The 2010 Census, How I Have Responded to 5 Enumerators

page: 13
76
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 





I am curious how you can say that my statement is a Straw Man Fallacy?


The answer to that is in what you quoted of my post. You suggested that people will face prosecution because of this thread, and now you wish to change your argument and assert that non compliance will lead to prosecution. It is one thing to make the point that non compliance will lead to prosecution, and another thing entirely to claim that this thread will lead people to non-compliance. Your Straw Man is in the latter.




The above scenario was a hypothetical extrapolation of what would occur to anyone if they failed to comply with the Census.


No, the hypothetical was offered in your defense of suggesting this thread be moved to hoax, and that is a fact.




I thought that was what you asked me to do was to demonstrate what might happen?


I never asked any such thing from you. I asked a few things of you, one being you drop this horrid idea of moving this thread to hoax, I asked you to point to which valid arguments you believed you made in previous posts so I could better understand what you mean by valid arguments, and I asked you to make a commitment with me to stay on topic. I never asked you to demonstrate what might happen.




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


This that you quoted was not posted by me, and I have no idea who you are quoting I just simply know it is not me. I went back several pages, just to give you the benefit of the doubt and make certain I did not write it, and now that all doubt has been removed, I don't mind telling you how annoying that was, to re-read my own posts knowing full well I did not write that, just to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are playing a lame game my friend, and attributing the words of someone else to me is more than insidious and should be looked at for what it is, and only undermines you own assertions as to your intent. You have ignored the requests I have made of you and disingenuously answered some other posters questions and now pretend I asked that question. Even if this was accidental, at best what this means is you are having difficulties in discernment.




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.


I did not challenge this fact as being invalid, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it won't make it any more of a fact.




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.


This "fact" I challenge, and I ask of you, so what? Why should communities be getting federal funding to begin with? Where in the Constitution has the federal government been mandated with doing this? Please understand that it is a fact based upon the Supreme Law of the Land, that the federal government has no obligation to fund communities, and not my own suppositions.




I "lumped" the statements regarding representation and funding together due to a typographical error in all honesty.


I can accept that.




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.


There was no confusion, and I fully understood what you meant by funding for public projects within the community, and my argument was that you took one valid argument, that being loss of representation in the House, and combined it with a not so valid argument, that being a federal welfare program. You went further in that paragraph to assert that this lack of funding could be very detrimental for the average citizen. You did qualify it as an opinion, and that is what it is, an opinion offered as a scare tactic to those who seem to feel a need for federal funding. I reject your opinion on that matter as valid, and would love to see communities across the nation refuse federal funding on principle alone, but that is my opinion. What is not my opinion is that federal funding of communities by the federal government is not an obligation that must be met. That is a fact.




In no part of my statement did I say that the states cannot survive without federal funding.


More dis ingenuousness argument from you. I did not accuse you of saying that the states cannot survive, and called you on this:




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?


And this is what I said:




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.





I wish people would be more aware of what someone said versus what people extrapolate from what was said.


Perhaps you could begin with what you said, and stop pretending I said something else. Do you honestly believe that all you have to do is misrepresent what I said, and others reading this will believe your misrepresentation and not know that I did not say what you said I did? I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say. You on the other hand have been quite dishonest about the matter.




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


All people have free will and must accept responsibility for their own actions. As to the quotation marks you've put around the word disclaimer, once again it is unclear who you are quoting, since you have conveniently left that factoid out, but you sure as hell ain't quoting me.




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


What I and others have tried to ask Proto about is his basis for this entire supposition of his. He assumed the trademark on the logo of the Census envelope applied to the United States of America instead of the logo itself.

His error in assumption means his argument is invalid as a whole given that his entire argument is predicated on the supposed trademarked United States in the logo. Not only is Proto wrong regarding the placement of the trademark in the logo; he would rather say that businesses whom stand the most to loose regarding trademark placement are in error than admit his own fallacy.

How is it that by Protos own statement nearly every major and minor corporation in this country has their trademarks in the wrong spot? (posted on 21-5-2010 @ 11:17 AM in response to a post by Benevolent Heretic)


Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Well I guess all those big businesses have it wrong!

.... remainder of Protos response deleted to save space


I can tell you how this is so; this is so because the companies having their trademark in the wrong spot would validate Proto's opinion. The thought that Proto could be in error regarding his assumption of the trademark is so unbelievable to him that he would rather think all of business is wrong than consider that he himself is in error.

So who is right? All of big business or Proto? Shouldn't all of big business be beating down Proto's proverbial door so that they can finally have their trademarks in the right place and thereby protect billions possibly trillions of dollars worth of intellectual property? I mean I know Proto doesn't use U.S. currency as he has no need but how can anyone pass up the opportunity to earn that much currency through consultation work that so many others hold of value? If nothing else Proto could offer these consultations and donate the paper to anyone he sees fit that values it.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

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?


Actually as we all know it's not really a Proto Thread at this stage without a Musical Intermission...

So lets us visit that most hallowed of stages from a litle farm in upstate New York, in a village named Woodstock, where Joe Cocker, will sing to us that most important thing in life that none of us should ever loose sight of, ignore or forget.

We all get by with a little help from our friends!



Thanks to all my great friends here on ATS, like Joe, you rock!



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


I understand and Im confident he knows he is supported wholeheartedly


I just have to wonder if, in all the good intentions, it is actually reflecting something opposite of what Proto has been standing strong on.

It may appear that he in fact has "puppets" as he has claimed others are and have.

You see, he hopes for others to take a different approach when handling things, that we let go of the way we have been programmed to approach, if I may say it that way.

I just think he has said enough in the way of thinking and approaching and dealing with ...the shadow government, the sheeple approach and way of thinking. The follow the crowd like cattle....

Im struggling somewhat in getting my point across and I apologize for that


Proto in all of his years of research and thought and passion, is capable of speaking for himself without looking like he is no different than the very things he IS different from.

I understand this thread is for all who wish to partake. And we should too.
But with all the hours and dedication he has put into sharing his point of view. With all he has done to clarify what he thinks is distorted by Rome, when does what he hopes for apply?
Is it when we are comfortable and in a controlled environment or is it when we are uncomfortable and not in such a controlled environment?

I just wonder that in all he has said and to so many, ....when does it turn into action and not always talk talk talk.

Silence is an action, so is talking and posting but is it from the same view or is it from the view of a new and different set of eyes?


Please understand I know all on here have good intentions, in the name of fairness and peace and understanding.
So stop for just a moment to make sure you (we) aren't posting in a way that would give the appearance of what most agree is sheeple or puppeteer.

I for one have been going through my own inner growth and awareness and am determined to learn how to take a different approach and a different kind of focus.
It's not easy and even if I fall on my face a dozen times or more, I'm determined to widen my view.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You are correct Jean Paul regarding that you did not ask me for a hypothetical situation. It was Crankyoldman that asked me about a hypothetical situation not you. I apologize for the error.




[edit on 22-5-2010 by Dilligaf28]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


This would not take it off topic at all. The point is the validity of such questions and, as you have mentioned, the trouble one can be in if the don't answer correctly.

The census asks for race. Race cannot be determined based on skin color, but only skin color can be determined. To answer "white" or "black" is perjury as this is not a race but skin color. You have suggested unequivocally that is our duty to answer the census - all questions. We all feel that the process behind these questions is a lie, it would seem to me the race issue is proof number one: what purpose does this question serve? The only reason for race to be a question is as it relates to slavery in practice - slave is less than white man. Since it is "illegal" to discriminate based on race, why is this still there and why am I subject to penalty if answer - I don't know my DNA, or don't answer? You want me to answer anyway both to protect myself from trouble and to get money and representation - so how do I protest this conflict with the non-discrimination laws?

It seems to me that your argument for head count is reasonable at some level based on your interpretation of the census and civic duty.If one wants to know why "race" or why "income" the answers are "funding" and nothing else. Doesn't this imply discrimination and who is behind this effort? Many many have pointed out head count makes sense, but the rest is for cataloging of people for a reason that said people cannot know - funding, funding funding.

Proto main point which is key, there is no money. Funding is "borrowed" fiat currency on your behalf. The census allows accurate debt to be incurred on your behalf. That troubles many of us.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Just to expand a bit further on my prior post about the resources that are used to accumulate this census data, I felt it necessary to include the article below. In it, officials tell a panel that the initial estimate of 14.7 billion may be surpassed.

The 2000 census cost 6.5 billion after it was all said and done. Ten years later and the cost seems to have more than doubled. I posted just some of the lucrative contracts that were afforded for the effort this year. Does this money go on our tab as well? I'm sure it does.


Cost of 2010 census remains elusive, officials tell panel



Overseers of the 2010 census said on Wednesday that it is almost impossible to determine the total cost of the decennial count. "At this point, it's just unknown" if the cost of the census will ultimately surpass the current estimate of $14.7 billion, Commerce Department Inspector General Todd Zinser told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, which oversees the count. A GAO report released at the subcommittee's hearing showed that the first major operation conducted by census workers -- the "address canvassing" campaign to confirm millions of addresses nationwide -- went $88 million over budget, or 25 percent of costs.


www.govexec.com...

If I had to vote on whether to do a census or use fifteen billion dollars elsewhere, I would vote to use fifteen billion dollars elsewhere.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


Thanks Jack, for posting that information on the cost of the census. Where those who are insisting a census is necessary to properly apportion among the several states are quite correct in this matter, (although the funding part is not necessary), why would it cost the federal government 6.5 billion dollars ten years ago to do this, and more than double now? What in God's name is that damned federal government up to that they can't run a simple census on a reasonable budget? Of course, the GPS nonsense must bring that cost up quite a bit, and in terms of apportionment there just is no need to use a GPS. There was no need in the beginning, there was no need a hundred years ago, and there was no need fifty years ago, why is there a need for that now?

It appears as if the federal government with their registered trademarks and logo's are in the business of spending money, and I don't know of any business that can manage to stay profitable if their business is spending money. Of course, the federal government has no business being profitable, nor do they have any business being a non profit organization, and should just simply focus on being a government.

If governments are not instituted for the purpose of protecting the rights of the individual then those government instituted for other purposes have no validity. If The United States of America, both federal and the states, are to have any validity at all, then it has to be because they exist to protect the rights of the individual. A census makes sense only in terms of apportionment, and for this reason there is just one question that need be asked of each household, and frankly, if that is the only question being asked, then a simple mailer to each household, sent once, should suffice. If certain households fail to answer this census, then the loss is theirs in terms of representation, and I can see no good reason why a failure to answer should be construed as criminal activity. If a person doesn't care about the number of representatives in his or her state, and is willing to take the risk of less representation, how is this a crime?

All crime must show a victim, and it is stretching it to suggest that a failure to answer a census, and the subsequent consequence is less representation makes victims out of those who want more representation. The three fifths Clause stands as a testament to how willing people were to put personal self interest before representation. For surely if slave holders wanted more representation, they never would have insisted on the compromise that is known as the three fifths Clause, and instead let go of their notions that they had a right to keep slaves, and acknowledged those they kept as slaves were whole persons that could be counted as such in terms of apportionment.

If the Congress of Representatives who wrote the Constitution thought apportionment was so important that every person be counted as a whole person, they never would had agreed to this compromise, so whether a slave holder or not, all Representatives who wrote the Constitution were less concerned with how a census was taken in terms of whole persons, and more concerned with bringing as many states into the Union as possible. From the beginning, our federal government has played shenanigans with the census, and if they want it to be taken seriously they should knock off the shenanigans and just simply focus on a simple head count, and then do their damn jobs, which has nothing at all to do with spending the peoples money as largely and as quickly as they can.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I suspect in part, to lower the unemployment rate for a brief time, and ultimately to launder large portions of funds for other activities that we have no say in. Like covert operations that the CIA undertake on 'our' behalf. Like new killing platforms that they roll out every month for the 'war on terror'. Like diplomatic efforts that include a non stop aerial drone attack on evil-doers. These are just my suspicions as to how this has gotten so out of control mind you. Another thing to consider is, if people don't participate then those in power have no one to represent thereby we don't need them and they lose their positions of power.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by HothSnake
 


I am still relatively new to the whole conspiracy of debt issue, and have been doing my best to read up on it so I can speak more intelligently to it. Hell, it was only a few years ago that I read The Anti-Federalist Papers for the first time, and what an eye opener that was!

I agree with you that what most people fawn over, in terms of the Constitution is The Bill of Rights, and even that is problematic. There was resistance to those Amendments as well, and for good reason, and clearly prescient reasons. The fear of enumerating rights was that it would be construed that what hasn't been enumerated would not be acknowledged as a right. This was the purpose of the 9th and 10th Amendments. Even with those Amendments how many members of Congress today acknowledge that rights are inalienable and can not be abrogated nor derogated?

It is next to impossible to find a licensed attorney that will acknowledge that rights are inalienable and I am talking about those licensed attorneys that are supposed to zealously advocate their clients rights! Our current President, who likes to be known as a "Constitutional scholar", used his State of the Union Address to chastise The SCOTUS for upholding the actual language of the First Amendment! Ask any of these "Constitutional scholars", when they are insisting that the Constitution doesn't grant the right to this, or the right to that, what the purpose of the 9th Amendment is, and if they don't just simply ignore that question, they will offer up nonsensical rhetoric explaining that the 9th Amendment is "too vague", and "how can we know if it is a right if it hasn't been enumerated?"

As if we can't know what rights are without legislation. As if it is just too difficult for the average person of average intelligence to comprehend that if an action does not harm another persons right, then it is a right. It is a very simple concept, and the only ones who deign to disagree with that simplicity are those who insist only complexity that can only be understood by the elite priest class who utter their mystical incantations can know what are rights and what are not. Thus, the Bill of Rights has been used against the people more than it has been used to protect their rights. So, it would seem even that vaunted portion of The Constitution is dubious.

There is much I need to learn, of this there is no doubt. In the meantime, I think it prudent to know and understand the document that stands as The Supreme Law of the Land. Thank you for sharing what you have, it is more than greatly appreciated.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


It seems that no matter how "sophisticated" We the People become, the notion that People are capable of self government remains a radical idea.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


I've known about that speech by James Trafficant for years. I used to watch him on CSPAN all of the time, and thought that the guy was one of the few members of Congress to actually tell the truth and have the balls to stand up and tell it like it is. The guy was hilarious with his "beam me up Scotty," and other nefarious shenanigans.

What's interesting is that there should be a video record of this speech, and supposedly it was aired, briefly on CSPAN, but as soon as they figured out what he was talking about, they cut to something else.

I wonder if anyone has the actual CSPAN footage? I looked for it on Youtube and came to a deadend, but I'm sure that someone somewhere recorded it, at least what was allowed to be aired of it.

It was also supposedly expunged from the Congressional Record at one point. Just goes to show you that it definately rattled some feathers.

But what's great about this speech is that he lays it out so concisely, and backs it up with the public record. You really can't look at his speech and say, "oh, this guy is crazy," cause it's right there in the public record.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by HothSnake]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Even the organic law of this country (The Declaration of Independance) is suspect.

The original draft of this document, from what I understand, used the word unalienable instead of inalienable, and from what I understand there is a big difference, as inalienable rights are revokeable privileges and unalienable rights are not.

Also, Jefferson included something about slavery in the original, from what I've read.

The original also spoke to property rights, where it stated "Life, Liberty, and property, as opposed to the adopted "pursuit of happiness" phrase.

Benjamin Franklin (Illuminatus) edited all of this out of the original draft, from what I understand.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


As usual, Jean Paul, you are right on... The section of the Constitution that delegates the Census was speaking to congress and congress alone, as this was the section enumerating the powers of congress. It had nothing to do whatsoever with the people, and that is the dirty trick that is being played in that people just don't understand the Constitution and don't realize that the only section of the Constitution that actually speaks to "We The People" is the Bill of Rights, but even most of those are a list of prohibitions enumerating the power of the Federal Government, and do not speak to the people directly, except for the 9th and 10th amendments.

What should be noted is that the Constitutiona actually restrains the authority of Congress to legislate within the ten square miles that is the District of Columbia. So if you actually look at it, Congress was only granted the authority to count the heads of those that physically resided within the District of Columbia.

That is why Washington had to distictize the entire country, creating the District states and District courts (these are military Districts by the way) and use the Whiskey Rebellion to martialize the whole process, and bring every state under the District of Columbia. Of course, its a bit more complicated than this because these aren't just military districts, but were also created for the purpose of incorporation under the Crown commercial legal system. This took centuries to complete, over crisis after national crisis, but the groundwork was laid by Washington and taken to a whole new level by Lincoln during and after the Civil War. 1871 marked the end of the United States of America as we knew it.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 





It may appear that he in fact has "puppets" as he has claimed others are and have.


I promote freewill, self mastery and self responsibility as an approach to life. I encourage everyone always to act in accordance with what they truly feel is best for them; I simply caution people to exercise wisdom, and self responsibility to that end.

Most members hold me in esteem and regard me with various degrees of affection because I do preach a self empowering message, and there is no denying that people who do seek to then master themselves, and take full responsibility for their actions end up on an evolving path, that leads to a greater quality of life.

Some do in fact regard me highly for that, while some regard me quite poorly for that, yet no matter how much someone agrees with or likes me, or disagrees with me or dislikes me, I make no attempt to lead anyone or coordinate my posts here on ATS with anyone.

That would interfere with freewill.


You see, he hopes for others to take a different approach when handling things, that we let go of the way we have been programmed to approach, if I may say it that way.

I just think he has said enough in the way of thinking and approaching and dealing with ...the shadow government, the sheeple approach and way of thinking. The follow the crowd like cattle....


What I hope for most of all is that people understand that their actions really do have a ripple effect and much of what ails society is a result of the average person’s individual actions.

If you shop at Wal-Mart and buy foreign made goods, yes, in fact you are hurting the very economy that sustains us here domestically by creating a trade deficit, and eliminating jobs for Americans at the same time.

I can provide many examples of how our own individual actions are actually the disease that only the individual, not the government, and not I, have the cure for.

Invariably most people do not want to believe their own actions in doing something like shopping at Wal-Mart have the very real impact that they do. They will make excuses for those actions, and say well it’s just me, I don’t buy that much, or I don’t have any other shopping choices, or the government should do something about it, or I will stop when everyone else stops, or I can’t afford to shop at anyplace more expensive or further away.

Yet they are all self defeating excuses that lead on a spiraling and self contained path towards self defeat and self destruction.

Proto can’t make you stop shopping at Wal-Mart and buying foreign goods, only you can do that.




Proto in all of his years of research and thought and passion, is capable of speaking for himself without looking like he is no different than the very things he IS different from.


I am in fact very capable of speaking for myself, and in fact no one speaks for me but me, though many people do speak of me, in both good and bad ways.

Proto does not tell people what to do, though I will often encourage people to stay on topic when they drift from it.

For some reason, Proto often becomes the topic, which I typically frown upon, but the truth is that this particular thread is about how I handled my encounters with Census Enumerators which does make me part of the topic on this occasion.




I understand this thread is for all who wish to partake. And we should too.
But with all the hours and dedication he has put into sharing his point of view. With all he has done to clarify what he thinks is distorted by Rome, when does what he hopes for apply?


Proto in fact hopes for nothing, and this is a big part of self mastery. The minute you start hoping for and wanting something, will be the minute someone dangles it in front of you like a carrot on a stick and makes you start jumping for it.

Proto does like some things though, like rain drops and kittens, and warm wooly mittens!

Proto is simply being responsible in sharing his own thoughts, perspectives, insights and knowledge with others.

Proto too learns from other’s thoughts, perspectives, insights and knowledge at the same time.

I am aware that many people right now are frightened, frustrated, uncertain and suffering in various ways, and this does grieve me of course.

Yet I understand, even while most others do not or are reluctant too that most of this comes from a lack of situational awareness, poor observational and reasoning skills, poor communication skills, and an inability or lack of desire to consider how a person’s individual actions do have a powerful reverberating effect.

I am neither under the assumption that the vast bulk of people want to change these afflictions, or don't want to change these afflictions, I am just sharing my personal observations on what is in fact causing people to be frightened, frustrated, uncertain and suffering in various ways.

Ultimately the choice to change the world is yours not mine. That is what Proto is trying to explain to people.

If you don’t want to change your world I am utterly powerless to change it for you as I will not interfere with other people’s freewill.




I just wonder that in all he has said and to so many, ....when does it turn into action and not always talk talk talk.


I have always been a person of action. In fact I live my life by a very rigid code that requires my own self discipline and adherence to it. I act in accordance with that every day.

I am the guy who doesn’t shop at Wal-Mart but buys locally made products, I am the guy not drinking fluoridated water, or eating foods full of chemicals and steroids, I am the guy who doesn’t argue endlessly over a corrupt two party political system, that is nothing but a dog and pony show to distract people from a corporate/military dictatorship, in short I am the guy who told the Census Enumerators 5 different times, politely and with full explanation why I won’t participate in a corrupt and self defeating system.

I am the guy who recognizes the ripple effect of my own actions and acts according to that with forethought, consideration and the greatest wisdom I can muster.

What you are asking in essence is when I will become as responsible for other’s actions as I am towards my own, and the truth is that if you can’t master yourself, neither can I.

So it really is about when you are going to take action, to make your environment a product of you, instead of being a product of your environment.




Silence is an action, so is talking and posting but is it from the same view or is it from the view of a new and different set of eyes?


I think if you read my posts carefully and objectively you will discover, I am never telling anyone that they must draw a certain conclusion or my conclusion. People don’t have much luck in getting me to draw a different conclusion or their conclusion, and sometimes this frustrates them, but the reality is, I always tell them, I respect their right to have their own opinion, but please respect my right to have one of my own as well.

I simply share what I know, what I have observed, sometimes the things that I have done too, and my perspectives, but ultimately you like everyone else has to decide for yourself what is best.

You will never hear me say otherwise.




Please understand I know all on here have good intentions, in the name of fairness and peace and understanding.


Actually the Internet is going to be the preeminent battleground of World War III, and not everyone on here has good intentions, or wants peace.




So stop for just a moment to make sure you (we) aren't posting in a way that would give the appearance of what most agree is sheeple or puppeteer.


This is good advice; people should always examine their own actions, and question them, as well as the actions of others and question them as well.




I for one have been going through my own inner growth and awareness and am determined to learn how to take a different approach and a different kind of focus.

It's not easy and even if I fall on my face a dozen times or more, I'm determined to widen my view.


This is a very good thing, and the truth is that self mastery is a never ending task that is not easy.

When you realize that your actions do have an impact on yourself and a wide range of others, and do make a difference in how the world is and effects others, it creates a whole new level of responsibility that necessitates much greater thought, focus and care in the things that you do and say.

It is a challenge, but those who successfully meet challenges, typically enjoy great rewards.

Thanks for posting.



[edit on 22/5/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HothSnake
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Another great thread Proto and I'm glad that at least one of us has the gumption and courage to not only just stand up and be heard, but to take action in their righteous defiance of the corrupt system that you have so eloquently exposed. A thought is one thing, to act on that thought and then prove it, well.... Isn't that what the scientific method is all about? True knowledge can only be gleaned from experience, which is why hearsay is not admissable in any court of law (should I have capitalized LAW? I don't know?
)

PS. I was going to be one of the first ones to post a reply to this thread the other day, but I didn't see it until very late, got tired and went to bed. After working all morning, I came home and the thread had grown by like 11 pages. Due to time constraints placed on me by my family obligations, it took me a while to get through the whole thread, and I didn't want to post without reading it through.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by HothSnake]

[edit on 22-5-2010 by HothSnake]


The truth is my friend; there is no point in having convictions if you aren’t prepared to act upon them!

Proto is not a don’t do as I do, do as I say kind of guy, I am more like the, don’t try this at home boys and girls, Proto is a trained maniac kind of guy.

The truth is I have been standing up for myself, and what I believe is right my whole life, despite the fact that often when I do, invariably someone steals my darn chair!

Knowledge for knowledge’s sake is nice, but does little good if you aren’t prepared to put that knowledge to the test and to apply it in real world applications, circumstances and ways.

As always you bring a real wealth of information to the table as far as some very great and significant, and detailed research and perspectives.

Believe it or not I actually posted the thread, because I was a bit concerned after seeing a couple other members posting threads about unpleasant confrontations with Census Enumerators, and while everyone has to make their own choices, I don’t think being belligerent or confrontational with the Census Enumerators is a good idea.

So I thought it might be helpful to display what I found out, that just taking a pleasant, but educating and explanatory stance with the Enumerators can be sufficient to get them to desist from trying to get you to participate if you don’t want to participate.

I didn’t think the thread would have grown to the extent it has, since most people have either filled out the Census and mailed it in, or allowed a Enumerator to fill it out for them.

This was meant more along the lines to my fellow hold outs to be nice to the enumerators, who are just doing their jobs.

As always thanks for the great additions to the thread, it’s always a pleasure and an educational one to read your posts.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I am ready to give up my google championship, my question is what percentage of the population sends back the census form, think I read a couple of weeks ago around 60 percent, of those 60 percent how many are contacted physically, of the 40 percent who didn't return the form, how many of those are contacted. Have not been able to find that information.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Pretty amazing a 13,000,000,000.00 dollar effort to acquire data, with no data on the succes of the efforts to acquire the data.

The Government Accounting Office must love that.

What a crazy world we live in.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   


What should be noted is that the Constitutiona actually restrains the authority of Congress to legislate within the ten square miles that is the District of Columbia. So if you actually look at it, Congress was only granted the authority to count the heads of those that physically resided within the District of Columbia.


I think that this little tidbit here is the key to understanding what is actually going on here with these undeclared contracts, which is what the Census actually is.

It may appear harmless on the surface, these contracts always do and that is how they get you, but the truth is that the government really can't do anything without you express permission and it is written clearly within the Constitution itself.

Think of it as a nondisclosure agreement, which is basically a fully disclosed contract between you and someone else, where you are essentially contracting your first amendment rights away by signing that you acknowledge this fact and are ok with it, which is why you would sign such a thing. Only in the case of an undeclared contract, essentially you are being conned into giving your right, or rights, away only you are probably not aware of it, since the full nature of the contract is not disclosed to both parties. It's essentially a con game.



The Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;


Like "The City" is to London, the District of Columbia is the secret conclave that rules Amerika under the law merchant. The corporate district that houses the seat of our government and carries on the Roman commercial tradition, which makes our laws compatible with the Crown, while keeping the obligations and charters between the Crown and her incorporated District States valid.

As stated above, Congress is given exclusive authority to legislate only within the ten square miles that is the District of Columbia, and that authority is without restraint "in all cases whatsoever" within those ten square miles. So before the system was put into place, and it took several wars, and declarations of martial law before it could be put into place, only those individuals that physically lived within the District of Columbia were under Congress' exclusive legislative jurisdiction, and they had complete legislative authority over you whatsoever. Kind of scary if you lived in D.C., huh? Of course, this also extends to the insular territories, such as Guam and Peurto Rico that it owned, and by extension the legislative vehicles that were created by it, such as the District States, District courts, the postal codes, and the various alphebet agencies. This is why the IRS is actually based out of Peurto Rico, which is not a part of the United States of America, but is an insular territory owned by D.C..

The District of Columbia is essentially a foreign entity, a foreign government that is not a part of the United States of America, but is infact known as the UNITED STATES corporation, which is why the representative from D.C. has no vote on the floor of Congress, as only representantives of the United States of America can vote in Congress by law.

You see, the only way they can get you under their exclusive jurisdiction is if you contract yourself into it by essentially declaring yourself, whether wittingly or unwittingly, one of their commercial assets or a RESIDENT or as being contracted within the Federal Zone.

An excellent example of this is what is called an Executive Order, which if you look up the definition is supposed to be an order from the Chief Executive Officer (President) to the Executive Branch of the Government. In other words, If you don't work for the Executive Branch, then this order does not apply to you whatsoever, yet Presidents have been issuing Executive Orders like Kings to the American people for years, such as FDR's Executive Order for the American people to turn over their gold to the government during The Great Depression. Now, where did he get the authority to do this, and why didn't the Supreme Court step in and stop him from this clear usurpation of the Rights of the people, as enumerated in the Constitution? Because of contract law under martial law status. You were deemed an employee of the Executive Branch, just as you are deemed a commercial asset of the UNITED STATES corporation, and FDR declared you an enemy of the STATE in 1933.

You can read more about this scheme here









[edit on 23-5-2010 by HothSnake]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Only 16 percent of census forms returned
Published: March. 24, 2010 at 5:54 PM

WASHINGTON, March 24 (UPI) -- U.S. census officials Wednesday said only 16 percent of U.S. households have returned their census forms.

Despite a massive publicity campaign that includes a promise the forms take only 10 minutes to fill out, few of the 120 million households that received forms have returned them.

"These first weeks are critical to the final census count," U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said. "It's absolutely vital that everyone takes the 10 minutes to fill out and mail back their forms. If every household mailed back its 2010 Census form, taxpayers could reduce the cost of taking the census by $1.5 billion."


www.upi.com...


Finally found the percentage of census forms returned, much lower then I thought, no big surprise here, highly doubt they are going after those who didn't bother, Proto you have more support out there then you knew.


I realize this is from March, but haven't found anything more current.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by Aquarius1]





new topics
 
76
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join