about the Second Amendment

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Ok, so maybe the first step in all the USA's political debates should be: words matter. So our common heritage of written words is still here, we just ignore it. In high school I was made to understand the meaning of a dependent introductory clause. Is it too much to expect that the first words of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, almost one-half of the entire amendment, be admitted to exist? And that they intentionally express the will of the Founding Fathers? 

of one opportunity the sequester offers

Dear President Obama,
You have bigger fish to fry, I know, but I wish to offer political advise to you and the Vice-President. As I understand it, the sequester requires that 9% be cut from federal programs across the board. So, I propose that you use your power of the pardon to free ALL federal prisoners whose only crime was possession of two or less ounces of cannabis, and that you do all within your powers to restore federal voting rights to all these wronged Americans. Do whatever is within your power to deter further federal money from being spent on cannabis policing and prosecutions both here and abroad. Leave cannabis control to our great laboratory of democracy, the states.
You have the keenest political mind of your generation so I won't go on and on about the plus side or the negative side of doing this. Let me just be a voice for all of us who have broken this law and ask you - How can you ask any family or any individual to be among the last victims of an antiquated and vicious, utterly failed, "drug war?" Of all those who benefited from the lavish funding the "War on Drugs" has provided, no one group reaps more than the Republican Party as a whole, so what a shame it would be to pass by an opportunity to do a moral and just thing only to open a wide door for Republicans to do it.
Sincerely, Larry Burl Dunn

Campaign for Liberty, abandon the two-party system

Actually, despite the disparate cast of characters, this blog is similar to yesterday's theme - a moment in history, lost. Al Gore blew it when he kowtowed to the anti-democratic Supreme Court decision known  as Bush V Gore. Today I turn on Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty - really, his son Rand and Ted Cruz. I am not speaking against the Grand Ol' Paul, a man of ernest conviction who knew how to speak truth to power and still remain a gentleman. Nor am I bothering to add my voice to those who point out the snarky, I-wanna-be-a-star attitude of Rand or Ted.
No, my point of view is nothing if not different. I want to shine the spotlight on the mere CONCEPT of the Campaign for Liberty as the compass for the Republican Party. If a stinking, diseased and doomed ship is sinking because of hubris, I say let it sink! There are no innocents left aboard! Those there pose a threat to us all, for God's sake. Don't save that ship; build a new one.
Too late.
Campaign for Liberty has folded it's tent and turned it into a sail for the GOP. You will never convince me that the Republicans will shrink the Military/Industrial/Secrecy Complex. So they will never come up with a solution for our nation's debt nor do the right thing for our troops. They will never stop voter suppression; hell, they depend on it. Ron Paul was an unwavering voice for freedom and peace; the Republican Party openly talks about how they are going to reinvent themselves in order to win. Not to be right, you see, not to support a principle, just to win. The GOP will gladly cut government programs and services, but we will still pay taxes that go to "private" solutions.
The two-party system has sold us out to the highest bidders and now Campaign for Liberty is just another name for Republican. The Supreme Court has sold us out and now the Campaign for Liberty is on board with them.

Al Gore's dismal viewpoint on Bush v Gore

There's nothing like being erratic to lose readers is there? Onward, through the blog...
I just failed to locate the recent issue of Rolling Stone magazine, so I am going to remember quotes as best as I can and I am not going to give footnote info ... why the hell must I be more accountable than NPR or any other "news" outlet in America?
I also failed to locate the quote on Google or the RS website (no, I'm not signed up for all RS archives), so I suspect that the quote did not stir up the blogosphere. Al Gore was responding to the 2000 election - does he regret submitting to the Supreme Court decision that ended the recount?
Al Gore's response as I remember?
No, no regrets. There is no step between ignoring the Supreme Court and armed revolution in our streets.

Beg to differ, Al. Check out Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the Orange Revolutions. Check out Gandhi in India. Hell, remember Martin Luther King in the U.S.  For that matter tell me what happened to the Cherokees despite Andrew Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court decision forbidding their removal. No Al, there is a step in between bad Supreme Court decisions and armed revolutions. It's called Democracy and it will never come to the USA as long as we continually agonize and spend our money to elect Tweedledum or Tweedly Dee. Ralph Nadar was right about you, too, as you reflected yourself-

I just would have made a different set of mistakes than did George Bush.

I swear to God, when I heard Vice-President Gore respond live to the Bush v Gore decision I thought he was going to say

Am I going to abide by the Supreme Court decision? This is the United States! Of course we the people demand a true vote count and no court is Supreme enough to stop that!

Old men often reflect on the woulda', shoulda', coulda's in life. Al, you should have called us peaceably into the streets. You could have been president. You would have made a bigger mark on history than you ever will with anything else, even climate change.