P. Cipolloso: No respect for the Constitution

The upcoming election is not merely about the economy, but, more important, about protecting this nation from the most fundamental threat to the Constitution since the Civil War — socialism.

The United States was founded on two basic principles: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ...”

Three times, a clear majority of Democratic National Convention delegates rejected language affirming that their natural rights come from the creator, not government, as socialists would have people accept. Government does not determine the rights and freedoms of the people.

President Barack Obama and his socialist supporters have had little respect for provisions of the Constitution that place limits on their ability to rule. Witness the growing number of executive orders and actions of the Obama administration to suppress dissent, to limit the importance and exercise of religious faiths and to use government resources to retaliate against those it finds objectionable. The most recent example is the Justice Department acting to investigate the Gallup organization over polling considered unfavorable to the Obama campaign.

Obamacare provisions would force religious-run institutions to violate the tenets of their faiths.

The Defense Department instituted a policy barring Bibles for patients in military hospitals. The list goes on.

It’s time to reject all those who would so endanger constitutional freedoms. We owe it to all those past and present who have so bravely sacrificed to protect us and this nation.

Peter Cipolloso, Oxford

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Betty Davies's picture

I agree with President Obama--

Who said, in regard to the ferfluffle about using time and energy to reaffirm the "In God We Trust" motto when Americans are in desperate need of jobs, "That's not putting people back to work," he said. "I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work."

Joe Morin's picture

???

What was the point? Oh yah, Betty Davies represents the antithesis of traditional American values.

Jason Theriault's picture

"Obamacare provisions would

"Obamacare provisions would force religious-run institutions to violate the tenets of their faiths."

So what's new? Pacifists have to pay for the DoD. Rastafarians have to fund the DEA. Guess what? One religion cannot hold the country hostage. Just like free speech isn't absolute, neither is freedom of religion.

Joe Morin's picture

Apples & Oranges

Pacifist is a world view, Rasta is a lifestyle. Neither one protected under the 1st ammendment. Religious liberties are. The assertion that religious based organizations are " Holding the country hostage" by not providing birth control or contraceptives is mellow dramatic and counterproductive to an intelligent argument.

CRYSTAL WARD's picture

constitution is alive and well

The Constitution is alive and well in 2012. Your Quote was from the declaration of independence and there was no socialism when the constitution and declaration of independence were written. The constitution allows the people the freedom to elect who they want and make laws they want it says nothing about socialism for or against. Pres GW Bush used executive orders more than Reagan, GHWBush and Obama, and he used the executive power of the president far more than President Obama(remember the wars he started). Try reading the democratic platform before you jump all over it. I would like to know wha t constitutional article 1-7 and what section in the article you believe has been broken I am sure you have read the constitution many times since you believe it has been so broken so often so this should only take you a couple of mins.I look forwa.rd to your citiations from the constitution

Joe Morin's picture

GW BUSH...

...had bi-partisan support and congressional approval for both wars respecting the check and balances provided by the founders of this country. Like the wars or not. Like Bush or not. He brought our country into war constitutionaly.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Obama violated the fourth

Obama violated the fourth amendment of the Constitution on January 1, 2012 when he signed the NDAA.

The NDAA gives government agents the right to detain any U.S. Citizen indefinitely without being charged or without a trial. There is no due process, no right to challenge, no right to appeal. This loss of freedom should scare all Americans.

This that specific enough for you?

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

More worrisome than anything else ...

... to me is the fact that our emperor has ruled that he has a retroactive line-item veto. In the 1990's, Congress passed, and Prez Clinton signed, a welfare reform bill. Our master Barack the First, lord of all he surveys from the Atlantic to the Pacific, has decided to strike down the "work" requirement part of that bill, taking unto himself the authorities of Congress and the Supreme Court, to pander to the voting classes.

I don't care whether he respects the Constitution. I do care that he pretends it doesn't exist.

RONALD RIML's picture

Bibles never 'barred' at Military Hospitals

Visitors were prohibited from bringing them for short while - but they were never barred.

Why are you lying, Peter??

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Ronald, I don’t know what

Ronald,

I don’t know what you call it, but if one is prohibited from transporting a bible to the hospital, then it is banned by definition even though for a short time according to you.

What you said does not make any sense.

RONALD RIML's picture

Patients weren't banned from possessing them

Is that not simple enough for you???

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Ronald, You are playing with

Ronald,
You are playing with semantics. All the readers know that if an individual was not admitted with a Bible attached to their person, and people were not permitted to transport a Bible to said patient after admitted, then the patient is denied the Bible.

Anyhow, administrators were bright enough to understand this logic did not hold water and subsequently lifted the visitor ban. Perhaps not everyone is as bright enough to understand the nuance.

RONALD RIML's picture

Semantics?? I caught Peter Cipolloso in a lie.

He wrote: "The Defense Department instituted a policy barring Bibles for patients in military hospitals."

So you and he allege Bibles were confiscated from all those patients who had them?? Back that one up!!

Visitors, for a period of time, were banned from providing them. Do you or Peter have evidence that the hospital or military chaplains also refused to provide them??

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“So you and he allege Bibles

“So you and he allege Bibles were confiscated from all those patients who had
them?? Back that one up!!”

I never allege such a thing – you did. You’ll find no text that I wrote alleging those who have bibles had them confiscated.

I simply stated that visitors where not permitted to bring those who desired a bible, but had none, a bible. That is a correct statement.

Patients have a first amendment right a bible of their choosing, not a GI issue bible if they were even ever available.

Fortunately, this unconstitutional act was corrected.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

oBAMa views the U.S.

oBAMa views the U.S. Constitution as a document that obstructs government freedom. What do you expect?

Jim Cyr's picture

Mr. Cipolloso.

Well put, We second the motion !!

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...