by Mary L.G. Theroux, The Independent Institute

The current $350 million ad campaign for the 2010 Census, including the much-maligned $2.5 million Super Bowl spots, urges individuals to “Tell your story.” The Census Bureau is particularly eager for minorities and illegal immigrants to do so, as they are traditionally believed to be the most undercounted.

Yet widespread non-compliance, especially among those most likely to be discriminated against by a majority, may not be rooted strictly in the “ignorance” the ads are designed to overcome. History—including very recent history—shows that the information provided to the Census can be used against you.

The most recent examples occurred in 2002 and 2003, when the Census Bureau turned over information it had collected about Arab-Americans to Homeland Security.

Data from the 1940 Census was used to intern Japanese, Italian, and German Americans following the U.S.’s entry into the war, and to monitor and persecute others who escaped internment. In addition to providing geographic information to the War Department, the Census Bureau released the name, address, age, sex, citizenship status and occupation of Japanese Americans in the Washington, D.C., area to the Treasury Department in response to anunspecified threat against President Franklin Roosevelt in 1943.

There may well be other instances of such data sharing of which we remain unaware, as the full scope of the personal information released during World War II has only recently been brought to light.

Thus, while the Census Bureau assures us that “your confidentiality is protected. Title 13 requires the Census Bureau to keep all information about you and all other respondents strictly confidential,” these exceptions negate such assurances. Of course, the release of the “strictly confidential” data was also perfectly legal: during World War II, under the terms of the Second War Powers Act, and more recently, under the terms of the USA PATRIOT Act, now extended by the Obama administration.

In preparation for this year’s census, 140,000 workers were hired to collect GPS readings for every front door in the nation. Such pinpoint precision will certainly simplify the process of locating any individual or group that may be identified as a threat to “national security” in the future. Remember, for example, the 1976 Senate Report in which 26,000 Americans were slated for roundup by the FBI in the event of a national emergency at the height of the Cold War. Now that the U.S. Government’s Terrorist Watchlist has exceeded one million, the GPS data acquired could be instrumental in accomplishing such a roundup.

Meanwhile, the data is also shared a little more broadly than advertised. Stanford University recently joined UC Berkeley, Duke, the University of Michigan, UCLA, and others in having its very own census data center. As the director of the new center explained, “The Census Bureau is very interested in making the centers more accessible to scholars who can use the data they provide.”

As Henry Brady, dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley and principal investigator for the California Census Research Data Centers helpfully added: “We’re trying to make centers where lots of federal agencies will let us use their data.”

While reassurances are repeated that the data is held under the strictest security, and will only be used for innocuous projects like “government programs and solutions to our problems,” do we really want academics to social engineer policy solutions based on sensitive personal data? After all, they may turn out to be no more desirable than the “solutions” provided by government programs like internment and renditioning. Without the protections afforded by a right to privacy, there’s little chance of escaping a political will to enforce discriminatory policies.

This “mission creep” for the Census thus pushes up against a level of discomfort no amount of advertising dollars can likely assuage. Many will no doubt choose to follow former Senate majority leader Trent Lott’s advice to skip any Census questions they feel violates their privacy—which may well include any exceeding the Constitution’s mandate for an “actual Enumeration.” Unfortunately, choosing privacy now costs more: legislation recently passed raises the fine for “anyone over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers” from a limit of $100 to $5,000—a fact not advertised even in the small print.

by Rep. Ron Paul

You may not have heard of the American Community Survey, but you will. The national census, which historically is taken every ten years, has expanded to quench the federal bureaucracy’s ever-growing thirst to govern every aspect of American life. The new survey, unlike the traditional census, is taken each and every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And it’s not brief. It contains 24 pages of intrusive questions concerning matters that simply are none of the government’s business, including your job, your income, your physical and emotional heath, your family status, your dwelling, and your intimate personal habits.

The questions are both ludicrous and insulting. The survey asks, for instance, how many bathrooms you have in your house, how many miles you drive to work, how many days you were sick last year, and whether you have trouble getting up stairs. It goes on and on, mixing inane questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. One can only imagine the countless malevolent ways our federal bureaucrats could use this information. At the very least the survey will be used to dole out pork, which is reason enough to oppose it.

Keep in mind the survey is not voluntary, nor is the Census Bureau asking politely. Americans are legally obligated to answer, and can be fined up to $1,000 per question if they refuse!

I introduced an amendment last week that would have eliminated funds for this intrusive survey in a spending bill, explaining on the House floor that perhaps the American people don’t appreciate being threatened by Big Brother. The amendment was met by either indifference or hostility, as most members of Congress either don’t care about or actively support government snooping into the private affairs of citizens.

One of the worst aspects of the census is its focus on classifying people by race. When government tells us it wants information to “help” any given group, it assumes every individual who shares certain physical characteristics has the same interests, or wants the same things from government. This is an inherently racist and offensive assumption. The census, like so many federal policies and programs, inflames racism by encouraging Americans to see themselves as members of racial groups fighting each other for a share of the federal pie.

The census also represents a form of corporate welfare, since the personal data collected on hundred of millions of Americans can be sold to private businesses. Surely business enjoys having such extensive information available from one source, but it’s hardly the duty of taxpayers to subsidize the cost of market research.

At least the national census has its origins in the Constitution, which is more than one can say about the vast majority of programs funded by Congress. Still, Article I makes it clear that the census should be taken every ten years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting (and apportionment of taxes, prior to the disastrous 16th amendment). This means a simple count of the number of people living in a given area, so that numerically equal congressional districts can be maintained. The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people.

More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand. The American Community Survey is patently offensive to all Americans who still embody that fundamental American virtue, namely a healthy mistrust of government. The information demanded in the new survey is none of the government’s business, and the American people should insist that Congress reject it now before it becomes entrenched.

by Daniel Nasaw, Guardian

Conservative opponents of the Obama administration are urging supporters to resist the upcoming US census, saying it asks too many questions and reflects increasing government intrusion into private matters.

The census, held every 10 years since 1790, is becoming a focal point for the growing anti-government movement in the US.

The government will endeavour to count every person living in the US, regardless of legal, immigration or citizenship status. The count, which helps determine political representation and the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in government funds, is mandated by the constitution.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, a virulently conservative, anti-Obama Republican from Minnesota, has urged supporters to give only the number of people living in their household, saying nothing more is required by the constitution.

“And I know for my family the only question that we will be answering is how many people are in our home,” she told a newspaper. “We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.”

Glenn Beck, a Fox News presenter and one of the loudest voices on the American right, attacked the plan to include undocumented immigrants in the count, and said he too would only answer the question on how many people lived in his household.

“Government in the last couple years has not proven itself to accomplish anything, maintain data properly, get money to districts properly,” Eric Odom, a prominent organiser in the anti-government “tea party” movement, told the Guardian. “I don’t want them to have my private information and I don’t trust them to get anything right. If you want to know my name, my age, where I live, you can find that on my website, but to go any further is out of the realm of acceptability.”

Michael Johns, a former speechwriter for George Bush Sr, put conservative mistrust of the census down to fears the Obama administration would inappropriately politicise the operation.

“The tea party movement has legitimate concerns about the integrity of the process,” Johns said in an interview.

This year’s census will ask 10 questions, including name, age, sex, whether the respondent owns or rents a home, and questions about race and ethnicity. The census form does not ask about immigration status, and the information is confidential.

“This is a census that is being conducted in a period of unusual animosity and hostility toward the government,” said Kenneth Prewitt, professor of public affairs at Columbia University. “It’s not that people are mad at that census, but when you’re mad at the government you take it out on whatever is handy.”

The census bureau has raised eyebrows by again including “negro” as a racial category (it lists African-American and black as synonyms). Most black Americans deem the term “negro” to be more archaic than offensive. The bureau has used the term for decades and opted to include it again after more than 50,000 wrote it in longhand on the 2000 form though it was an official selection.

“Does it have a negative connotation? Is it offensive? No,” said Darrell Gaskins, associate professor of African-American studies at the University of Maryland. “But it brings up that feeling of the Jim Crow era,” he said, referring to the long period of official racial segregation in the southern states.

Participation in the census is required by law and is punishable by a fine of $100 to $5,000 (£60 to £3,000), although the law is rarely enforced.

Some Latino groups are urging undocumented immigrants to boycott the census.

The Rev Miguel Rivera, president of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, which represents Latino churches in the US, said undocumented immigrants benefited little from the government funds distributed according to the count and were not represented in the halls of power.

“It is immoral to ask undocumented immigrants to step out of the shadows, count themselves … then go back to the shadows,” he told the Guardian.

An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants live in the US, distributed throughout the country.

Other Latino political groups have denounced the proposed boycott as counterproductive to Latinos’ goal of greater political representation.

“If we don’t participate we’re not empowering ourselves,” said Lizette Jenness Olmos, of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

by Kurt Nimmo, InfoWars

The United States Department of Commerce will send out a threatening letter if a subject refuses to submit to the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a project of the U.S. Census Bureau that replaces the long form in the decennial census. A census is required by the Constitution.

	Click the image above to read the letter in PDF.

An Infowars reader has sent us a copy of this threatening letter. The anonymous recipient received the letter after he refused to fill out and send in the ACS form. “The Census people have been by my house over a handful of times. They have called my house several times. They even went to my neighbors house and asked when I’m home and what time I go to work,” he writes. “I told her that she was not welcome on my property and I received a threatening letter from census (attached) to this e-mail.”

“The primary goal of this survey,” writes Dennis R. Johnson, regional director of the Census Bureau, “is to provide current information on subjects like the current social, economic, and housing situation in the United States. Your efforts help provide the information needed by your community, county, and state, as well as the Nation, to plan programs at all levels.”

Johnson then threatens the letter recipient with a federal law under title 13 of the United States Code.

The primary goal of a national census, according to the Constitution (under Article 1, Section 3) is to provide “actual enumeration” of the population so that the proper number of congressional representatives can be elected from each state.

The Constitution says nothing about government efforts to collect social, economic, and housing data in the United States so local and national government can determine how to tax and spend the money of Americans. Mr. Johnson’s letter is unconstitutional and a color of law effort to shakedown a citizen who understands he is not obliged to provide anything beyond a head count as mandated by the Constitution.

As Ron Paul correctly notes, the Founding Fathers “never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people. More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand.”

“Keep in mind the survey is not voluntary, nor is the Census Bureau asking politely. Americans are legally obligated to answer, and can be fined up to $1,000 per question if they refuse!” Paul wrote on July 13, 2004. “The American Community Survey is patently offensive to all Americans who still embody that fundamental American virtue, namely a healthy mistrust of government. The information demanded in the new survey is none of the government’s business, and the American people should insist that Congress reject it now before it becomes entrenched.”

Addendum

In response to the above post, an Infowars reader sent a scan of a letter regarding ACS sent to him by James Sensenbrenner, a member of the Republican Party in the United States House of Representatives, on November 26, 2006.

Contrary to the letter sent by Dennis R. Johnson, Mr. Sensenbrenner indicates there is no legal obligation to complete the ACS form, although he adds that the “Department views compliance with the survey as a citizen’s civic duty.”

(Congress Will Obey the Constitution When the People Demand It)

by Paul Galvin

Next year the country will go through another census. The people and the states – the creators and on-going sustainers of the federal government – have authorized this undertaking (U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2). The census should be seen not as a burden but rather as an opportunity for Americans to practice self-government. Let me explain.

Our written Constitution embodies ideas to which every member of Congress has taken an Article VI oath to support. In taking their constitutional oath the members of Congress are joined by every member of the 50 state legislatures, every federal executive, legislative, judicial officer, and every executive, legislative, judicial officer of the 50 states, as well as all military personnel. That so many are required to take the oath “to support this Constitution” is ample evidence that the Framers thought their written document to be quite important, a belief shared by most Americans.

Our Constitution is written in clear, understandable English. Consider the census provision. “The [first] actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States [March, 1789], and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law direct.” This allows Congress to count us, but only count us. The operative word, “Enumeration.”

How then can we help Congress? By giving census officials your name and address, thereby counting you, but nothing more. By doing this simple task, you assist Congress and census officials fulfill their oath-taken duties “to support thisConstitution.”

We have agreed to be counted but the license ends there. With our consent Congress is authorized to count us for one purpose: to apportion among the states, as a function of population, the number of House representatives who will then speak for / represent the people on federal matters. That’s it. As to senators, the representatives for the states, no apportionment/enumeration scheme is necessary because no variable is involved: each state is entitled to two senators regardless of demographic or geographical size (“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State”). These provisions are the result of the delegates’ debates on representation and their final agreement, often referenced as the Great (or Sherman’s) Compromise.

Readers will note that the Constitution simply authorizes an enumeration, a counting of heads. Not an enumeration by race, Hispanic ethnicity, personal relationships, or by the manner in which a person occupies his/her home (“tenure” in census-speak). Not an enumeration by one’s labor force status, by health insurance coverage, by disability status, by level of education. Not an enumeration of the number of bedrooms, kitchens, cars, distances/times traveled to work, school. Not an enumeration of the amount of income made, or by the answers to numerous other nosy questions found in the American Community Survey. Just a simple counting of the number of people. Madison’s extensive notes on the 1787 Convention contain not one word about the delegates spending any of their valuable time discussing the issues of race, Hispanic origins, personal relationships, or plumbing.

We can thus practice self-government by just giving name & address. Under our constitutional republican form of government the people are sovereign. We govern ourselves best by following our consensually-adopted Constitution, and demanding that Congress and all federal officials do similarly. LewRockwell.com readers understand that the federal government does not exist unto itself; that is, it is not a self-existing, perpetual entity. Its creation and its continued existence are subject entirely to the will of the two principals, the people themselves and the states, which allow it to remain in being.

“But,” the statists will sputter, “the Constitution says that this counting may be done ‘in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law direct,’ and that allows us to get further information from and about you.” This language merely goes to the mechanics of the counting (who will do it; when it is to be done; how, when results are to be reported; and so forth); it does not enlarge what may be counted. Constitutionally the only permitted enumeration is the number of people in the United States. Why? Because that count is the determinant for apportionment and therefore the onlypertinent information needed. Not race, not ethnicity, not personal relationships, not housing tenure. The minimum information requested for the 1790 census – the number of persons in each household and the “Names of heads of families” (Public Law, March 1, 1790) – provided Congress with the necessary data to accomplish Congress’s first re-apportionment. Addresses and the names of other household occupants were not sought. This historical perspective is significant: the first census established precedent; was nearest to the date of the Constitution’s ratification; and is in straight alignment with the Framers’ purpose and plan. Regardless of which form you receive in the mail (your address is already known), the 10-question short form or the longer American Community Survey form, any busybody question beyond name and address has no bearing for apportionment. The ACS, sent out to different addresses on a monthly basis (even though the Constitution expressly authorizes only a single decennial census), is extraordinarily intrusive.

“But,” the statists will stammer further, “Congress says you must give all this other information.” Perhaps Congress has enacted something along those lines, but that is not to say that that law is itself lawful. As noted, we agreed to be counted, but that’s all. If the original grant of authority from the authors of the Constitution (the people and the states) does not allow or authorize Congress to enact such a law, then that so-called law is not law within the meaning of the Constitution because that purported enactment was not authorized in the first place. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI) states that purported federal law is considered authorized law only when made within the framework of the written Constitution (“ThisConstitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; . . .”). Nowhere in this Constitution (a document of limitations) is there found any authority from us enabling Congress to ask about race, ethnicity, or household utility bills. “But, but, . . ., the necessary and proper clause encompasses these further census questions.” Not so. The Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, section is not an independent grant of power standing on its own. It is at most a derivative power; before that clause may be used as justification for a federal law, primary authority must first be located elsewhere. As far as the census is concerned authority is found solely in the Article I provision noted above, and in that provision Congress is only allowed to count/enumerate us.(*) Nothing further; demanding the disclosure of race or Hispanic ethnicity or other information is not enumeration.

[(*) So that the forest doesn’t get lost among the trees: The authorization for the decennial counting of the American people is found in the article defining how the House of Representatives is to be composed. The provision is about those representatives, not about the people themselves. Only statist-minded controllers would take a provision defining the House of Representatives and turn it into an opportunity to conduct third-degree inquisitions of the country’s sovereigns, the people themselves.]

Using tired excuses we will be told that government needs this information to function. Really? The Framers didn’t think so; otherwise they would have placed that authority in the document. Further, if Congress believes itself in need of additional information about us, let Congress propose an amendment to the Constitution and pitch its case to the creators of the federal government – the people and the states – as to why further, intrusive personal information is needed in order to apportion House representation. The Framers were forward thinkers; they anticipated that the needs of the created government might change, providing to this end an amendment process (Article V).

“But, but, . . .,” the statists will whine, “amending the Constitution is such a burdensome process. It’s so much easier for us to get this information by threatening citizens with fines and demanding it.” To which we simply reply, “We the people expected that you read, understood, and agreed with the written Constitution before you voluntarily took your oath of office to support the people’s document. Did you cross your fingers? Is it your intention not to honor your constitutional oath?”

Name, address and number of occupants. The only information to be given in response to any letter or satchel-toting census bureaucrat demanding “Your information, please.” We live more freely when all public officials obey the law. Let’s begin with the Constitution.