The memory first. I am not a "guys on the right." You have obviously forgotten my numerous expressed opinion that we need a single payer system based on the Medicare model paid for by a national Federal Sales Tax.

And I love your "by and large." Is that an acceptable excuse for the horror and pain that thousands of people are facing?

Do you have no care? No sympathy?

I don't think you do. I think you embrace Stalin's comment:

'A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.'

What happened to the Ponca at the hands of the Southern Lakota is no more legally relevant to the longstanding issue of the Black Hills' disposition, as is what happened to the Santee and Sissebon Sioux in the 17th century at the hands of the Iroquois Confederacy (which is how they ended up on the western end of the Great Lakes), or what happened to Queen Lili'uokalani and her kingdom's government at the hands of U.S. Navy and Marines in January 1893.

As it stands, none of those conflicts were concluded with a treaty ratified by the United States Senate. (In fact, there is a great deal of evidence which strongly suggests that the U.S. Congress violated the Constitution with its hasty annexation of the Hawaiian Islands in August 1898. Once again, the expedient desires of our forebears might come back to bite the rest of us in the a$$ financially.)

But to return to the validity of the Lakota claim over the Black Hills, the monies you're talking about are not from any specific agreement regarding the Black Hills, but from a proposed settlement to a lawsuit brought against the U.S. government in federal court by the nine tribes constituting the Great Sioux Nation for its violation of the 1868 Treaty of Ft. Laramie.

The U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the Sioux Nation in 1980, ruling that those lands guaranteed the Indians under both of the ratified Ft. Laramie treaties (1851 and 1868) had been illegally confiscated by the federal government in 1877. the High Court set the value of those lands at $106 million in 1980 dollars, which the justices further ordered set aside in a trust as compensation for what happened.

Further, it should be noted that this estimated amount of $106 million was based at the time upon those lands' estimated 1876 values, and does not in any way account for the value of all the gold, minerals and timber that were subsequently extracted from them. The value of that trust fund has since swelled to $1.4 billion. But the Sioux Nation doesn't want the money and have refused to accept the settlement. They want the Black Hills back.

From Mario Gonzalez, General Counsel to the Oglala Sioux, in August 2011:

"The Sioux tribes have always maintained that that confiscation was illegal and the tribes must have some of their ancestral lands returned to them, and they've maintained that position since 1877. The Sioux Indians are very attached to their lands and particularly the Black Hills because that's the spiritual center of the Sioux nation."

From Theresa Two Bulls, former President of the Oglala Sioux, in August 2011:

"It really saddens me that we've got some tribal members that want to accept the money and they don't realize the harm they're going to do; they don't really understand why we say the Black Hills are sacred."

From Bryan Brewer, present President of the Oglala Sioux, in November 2013:

"I will not support any resolution that promotes our tribe receiving any of the money from the Black Hills without the input from the other tribes of the Great Sioux Nation and from our Treaty Council. Our tribal members have passionately said over and over again, 'the Black Hills are not for sale.' I fully support our tribal members."

Thus, the Black Hills case has not been settled, and remains an ongoing legal issue. There has recently been some expression of interest among some tribal members to open discussions with the Obama administration regarding a proposed final settlement with the federal government, which the president has expressed a strong interest in resolving during his time in office.

But while some individual Sioux tribal members may wish and even agree to accept money as compensation, it is important to note that they do not in any way constitute a majority of the tribes themselves, and tribal leadership has been speaking with firm unanimity on this particular issue. And as of this writing, they oppose any settlement that does not also include a return of tribal sovereignty over the Black Hills. This includes Mt. Rushmore National Memorial.

Were the federal courts to ever uphold that the unauthorized personal decision of an individual tribal member could be held to be binding, both legally and retroactively, upon the tribe as a whole, it would simply constitute a continued effort on the part of the federal government to keep what does not belong to them and indeed, has never legally belonged to them.

(That's exactly what happened to a number of tribes throughout the 19th century, most notably to the Nez Perce in 1877, which resulted in one of the most tragic of all the Indian wars -- "The Great Retreat" of the Chief Joseph and his people as they attempted to escape pursuing U.S. troops and take refuge in Canada. Exhausted, they were finally caught in Montana's bear Paw Mountains after a 1,400 mile chase, only thirty miles from the Canadian border.)

So, if you feel compelled to continue justifying our own government's continued illegal confiscation of the Black Hills by noting the fate of other indigenous peoples in our country, just because you consider yourself an art lover and think a national park has a great gift shop, then I feel sorry for you. Because for all your liberal inclinations and pretensions, you really don't get it.

No more than you are a liberal.

I am a social liberal.

I have never opposed Muslims, or anyone else, practicing their religion.

And surely you didn't need My Shadow, AKA Yman, to know that I am strongly opposed to radical Islam and the terrorist Muslims it spawns.

And it appears that you are the person disturbed about the possibility of people practicing their First Amendment rights not conservatives.

And how do you get that my support for a law that says:

Mississippi's governor signed into law Thursday a measure that allows individuals and organizations to sue the government over laws that they feel thwart their ability to practice religion.

means that I, or anyone who supports the law, is opposed to freedom of religion?

What you have done is jump in, make wild untrue claims and failed to prove any of them.

A few years ago, a friend of mine who had been suffering from ovarian cancer went into hospice, and spent her final few months planning her own memorial service and wake. She insisted that it be held at Murphy's, where she had worked for years as a well-liked waitress and bartender. The owners, her bosses, visited with her almost daily and worked closely with her on the details of what she called her "party," and they promised her that it would be exactly that.

Well, my late friend taught us all that night that it's indeed possible to both mourn someone's passing and celebrate her life simultaneously. We cried, we laughed, we sang songs and told stories, we ate and drank and toasted both her and each other. When we left Murphy's later that evening, we were thankful that she was our friend, and were thinking how blessed we were to have had the opportunity to walk with her in this world, if only for a little while.

And just as she had intended, her "party" gave us all the necessary closure we required in order to move on. Because per her written personal message to everyone in attendance, which her husband and stepson both took turns reading aloud, she wanted us not to question life but to instead simply live and enjoy it, and she asked of us only that when we remember her, it should always be with a smile.

I've thought about that party over the past week, and yeah, that's also the way I'd like to depart this earth, with lots of love and laughter and smiles.

The more people the republicans can make stay home the better off they are.

I still think he would lose.but.