do words have meaning or not

or maybe legislators are just born-again liars

Well, its happened again. What was being preached as a no go, became full-steam-ahead as it appears the country has completely lost its marbles. Which makes me wonder if my ears are not hearing what was being pontificated. Or, maybe legislators are just born-again-liars. The worst part, I wonder how history will judge us, once we become the history being judged. So, as many stand with their respective party and America burns: “The United Sates commenced their existence under circumstances wholly novel and unexampled in the history of nations. They commenced with civilization, with learning, with science, with constitutions of free government, and with that best gift of God to man, the Christian religion” (Noah Webster).

Thus, philosophically speaking, if one were to apply the chicken and egg argument about words; definitions give words their meaning, not the inverse, words defining definitions. But practically speaking, without definitions, words are just words, right? And statements, speeches, or books are one person’s opinion, either factual, facts made-up, accepted, rejected, somewhere in-between, or as some might even say, contrived. But when a consensus agrees, the words expressed become a statement of validation for what the group believes and stands for: ideology. Think Party. Except, one’s ideology must have grounding to pull from a foundation to judge the premise against. Without, structured wording becomes only words, and the intent, fiction, not truth. No justification, reason, or purpose, a do what one may, not defining.

Although, what happens when word definition dilution dilutes history? Or when modern-day deceptions become history to define? Things blatantly obvious yet obfuscated beyond believability. Or vocabulary, both past and present becomes diluted. What if those who spoke or penned material didn’t measure up exactly to the standard they are being judged against? Or judging standards are an ever-evolving evolution of history and those being judged, yet were not regulated by? Then agenda; the purpose behind redefining, and obfuscating past standards, to pervert intent, thus allowing a multi-illusionary opportunity to redefine present and past verbiage and actions. When an agenda proposed opposes what the writer presented, a crisis of identity can purposely result. The deceptive story of America throughout its history, inclusive of one added crux: today’s party-political desire to change the nation’s past, present and future course, which begs the question - Who benefits?

Growing up in the sixties, the peace, love, hate war generation flourished, and a conundrum developed, an evolution of sorts. Rock music, bra burning, open sexuality, civil rights; lightning rods between the old and new generations, which widened national division, albeit nonsensically. And mixed in with the perceived injustice of government: Vietnam! A multi-decade unjust war, despicable in its intentional design, which prospered some, but rocked those willing to stand up against a perceived oppressive government. History repeating, only different, yet the same.

And if one considers parallels, a similarity between the American Revolution and the sexual revolution presented; the desire to change what those who railed against wanted transformed. A government bent on war, control, an unwillingness to evolve, desirous of the old guard still being the guard, too involved, too intrusive, too abusive. An amalgamation of old versus new where intent would either change national outcome or keep a national ill-conceived existing fervor, begging another question – Who’s right?

Except, historically speaking, before the Constitution was a glimmer of thought in the minds of the nation’s Framers, their fate required the successful conclusion of the American Revolution. Yet today, some in the nation propose the earlier actions leading up to and the war itself, acts of terrorism, making evolution and history, a collusion of truth and conceptions based on knowledge, or one’s lack thereof, predisposed to those seeking autarchy (absolute power). A future buyer beware act of terrorism itself: 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 (Declaration of Independence).

One sentence, I believe, the embodiment of what became the basis for the Constitution of the United States, a consensus of the whole who signed. Both documents written by imperfect men working to design an almost perfect foundation to build a government upon. The required driver: a moral compass, “that best gift of God to man, the Christian religion.” But in truth, isn’t religion just business, whereas God’s gift to man is faith, the belief in an omnipotent Creator. His word, the Bible, what was meant to be the nation’s compass, able to stand on its own, while the Constitution, unable to stand without.

Yet, throughout the centuries, definition dilution, human evolution, augmented with party politics, where equal hands played in the long simmering dilemma facing the nation, two traits have been overlooked: character and integrity. The required two parts forming a whole, each requiring the other to function fully. Yet, while imperfection designs imperfection, hoping to achieve perfection, history has shown, it is unachievable on a human level, the moral compass extant, but ignored.

So, as we judge the nation’s Framers for their mistakes and compromises based on our standards; I wonder how they would judge us based on their standards for our mistakes and compromises. History, a cycle of repetition, where it’s not too difficult to compare the sixties to today. Except, if one does, they’d find those who stood against, now repeating what they wanted transformed. Only, this time, their intent is to retain the power they wanted capitulated then. Intent being the motive of agenda, the desire of deception, deceiving those who are willing to surrender what others died to give.

So, again: 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)

Now, I’ve been told the above is nothing more than a philosophical statement, by a supposed learned individual: A PHD in political science. If so, then the Constitution, Bible, or any other foundational derived document is nothing more than something proposed for one’s desire to interpret however or reject – philosophical only. Except, does one not have to stand for something concrete, believable, intentional?

Thus, consider: all men are CREATED (born) equal, and then equality ends, as government cannot give what it doesn’t produce, but can only take, a money consumer. Additionally, there are rights government cannot give, being UNALIENABLE (not taken away), as one’s Creator ENDOWED (gave) them, not government. Its responsibility: to protect and defend - Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness thereof, supplying an uninhibited path for all to chart their course without causing harm. And yes, government was instituted to ensure the agreement designed is fulfilled by those elected to protect. But of late, it does not appear to be the case as the ideological grounding required to form foundational premises appears non-existent. And words no longer mean anything when character and integrity are absent. In the end, it’s not rocket science, especially when it involves party politics.