religion and activism

Since the beginning of time, everything has been. The always vicious cycle of life where the present becomes the past, and the twisting of truth to create a deception of lies became the calling card of those desiring power, wealth, control. Just look around at the majesty surrounding mankind. A big bang created every microcosm of life seen and unseen. No hands of a Creator partook, just a massive explosion, creating a universe of proportions man has no idea of its limits, nor the actual origin of life itself: How one takes their first breath, while the struggle to survive and prosper begins. But in spite thereof the explosion, faith in a Creator, a Supreme Being, one omnipotent and omniscient, permeated those who then created religion. The manmade ability to hijack faith into one’s prosperity through another’s generosity. And in the midst of it all, begat government, promising to protect the weak through the expense of the weak. The entity of control, stronger than religion, “able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, more powerful than a locomotive, and faster than a speeding bullet.” Or was that Superman, aka the President? And, depending on which Party one stands for, either good or bad, is the desire to shape the nation into what it was never meant to be.

Except, in all the Party turmoil, the power in the Constitution wasn’t granted the President, but Congress: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives (Article I/Section 1). Yet, the nonsensical diatribe of “Executive Power,” the always present religion of controllability, granting presidential ability to summarily write law without congressional approval, course correcting without oversight, the nation. Or was oversight given to a singular judge who then dictates what is constitutional, dependent on Party ideology, otherwise known as Activism: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary)? The most recent struggle playing out: Tariffs and how to control an out-of-control spiraling debt. Yet, stacked alongside, other issues affecting constitutional review, with all either in line or out of bounds, wholly decided by Party. WE THE PEOPLE, either pawns or acolytes, with Congress having become feckless and inept. Yet power, and the desire to take from, give to, control, destroy, prop up, is all in the hands of a singular individual:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session (Article II/Section 2).

And no matter how many times one reads the above, they’ll find no mention of “Executive Power,” allowing one individual autarchy of tariffs, student loan payoff, immigration, naturalization, deportation, or a host of other issues affecting the nation. Thus, think about Napalm, the jellied gasoline used extensively during Vietnam. One drum deployed spared no one enveloped, burning everything into unrecognizable piles of wasted human flesh, all dependent on which side one stood. Napalm was considered a lifesaver or life-destroyer, just like history, which is always soon forgotten by those who need to remember it the most. Ask any Anti-Federalist; those who believed a federal government anathema to freedom, while they forcibly held in captivity those they thought inferior. Yet, in the obfuscation of Party then, they demanded further restrictions to preserve their desire to keep from being controlled while controlling. But those the antithesis of them: I go further, and affirm that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights (Federalist 84).

Words far-reaching if one only studied. But unlike Napalm, if one studies the Constitution, they’ll find a government, limited in power, its ability to control, completely dependent on WE THE PEOPLE. Where even “democratic-socialism” (an oxymoron) isn’t in the confines of a “constitutional republic,” nor an outright democracy: … it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. The two great points of difference between a Democracy and a Republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of the country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. (Federalist 10). And never forget: It’s a republic, if you can keep it (Bejamin Franklin).

So, make no mistake, once Party becomes one’s religion, they surrender all to Party, while the Constitution, its design and intent are negated, including any intended form of democracy in the realm of a constitutional republic. Thus, with Party Power, activism is the calling card to achieve the end of democracy and our constitutional republic. Except, nowhere in the Constitution will one find “Party Power.” Thus, like Napalm, it doesn’t pay to be on the receiving end of its control, as the spreading of its conflagration destroys everything in sight. And when it comes to faith, religion being the standard bearer of those entrusted to understand, know that faith in “religion” can be an oxymoron: Even to the death, fight for what is right, and the Lord will do battle for you (Ben Sira 4:28).

But make no mistake, even though God is no longer real, the juxtaposition between the Constitution and a religion’s ideology is leadership or the lack thereof. Including the ability to understand intent and what faith one is fighting for, either singularly or nationally, becoming a religious endeavor to ascertain truth. And if one wants to see what a big bang can actually do, visit the Trinity site in New Mexico. On one fateful day in July 1945, it rained glass, not life, on a scale Napalm can’t touch, all compliments of Uncle Sam through the generosity of funds forcibly provided by taxpayers.