a tangled web is woven

I was raised in a black and white world with a clear distinction between right and wrong. Depart from the acceptable, and one met instant metered recourse. So, while living on military installations, if the MPs (military police) got involved, even the parent serving could face repercussions. But at home, if it was just Mom, then Jesus, along with the wooden spoon got involved and all hell broke loose. Additionally, in the philosophy of the learning being taught, one aspect was respect. In my life sphere, Dad emphatically opined it was something you earned; it wasn’t given. Then, as time passed and my evolution evolved, in youth I also discovered there were positions held in respect. Well, over the years a personal dilemma developed: how can one even respect the position when the individual holding it isn’t worthy of one ounce of respect? In truth, while holding the position, they denigrate every perceived concept of ethics and what the position entails. But then, based on society today, what does ethical even mean? Is it part of a devolving cycle of viciousness with no bottom in sight?  

Which brings me to what I see anymore as twisted ideology, with ears deaf to hearing, eyes blind to seeing, yet voices aplenty. Where nothing makes sense in a frenzy to establish power holds, no matter the cost, placing the nation in a moral compass crisis. But does a moral compass even matter in a society intent on making everything normal, no limits, while abstracting truths to lies and vice versa. On multiple fronts, an intentional brewing agenda to politically divide the country, while citizens, unable to come to terms amenable, and national unity evaporating, watch the country collapse. Yet, in the context of mis-weaving, many paths being perpendicular, once crossed, become a forced truth. A parallel to make gray what should be abnormal. And legislators, following each other in deceiving citizens into believing the government’s ability to regulate, join in ad nauseum. Example: A while back I read a meme – Men shouldn’t be making laws about women’s bodies – posted by a male Senator.

A purely political vote grabbing move, but understanding the intent of point implied, I responded – If today men can have babies, then why can’t men make laws about women’s bodies? By virtue of giving birth, are they not basically the same? One individual responded: What a stupid comment. But was it? If a man can be a woman and a woman a man while those in government shut down any question by shouting “human rights,” then the comingling of genders that’s taking place makes men and women nebulous. And yes, also the height of stupidity, or the paralleling of perpendicular, while denouncing any question of the web being woven. So, if men can’t write certain laws, then who has the power to, especially if men can now have babies, as I’m being forced to accept. Or are they not men? Nor a man a woman who claims to be so?

Conversely, what power does the government even hold in the overall scheme of the intentionally scripted odds it has everyone fighting over. Today, with the inability to calmly debate, do constitutional precepts even matter? Or the inverse, the continual paltering by those WE THE PEOPLE placed to represent. Their willful desire to divide, thus obtaining ultimate control, party irrelevant, while the Constitution, or constitutional precepts are an afterthought. Take the uproar over the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the power of the Federal. For some, a supposed decision meant to devalue women by taking away their rights, and restricting healthcare by giving power back to the States to regulate birth or the ending of life to come. Yet, in the midst of battle, a man becoming a woman or a woman becoming a man adds relevance to the subject at hand, especially since men are now able to give birth. But no one ever asks if the Supreme Court actually got this one right. Nope, just the usual cacophony of vitriol decrying one’s ability to make decisions on, of, or by themselves, pontificating: Government – keep thyself out of my business … unless it’s business I want government in. An oxymoron, no?

Then there’s: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (Declaration of Independence).

Yes, I’ve beat it like riding an old school Montessa Cota (trials bike) over a boulder strewn course, but it’s one paragraph of monumental significance, using words, simple by definition, yet anymore, problematic in defining. Especially if one is intent on discombobulating societal norms. Created: conception, birth, or something else before or in-between. Unalienable: not to be separated, given away, or taken away. Then Life: when does it begin, or who has the Right’s to it, and how is it secured by government for those who have no say in the decision. A perplexing conundrum, as the proletariat appears lacking in knowledge of constitutional precepts. Evident by the national divide over a constitutionally protected procedure; a woman’s Right to Liberty, her pursuit of Happiness, and yes, her Life obvious. Furthermore, I believe the Constitution is clear if one would only read. But, if all things are equal, what is visible can be deceptive, especially when an individual appears healthy, but isn’t. Or presents circumstances external, then the nebulousness might count. If not, it’s a digression to obfuscate.

Except, and despite all things being, government does have responsibility: define when life is Life, then abortion the procedure, no longer protected, the child inside the womb, their full Right to Life, Liberty and pursuit of their Happiness secured. And yes, if word definition matters:

Constitution/Article I/Section 8/first clause – provide … for the general Welfare.

General: Public; common; relating to or comprehending the whole community; as the general interest or safety of a nation. (Webster’s 1828)

Welfare: Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons. (Webster’s 1828)

Even Texas, the Lone Star State, against political headwinds, decided a Texan’s heartbeat life: a person. Something the Federal continually fails to address. Why? Especially when some in Congress when having to vote, only vote present. Cowards! Understand, their use of an action to pull people apart is more beneficial than the intended debate required to bring everyone together. And yes, the Supreme Court got this one right. It’s now up to the State’s to get it right. Only, one must understand any of this to make certain the States are right. Reality: a concept to conceive! Even more so when one mixes into the web being woven the blurring of men and women, including their physical appearance, and where both can now conceive. Plus, relate to and feel the possible complications one goes through during delivery and their monthly cycle?

To place all of this in the realm of constitutional thought, I believe the Framer’s believed in the Rights of the individual. If one wants to wear a dress, wear one. Or a pair of jeans, do so. Trust me, it is not for me to judge anyone, and I do not do so. I accept people as people and treat them as such. Just do not force me to accept the inverse of what reality is as fact until science changes course. And yes, if the current trend continues, I believe in a few years a forced change will be shoved onto us. But understand, I will never accept that a man can become a woman or a woman a man. Conversely, I will not be disrespectful to anyone, but my beliefs should not be denigrated to homophobe or racist.

And when it comes to life, one gender only does not have the sole power to define or determine who is given the opportunity for the Right to live, no matter what current trend or respectability stereotypes people are trying to remove or propose in the evolving world of genderisms and powerisms. Thus, as time continues to pass and respect becomes less of a standard to be upheld, maybe WE THE PEOPLE should become less blinded by party and allow ethics to play a role in government again. Except, what sets the ethics standard? A conundrum! So, in the confusion being perpetrated, try thinking! As possibly this is all just another example of party politics and power: - Divide et impera – Divide and Command! (Federalist 7)