Are bigger families more environmentally friendly?

Certainly an interesting question, and a point presented in the article "Big Families are the New Green", Simcha Fisher, published on the web site Faith & Family. In the article, the author attempts to argue that bigger families are better for the environment, and in many ways they are, but there are some things that the author conveniently overlooks.

Common cents

Many of what Ms Fisher notes in her article is common sense. When you find your budget feeling like a cantaloupe in a tin can either because of diminished incomes or bigger families, you will naturally search for ways to stretch every dollar you have further.

For example Ms Fisher says that many of the things in her household are used, and because there isn’t the environmental pain of manufacturing something new, she’s being environmentally wise on that mark. This is also an economically common sense way of saving money. Used items tend to be less expensive than new items, and because they don’t take any new resources to deliver to a market, they also don’t diminish the supply of natural resources. Economically this makes sense in the long term as well — reduced demand for new items reduces the market price for new items.

She also points out another common sense observation regarding electricity: more people per light bulb, television, and so on. So while there are a larger number of people in the household, their electricity usage doesn’t go up as quickly as one would necessarily expect.

Larger loads of laundry are more energy efficient, as are larger loads of dishes, and larger meals (to an extent). So for many of the aspects of living, costs aren’t as much of a problem as one could expect.

Diminishing returns

So while these aspects may offset the fact that Ms Fisher and her husband have brought a lot of children into the world, there comes a point where the benefits she cites in her article are reduced by the realities of living.

First is the obvious: food and water. Each mouth needs to be fed, and while a family can certainly look for ways to cut costs by buying food in bulk, saving leftovers, and the like, more food translates into more electricity needed to store perishables and cook it. While larger meals can be more energy efficient to prepare (cooking times do not directly correlate to the amount of food being cooked), all of that food must be kept somehow and larger meals will still require more electricity to prepare.

While you can buy non-perishables such as canned goods in bulk and save a lot of money, the same isn’t true for perishables. Regardless, though, everything has a shelf life, even canned goods. And if you don’t account for shelf life with buying food, you can potentially waste a lot of money instead of save a lot of money. But regardless, an increased demand for food means they are actually increasing their "carbon footprint", and that demand will only go up as each child grows up, though it will eventually go down as children move out of the house (with spikes in demand around the holidays).

Water provides an interesting observation that will not remain constant. First, Ms Fisher says, "Two or three kids fit in a bathtub at a time". While this is true looking at numbers, this will only hold true for a period of time. Once children start growing, you lose this benefit, so unless you’re reusing bath water (not draining the tub between bath rotations), your water usage will go up. Like with food, as the children grow up, your usage will go up.

Along with this are the supplies needed to maintain adequate hygiene: soap, toothpaste and toothbrushes, mouthwash, and shampoo (and conditioner). And let’s not forget bathroom tissue and paper towels. The more people you have in one house, the more of these you go through. Hope you can find those bulk savings, and definitely pay attention to expiration dates.

And remember that with any size family, some costs are inescapable and proportional to the size of the household.

"Perfect environmentalists"

Ms Fisher makes the mistake of saying that she’s churning out "perfect environmentalists". For this she can only hope. Once her children grow up and move out of the house, this could easily change.

First, as her children grow up and move out on their own, or go to college, any benefit gained with all of them all living under the same roof goes away. Water and electricity usage will increase as the small "carbon footprint" gets spread out and grows during the years that her children remain single. Eight children under one roof will soon become eight adults under their own roofs. And individual households require their own electricity and water supplies.

Plus unless they move to a smaller home or apartment after all of the children move out (something I find unlikely), their "carbon footprint" will increase as the children move out and establish their own "carbon footprints".

Demand for food, water, and hygienic supplies won’t change significantly, but demand for electricity, gasoline, and the like will. While Ms Fisher wishes to claim herself to be more environmentally friendly than smaller families, this will only hold true for a period of time, something she conveniently overlooks, and a reality she will soon be experiencing when more of her children become teenagers.

Plus because her children lived in a household of tight budgets, conservation, and savings does not mean they will continue to live as such once they have their own incomes and start buying things for themselves, so she is being very presumptuous on that mark.


In short, if you want a large family and can afford it, then have a large family. But don’t at the same time think you’re being more environmentally friendly. In the short term many of Ms Fisher’s assertions may hold true, but I doubt they’ll carry for the long run.

A family practice in Oregon

On March 2, 2008, a 15-month old infant named Ava Pauline Worthington succumbed to bacterial pneumonia. Ava’s parents are Carl and Raylene Worthington.

Raylene’s maiden name is Beagley. Her parents are Jeffrey and Marci Beagley. Raylene, her husband and parents are all members of the Followers of Christ church in Oregon. They are famous for a long list of children who would’ve lived had they received medical care.

On June 17, 2008, Neil Jeffrey Beagley died from complications from a urinary tract obstruction. Neil was Jeffrey and Marci’s son and Raylene’s brother. He was 16.

On March 8, 2010, Jeffrey and Marci were sentenced to 16 months in prison following convictions on criminally negligent homicide. It’s certainly better than what Carl Worthington received, which was a slap on the wrist. Raylene was acquitted on all charges associated with the death of her daughter.

On April 20, 2010, the Clackamas County District Attorney’s office, led by District Attorney John Foote, sent a letter to members of the Followers of Christ church asking for a dialog to help bring an end to the needless deaths of children caused by the beliefs of the church.

Truthfully, I don’t believe much will come of that dialog, assuming there is a dialog.


Abortion targets African Americans?

It sure does… if you ignore all numbers relevant to the argument and focus instead only on one: African American women obtain about 37% of abortions compared to white women obtaining 34% of abortions, this according to the Guttmacher Institute.

But let’s break the numbers down further.

First anyone who knows anything about abortion can agree that the single cause of abortions is unplanned pregnancy. This is an undeniable fact that has been long recognized.

Margaret Sanger has long been demonized as promoting abortion as a means of eventually exterminating the black population. This is untrue, as Sanger was actually against abortion, but heavily in favor of contraception:

While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.1Sanger, Margaret. (1920). Contraception or Abortion? In Women and the New Race (p 120). New York: Truth Publishing Company.

The question that must be posed is that if Sanger favored abortion, why did she speak out so heavily against it? Why would she consider it a "disgrace to civilization" if she favored it?

But moving on, let’s look at the breakdown of numbers for unplanned pregnancies by race.

According to the Guttmacher Institute’s 2008 report called "Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States", 69% of pregnancies among black women are unintended, compared to 40% among white women and 54% among Hispanic women.

In 2001 there were approximately 6.4 million pregnancies. Of this, over 3.5 million of these pregnancies were to white women, while almost 1.2 million were to black women and almost 1.3 million were to Hispanic women. Of these pregnancies, 40% among white women, or approximately 1.4 million, were unintended while 69% of pregnancies among black women, or approximately 828 thousand, and 54% of pregnancies among Hispanic women, or approximately 690 thousand, were unintended.

Of the three ethnic classes reported in that 2002 report, black women reported the fewest number of pregnancies overall, but the highest percentage of unintended pregnancies. They also had the highest percentage of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion — 58% or approximately 480 thousand abortions. Compare this to 44%, or approximately 616 thousand, among white women and only 43%, or approximately 297 thousand abortions, among Hispanic women.

So in 2001 white women actually had more abortions overall than black women, even though black women had the higher rate of abortions. Hispanic women had both the lowest percentage of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion, but also the lowest number of abortions overall.

The data shows that black women have a higher rate of unintended pregnancies, and as a result, tend to have a higher rate of abortions. In 2005, black women obtained 37% of all abortions (approximately 444 thousand), compared to 34% of abortions obtained by white women (approximately 408 thousand).

Given that between 1994 and 2001 there was no change in the percentage of pregnancies among black women being unintended, there is no reason to believe that percentage has changed between 2001 and 2005. The data shows, however, that more of the unintended pregnancies are ending in abortion.

This begs the question: why are blacks having a higher rate of unintended pregnancies? Could it be they are more sexually active? According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this seems likely. In 2007 approximately 66.5% black high school students, almost 2 in 3, reported having previously had sex. Approximately 16.5% of black students also reported first having sex before the age of 13, and 46% of black students reported being sexually active.

Compare this to 37.4% of Hispanic students and 32.9% of white students reported being sexually active, and 52% of Hispanic students and 43.7% of white students reported having previously had sex. Condom usage was not significantly different between races (67.3% among black students, 61.4% among Hispanics, 59.7% among white students), but the CDC survey asks whether a condom was used in the most recent sexual encounter before the survey, not whether condom use is consistent and correct.

So with black students being more sexually active, that exposes them to a higher rate of unintended pregnancies, especially since the rate of use of the birth control pill among sexually active black students (9.1%) is less than half that of sexually active white students (20.8%). And where there are unintended pregnancies, there are abortions.

Another interesting fact regarding pregnancies among black women comes from the the February 21, 2003, edition of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: "The pregnancy-related mortality ratio for black women was consistently higher than that for white women for every characteristic examined."2Chang, Jeani, et al. (2003, February 21). "Pregnancy-Related Mortality Surveillance – United States, 1991-1999". Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52(SS02);1-8.

Further, homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women, especially black pregnant women.3Goldwert, Lindsay. (2008, April 11). "Murdered Pregnant Women: The Racial Divide". CBS News. And the numbers are believed to be underreported among minorities. The CDC has estimated that black women are seven times as likely as white women to be murdered while pregnant, and overall the CDC estimated that over 324 thousand pregnant women each year are the victims of domestic violence.

Currently there is a point of view that most abortions are elective, meaning of the mother’s own choice and free will, and to an extent that is certainly true. However given how many pregnant women are subjected to domestic violence each year, and the small percentage of them who end up dead, especially the increased likelihood of a pregnant black woman to end up dead, could it be likely that women are also obtaining abortions to literally save their lives?

What influence has domestic violence had on a woman’s decision to obtain an abortion?

Clearly there is more to this than originally meets the eye. I’ve probably only scratched the surface herein, and more detail is probably needed. But it is clear that the "abortion industry" isn’t targeting minorities. Instead the likely explanation of why blacks obtain more abortions may be related to increased sexual activity among blacks, leading to an increased rate of unintended pregnancies, economic status, and possibly also domestic violence.

Updated (April 22, 2010): Added comparison citations for sexual activity.


Cited references


Attacks on sexual education

Recently in Wisconsin, a law was enacted that required that any sex education in public schools be comprehensive. The law was supported and lobbied by Planned Parenthood, who long has been arguing for comprehensive sexual education and against abstinence-only programs.

However one ambitious district attorney, Scott Southworth of Juneau County, Wisconsin, took it upon himself to inform public school teachers in his jurisdiction that if they comply with the state law, they may face fines and jail time:

Southworth warned that teaching a student how to properly use contraceptives would be contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars and a $10,000 fine. He said it would be promoting sex among minors, who are not legally allowed to have sex in Wisconsin.1Richmond, Todd. (2010, April 9). "DA’s sex ed warning befuddles Wis. teachers, kids". Associated Press.

Obviously this DA doesn’t realize that where local laws and State laws conflict, the State law wins. So if the teachers comply with State laws in their handling of teaching sexual education, they will be immune from prosecution by this district attorney. Plus the State is generally able to provide for a minimum standard for education within that State through their respective departments of education.

Plus if informing teenagers about sex in school is a punishable crime, then it is also a crime when parents inform teenagers about sex. Can you imagine parents being arrested on child endangerment or "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" charges for informing their teenagers about sex?

The District Attorney is correct in that teenagers under the age of 16 in Wisconsin are not legally able to engage in sexual activity2Wisconsin Statutes 948.02(1)(e), but it is happening anyway. According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, through their Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, in 2007 approximately 64.4% of high school seniors and 50.4% of high school juniors reported previously having sex, and 48.6% of seniors and 39.3% of juniors reported being sexually active (within a 95% interval of confidence).

The numbers are lower for sophomores and freshmen. In Wisconsin 38.2% of sophomores and 26.1% of freshmen reported being sexually active. Meanwhile, 28.2% of sexually active women in Wisconsin are using the pill, and only 61.4% of sexually active students are using condoms.

Southworth’s move is also not supported by logic.

Teenagers are taught about the risks and consequences associated with illicit drug use, even though everyone is barred by Federal laws and regulations from possessing many substances like marijuana and cocaine. Teenagers are taught about risks with drinking even though anyone under age 21 is barred from possessing alcohol. Teenagers are also taught about the risks of tobacco products even though anyone under age 18 is barred from possessing them.

This DA’s move is supported by Pro-Life Wisconsin, who I’ve mentioned in a previous article is attacking contraception as merely a stepping stone on their quest to outlaw abortion. Matt Sande, the Director of Legislative Affairs for Pro-Life Wisconsin said that every district should follow Southworth’s lead. Other anti-abortion groups have apparently also said they support the move.

Obviously Southworth is trying to scare teachers out of teaching sexual education at all, and that would be a major step back for students and public education in general. Does he think that by not teaching teenagers about sex that they just won’t do it?Teens are exposed to sex in many aspects of their lives. And as parents likely aren’t teaching their teens about sex, if they’re not given a comprehensive education in school, how are they going to get one? Google for it? Yeah that’ll work just fine…

Personally Juneau County voters need to oust this District Attorney in the next election, or if there’s a way to oust him sooner, it needs to be employed.

If this district attorney is going to threaten teachers with prosecution for giving a comprehensive sexual education, something that is against his beliefs, what’s to stop him from threatening biology teachers who have the audacity to teach the theory of evolution, even in exclusion to other "theories"?

This District Attorney is trying to test the waters to see what he can get away with. Hopefully Juneau County voters are paying attention and won’t let him succeed.


Do you have a "right" to health care?

One point that is continually asserted in favor of the health care reforms that were recently signed into law by the President is this notion that health care is a right. This is something that has not been examined in detail, to the best of my knowledge, so let’s look into this.

First, recall from a previous post how I defined what a right is:

A right is inherent and inalienable, something for which no action is required of anyone else for you to retain, but much action is required of you for you to protect.

In my commentary on the Second Amendment, I clarified and focused on one aspect of this definition: is any action required of anyone else for you to retain or exercise your rights? I’ve seen some news venues clarify their statement about health care being a right to say that access to health care is a right, yet that idea still falls.

For something to be a right, it must be something you can assert without any assistance from anyone else. And if it is something you can assert without assistance from someone else, it is something the government cannot restrict without a damn good reason.

Health care doesn’t meet this qualification.

For you to have health care, there must be doctors and hospitals providing health care. Without doctors and hospitals, there isn’t even access to health care available, and what does that say about your right to health care? Your right exists only so long as doctors and hospitals exist?

Then it’s not a right.

Rights are inherent and inalienable. They are not conditioned upon anything else in society existing or not existing because rights are unconditional. They have reasonable limitations, but they do not have conditions.

So is any part of health care a "right"? Sure. You have a right to seek health care. If it’s not available through any health care provider, you can attempt to heal yourself. Or if you are so inclined, you can exercise your freedom of religion and pray to your deity for healing and salvation.

Health care is a service and you do not have a right to any particular service because your "right" would only exist so long as the service exists.

Therefore you do not have any "right" to health care.

Why are forgiven debts treated as income?

Why are forgiven debts treated as income?

After all it doesn’t really make sense: you don’t actually receive any money when debts are written off, but the IRS may require you to report it anyway. There are a lot of articles on the Internet that tell you that canceled and forgiven debts are considered income, but few if any seem to discuss why this occurs, so let’s look into this.

First, in accounting is a principle called the accounting equation:

Assets = Liabilities + Owner’s Equity

In terms of personal accounting, owner’s equity is your net worth — i.e. the cash value of all of your assets minus your liabilities.

Now whenever you acquire something, such as dining out or buying something for yourself, you incur a liability, convert assets, or lose equity. If you pay with your credit card, you’ve just incurred a liability. If you pay with cash, you either lose equity or you’ve converted assets by trading cash for another asset (such as a car).

There are two ways to cancel liabilities: either by decreasing assets (such as paying it off with cash) or by increasing your net worth. Even if debts are forgiven, this still holds true and cannot be evaded. If part of your debt is canceled, your accounts still have to balance out.

For example, let’s say you have a $1,500 credit card account that you settled for $1,000. That leaves a $500 liability that is no longer a liability. That $500 must be disposed somehow, and it must be disposed in such a way that everything still balances. But how?

Since you aren’t putting any assets toward the liability, the only proper way to dispose of the liability is by converting it to equity. And the only way to effectively convert it to equity is by treating the liability as if it were income. You are basically taking $500 you once owed and adding it to your net worth. This keeps everything balanced out.

In an accounting ledger, this is how it would look:

Account DR CR
Credit Card 1,500  
        Cash   1,000
        Canceled debt   500

Here, the "Canceled debt" account is an income account, and when the books are eventually reconciled, that $500 income contributes to your net worth. And it’s because of this that the IRS treats canceled debts as taxable income on the part of the debtor.

The Supremacy Clause and Treaties

The Constitution typically is interpreted to be superior to every branch of government in the United States. It lays the framework for the Federal government and grants its powers while laying out explicitly several restrictions.

Article VI of the Constitution includes what is called the "Supremacy Clause":

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Where the Constitution lays out that it, along with the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President and any treaties ratified by the Senate, shall be the "supreme Law of the Land", the Constitution is establishing its supremacy over all acts of the States, but only insofar as the Constitution grants Congress the power to do such actions.

But the Supremacy Clause tends to be misinterpreted by those advocating the separation of church and state. I’ve heard an argument similar to this on multiple occasions: the Supremacy Clause in effect provides that the language of a treaty shall be legally in equivalence to the language of the Constitution. Most recently I heard such language in a new Constitution lecture by Shane Killian on the separation of church and state.

In this lecture, at around 7:44, Shane makes this argument with regard to Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:

According to Article VI [of the Constitution], any treaties made in pursuance of the Constitution are part of the Supreme Law of the Land. This declaration therefore has the same effect as if it were part of the Constitution itself.

In the comments to his video, I argued that he was "a little off" with this argument, that if the Constitution grants any treaties any legal equality to anything, it’s statutes enacted by Congress. He responded by posting Article VI to the Constitution, following with "Direct quote", as if that were to mean anything.

In his response, I quoted directly from Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957): "This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty".1Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 at 17

To firmly show that the Constitution is superior to any actions of Congress, and to further display that treaties are equivalent to other ordinary actions of Congress, the Court further declared in Reid:

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.2Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 at 18

Further, it is very dangerous to state that treaties have "the same effect as if it were part of the Constitution itself". This implies that treaties can bypass the amendment process laid out in Article V, and that treaties can confer additional powers to the government, as if ratifying a treaty is, in effect, amending the Constitution without going through the necessary process. A very dangerous notion indeed, and one that the Supreme Court also directly addressed in the Reid decision: "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."3Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 at 16

The Constitution is supreme to any action of the Federal government, and this includes treaties. This was first stated by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803): "Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void".4Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 at 180 In Marbury the Supreme Court overturned an act of Congress that sought to modify the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, which is firmly established in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Again the Constitution is supreme to any act of the Federal government, including treaties. The Treaty of Tripoli or any treaty to which the United States is a party is not equal to the Constitution in any way, and to say that a treaty is equal to the Constitution is dangerous.


Never miss your court date

This is pretty much sound advice, and advice I definitely kept in my own personal dealings. You see, I have the unfortunate ability to say that I was involved in a lawsuit — and I was the defendant.

One of my creditors decided to take me to court to sue me over a debt that had gone unpaid. The court date was set for March 11.

Now let me first explain this debt so you’ll get an idea of how far things went. The last payment on the debt was I believe in July 2008. In March 2008, I was laid off from my job and started collecting unemployment when my severance package ran out at the end of April 2008. Anyone who’s been on unemployment knows that, if you’re used to making more than $20K per year, you’re stuck.

The money I was receiving had to go to the most essential expenses: rent, my car, utilities, and groceries. Practically all of my credit accounts fell behind, and almost all fell into collections.

Now back in August 2009, I received first communication from the collector in question, and the address on the envelope was for Kansas City — the creditor placed the account with a local debt collector, certainly a smart move. Within a short time I sent off the validation request and waited for the validation materials to come back.

That didn’t happen, though. The next mailing I received from the collector was another letter that was another attempt to collect — a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I sent them a reminder that the debt was still considered disputed and that their attempt at collection was in violation of the law.

Really what I should’ve done, in hindsight, was not said anything and let them instead rack up the violations, but oh well.

In January of 2010, I was informed by mail that they were pursuing this debt through the Court. They provided the case number and all details, and I awaited service which would happen on February 13 with the court date set for March 11.

On March 8 I paid off the debt collector, in full. Because this happened so close to the court date, they said they’ll go for a dismissal in person in Court on the court date.

The account representative also said that I didn’t have to show up in person in Court.

Good thing I have a natural distrust for people to whom I previously owed money. Never trust when a person says, "You don’t have to show up in Court", or "Just ignore the papers".

So I decided to show up anyway, and it’s a good thing I did. As I sat in the gallery as a lot of people filed into Court, the bailiff walked around to collect everyone’s court documents to present to the Clerk, just to see who showed and who didn’t. A few minutes later they were handed back to us.

About 15 minutes later came the "oyez, oyez" — everyone rising as the judge entered the Court to preside.

When my case was called, and I approached the bench, I was asked only one question, "Do you agree or disagree with the petition?" Or something along those lines.

My response was that the debt had been resolved earlier this week. Simple response, to which the woman who asked the question requested the judge for a settlement hearing, which was scheduled for April 15.

I remember when walking out of the courtroom how surreal the experience seemed.

What would have happened if I never showed? I’m not entirely sure. But I’m glad I showed up. On March 23, I received in the mail a copy of a court filing showing that the plaintiff in the case — i.e. the debt collector — was moving forward with a dismissal, which was made final by the Court on March 26.

So if you’re ever served with a lawsuit and summoned to Court, don’t miss that court date unless you have confirmed with the Court that you do not need to show. For some, you might think this is common sense, but many debt collectors do bank on you not showing up to Court.

Never miss your court date.

Constitutional reality

The Constitution is irrelevant.

There, I’ve said it. The Constitution is irrelevant. All of our arguing about the Constitution, all of our bickering over its meaning… worthless, wasted time.

You see, there is quite literally nothing stopping those in Washington from literally doing what they want. Nothing.

They can pass whatever legislation they want, using whatever methods they want. And if it’s overturned by the Court, they can just ignore the Court’s rulings. That is one fear that Chief Justice John Marshall had — that their rulings may not be relevant because the Constitution gives the Court no way to enforce them.

John Marshall was on to something when he said this.

If the Executive Branch and Congress chose to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court, there was nothing to stop them.

The government recently showed how irrelevant the Constitution is. They’ve been ignoring the Constitution for years, passing legislation that usurps power and tries to make the Federal government as powerful as possible if not supremely powerful. And before you start thinking that this started with President Bush, try looking back further. Reagan? Nope. FDR? Nope. Woodrow Wilson? Teddy Roosevelt?

They’ve been keeping up the facade of the Constitution to give us the illusion of being in charge, but the People have lost their power. Little by little, the Federal government has been vacuuming up the power in this country.

The Constitution is irrelevant. Plain and simple. Why?

We have let it become irrelevant.

The Constitution is worthless unless We the People enforce it. It is not the responsibility of the police or law enforcement agencies to enforce the Constitution. They’re not even required to protect the people. Their only responsibility is to the Constitution and the laws.

We enforce the Constitution. Not the government. Not the Courts. The responsibility for enforcing the Constitution falls on us, the People.

And we have been derelict in our duty, and the government and those seeking power know it.

We must defend the Constitution when it is threatened from without, and we must enforce the Constitution when it is threatened from within.

We the People are the reason the Constitution is becoming irrelevant. The question now becomes what we can do to make it relevant again, and keep it relevant far into the future.

Rep. Steve King

On Glenn Beck‘s radio program, Congressman Steve King [R-IA(5)] said this on March 18, 2010:

This is my argument and I have made it publicly a few times, but in 1973, when Roe versus Wade was first a decision of the Supreme Court, ever since then, people over on that side of the philosophical line having making the argument that the Federal Government has no business telling a woman what she can or can’t do with her body but today the same people are making the argument that the Federal Government has every business to tell everybody in America what they can or can’t do with their (2010, March 18). "Will it pass? Steve King".

Congressman, I am pro-choice. I argue that no government has the right to tell any person what they can and cannot do with their body. I am pro-choice in all respects — my body, my decision, and the government can get the hell out of my way.

I, contrary to the argument you publicly broadcast to millions of people across the United States, am not telling the American people what they can or cannot do with their body, and I never will, nor do I have the desire to do so.

Just wanted to clear that up for you.