Census threat: $5,000 fines

---

Posted: March 16, 2010
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

How many people live in your home? Are any of them Hispanic? Are the people who live in your home citizens? How big is your home? Do you have difficulty making decisions or climbing stairs? How much do you pay for your sewage system? Are you married? What's your rent or mortgage payment? Do you own an automobile? Are you on food stamps? How much money do you make?

These are just a sample of the highly detailed and personal questions asked in the mandatory American Community Survey the U.S. Census Bureau will send to a sample of some 3 million U.S. households in addition to the 2010 Census.

Refusing to answer the questions or answering them incorrectly will subject citizens to hefty fines.

The U.S. Census website for the American Community Survey warns that under Title 13 of the U.S. Code, Section 221, anyone who refuses to answer the 11-page 48-question survey, or who answers the questions with false information, will be subject to a possible $5,000 fine.

As WND reported last year, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, introduced H.R. 3131 to make participation in the extended ACS survey voluntary.

In an e-mail to WND, Poe repeated his charge that the American Community Survey amounts to an Obama administration attempt to create a "government dossier on American citizens."

Unable to move the resolution through a Democratic Party-controlled House of Representatives, Poe continues to argue that the law should be changed to make the American Community Survey voluntary.

"The federal government has a constitutional duty to count the number of people in the United States every 10 years," Poe told WND. "But the federal government has no business keeping a comprehensive personal profile on every American citizen.

"The government can take this detailed information about each person who answers the American Community Survey and use that information for its own purposes," he said. "This is Big Brother at its worst. To me, it's an invasion of privacy by the federal government all in the name of taking care of us."

WND has consistently found the Census Department difficult to reach for comment. No media phone number or contact person is published on the home page of the U.S. Census Bureau. By typing, "news" into the Census Bureau homepage search engine, a page displays the phone number 301-763-3030 as the bureau's Public Information Office. Dialing that number, WND received a recording that directed news reporters to dial yet another number, 301-763-3691. Dialing that number, WND encountered voice mail.

After leaving a request for a call on the voice mail, the Census Bureau Public Information Office neglected to return the call.

Among the questions asked on the 11-page American Community Survey are:

The American Community Survey is available as a .pdf file in English or Spanish on the Census Bureau's website.

In 2007 during work on the American Community Survey portion of the Census Bureau's responsibilities, spokesman Clyve Richmond told WND, "The Census Bureau has never prosecuted anybody. We try to work with people and explain how useful the information is."

The Associated Press reported this week the Census Bureau "rarely" seeks fines for failing to answer.

permanent link

bbc - The world's shortest man, He Pingping, who was just 74.6cm (2ft 5in) tall, has died in Rome.

He was born in 1988 in Wulanchabu, China, with a form of primordial dwarfism, and was officially recognised as the world's shortest man in 2008.

He was admitted to hospital two weeks ago after suffering a chest complaint and died on Saturday, but his death has only just been announced.

Guinness World Records said he had made a "huge impact around the world".

"From the moment I laid on eyes on him I knew he was someone special - he had such a cheeky smile and mischievous personality, you couldn't help but be charmed by him," said Craig Glenday, Guinness World Records editor-in-chief.

"For such a small man, he made a huge impact around the world," he added.

Mr He was in the Italian capital to take part in the filming of a television programme called The Record Show.

According to the TV production company Europroduzione, he had already filmed two episodes of the programme when he complained of feeling unwell.

"He started to feel slightly ill and we decided to take him to hospital. He entered hospital two weeks ago and had all kinds of tests, being a very special person he had to go though all sorts of tests. He went into intensive care three days after he was admitted," said Marco Fernandez de Araoz, communications director for Europroduzione.

He said that Mr He died on Saturday afternoon and, at the request of his family, his body would be returned to China to be buried.

permanent link

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

World Net Daily

A fifth state – South Dakota – has decided that guns made, sold and used within its borders no longer are subject to the whims of the federal government through its rule-making arm in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and two supporters of the growing groundswell say they hope Washington soon will be taking note.

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds has signed into law his state's version of a Firearms Freedom Act that first was launched in Montana. It already is law there, in Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, which took the unusual step of specifying criminal penalties – including both fines and jail time – for federal agents attempting to enforce a federal law on a "personal firearm" in the Cowboy State.

According to a report in the Dakota Voice, the new South Dakota law addresses the "rights of states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades."

"As the federal government has radically overstepped is constitutional limitations in the past year or so, an explosion of states have begun re-asserting their rights not only with regard to firearms, but also in shielding themselves against government health care, cap and trade global warming taxes, and more," the report said.

South Dakota's law specifically notes "any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in South Dakota and that remains within the borders of South Dakota is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce."

The provisions are nearly a mirror of the original law penned in Montana as well as those adopted in subsequent decisions by Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming.

Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association spearheaded the Montana law and now describes himself as a sort of "godfather" to the national campaign.

He told WND the issue is not only about guns but about states' rights and the constant overreaching by federal agencies and Washington to impose their requirements on in-state activities.

Here are answers to all your questions about guns, ammunition and accessories.

He said he's pleased South Dakota has become No. 5, and noted Alaska, Idaho and Oklahoma all have legislation that is approaching the stage of being presented to a governor to be made into law.

The Firearms Freedom Act website also reveals that other states either with pending legislation or pending plans include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.

Marbut said Washington appears to be reacting the same way it did when states legalized marijuana or rejected the REAL ID national plan: by ignoring it.

"Ultimately we hope there will be lawsuits in other federal circuits, because there are two things that predispose the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case: the national scope of the issue and differing appellate decisions," he told WND.

Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said Washington likely is not anxious for a confrontation.

"I think they're going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case," he said today.

"When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws," he said.

WND reported earlier when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation.

But when Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed his state's bill into law, it included penalties for any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm" in Wyoming including up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.

The bellwether likely is to be a lawsuit pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3, 2009.

Marbut argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.

The government's filing in the case demands its dismissal, citing a lacking of "standing" for the plaintiffs and the court's lack of "jurisdiction," as well as the Constitution's Commerce clause. The government filing argues, "The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have repeatedly held that even purely intrastate activities, such as those the MFFA purports to exempt from federal law, do affect interstate commerce and thus are within Congress' power to regulate. As a result, even if plaintiffs had standing and jurisdiction existed, plaintiffs' amended complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed."

The Commerce Clause, however, can be interpreted to have been amended by the 10th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, adopted subsequent to the U.S. Constitution, Marbut explains.

His organization said, "The Commerce Clause was amended – by the 10th Amendment. It is a bedrock principle of jurisprudence that for any conflict between provisions of a co-equal body of law, the most recently enacted must be given deference as the most recent expression of the enacting authority. This principle is ancient. Without this principle, laws could not be amended or repealed."

For example, U.S. courts repeatedly affirmed slavery before it ultimately was rejected.

There's no question that the components of the Bill of Rights have authority: Just look at the First Amendment, Marbut explained.

In an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a nullification.

"Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force' from the outset," Boldin wrote.

"When a state 'nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or 'non-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens," he continued.

permanent link

By Lisa Fabrizio on 3.17.10 @ 6:06AM

And so it comes down to this: President Obama wants his signature healthcare reform bill passed this week, no matter what; whether or not the American people want it and whether or not his own party has the votes to pass it. So great is either his ego or his conviction that the government must take over one sixth of our economy, that he is willing to march his fellow Democrats to the edge of an electoral grave they themselves are digging.

So desperate is their goal, that even with strong congressional majorities, they must employ highly unusual and maybe even illegal methods to attain it. One of the extra-constitutional measures they might use is appropriately called the "Slaughter Solution," whereby the bill that cannot get a simple majority of votes in the House may be returned to the Senate where that's all it can get. Got it?

But the issue that may drive the final spike into this mess of a bill is appropriately, abortion; that awful practice that was also undemocratically forced on our nation without benefit of a single vote legitimately cast. I and others have long chronicled the use of Orwellian doublespeak as a tool of socialists to foist their agenda on a country whose people are basically good at heart and of a trusting nature, but never have their efforts been more focused than on this issue. The continued application of euphemisms like "choice" is both sophistic and insulting, as are attempts to paint the snuffing of our children's lives as some form of healthcare.

Make no mistake about it; this is the first national vote on abortion where the whole country is truly engaged, and Americans can't help but notice that this bill is being promoted by the White House using doctors, many of whom still take an oath that says, "Above all, I must not play at God." This realization is why there is such danger for Bart Stupak and the rest of the so-called blue dog Democrats if they are only paying lip service to this vital issue.

But why do I call it "vital"? Because the concept that -- contrary to what the president of the United States says -- ours is a nation founded and based on the Judeo-Christian ethic that above all values life, is at risk. You don't have to be a member of any organized religion to understand the perils of such a path. A nation whose laws are based on the whims of its current citizens rather than on rock-solid moral values, is one that will be at the mercy of popular opinion and thus occupy a dangerous precipice.

Their straw man arguments in favor of funding abortion only serve to clarify their despicable views on the sanctity of life. One of these is, according to Rep. Stupak, "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue -- come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we're talking about."

Laying aside the idiotic notion that these un-murdered children will use up more tax money than they would pay into the system, Stupak misses the point. It's not about money; if it ever were, then Democrats would be known as the party of fiscal responsibility instead of a gaggle of tax-and-spenders, which they undeniably are.

No, the policy of liberals when it comes to nascent life is that of Barack Obama; that pregnancy is some type of "punishment" that must be liable to arbitrary termination in order to safeguard so-called women's reproductive rights. The idea that the heinous practice of a culture killing one quarter of its own progeny in the womb is somehow a right would be laughable were it not so tragic.

And so, just as the abortion debate is not about choice or rights, so too the healthcare debate is not about health; it's about control; liberals seeking to exercise every governmental power except that which it is constitutionally directed to do: secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

It would be more than ironic if the healthcare bill, the latest step in the attempted takeover of our country by socialists who have no respect for our Constitution, should be stopped in its tracks by those who seek to uphold freedom's first guarantee: life

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/17/aborting-healthcare-reform

permanent link

By Doug Bandow on 3.17.10 @ 6:08AM

The debate over health care is rushing to a climax. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of words have been spilled over the details of competing plans to federalize American health care. But the basic issue is simple: Who decides?

The issue is not one of public versus private. The U.S. system is an inefficient hybrid, with government paying nearly half of the bills and shaping private spending through the tax preference for employer-provided insurance. The result is a third party payment system in which nearly nine of ten medical dollars is paid in the first instance by someone else.

No surprise, national outlays are high and rising. Too many people -- whatever the exact number -- lack adequate coverage for health care crises.

"Reform" is a question of direction. Expand government, and especially federal, control. Or increase patient choice and private options.

The former is the favorite in Washington. And it means more fully turning control of health care over to politicians, bureaucrats, and assorted "experts." Indeed, that's the very purpose of Democratic "reform."

During the Clinton health care debate, Wall Street analyst Kenneth Abramowitz advanced the cause of managed care: "Right now, health care is purchased by 250 million morons called U.S. citizens," he said. It was necessary to "move them out, reduce their influence, and let smart professionals buy it on our behalf."

Do we believe that "smart professionals," whoever they may be, can best decide how much health care we receive from whom for what conditions? Should "smart professionals" decide how we are treated? Giving the federal government the power to make these decisions is what Obamaesque "reform" is all about.

It is a frightening possibility.

"Reformers" start with the assumption that "we" spend too much on health care. Nowhere else in the economy do we act as if there is a proper proportion of the economy that should be expended on an activity. Do we spend "too much" on automobiles? What is the "right" percentage of GDP to devote to beer? Should society reduce or increase outlays on art?

These are stupid questions. Bad incentives as a result of third party payment mean we buy medical care inefficiently, we spend more than we should for what we receive in return. But it makes no sense to total up expenditures on health care and let the government decide whether they are appropriate. 

After all, we don't complain about national spending on cars, beer, art, or anything else. Spending on these are properly personal decisions by people using their own resources. If someone wants to devote more money to paintings and less to housing, that's what liberty is all about.

So it should be for health care.

The U.S. is a wealthy society with an aging population. New technologies, drugs, and devices can greatly enhance the length and quality of Americans' lives. But every decision involves a trade-off, since demands are infinite and resources are finite. Despite what the president and congressional Democrats would have us believe, it is impossible to simultaneously enhance choice, improve quality, increase access, and cut costs. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, no matter how much politicians might claim otherwise.

Given the importance of medical care -- most people are more concerned about the condition of their heart than their car -- it is particularly important for individuals to make the inevitable and difficult trade-offs. Obviously, choosing health care is more difficult than buying an auto; people usually need advice from "smart professionals." But no matter how well-intentioned and knowledgeable, "smart professionals" are not equipped to decide how much we pay for what coverage for what services provided by which professionals.

Yet that's what government health care programs do in the U.S. If public money is being spent, whether by a state or the federal government, then government has to make decisions about how much will be spent for what purpose. It is inevitable, but not the sort of decision government should make for everyone else. 

For example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services warns that passage of the Democratic "reform" proposal would require Medicaid rationing: "It is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid would not be realized."

And deciding on government coverage is inherently political. The authors of a study of Oregon's experience in attempting to objectively rank order procedures that it covered under Medicaid found that the system "has not operated as the scientific result of rationing that it was advertised to be." Instead, "controversies around the list forced administrators to make political concessions and move medical services 'by hand' to satisfy constituency pressures and the federal government."

Imagine government making health care decisions for all Americans in the same way. 

That is what foreign nationalized systems do. For instance, in December 1993, as Congress was debating the Clinton health care proposal, the Canadian province of Ontario busted its "global budget," which forced it to end all but emergency medical care. You could buy an automobile or beer or painting, but not get elective medical treatment. 

Last month, in the midst of the debate over the Obama health care proposal, Newfoundland premier Danny Williams flew to Miami for a heart operation. Canada's system offered only limited treatment options. Williams rebutted criticism of his decision: "This was my heart, my choice and my health."

Waiting lists in Britain and Canada run in the hundreds of thousands and wait times for treatment run in the months. In many cases care delayed is effectively care denied. In a case challenging the prohibition on private insurance, the supreme court of Quebec observed the obvious: "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care."

In many cases the rationing is explicit. For instance, Britain's National Institute of Health and Clinical Effectiveness (NICE) makes blunt, brutal judgments about cost and efficacy, denominated in terms of Quality Adjusted Life Years. The British government decides that some people's lives simply aren't worth saving given the required expense. Every British citizen is stuck with the result.

NICE has barred reimbursement for the drug Revlimid to treat myeloma, turned down use of Alzheimer's pharmaceuticals which cost just a few dollars a day to use, blocked coverage of Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis, refused to authorize medicines to treat macular degeneration -- unless patients have already lost sight in one eye -- and even limited use of cortisone for back pain. Reported the Daily Telegraph: "Specialists said when they did alert terminally-ill patients to the existence of drugs which could extend their lives by months and in some cases years, the patients were often angry to learn that the NHS was unlikely to fund their treatment." So British doctors often don't tell patients about available treatments. 

Two years ago NICE attempted to enforce its denial of Avastin to breast cancer patient Debbie Hirst by threatening to withdraw all medical coverage through the National Health System if she bought the medicine herself. NICE explained that "topping off," as it was called, violated the national commitment to equality. NICE reversed course only because of the ensuing political firestorm.

President Barack Obama and similar "reformers" have proposed all sorts of procedures, panels, and requirements to ensure that only "cost-effective" care is delivered. But just as there is no federal budget line for "waste, fraud, and abuse," there often is no simple, single correct treatment for all diseases.

Proponents of government control dismiss such concerns. After all, they contend, "rationing" is inevitable. Either the government will do it. Or someone else, particularly insurance companies, will do it.

But government rationing is not the same as individuals exercising free choice in a market. There is a dramatic difference between deciding how to distribute limited goods and services for others and deciding how to balance competing goods and services for oneself. Today employers have too much control over individual insurance plans; the answer is not to transfer that control to politicians, but to return it to patients.

Consider the recommendation last fall by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to drop routine mammograms for younger women. Patients, doctors, and analysts all can disagree about the value of doing the test annually. There's no reason there should be only one national standard, set by the government.

Yet proposals for federally enforced "comparative effectiveness research" risk creating just such a system. CER could be a useful guide for treatment, but more likely would turn into a limit on treatment. After all, NICE began, according to the Guardian, as an agency "designed to ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best. It will root out under-performing doctors and useless treatments, spreading best practices everywhere."

Admittedly, today's system only intermittently protects individual choice. The third party payment process has increased efforts by public and private payers alike to restrict coverage and treatment of patients. With only six percent of insurance policies purchased in the individual marketplace, few Americans actually choose their own policies; most employers, no less than Medicare and Medicaid, decide on people's coverage. Nevertheless, the availability of the (imperfect) individual market, competitive pressure on employers, and opportunity to change jobs leaves many people with some options. Government control ultimately means no exit for anyone -- except the wealthy, who can opt out of the system entirely.

The lack of adequate choice today indicates the proper objective of real reform: increased patient power. People need a medical system that allows them to make basic health care decisions, especially what kind of insurance to buy and what kind of coverage to choose. 

Such decisions are complex and people with little means will need assistance. But the appropriate trade-offs vary dramatically based on individual and family preference and circumstance. Patients, not government, should make these decisions. Two of the most obvious steps to encourage consumer-directed care are ending the tax preference for employer-provided policies and eliminating state-mandated benefits. Public spending should be concentrated on the areas of greatest need: providing for the poor and uninsurable.

The American health care system is inefficient and costly. Too many people don't get consistent and quality care. "Reform" is necessary.

But only the right type of reform. The answer is not increased political control, but increased patient control. The length and quality of our lives are too important to turn health care decisions over to politicians, bureaucrats, "smart professionals," or anyone else.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/17/the-real-health-care-debate-wh/2

permanent link