american feud: the constitution says! (part 2)

So, as secularism gains the foothold nationally and God is further removed from society, the clarity of purpose for some to gain greater power presents. Take marriage. There is not one word in the Constitution giving said power to control the institution to the government. Yet, since the 1950s, our government has interfered where it had no power to do so. Marriage being based on faith, which was hijacked by religion, the power of tying the knot belonging to the church. And the secularists, who claim our government was established on purely secular principles: Why demand government be involved in marriage, or even get married themselves in a faith-based proposition?

Yet today, a man can become a woman, a woman a man. But for centuries, only women could create life (with man’s assistance). Except, over the past few years, biology has flipped on its head, and now, through the magic of obfuscation, every conceivable belief that was gender has been obliterated and a man can now gestate. And the only way to preserve the newfound belief in craziness is to get government involved. But the Constitution does not allow the government to require forced acceptance of a falsity of nature. Although, if the nation holds the Declaration of Independence in the same sanctity as it does the Constitution, then one is allowed their Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of [their] Happiness. So, if one wants to wear a dress, do so. And, if a woman wants to claim manhood while carrying a baby, then shout it from the rooftops. Only, respect my Right in not having to accept fiction over reality. All of this is a constitutionally protected Right, but a morally compassed mistake, and a nation dividing action purposely driven.

But those three unalienable (cannot be taken away) Rights and the subject of abortion. Constitutionally speaking, the government has no say over the procedure, allowing a woman her Life, Liberty, [her] pursuit of Happiness. Except, the Constitution (Article I/Section 8/First Clause): provide … for the general Welfare of the United States … one word, including a simple uncomplicated definition and Congress. 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). While Congress has no power to proclaim abortion constitutional or not, it does have the power to define a person (when life begins) and thus, the procedure, no longer constitutionally protected. The only requisite to all parties involved: A moral compass, as the life in question has no voice. Yet, it appears voices are speaking quite loudly all across the country. Ohio just passed a constitutional amendment to sanctify the right, which I believe a monumental mistake, while women are dropping to their knees and praising the ability, at taxpayers’ expense no less, to end life.

I say all of this knowing I am not a good person. When Barbara and I married, I was ambivalent towards the topic. I did not have a child, plus, I did not think it was in the cards for us, until it was. Only, to keep things short, Barbara had three miscarriages after we married. During the first, the doctor mentioned a D and C. I was so ignorant, I leaned over to Barabara and whispered: Does that mean dust and clean? Anyway, we keep three stuffed bears in their honor: Angelita, Angel Pequena, and Estrellita. I will never be able to erase the memory I hold of the pain on her face each time, except in the middle of these three losses, our son, R2 was born. Trust me, I was a scared puppy until the nurse put him in my arms. Today, I will fight to the death to protect him.

And I no longer struggle with the concept of abortion. So much, a correlation: I like animals, but pets, not so much. They’re expensive, time consuming, and worse than babies. Anyway, we brought home and nurtured a rescue cat born without eyes (Annabelle) for twelve years and recently had to put her down. When we acquired her, we were told she would never be any of. Well, she became everything of, especially mine. Everywhere I went she followed, sitting in my lap and always wanting to be close. I always told Barbara: She just likes my stink. So, the day we took her to the vet was an experience I never want to go through again. And, yes, I don’t get any of this, but my beliefs are mine and the Constitution gets in my way of forcing my belief to others. It’s a free country, right? Even though it no longer is. Anyway, I wonder: In Old Testament times, people worshipped Molech. And in that worship, one of the rituals was to sacrifice their children by burning them alive, throwing them on a pyre. So, while the country gets closer to the complete separation from God, what age will become the decider to not destroy a child’s life. Anyway, I get it: My body; My choice!

Except, in the hoopla over the desire to end a child’s life who has no say or choice in the matter, the government is otherwise working non-stop to control every facet of our existence and what individuals are allowed to do. Example: Around 1970, Honda introduced the US90, a three-wheeled ATC (all terrain cycle). The original concept being an underpowered, innocuous looking bike, considered cute, not dangerous. A resemblance to the tricycle of childhood. Well, by the late ‘80s, the bike had ballooned into a massive industry with all manner of styles, sizes, and power. But, by design, the bikes had a unique turn sequence, quite the opposite of the original tricycles they looked like. And riding, one quickly learned to never put their foot down. So, the government went after them, deeming the product too dangerous. In the interim, Suzuki introduced the 4-wheeler, and the government eventually outlawed the ATC. This is just one of a multitude of examples, asking: If it’s my body, my choice, shouldn’t individuals be allowed to make their own decision in almost everything they decide to try like those seeking an abortion? Or is the political expedience to gain votes the only driving force in the politics of defining who has control of what, not to mention the power gained. Although, today, the newest push is banning menthol cigarettes. And constitutionally speaking, the Constitution does state “promote” (preamble), and “provide for” (Article I/Section 8/First Clause), but it does not state: decide, define, or demand. And a final question: How is it cell phones, internet, tattoos, drugs, drug paraphernalia and a host of other things are becoming Rights paid for at taxpayers’ expense?