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