No Fly No Buy? 100% Unconstitutional

By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots

It comes as no surprise at all, that in the aftermath of the Orlando Islamic terrorist nf 1attack…all liberals can talk about is taking guns away from law abiding citizens or making it hard, if not impossible in some cases, to even purchase a gun.

THAT, say the liberals, is the best way to defeat terrorism.

Ted Cruz had a slightly different perspective on the situation…

“You don’t defeat terrorism by taking away our guns. You defeat terrorism by using our guns,” – Ted Cruz.

All the liberals need, is an inch in order to take ten thousand miles and they are using the Islamic terrorism murders of 49 innocent civilians to push their insipid agenda.

Here’s how they intend to start…

Continue reading

2nd Amendment INFRINGED in Federal Court

By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots am 1

“We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

Those were the words of Judge William Fletcher, representing the majority opinion of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday in San Francisco. Words that will surely, and rightfully cause a firestorm of dissension from gun owners across the nation.

With regard to the ruling, and without regard to the 2nd Amendment, the court said that law enforcement can require applicants to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit.

Of all the insane, abjectly unconstitutional and pig-headed things…

Law enforcement can REQUIRE anyone who applies for a carry conceal permit to SHOW that they are in…IMMEDIATE…danger or have another good reason…for a permit.

Well allow me to point out the bone-crushingly obvious…

Continue reading

Disgusting Liar Trump Screwed Our Vets

By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots

Finally.VETS 1

Donald J. Trump has finally donated ALL the money he raised for Veterans, from his debate-ditching fund raiser in Iowa, TO the 27 different Veterans organizations he had named.

That’s correct…Trump has now donated every last penny of it to our great Veterans.

All $800,000.00 of it. Lock, stock and…

Wait. What?

But Trump said he raised $6 MILLION dollars for those Veterans organizations. He told the Veterans that he raised $6 million dollars. He told ALL of us that he raised $6 million dollars.

Guess what folks…Donald Trump…lied.

The statement from Trump was that his fund raiser brought in $5 million dollars and that he, himself, had posted an additional $1 million to the pot to bring the total to a whopping $6 million dollars that would be divided up between 27 various Veterans organizations.

What a magnanimous fellow.

But now we know the truth…

Continue reading

Trump’s “John Miller” Con…Exposed

By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots

Back in 1991, Donald J. Trump was giving interviews to magazines and newspapers. That miller 1in and of itself, is not surprising. But he was giving those interviews, not as Donald J. Trump…but as Donald Trump’s PR spokesman…John Miller.

In fact, in a court case in 1990, Trump admitted, under oath, that he sometimes posed as John Miller or John Baron…concocted PR representatives for himself.

Add to that, the fact that Trump, as Miller, once gave an interview to People magazine where he said some rather off-the-cuff things regarding Marla Maples and Carla Bruni. The reporter, suspecting that she had, in fact, been talking to Trump himself, played that recorded interview FOR Maples and she IDENTIFIED the voice on the tape AS Donald Trump.

Now, fast forward 25 years, to just a day or two ago, when in a telephone interview on the Today Show, when confronted with the leaked tape of the Miller interview…Trump claimed it WASN’T him and he didn’t even know a thing ABOUT this John Miller thing.

“No, I don’t think it — I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time and it doesn’t sound like my voice at all. I have many, many people that are trying to imitate my voice and then you can imagine that, and this sounds like one of the scams, one of the many scams — doesn’t sound like me.”

Trump then continued…

Continue reading

Trump Substitutes Fantasy for Substance

By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots

While Donald Trump has said that, “I’m capable of changing to anything I want to non 1change to,” is has become obvious that what he meant was that he’s able to pander to whoever he wants to but he has shown, all too often, that he has no intention at all of changing.

Over the past two weeks, Trump has launched frivolous and baseless attacks against Heidi Cruz, the baseless National Enquirer rubbish smelled of his hair gel and Mexican made clothing line,  issued multiple statements regarding his multiple positions on abortion, had a disastrous, nationally televised town hall appearance in which he contradicted himself over and over again while naming education and healthcare as two of the three primary functions of government and had his Chinese made campaign hat handed to him by Wisconsin talk radio host Charlie Sykes.

But change?

No, Donald Trump hasn’t changed one little bit and that is exactly why he got pummeled in the Wisconsin primary Tuesday night. Further evidence of Trump’s inability to change was evident  in a statement released by his campaign after Tuesday night’s utter defeat in Wisconsin…

Continue reading

The Fraud Behind the Curtain

By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots

dd 1It seems that the dumbing down of America, via decades of liberalism through government indoctrination centers otherwise known as public schools as well as asylums of higher indoctrination, also known as colleges and universities is nearly complete.

No greater evidence of this can be seen than in the results of Super Tuesday voting.

Donald Trump, with the highest disapproval ratings in history, continues to win primaries. The question is…why?

Here’s the answer…

Trump voters simply don’t give a damn about the issues and they don’t give a flying rat’s ass about Trump’s complete, total lack of substance or lack of any articulated plan to accomplish any of the myriad of things he says he’s going to do should he become the president.

Trump voters also don’t give a crap regarding the fact that poll, after poll, after poll shows him losing in November to whoever happens to become the liberal/socialist nominee.

To Trump’s Trump-drunk, low information voters…absolutely none of what should matter…matters at all and don’t blame me for calling his voters “low information voters because those are exactly the sort of voters Trump himself is reaching out to in this election.

Here’s what he said…

Continue reading

Our Greatest Domestic Threat is Now an Open Seat

By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots

Suddenly, with the death of Justice Scalia, the appointment of a ninth Justice to the Supreme Court has takesup 1n on more weight than most would have previously believed necessary in this, an election year.

Just as weighty as the decision as to who should nominate our next Supreme Court Justice is how any nominee will view Constitutional theory or how that person will interpret the Constitution.

Along those lines, there are five basic theories of Constitutional interpretation. Generally, those theories are as follows: (1) the text and structure of the Constitution, (2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question, (3) prior precedents (usually judicial), (4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and (5) natural law. There is general agreement that the first three of these sources are appropriate guides to interpretation, but considerable disagreement as to the relative weight that should be given to the three sources when they point in different directions. Many interpreters of the Constitution have suggested that the consequences of alternative interpretations are never relevant, even when all other considerations are evenly balanced. Natural law (higher law, God’s law) is now only infrequently suggested as an interpretive guide, even though many of the framers of the Constitution recognized its appropriateness. Persons who favor heavy reliance on originalist sources (text and intentions) are commonly called “originalists.” Persons who favor giving a more substantial weighting to precedent, consequences, or natural law are called “non-originalists.” In practice, disagreement between originalists and non-originalists often concerns whether to apply heightened judicial scrutiny to certain “fundamental rights” that are not explicitly protected in the text of the Constitution.

Continue reading