The 2010 Census, How I Have Responded to 5 Enumerators

Now, here are a few points that relate to the topic of this thread, especially concerning the 14th amendment and the incorporation of the FEDERAL UNITED STATES.

These are but a few of the undeclared contracts that you are likely bound to:

First, there is novation, [taken from Roman Justinian Code] from the Latin, novatio. This concept did not exist in American law before Lincoln's War Against the States. Novation is the extinguishment of a prior debt by a new debt obligation. Today, this is done by a birth certificate when a baby's foot is placed thereon - before it touches the land. The certificate is then recorded at a County Recorder, sent to the Secretary of State in the State where the baby is born, exported to the Department of Commerce, and Bureau of Census and the process of converting a man's life , labor, and property to an asset of the United States government is in place. (Ever wonder how the government can be so deeply in debt and still remain solvent? You're the collateral!) Novation is not complete until the child -- as adult -- voluntarily assents to being a debtor, by submitting an application for a benefit, privilege, immunity, or opportunity from any branch of martial law agency. It does not matter whether it's The Department of Motor Vehicles or, The Social Security Administration, the effect is the same. Novation converts a baby's life, liberty, labor, and property, to an asset of the United States, a Federal Corporation, and converts flesh and blood man or woman, created under substantive Law by God, to a persona, [15] i.e., a fiction. One is now living collateral for the debts of the United States corporation, who has entered into commerce for some benefit, privilege, etc., from an imperial power, regulated by military law that benefits bondholders of the debt of the corporation.-- Alan Russel

As to the 14th amendment:

"The amendment (fourteenth) reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution," United States v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases, 785, 794.

Citizen: One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. U.S. Const., 14th Amend. See Citizenship.

"It is quite clear then that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." Slaughter House Cases, 83 US 395, 407.-- U.S Supreme Court

"...the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause (of the fourteenth amendment)." Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520.

"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment...and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment...have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment ...and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment...and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the Sixth Amendment... it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were no privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the fourteenth Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99.

So, a lawyer (prosecutor) can bring charges against you for any reason, whatsoever, without need of a grand jury: there are no restrictions upon the government as regards her 14th Amendment citizens. You have no Bill of Rights under the Constitution, since 1871 and the passage of the 14th Amendment. That is, if you are a contracted "citizen" of that Government.

"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments, one to be maintained under the constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside the Constitution. The glory of our American system of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions.

I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution." -- Supreme Court Justice Harlan, disenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell (1901)

We have here two governments: one opertating under a De Facto status, with which you must contract under or be a legal RESIDENT of the District of Columbia, or physically reside therein. The other is the legit Constitutional Republic.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by HothSnake]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Proto,

It is not within my nature nor the nature of a good debate to yield any sort of control to the opposing party. I have decided that rather than forging on with my posts unabated by your various tactics to cede part of control of my next post to you. This way I hope we can have a keener focus on the matter at hand.

Would you prefer that I respond to your most recent reply to me on a point by point basis as I have done with one your previous responses?

Would you prefer that I offer a fresh start; a point by point format regarding what I feel are the reasons your argument is invalid without thought to any of our previous discussions.

Regardless of which option you prefer will you agree to address my points individually and fully with both your opinion and the facts that form your opinions? If I should find your source to be of dubious nature will you agree to then defend that source?

Will you agree that a post is not by default off topic if it does not implicitly support your position? Will you also agree that someone's lack of familiarity with the finer points of the ATS interface does not discredit their argument anymore than syntax or grammatical errors would?

I leave the option to you Proto to choose what my next post will be. Do you want me to respond to your criticisms of my style of debate or do you want me to offer a fresh post that will engage you in a debate about the nature of this thread?

The choice is yours Proto. I will defend either my debate style or I will defend my viewpoint on your thread. Which one would you like for me to do? What I will not do is apologize for offering debate with you. I believe the spirit of debate is one of the main reasons we have a site such as ATS and I sincerely hope that you agree with me regarding that.

All I ask is that with either post format you should choose for me is that you respond to each point within the post and leave no portions of my post unanswered.

Does this sound acceptable to you?

"The rights of a citizen under one [state or United States citizenship] may be quite different from those which he has under the other..." Colgate v. Harvey, 296 US 404, 429.

As to the military dictatorship status of this country, I believe that Proto is referencing this:

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."-- 93d Congress SENATE Report No. 93-549, 1973

"Under the doctrine of Parens Patriae, or "Government As Parent" - as a result of the manipulated bankruptcy of the United States in 1930, ALL of the assets of the American people, their person - and our entire country - are ALL held by the *Depository Trust Corporation, 55 Water Street, New York, NY* and secured by Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Commercial Liens, which are then monetized as "debt money" by the Federal Reserve.

Under the umbrella of the Depository Trust Corporation lies the CEDE Corporation, Federal Reserve Corporation and American Bar Association -- the "legal arm" of the private banking interests!"

"With the Erie RR v. Thompkins case of 1938, the Supreme Court confirmed their success. We are now in an international private commercial jurisdiction in colorable admiralty-maritime under the Law Merchant. We have been conned and betrayed out of our sovereignty, rights, property, freedom, common law, Article III courts, and Republic. The Bill of Rights has been statutized into "civil rights" in commerce.

America has been stolen. We have been made slaves: permanent debtors, bankrupt, in legal incapacity, rendered "commercial persons", "residents", and corporate franchisees known as "citizens of the United States" under the so-called "14th Amendment". Said "Amendment" (which was never ratified - see Congressional Record, June 13, 1967; Dyett v. Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v. Phillips, (1975) affirmed a citizenship ???."source

Well, I figure that between internet, phone calls, email, library check-outs, blockbuster rentals, government pizza take-out databases, credit card activity, cell phone GPS tracking, intersection cameras, Google and any other number of "fingerprints" that you or any person might have left in the system, it is not likely that the Census will be a primary form of tracking of "independent thinkers" for rounding up and extermination...

In fact, I would say that if the massive conspiracy is alive and "radicals" are being catalogued, this very website and the IP addresses that log in every day are more likely a source of compiling a list than a document that could easily be falsified.

I mean, at least to get a better idea of how many live where in your community -- a valid thought since we bother to go through the motions of this whole "civilization" thing -- you could maybe put down your name as Jaimecito Crackcornez or Dr. Patrizio Puffenstuff, Esq., Xavier X. Xylophone or hell, even Mary-Jo Makowsky for all the gov't cares.

Personally, I just put my real name because, when the SHTF as people so aptly acronym-ize it, I'd rather go quickly to the FEMA camp gas chambers and be done with the silliness faster.

Or maybe I'll just move to Kiribati? Do they have censi in Kiribati? Is censi the correct plural? Who cares?

In 1791, President Washington created the District of Columbia and the District states, coinciding with the first charter of the Bank of the US, almost completely British owned. A coincidence? Not long after Washington imposed the Whiskey Tax, which was followed by the Whiskey Rebellion. This districtization of our governments is what made this possible. Washington was doing what he was told by the creditors of the UNITED STATES in order to collect the money owed these creditors. Obviously, the people weren't thrilled with this predicament and rebelled.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
Dilligaf28

I am curious, you asked the thread to be moved to "hoax" so that others will be protected.

1. What are the penalties associated with this thread you are so gallantly trying to prevent people you personally don't know from experiencing? Have you experienced such penalties, or do you know others who have - personally know, not heard? What you "heard" penalties are does not count.

2. Are you against all topics on this board in which someone may suffer some penalty? Do you move to have each of those topics placed in hoax? Which topics have you done so, so we can understand where you are coming from.

3. Many of us have done years, and years, of research into many areas that you have not done any research on. Do you want all threads you are not familiar with moved to hoax?

4. If what proto and the rest of us say is bs, then state this and we will accept your opinion, but we will not change ours based solely on that. Please feel free to state we are nuts and you are moving on to a more rational topic.

My Two Part Reply

1. You stated the penalty in your post to me. I do not see why I should repost information you just dutifully supplied. I personally do not know of anyone within my sphere of influence that has suffered legal penalty. Given that you excluded my response to my own social circles I will not research the statistics regarding how many people have suffered reproach for violation of Census laws. I also think if more people cared more about people they never met this would be a better country. Do you agree that this would be a better country if more people cared about people they had never met?

2. This is the only thread I have made that statement in.

3. How dare you presume to know what I have researched! How dare you make a blanket statement that I have researched nothing. That is presumptive arrogance on your part and is patently unacceptable in a debate. I think I offered up a lot of evidence to support my opinions. I am waiting for Proto to inform me how he would like my next post to be formatted. The answers you seek may be in that post if he should so deem it appropriate.

4. I have no desire to denigrate anyone on this site. Why would you invite me to do so? That seems like bad form to me.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Dilligaf28]

Originally posted by crankyoldman
Dilligaf28

I am personally confused by those to come to threads to simply attempt to assert their belief system upon the rest. Can folks be so insecure in themselves that all threats to those beliefs must be met with fervent action taken against those who may contradict? And isn't this process of thinking the very thing that is used as an excuse to kill anyone that challenges us. Proto's main point above all else is the census is a metaphor for the whole process of governements taking control of a population and imposing its will on them without regard to the very thing said government proclaims to be reprsentitive of. If you are on this site at all then you agree with this implicitly.

It seems that what you are doing here, is taking the threat to your beliefs and attacking those with a differing opinion and using the idea of "helping" others - via protection through a hoax thread movement. No one stands taller then one who is so insecure that they use the "helping others" card to destroy conflicting beliefs. Weren't folks is Salem so insecure about the idea or supposed power of witches that they "helped" the town folks by burning them, rather than talking with them?

Lastly, do you believe, as proto clearly does, that each is free to choose their own path? Each is free to seek out the information that expands their freedom to the greatest level possible, or do you believe that there are limits to what one can be trusted with and that limit should be created and maintained by the masses through institutions like the government? Proto's point is we are not free enough and true freedom never hurt anyone, but you are saying true freedom on this thread will hurt people and you are so sure of it you'd like the thread stopped. If you are so sure it will hurt people, please demonstrate, not through hearsay and innuendo, what will happen to us by reading this.

as an aside, I believe I read the penalty for not complying is 100 bucks per question or 1k max, and no one has ever been imprisoned, though proto's 5 guests might feel like a prison.

I am personally confused by those that post threads and seem to not approve of dissenting opinions. The nature of this site is not one of a pulpit from which to preach one's views without opposition and if anyone think it is I am afraid you have sorely misinterpreted the purpose of ATS. I am attempting to provide a dissenting view from Proto but I am being met with baseless ridicule by the posters in this thread rather than true debate. I would ask if someone offers dissenting view and is met with verbal reprisal not relevant to the topic at hand would that not be a roadblock to? As for your remark about killing people I can only say that Glenn Beck style debate tactics are a poor way to go about expressing your opinion. My posting to this site does not imply my political views and I object to your saying it does.

I am not taking a threat to my belief system. Proto has himself claimed many times on this thread to be helping others. That being said you have thoroughly weakened his argument with your proclamation that helping others is a way to destroy dissenting views.

I did not say stop or remove the thread. I said move it to the hoax section. I said that because Proto has based his argument on erroneous conclusions drawn from inaccurate perceptions.

Demonstration:

Someone whom would otherwise meet their civic duty fails to do so thanks to Proto. This person faces prosecution for doing so thanks to the disinformation they have seen in this thread. This persons Congressional district also looses seats due to an inaccurate count and funding for public projects within the district. I think being disproportionately represented and lacking in funds needed to maintain your community is very detrimental to the average citizen. Do you agree that disproportionate representation and a lack of funding is bad for a citizen?

reply to post by Dilligaf28

Someone whom would otherwise meet their civic duty fails to do so thanks to Proto. This person faces prosecution for doing so thanks to the disinformation they have seen in this thread. This persons Congressional district also looses seats due to an inaccurate count and funding for public projects within the district. I think being disproportionately represented and lacking in funds needed to maintain your community is very detrimental to the average citizen. Do you agree that disproportionate representation and a lack of funding is bad for a citizen?

Debt is bad for the citizens, the nation is 14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and growing rapidly.

That works out to roughly 180,000.00 per man woman and child in the United States.

What funding do you imagine that they are giving us? Do you really imagine you have recieved, or I have recieved 180,000.00 in services from the U.S. Government to substantiate your or my individual portion of the debt. I can assure you I have not.

The only thing that I use that the government funds is roads, which comes from gasoline taxes.

Now as far as Congressional Representatives, those would be the people who racked up the 14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt I take it?

How much would you like to add to the national debt.

Do you have any idea how much the interest is on 14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt?

So far you have managed to ignore ever pertinent fact of this thread to push fairy tales.

Funding and congressional representatives?

The Census is a social contract identifying you as an employee of the Corporate Federal Government, that is going to keep racking up debt, and keep enslaving us too it, while constantly eroding our liberties, taxing us more, and providing virtually nothing of value except to special interest groups in exchange for popular support.

I am assuming you are in fact associated with one of those special interest groups, since you have in fact ignored every pertinent fact of this thread, to promote Cass Sunstein like ideas of little to no merrit.

Thanks for posting.

[edit on 22/5/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Dilligaf28

 

Someone whom would otherwise meet their civic duty fails to do so thanks to Proto. This person faces prosecution for doing so thanks to the disinformation they have seen in this thread. This persons Congressional district also looses seats due to an inaccurate count and funding for public projects within the district. I think being disproportionately represented and lacking in funds needed to maintain your community is very detrimental to the average citizen. Do you agree that disproportionate representation and a lack of funding is bad for a citizen?

Debt is bad for the citizens, the nation is 14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and growing rapidly.

That works out to roughly 180,000.00 per man woman and child in the United States.

What funding do you imagine that they are giving us? Do you really imagine you have recieved, or I have recieved 180,000.00 in services from the U.S. Government to substantiate your or my individual portion of the debt. I can assure you I have not.

The only thing that I use that the government funds is roads, which comes from gasoline taxes.

Now as far as Congressional Representatives, those would be the people who racked up the 14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt I take it?

How much would you like to add to the national debt.

Do you have any idea how much the interest is on 14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt?

So far you have managed to ignore ever pertinent fact of this thread to push fairy tales.

Funding and congressional representatives?

The Census is a social contract identifying you as an employee of the Corporate Federal Government, that is going to keep racking up debt, and keep enslaving us too it, while constantly eroding our liberties, taxing us more, and providing virtually nothing of value except to special interest groups in exchange for popular support.

I am assuming you are in fact associated with one of those special interest groups, since you have in fact ignored every pertinent fact of this thread, to promote Cass Sunstein like ideas of little to no merrit.

Thanks for posting.

[edit on 22/5/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

I was wondering how long it would take you to switch over to the classic tactic of accusing me of being an associate of those whom you oppose. Your argument is showing more and more cracks in it with each post you address to me. I am not a part of a special interest. I am a regular citizen of this country with no special connections of any sort.

All of that information you entered regarding the national debt is off topic for two reasons. The first being that I was asked to demonstrate what could happen by not complying with the Census and I did just that. There can be no dispute that my demonstration is a valid postulation of the consequences of not doing your Census. The second of which is that you are by your on claim as a sovereign citizen not responsible for any of that debt. If you are not responsible for that debt then why do you even bother to mention it in this thread?

You state that Congressmen created the national debt and you are in part correct. Congressmen are also the only way to legislate in this country and I feel that being fully represented is the best way for anyone to achieve change in government. If change is to happen we should be fully represented and denying the Census is an impediment to that change.

As for your statement about the census being a contract I simply must remind you this is one of the points I disagree with you about. You are simply wrong in my opinion regarding that matter and to state it as so much fact when it is an opinion clearly demonstrates you have a limited grasp of the proper procedures of debate and the difference between fact and opinion.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Dilligaf28

 

As for your statement about the census being a contract I simply must remind you this is one of the points I disagree with you about. You are simply wrong in my opinion regarding that matter and to state it as so much fact when it is an opinion clearly demonstrates you have a limited grasp of the proper procedures of debate and the difference between fact and opinion.

Seems to me the onus is on you, prove to us it isn't a contract, Proto has posted the facts over and over, now the ball is in your court.

reply to post by Dilligaf28

Someone whom would otherwise meet their civic duty fails to do so thanks to Proto. This person faces prosecution for doing so thanks to the disinformation they have seen in this thread. This persons Congressional district also looses seats due to an inaccurate count and funding for public projects within the district. I think being disproportionately represented and lacking in funds needed to maintain your community is very detrimental to the average citizen. Do you agree that disproportionate representation and a lack of funding is bad for a citizen?

Finally, after several posts today do you bring something of substance that is on topic and can be spoken to with intelligence. Proto's O.P., which took two posts to communicate, towards the end of the second post states:

Having said that, I am not advocating anyone else do this, or encouraging anyone else to do so, for me it’s a matter of personal choice, and retaining my options to make personal choices, by refusing what I am sure is just a binding social contract I don’t want to be a party to or obligated too.

This should not be ignored, and those who oppose Proto's stance should not pretend that Proto has endeavored to convince others to go down the road Proto has. Great care and due diligence was taken to make clear that this was one mans experience, and all this one man endeavored to do was share that experience and the knowledge that one man has gained. To offer up a hypothetical where people are facing prosecution based upon a thread in this site is what is known as The Straw Man Fallacy, or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, as in arguing what might happen with no evidence to support it will.

It is also interesting that in the same sentence you lump together the loosing of a seat in the House of Representative with federal funding. One has some validity the other has none. The Constitution for the United States of America does not obligate the federal government to fund the states, or private citizens, and you are relying upon the fallacy of adverse consequences, not to mention the appeal to widespread belief, if indeed the notion that the states are welfare recipients of the federal government is actually a widespread belief.

You are welcome to your opinions, and I am willing to discuss the notion of a disproportionate representation as a valid concern, but this fallacious argument that communities are incapable of funding themselves and must rely upon the federal government in order to survive is merely your opinion and not at all based in fact. As to the disproportionate members of the House of Representatives, all that is necessary in order for apportionment to work is that the number of people in a house hold be counted, above the age of 18 years old. One simple question on a census handles this problem, and it is hard to believe that a large group of people would actually have a problem answering this single question.

That the Census Bureau has taken to asking more than this one question is dubious, divisive, and dangerous to the people, as has been demonstrated by history. One simple question is all that need be asked in order to properly apportion for the House of Representatives and any direct taxes passed, but since Congress is loathe to pass direct taxes, that point seems sort of moot at this point, and it is merely a concern of electing representatives.




[edit on 22-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Proto is a big boy who can take care of himself.

Do you fear for him or do you have faith in him?

reply to post by Aquarius1


Proto is a big boy who can take care of himself.

Do you fear for him or do you have faith in him?

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Proto is a big boy who can take care of himself.

Do you fear for him or do you have faith in him?

Do you fear defending others who deserve that defense? I spent one paragraph defending Proto and the rest of that post speaking to the fallacious arguments as to why people should comply unquestioningly with the 2010 Census. Did you miss that part, or are you simply deflecting?

I find it very interesting that there is so much money to be had in acquiring the data that some here deem to be so trivial. With our oceans being ruined, the deficit climbing per second, wars raging and people in need, they still dole out countless millions for this trivial information that they should by all accounts already have. There is more to this than meets the eye in my opinion.

We've already seen the ADL make an appearance on this thread where they eluded to U.S. prosecutors and law firms. We've seen threats and all calls for relegating this thread to the hoax forum. You have to ask yourself why? If this is just a head count so we could be represented correctly, isn't this all just a bit too much? Come on sheeple, just sign the cards and get them back to us it won't hurt you, really.

Census Bureau Awards $500 Million Contract to Capture and Standardize 2010 Census Data

The U.S. Census Bureau has awarded a contract of more than $500 million to the Lockheed Martin Corporation, headquartered in Bethesda, Md., for the 2010 Census Decennial Response Integration System (DRIS). The DRIS contract will include developing an option for filing census questionnaire responses via the Internet. The contract also includes systems, facilities and staffing to capture and standardize census data via paper census forms, telephone and the Internet. Lockheed Martin will team with IBM, Computer Sciences Corporation, Pearson Government Solutions and several other companies to perform the six-year contract.

2010.census.gov...

IPMG scores 400k Census contract

Independent Print Media Group (IPMG) has bagged a $400,000 government contract to print items for the national Census. IPMG says the success with the public tender will strengthen its presence in the government printing sector. The contract includes a print total of more than 30 million items made up of Census Guides, Dwelling Cards, Refusal Reports, and Obligation Statements, which will be printed by Craft Imprint based in Sydney and Brisbane.

www.i-grafix.com...

RR Donnelley Awarded Multi-Year US Census Contract

The US Government Printing Office has awarded R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company a $49.7 million multi-year contract to produce documents and provide consultative, supply chain management and other services for 2010 Census. RR Donnelley will produce and coordinate the mailing of census questionnaires that will be received in more than 120 million households throughout the United States.

www.printlaw.com...

Census Bureau Announces Award of 2010 Census Communications Contract

The Census Bureau today announced that it has awarded its 2010 Census communications contract, worth an estimated $200 million, to Draftfcb of New York. Draftfcb Link to a non-federal Web site is a full-service marketing communications agency that is part of the Interpublic Group of communications companies. "It's absolutely vital that everyone participate in the census, and as our nation becomes more diverse, the challenge of reaching everyone becomes greater," said Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon. "This requires a large, complex, behavior-change campaign, especially one that reaches historically hard-to-count populations."

2010.census.gov...

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Aquarius1

 

Proto is a big boy who can take care of himself.

Do you fear for him or do you have faith in him?

No I do not fear for him anymore then I fear for all of us, I do have faith in Proto in that he brings us something to think about, you bet he can take care of himself, some of us here like to show our support from time to time, Proto puts a lot of time, thought and research into his threads and am sure he would like to know it's appreciated.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Dilligaf28

 

This should not be ignored, and those who oppose Proto's stance should not pretend that Proto has endeavored to convince others to go down the road Proto has. Great care and due diligence was taken to make clear that this was one mans experience, and all this one man endeavored to do was share that experience and the knowledge that one man has gained. To offer up a hypothetical where people are facing prosecution based upon a thread in this site is what is known as The Straw Man Fallacy, or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, as in arguing what might happen with no evidence to support it will.

It is also interesting that in the same sentence you lump together the loosing of a seat in the House of Representative with federal funding. One has some validity the other has none. The Constitution for the United States of America does not obligate the federal government to fund the states, or private citizens, and you are relying upon the fallacy of adverse consequences, not to mention the appeal to widespread belief, if indeed the notion that the states are welfare recipients of the federal government is actually a widespread belief.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

I am curious how you can say that my statement is a Straw Man Fallacy? If you do not comply with the Census you can face prosecution for this under the law. This is not a fallacy this is a fact. The above scenario was a hypothetical extrapolation of what would occur to anyone if they failed to comply with the Census. I thought that was what you asked me to do was to demonstrate what might happen? I said what might happen if Proto inspired someone to not fill out there Census.

"If you are so sure it will hurt people, please demonstrate, not through hearsay and innuendo, what will happen to us by reading this."

It is a fact that the count of the census is used to determine the number of representatives apportioned to the citizens and it is a fact that undercounting will lead to misrepresentation. It is a fact that communities can loose federal funding due to undercounting during the Census. Please understand that these facts are based on U.S. law not my own postulations.

I "lumped" the statements regarding representation and funding together due to a typographical error in all honesty. There was supposed to have been a semi colon that I accidentally left out of the sentence. It should have read "this persons Congressional district also looses seats due to an inaccurate count; and funding for public projects within the district." The semicolon would have more clearly illustrated that I was speaking of two different sets of consequences stemming from one action. I can understand your confusion regarding that poorly formatted sentence.

In no part of my statement did I say that the states cannot survive without federal funding. Please site where I said this. I said the communities would lack in funding they need to maintain themselves and I stand by this based upon the present needs of the states regarding federal funding. I did not say the Constitution mandates Federal funding of the states. I wish people would be more aware of what someone said versus what people extrapolate from what was said.

As for Proto's "disclaimer" regarding his actions I can only say cigarette companies put warning labels on their cigarettes but people still smoke.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


Okay, I'll play a bit since you seem to have a much greater understanding of the purpose of the Census - count and apportion congressman which in turn allocates money and services which all are in need of. Fair enough.

Could you then explain why I need to include my race? Since race involves genetics, and not skin color, how can I answer this question? It seems to me that this simply adds fuel to the slavery issue as the only way to answer is skin color, which goes back to the white is right rules. Without a DNA breakdown, I can't answer race with any degree of certainty, which means I cannot answer the question at all. If I do answer the question "white" it is a lie, an knowing lie, and subjects myself to all manner of ramifications.

Could you explain why the need for apportionment leads to some people, not ALL people, getting a form with dozens of questions. I admit I have not seen these as I did not get this type, but I have read others have questions about income, toilets and so on. Why is this relevant to the apportionment? If you are a mayor of a backwater town you know the answers to these questions just fine and can apply for debt based money from the Fed anytime.

GPS tagging of doors? This one vexes me. If the whole purpose of the constitutionally mandated survey is to count heads, move congress people around and dole out money as you say, why tag the door long before the count starts? The "to help first responders" is the only answer I have heard, but as many have pointed out here - this would be a local issue and is not mandated by the constitution, ergo if the states and counties wanted to "employee" census workers to do this on their own the local folks should have decided to do this on their own. They tagged doors, not lots, I don't see the constitution here and google maps works just fine, as do what we have had in place for years. This one disturbs.

reply to post by crankyoldman


To reply to that would truly take us off topic. I was asked for an example and I provided it. I was not asked at any point about the number of questions on the Census form until I responded with something factual as requested

Bringing up the other questions is a tactic called misdirection. You want to undermine the validity of my response to the post by examining other aspects of the Census that were not a part of the original query.

I am sorry but I will not engage in a discussion of the other questions with you. To do so would allow your attempt to succeed and I will not do that. I gave you what you asked for when I provided a hypothetical example of what could happen should someone not fill out their census form as requested.



[edit on 22-5-2010 by Dilligaf28]

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Dilligaf28]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


To be honest, I believe that the Constitution, as it was originally drafted, was nothing more than a bankruptcy procedural document. I, like Patrick Henry, smell a rat.

If you look at The Contract of 1782, you will notice that the considerable debt represented by this document came due January 1, 1788, thus the scramble for a Constitutional Convention in 1787 and the subsequent rapid passage, were a move for reoroganization for bankruptcy.

What most people are referring to when they bring up the Constitution and go on about how wonderful it is, etc., are the Ten Bill of Rights that were attached to the Constitution, but was not actually a part of the original draft. The Bill of Rights were actually thrown in as a last minute concession for the dissent of this document, mainly from Virginia (thank you Virginia, though they are rendered moot today.) The drafters of the Constitution did not want them in there, but had no choice, if they were going to meet their obligations of the the Contract of 1782, so out of desperation they aquiesced.

What the Constitution was, based on this evidence, was a Crown document, drafted by officers of the King's court, making our government and laws compatible with the Crown corporation for the collection of debts owed her creditors.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by HothSnake]