• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Have you seen the television commercials — paid for with your
hard-earned tax dollars, of course — promoting compliance with the U.S.
Census?

You’ve got to see them.

The reason, we’re told, to fill out the intrusive survey is so that
we can all “get our fair share.”

That makes it about as clear as you can get.

If you had any doubts after watching one of those spots, all you need
do is listen to what the administration is saying about the Census.
Director Kenneth Prewitt explained that the collection of data affects
“power, money, group interests, civil rights; in short, who gets how
much of what.”

The Census, which is supposed to be used for the purpose of ensuring
that congressional districts are fairly apportioned among the populace,
is now about ensuring that wealth is “fairly” redistributed.

At the risk of advocating civil disobedience, I can think of only two
appropriate responses to this insulting, unconstitutional breach of
personal privacy:

  1. Fill out only the Census questions relevant to
    congressional apportionment — i.e., where you live, how many people are
    in your household, etc.

  2. Tell the Census Bureau to take their questionnaire and stick it
    where the sun don’t shine.

Thank goodness more than a few people see this the same way
I do. The Internet has been buzzing for the last several days with
citizen complaints and outrage over the intrusive nature of the survey.

The U.S. Constitution directs Congress to perform a census every 10
years “in such manner as they shall by law direct.” Over the years,
Congress has passed laws allowing various questions to appear on the
form that are not relevant to obtaining an accurate head count. Not
surprisingly, this year, under the direction of the Big Brother Clinton
administration, in love with databases, and a submissive Congress the
form has reached new levels of absurdity.

The Census Bureau tells us they need more information so it can be
used in formulating policy and programs for employment, career
development, and training and measure compliance with
anti-discrimination policies. Trouble is, for those of us who believe
the Constitution actually means what it says, the federal government has
no business being involved with such programs and policies. By
cooperating with the Census Bureau, you are tacitly supporting the
assumption that it does.

As WorldNetDaily reported last week, “Statutory authorization for the
use of such statistics exists in regulations for agencies from the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Reserve to Housing and
Urban Development and the National Endowment for the Arts. All lay claim
to a need for census data.” All the more reason, I say, not to provide
the information demanded.

The collection of racial statistics provides the blueprint for
divisive racist government programs that should be eliminated.

But, Census officials tell us, we should forget about all that and
comply with the demands for personal information because it will be kept
confidential. Excuse me? If the government has it in a database, it is
no longer confidential. It will be used. It’s just a question of how.

So let’s look at how it has been used in the past. Two scholars say
in a new research paper that the Census Bureau was deeply involved in
the roundup and internment of Japanese-Americans at the onset of
American entry into World War II, according to the New York Times.

The academics say the bureau’s involvement included identifying
concentrations of people of Japanese ancestry in geographic units as
small as city blocks, lending a senior Census Bureau official to work
with the War Department on the relocation program and a willingness to
disclose names and addresses of Japanese-Americans.

Keep in mind that this was accomplished long before the government
began the kind of detailed racial profiling we see in this year’s
Census.

Oh, you say, but that could never happen again. Maybe not. In fact, I
would say it is unlikely the U.S. government would make exactly the same
mistake again. But it is extremely likely — even inevitable — that a
mistake as bad or worse will be made in the future.

As for me, I would like my conscience to be clear. So count me as
non-compliant.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.