Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Gunslinger Publications L.C. Announcement

A couple of years ago before moving back to Illinois from Tucson, I received a parking ticket from the city of Tucson. I took the ticket to court, lost, and then filed an appeal arguing that the Tucson law was unconstitutional under the Constitution of the State of Arizona. After losing again in the district court, I appealed to the appropriate Arizona Appellate Court. The Court denied the appeal.

Since I wasn’t that familiar with the Arizona Court system, I took a college class hoping the professor might be able to give some advice—less expensive than a lawyer. After all it was a fifteen dollar ticket. I also was thinking about returning to school and thought I might determine if I really wanted to spend hours in the class room again.

Anyway, the class was on the Arizona and U.S. Constitutions. Our professor said that candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives were required to live in the district from which they were elected. I borrowed a text book from the student in front of me—since I don’t carry books to class—and read the appropriate section of the Constitution to the professor noting that nothing in the Constitution requires a candidate to live in the district. He continued to insist that they had to live in the district. (Not true. Since moving to Illinois, there have been two candidates—that I know of—who ran for the House and didn’t live in the district. They were both Democrats and they both lost, but it was and is permissible.)

Later in the semester, we had a test on the federal judiciary. One of our test questions for each test was a take home essay question worth 20% of the test. After we got our tests back, a student asked me to read her essay answer which attempted to explain “judicial review.”

I read her essay in which she received all 20%, looked at her, and said, “You don’t have any idea what judicial review is, do you?” Her one word response was “No.” I explained the concept of judicial review to her before the class began.

While living in Morton, a newspaper editorial called for following the Constitutionally mandated “separation of church and State.” I wrote a letter to the editor stating that there is NO Constitutionally mandated “separation of church and State.” The U. S. Supreme Court is wrong on this issue—along with many others! I offered $10,000 to the first person who could show me that mandate in the Constitution and/or its Amendments. Of course, I had no takers because there is no such provision within the Constitution.

Christine O’Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate from Delaware in 2010, was laughed at by college law students during a debate on a college campus during the campaign. She was laughed at because she said that the concept of the “separation of church and State” was not in the Constitution or any of its Amendments. She was right. The law students, who don’t seem to know the Constitution, were wrong. The mass media played up her “mistake.” The mass media was wrong. She was right.

On May 1, 2011, the Peoria Journal Star published a letter to the editor on page A5 from an individual identified as a Bradley University political science professor. Bradley is a private university located in Peoria—my oldest brother, who has a Ph.D., graduated from Bradley with a degree in history. In her letter, she wrote the following: “… [I]t stood out as an egregious violation of the separation of church and state.” Violation of the separation of church and State! There is no Constitutional separation of church and State!. Therefore, there can be NO violation of the separation of church and State. I wonder why she didn’t take me up on my $10,000 offer!

Most of the adult population do not deal with the Constitution. Most of the adult population seem to know little of what is in the Constitution of the United States. Many lawyers seem to know little of the Constitution. Either that, or they prefer to distort and ignore the Constitution to suit their own purposes.

As a result, I have been fervently writing—first draft finished yesterday—a Constitution workbook—for want of a better name—that I think rather thoroughly covers the Constitution. The book is 125 pages long and has 449 questions on the Constitution—if I counted correctly.

I plan/hope to move from this corrupt State this summer. I plan on having the book ready for publication by the time I move. However, I won’t have it printed unto after I have moved. After it is printed, I’ll announce it on this blog.

Until then—and since Russ Limbaugh just launched his “Two if by Tea” adventure—I thought it would be appropriate to announce the newest planned publication of Gunslinger Publications L.C. Fortunately, the State of Illinois will receive NO tax money from this endeavor!!! But then, the State does not need revenue. The State can rely on ever increasing gambling revenue from ever increasing gambling casinos. People living in Illinois will understand! Illinois the, hoped for, gambling mecca of the Midwest!

The purpose of the Constitution workbook is to help educate the citizens of this nation about our Constitution and its principles. The purpose of the Constitution workbook is to help restore the nation to its origins of self government and personal responsibility. The purpose of the Constitution workbook is to help the citizens of this nation TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!
It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

T.A.: Am I missing something? What difference does it make where I move? Where I live? Realistically, what’s left in Tucson, Arizona?