He clearly indicates that his belief towards 3rd party supporters isn’t affected by the public’s reaction. He only says that he took a politically-incorrect route of specifically naming people and campaigns.

This is troubling to me.

I believe IPR has exaggerated the claim by calling this an apology. It is an expression of regret. It lacks any tone of contrition, and makes no statement of “sorry” or “apologise” or the like.

It also says, “you nay rest assured” and, nay, I do not rest assured.

It doesn’t satisfy me. I would be satisfied if the authors of the report, individually and severally, were to crawl on their hands and knees over broken glass to the homes of every third party supporter in Missouri amongst those candidates and political groups identified, and beg forgiveness. And then they can go back and clean up the broken glass with their tongues.

Perhaps an expression of apology that actually included some indication of contrition, rather than the typical excuses of tyranny (by which I mean, necessity) and the propaganda jargon, “we were only doing our jobs,” and “it’s a dangerous world we have chosen to enter when enforcing dictatorial mala prohibitum laws which are unconstitutional.”

It makes no promise not to err in the future, it offers no intention to uphold the clear text of the constitution as far as political freedom of expression, but, instead, seeks to justify its brutishness by excising only a few of the “offending” phrases. I am not taken in.

Necessity is the creed of slaves and the justification of tyrants.

(2) Their has been some local efforts to require high school students to spend some time — prior to graduation — on some type of chairitable/civic/volunteer/nonprofit type activity.

(3) If a lot of militas members are a member of a certain political party, that should not be hidden away under lock and key. But it should be put into its proper context so as not to reinforce stereotypes or prejudices.

(4) Please support the U.S. Civic Liberty Amendment!