By David Kravets

Lawmakers are proposing a national identification card — what they’re calling “high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security cards” — that would be required for all employees in the United States.

The proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina) comes as the states are grappling to produce another national identification card at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security. Virtually none of the states are in compliance with this Real ID program — adopted in 2005 — requiring state motor vehicle bureaus to obtain and internally scan and store personal information like Social Security cards and birth certificates for a national database.

Now comes a bid for a second card.

Homeland Security officials pointed to the Sept. 11 hijackers’ ability to get driver’s licenses in Virginia using false information as justification for the proposed $24 billion Real ID program. Schumer and Graham point to illegal immigration as cause for their plan.

“We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card’s unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone’s information,” they said. “The cards would not contain any private information, medical information or tracking devices. The card would be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have.”

Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, suggests the plan would undoubtedly lead to a national database. He added that “there is no practical way of making a national identity document fraud-proof.”

What’s more, Richard Esguerra, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s in-house activist, notes that a national ID card likely would expand from its stated purpose.

“Because of the ID card’s proposed universality, it will likely be requested and required by airlines, insurance agencies, health care providers, mortgage lenders, credit card companies, and so forth,” he said.

And this so-called mission creep is no fantasy.

A recent and clear example of this is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The 2007 law requires states to have statutes demanding sex-offender registration for those convicted of the non-sex-related offenses.

Graham and Schumer said they have discussed the immigration plan with President Barack Obama, but that apparently is as far it has gone. Regarding Real ID, beginning Jan. 1 the law was supposed to have blocked anybody from boarding a plane using their driver’s license as ID if their resident state did not comport with the Real ID program.

But the Department of Homeland Security extended the deadline for another year.

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/two-id-cards/

Popularity: 65% [?]

by Eddie Milton Garey Jr.

In Illinois, federal judges have allowed at least two lawsuits to proceed against correctional officials for using full body scanners to reveal the anatomy of both prisoners and visitors without removing their clothing. This is the very same device that airports are seeking to implement on some inbound flights to the United States.

The cases of Young v. County of Cook, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 64404(N.D. 111.), and Zboralshi v. Monohan, 616 Supp.2d 792, 798 (2006, N.D. Ill), explain, “A Rapiscan is a machine that uses ‘back-scatter’ x-ray technology to conduct a body scan.” There is no significant difference between using Rapiscan and computer tomography (CT scan) whole body scanning.

Despite the clearance of some CT scanners (Rapiscan), the FDA’s website shows that no data has ever been presented to the agency as to the safety of these devices and states that it has never approved these devices as being safe because “some Food and Drug Administration officials were worried that full-body CT screening scans (Rapiscans) ‘may be exposing thousands of Americans to unnecessary and potentially dangerous radiation’ and that CT scans of the chest delivered 100 times the radiation of a conventional chest x-ray … between .2 to 2 rads of radiation during a single scan.” See, e.g., Virtual Physical Ctr-Rockville, LLC v. Philips Med. Sys., 478 F.Supp.2d 840, 842-43(D. Md. 2007) and “FDA Raises Body Safety Issue” by Marlene Cimons in the Los Angeles Times, June 5, 2001.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons officials have been forcing inmates at USP Big Sandy to submit to random computerized tomographic whole body radioactive scanners. If they refuse to submit to these radiation experiments, prison officials are charging them with disobeying a direct order and subjecting them to a wide range of sanctions, including but not limited to loss of good time credits, resulting in an extended time in prison, even if they agree to be subjected to an ordinary visual strip search as a reasonable alternative to radiation exposure from the whole body scanner. These images are saved and viewed by male and female staff and available online to certain civilian populations.

Regulations at 28 CFR §§ 512.11 and 512.12 prohibit the government from using inmates for this type of experimentation and require them to give both the inmates and the public notice of their intent to use inmates as test subjects as well as all of the possible effects related to being subjected to any such experimentation – and then only on a voluntary basis. See also Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551(4) and 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(d).

Federal regulations also prohibit the use of x-ray, MRI or similar devices on inmates for any reason other than legitimate medical purposes or only when there exists reasonable suspicion that the inmate has recently secreted contraband – and then only by a licensed practitioner in the manner set out in 28 CFR §§ 552.13(b)(1) and 541.48.

The government has been forcing prisoners, the majority of whom are Blacks and Hispanics, to be subject of these types of inhumane experiments for years. They recall the Tuskegee experiments, where 400 Black men were allowed to suffer with syphilis for 40 years so that doctors could study the disease. Also, Dr. Albert Kilgman, at Holmesburg Prison near Philadelphia, under the direction of major pharmaceutical companies like Merck and Dupont, exposed Black prisoners to herpes, gonorrhea, malaria, dysentery and even athlete’s foot from the 1950s to the 1970s.

In 1952 over 300 Black inmates at an Ohio state prison were injected with live cancer cells so that doctors at the Sloan-Kettering Institute could study the effects. In these cases the research subjects’ rights were violated because either they were not told that they were participating in an experiment or the government knew the experiments had no therapeutic value, or both.

Other cases include Heinrich v. Sthemet, 62 F.Supp.2d 282(D.Mass. 1999) (government utilized false pretenses to lure plaintiffs into participating in radiation experiments which the government knew had no therapeutic value); Stadt v. Univ. of Rochester, 921 F.Supp. 1023 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) (plaintiff, who thought she was receiving medical treatment for scleroderma, was injected with plutonium without her knowledge or consent as part of a U.S. Army study); In re Cincinnati Radiation Litig., 874 F.Supp. 796 (S.D. Ohio 1995) (plaintiffs were not informed that the radiation they were receiving from the Department of Defense was part of a military experiment rather than treatment of their cancer).

In Allen v. United States, 588 F.Supp. 247, 399 (D. Ut. 1984), the court held that it is becoming established that shortening of life span is a general effect of whole body exposure to ionizing radiation. Experiments have also shown a similar reduction may be caused by irradiation of substantial portions of the body from ingestion of radioactive materials.

In all of those cases, both the state and federal government had told the subjects that they experimented on that the radiation levels were harmless – only for the victims to learn later that they were in fact not harmless, but deadly!

It has also been reported that these whole body Rapiscan scanners have been malfunctioning. They have caused electrical shocks as in the case of Carrie Milton v. Rapiscan, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11574(E.D. La.). An airport security screener was severely shocked and suffered permanent injury to her hand operating one of these Rapiscans.

Independent tests on Rapiscan devices have also shown that the EEPROM chips, which are used to calibrate the radiation levels of the whole body scanners, have repeatedly malfunctioned, resulting in greater radiation exposure than Rapiscan reports on its own websites. Some prisoners have experienced blurriness of vision, headaches and groin pains after being subjected to these whole body radiation scans. Many of these prisoners have been Rapiscanned up to three times in a single day, even though they never left the institution or had any contact with anyone outside the institution.

In the 1960s and ‘70s the Bureau of Prisons forced inmates – mostly Black and Hispanic prisoners – to submit to radiation exposure to their testes in order to study the effects. See the case of Bibea v. Pacific Norththemst Research, 980 F. Supp. 349(D.Or. 1997); See also, Clay v. Martin, 509 F.2d 109(2d. Cir. 1974) (“The court reversed the decision that dismissed … prisoner’s complaint against defendants, federal government and prison officials, holding that it was against public policy to dismiss the complaint on pleading technicalities because the action involved experimentation on humans.”)

Other experiments include testing psychotropic narcotics on inmates who have not been prescribed them just to see their effects, such as in the recent case of Walker v. Hastings, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80924, Case No. 09-CV-074-ART(E.D. KY). Walker was diagnosed with H Pylori, a bacterium that can infect one’s stomach or intestines, but was given Zyprexa, a psychotropic narcotic on at least nine different occasions by a prison pharmacist at USP Big Sandy seeking to test the effects of the medications for pharmaceutical companies.

If this is a legitimate security concern and not for the mere use of inmates as test subjects for private interests of companies like Rapiscan Corp., then ask the Obama administration, Eric Holder and Department of Justice officials why are they threatening inmates and charging them with disciplinary infractions for disobeying unlawful orders to submit to these radiation experiments, even when they are willing to submit to an ordinary strip search?

Update: Record long lockdown punishes cross-racial unity

The inmates have only refused to be exposed to harmful amounts of radiation and not to be the subject of a human radiation experiment, but they never disobeyed any lawful orders. Yet on March 1, the warden at USP Big Sandy imposed a lockdown that is expected to last at least two months.

The lockdown is clearly in retaliation against Black prisoners for exercising their First Amendment rights to petition the government for redress of grievances. Since this prison has been open, no lockdown has lasted more than 21 days – not even when there were repeated back-to-back murders.

But when all the inmates have found common ground for unifying lawfully, the federal white overseers have deemed this to be a threat to the order, security and discipline of the institution.

This warden finds it a serious security threat when all of the different factions of inmates decide not to focus on killing one another but on coming together in peaceful, lawful challenges to tyrants’ abuse of power in total, reckless disregard of our basic human rights and bodily integrity. Even the skinheads, Aryan Brotherhood and American Born whites came to an agreement with Blacks not to be subject to these human radiation experiments.

To my knowledge, there were no threats of violence, there were no assaults and there were no mass demonstrations – just individuals refusing to be the government’s test dummy for this Rapiscan x-ray product being illegally used on us in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations. But if we had ganged up on an inmate, no such lockdown would’ve occurred for more than a couple of days to a week. Imagine that!

Send our brother some love and light. Write to Eddie Milton Garey Jr., 91876-020, USP Big Sandy, P.O. Box 2068, Inez KY 41224.

Source: San Francisco Bay View

Popularity: 80% [?]

(CNSNews.com) – The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform, should President Obama sign the bill into law as expected, monitoring both businesses and individuals to certify whether they have the insurance coverage the government requires.

The tax collection agency will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the individual and employer insurance mandates which form the backbone of the Democrats’ hard-won reforms.

The bill states that the purpose of the mandates is to regulate “economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.”

The mandates require that all Americans carry a minimum level of health insurance or pay a separate tax for every month they are without such coverage. All employers with 50 employers or more will also be required to provide their employees with that same minimum level of coverage.

While that minimum level of coverage will be defined at a later date by the Department of Health and Human Services, it will be the responsibility of the IRS to monitor individuals and employers and to punish those who do not comply.

Under the bill, which passed despite bipartisan opposition March 21, starting in 2014 the IRS would be responsible for monitoring which employers are complying with the mandate and which ones are not. The IRS would begin such monitoring of individuals’ health insurance status in 2014 as well.

The IRS would monitor individuals and businesses’ health insurance statuses through the mandatory reporting the bill requires. Under the law, every individual and most businesses are required to report to the IRS, on their tax returns, whether they have purchased or provided the required level of coverage and disclose to the IRS which months, if any, in which they failed to do so.

Using this information, the IRS would then determine whether an employer or individual falls under the mandate, which contains exceptions for religious conscience, hardship, incarcerated persons, and members of Indian tribes.

If either an individual or a business has failed to comply with this mandate for any month out of the year, they are required to pay a separate tax to the IRS. For individuals this is a maximum of $750 per person (up to $2,250 per household) and $750 per uncovered employee for businesses.

Because these penalties would each apply on a monthly basis, individuals and employers would have to pay 1/12^th of the maximum penalties for each month they failed to comply with the mandates.

In order to carry out its new monitoring and enforcement duties, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the IRS will need $10 billion in additional funds, funds which were not made available under the health reform bill.

An analysis done by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that this $10 billion could go to fund an additional 16,500 new IRS agents and other personnel to monitor and enforce the new mandates.

“[T]he IRS could add more than 16,500 additional agents, auditors, examiners, and administrative support personnel to enforce large portions of the nation’s health insurance system,” the report said.

The IRS will also be in charge of collecting the new taxes on high cost insurance plans and on so-called unearned income from couples making over $250,000 per year and single filers making over $200,000 per year.

Both of these provisions could be modified should the Senate approve a budget reconciliation measure the House also passed March 21. Whichever final form they take, they are both direct taxes and thus will be directly administered by the IRS.

Because these new mandates and taxes are under the purview of the IRS, taxpayers and businesses could incur additional penalties normally reserved for normal income tax cheats, paying fees over and above those for not complying with Congress’ new mandates.

The IRS currently charges potentially hefty penalties for, among other things, filing false or fraudulent returns, filing late returns, and failure to pay a tax on time.

Taxpayers and businesses could be hit with these extra penalties because they are required to use their tax returns to prove to the IRS that they are complying with the mandates and because they will have to pay any tax penalties to that agency as well

Popularity: 58% [?]

by: Allison Bricker

WASHINGTON D.C. – As the whirlwind surrounding the vote on the healthcare bill picked up heading into this past weekend, President Obama used the tired tactic of dropping big news late on a Thursday evening in hopes that it might get lost in the noise that is the 24-hour news cycle. However, as the name implies, The Smoking Argus is the ever-watchful guardian and it was much to our dismay when news came across the wire late that Thursday from the White House Press Room that President Obama gave his stamp of approval to a National Identification card.¹

Tucked inside an immigration amnesty proposal, first presented during a meeting at the White House last week with Senators Lindsey Graham (SC) and Charles Schumer (NY), the measure will require all working Americans to obtain a biometric ID via a thumbprint retinal scan or other measure before being granted permission to earn a living.

As previously reported, Americans have successfully fought off several past attempts to saddle ‘We the People’ with the twenty-first century equivalent to East German PKZ papers, roundly rejecting such an affront to our Natural Liberties.

However fueled by their pornographic lust for power, the central planning experts persist with their machinations to brand and coral us like cattle on the ever-growing federal plantation. Thus, as the entire old-media and much of the blogosphere continue to buzz with talk over passage of the government health care scheme, the Central Authority and its aristocratic pull peddlers continue their march to tear down and wash away the remaining vestiges of the American Constitutional Republic.

Just how long shall we sit idly watching our liberties disregarded like trash before we feel the urge to act?

This President in one-year has accelerated even further the quickening begun after the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Whereby just two weeks ago and in addition to his approval of a National ID, he told opportunist John Walsh, who chose profiteering as his preferred coping mechanism, that upon arrest, even if later found innocent, he supports immediate DNA collection for submission into a National Database.²

Fellow readers, we must continue the work of waking up our neighbors, friends and compatriots to the growing tyranny emanating like swamp gas from the federal city, before the greatest experiment in Human Liberty is relegated to the station of “Once Upon a Time”.

Source(s): ¹The White House Briefing Room “Statement by the President Praising the Bipartisan Immigration Reform Framework” • ²The White House, Photos & Videos “President Obama on “America’s Most Wanted”

Originally Posted at  The Smoking Argus Daily

Popularity: 84% [?]

Yesterday, I decided to call Rep. John Garamendi’s (CA-10) office in Washington, D.C. He’s my representative and I wanted to voice my opposition to the Senate Health Care Bill. I spoke with a female staffer and politely told her that, while I support health care reform, I oppose the Senate Bill because it wasn’t true “reform.” She said the Congressman thinks it’s a good bill and that he campaigned on health care reform. I told her I knew that. I also mentioned that I voted for him. When I tried to give her specific reasons why the Senate Bill would harm our system rather than reform it, she refused to listen. She said she was very busy and hung up on me. Being the persistent person that I am, I kept calling back. Each time I tried to finish my point, she hung up.

I called one more time. This time she said, “If you call one more time, we will notify Capital Police.” I asked why my conduct warranted involving federal law enforcement agents. She said I was “harassing” her. I tried to explain that trying to convince a representative to change his or her vote didn’t constitute “harassment.” Before I could fully explain, she hung up again.

I called back. This time, I asked to speak to her supervisor in order to report her repeated hanging up as well as the threat she made. I was placed on hold. Thinking I was holding for her supervisor, I was shocked when a Federal Agent with the Capital Police picked-up the telephone.

At first, the Agent was curt with me. He claimed I was harassing Mr. Garamendi’s staff by continually calling after being told to stop calling. I asked him when it became a federal crime to lobby a congressman. He said that it wasn’t but it was a crime to “harass” congressional members and staff pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 223. I told him I was an attorney (which I am) and that I would research the statute he had cited.

After researching 47 U.S.C. 223, I called Mr. Garamendi’s office again and asked to be transferred back to the Capital Police Agent. The Agent picked up the phone and I explained to him that the statute he cited was not controlling since it only prohibits people from calling with the specific intent to harass. I further explained that I was simply trying to voice my concerns with the intent of getting Mr. Garamendi to change his mind, not to harass his staff. The Agent eventually agreed with my position and said he would call Mr. Garamendi’s office and instruct his staff that I was within my rights to call my congressman and voice my concerns.

After I hung up, I realized that this story should be told. Besides being an attorney, I’ve also had the privilege of serving this great country in the United States Marine Corps. Having seen the ugly legislative process the Senate Bill had been through, I saw this as not just another tactic to pass the Senate Bill at all costs, but also as an affront to our liberties.

While I’m fortunate enough to be able to legally challenge what happened today, others aren’t. The sad part is the democrats know this. They know that Americans unfamiliar with federal jurisprudence can easily be silenced when threats to involve federal agents are made. They know that most Americans don’t want trouble and they’ll go away rather than face the possibility of having to explain themselves to federal agents. That’s why I found this tactic appalling, as a Marine, as an attorney and as a proud American.

During my final contact with Mr. Garamendi’s staff, it was confirmed to me that he would vote for the Senate Bill no matter what. I was told that I was wasting my time by calling. Mr. Garamendi is a junior member of the House of Representatives. He was just elected via a special election last November. He has made it clear that he is willing to forsake his constituents in order to please the Speaker of the House.

Speaker Pelosi has said that she will stop at nothing to get the Senate Bill passed. She publicly stated that she would “pole vault over a wall” if barriers stood in her way. While that may be an amusing spectacle, it is indicative of what happened to me today. Apparently, threatening Americans with federal crimes to silence them is the latest tool in Speaker Pelosi’s dirty bag of tricks.

In the coming days, I’m sure more stories will develop illustrating the “win at all costs” tactics being employed by democrats. It’s these tactics that have appalled a majority of Americans to the point that the Senate Bill has overwhelmingly been rejected by the American people. When we try to explain that to Speaker Pelosi’s Caucus, we are threatened with criminal sanctions. We are told to shut up or face federal agents. Such treatment may be acceptable in the former Soviet Union, but it’s repulsive in the country I love and served. Is this hope and change?

Popularity: 67% [?]

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.

Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

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

(Story continues below)

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 first section of the ACS asks for full name of each person living in the household, the total number of people, how the people are related to each other, the date of birth, sex and race of each person and whether any are of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin.
• The second section surveys housing, asking whether the household is a mobile home, a one-family detached home, a one-family home attached to one or more houses, an apartment or a boat, RV or van.
• Then the ACS asks what year the building was built, when “Person No. 1″ in the housing section moved into the home; the size of land the home is on; what agricultural products were sold from the property in the last 12 months; whether the property was used as a business; how many separate rooms are in the house; whether the house has hot and cold running water; whether the house has a flush toilet, a shower or bathtub, a sink with a faucet, a stove or range, a refrigerator and a telephone; how many cars, vans and trucks are kept at the property; and what fuel is most used at the property – gas, electricity, fuel oil or kerosene, coal or coke, wood, solar energy, or “other.”
• Further, the housing section in the ACS asks what was last month’s bill for energy, what was the cost of water and sewage for the housing unit in the last year, whether anyone in the household received food stamps in the last year, the monthly rental or mortgage cost of the unit, an estimate of the resale value of the housing unit, the unit’s annual property taxes and the annual cost of fire, hazard and flood insurance on the property.
• The ACS wants to know if Person No. 1 in the household is a citizen, if the person was born in the U.S. or when the person came to the U.S.; whether the person had attended college in the last three years and what is the highest level of education the person has completed; the person’s ancestry or ethnic origin; whether the person speaks a language other than English at home, and if yes, what language; whether the person lived in this housing unit or an apartment a year ago; whether the person is covered by health insurance, and if yes, by what type of health insurance.
• Next, Person No. 1 must answer if he/she is deaf or has difficulty hearing; if the person is blind or has serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses; if the person has difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions because of a physical, mental or emotional condition; whether the person has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs; whether the person has difficulty bathing or dressing; whether the person has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition; what is the person’s marital status; whether the person has given birth to any children in the past 12 months; whether the person has any grandchildren under the age of 18 in the house or apartment; whether the person has ever served on active duty in the U.S. armed forces; whether the person has a VA service-connected disability rating, and if yes, what percentage is the VA disability rating.
• The ACS also asks whether Person No. 1 worked last week for pay; at what address, town, city and country did the person work last week; how did the person get to work and if by car, bus, railroad, taxi, motorcycle, bicycle or on foot; whether the person, if unemployed, has been actively looking for work in the past four weeks; whether the person, if unemployed, was available to start work if offered a job or recalled to work in the past week; and how many weeks the person worked in the past year and how many hours per week.
• Finally, Person No. 1 must disclose whether his or her most recent work was for a private for-profit company, a private not-for-profit, a local government, a state government or the federal government, or whether the person was self employed in their own incorporated or not-incorporated business, or whether the person worked without pay in a family business or on the family farm; the name of the employer; the type of business; whether the business was manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade; or other; the exact job description of the person and his or her most important duties; his or her income over the past 12 months and the amount of that income that came from wages, salary, commission, bonuses or tips; whether the person received any Social Security or Railroad Retirement benefits, or any other type of public assistance in the past 12 months; and the person’s entire income over the past 12 months, both from employment or public welfare sources.

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.

Popularity: 68% [?]

On Nov. 28, 1953, Frank Olson, a bland, seemingly innocuous 42-year-old government scientist, plunged to his death from room 1018A in New York’s Statler Hotel, landing on a Seventh Avenue sidewalk just opposite Penn Station.

Olson’s ignominious end was written off as an unremarkable suicide of a depressed government bureaucrat who came to New York City seeking psychiatric treatment, so it attracted scant attention at the time.

But 22 years later, the Rockefeller Commission report was released, detailing a litany of domestic abuses committed by the CIA. The ugly truth emerged: Olson’s death was the result of his having been surreptitiously dosed with LSD days earlier by his colleagues.