries like say Japan or Yemen, or anywhere else in the world.

And as far as looking into a newer more "social conscious" Constitution, it appears, that like most Liberals, she can't admit that our Constitution is as incredible as it is though written more than 200 years ago.

Newer doesn't always mean better. Some struggling countries change their Constitution every time you turn around. Mostly because they understand what a Constitution does!

In seems that most Liberals want a Constitution that lists benefits that the Government will do for them. They want a Constitution to be a "Social Contract" filled with Federal Benefits.

It bothers me that most Liberals have no understanding of the basic premise of the United States Constitution. The Constitution of the United States was written by men who were openly and honestly afraid of a too powerful, tyrannical, abusive government, that would try to enslave its people.  

The Constitution of the United States was written to tell the Federal government its duties, its job, its responsibilities, and to make sure that it understands its limitations in clear and concise language. The U.S. Constitution is not a "Social Contract." No, instead it is a job description for the Federal Government to adhere to. 

And yes, to make sure it understood its limitations, our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights which tells the government that these Rights do not come from the government - and subsequently the government cannot tamper with them.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the U.S. Constitution is designed to keep the American people "in line" - that is the furthest from the truth. In truth, it is a fact, our Constitution is designed to keep the government "in line' and not become a threat to "We the people!"

I would think any and all people can use our Constitution as a model - especially if they fear their government from becoming too powerful and tyrannical.

For someone who has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, it's too bad that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg apparently doesn't understand it very well.

Story by Tom Correa


Thank you for your comment.