Home

The Rutherford Institute: Constitutional Q&A: American Community Survey

2 Comments

Resources

PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE

Also available, The Rutherford Institute has developed a form letter that you may use in standing up against the government’s attempt to force you to disclose personal information

© 2017 The Rutherford Institute[1]

In an age when the government has significant technological resources at its disposal to not only carry out warrantless surveillance on American citizens but also to harvest and mine that data for its own dubious purposes, whether it be crime-mapping or profiling based on race or religion, the potential for abuse is grave. As such, any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution.

The American Community Survey (ACS) qualifies as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

Empowered by Congress with greater powers to amass information about citizens, the Census Bureau introduced the ACS in 2005. Unlike the traditional census, which is limited to a simple head count every ten years for the purpose of establishing representation in Congress, the ACS is sent on an ongoing basis to about 3 million homes every year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.[2]

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance. More

Advertisements

Whistleblower’s! : Lawrence Lucas & USDA civil rights update

Leave a comment

painyJoin us Thursday evening February 23, 2017 at 7:00 pm CST! More

The DoJ Dodges a Bullet on Wilson/Brown Decision

5 Comments

strip bannernew-logo25Marti Oakley

______________________________________________

A recent article made the statement that ” When officers are on untitledvvvduty, they don’t know if at the end of the day, they are going home, to the hospital or to the morgue”.  Strange, that is just how the public feels when they are confronted by them.

__________________________________________

The Department of Justice (an oxymoron if there ever was one) just issued its decision regarding the death of Michael Brown at the hands of Ferguson, Missouri police officer Wilson that occurred in November 2014. Like millions of other people, I was not there. I have no idea what did or did not happen other than what was related on the MSM, and you already know 99% of what comes from them is pure BS.

The DoJ determined that Michael Brown’s civil rights had not been violated. So, let me get this straight…… according to grand jury testimony, an officer confronts a man in the street and tells him to get on the sidewalk, they argue, scuffle, then he fires a total of 16 shots at him, two from inside his vehicle, one directly through the top of his head within 6-8 inches…..and the DoJ was concerned with whether his civil rights were violated? That’s what they were investigating?

As an aside:   Thanks to what had to have been careful questioning and very rehearsed answers, Wilson swore under oath that he stopped the men because he recognized their clothing from the description given for the robbery……. a robbery he could not and did not know about at the time he confronted Brown.  Did  Wilson knowingly commit perjury and intentionally lie to the grand jury about what really happened that day?

More

Southern Poverty Law Center: A threat to our Constitutional Republic

4 Comments

strip banner

new-logo25Marti Oakley

______________________________________________________________________

The Intelligence Report published by the Southern Poverty Law Lie Center is out!  On these lists of 21150explosionsupposed threats to the government are the Oathkeepers, Democrats Against Agenda 21 (I am a member!) Post Sustainability Institute,  The Tenth Amendment Center, We Are Change, We The People and many other pro-American and Constitutionally based organizations originating from multiple political philosophies.  SPLC has decided that patriot groups who support the Constitution and are pro-American, are a threat to the nation.  So much so that they compiled these lists of people and groups who scare them really, really bad…..and they send these lists over to any of the federal agencies who spy on us, compile dossiers on all of us and who want to put drones in our skies to watch all of us, I suppose with the thinking that if they keep tattling on others no one will be watching them.

According to SPLC , its magazine the Intelligence Report is the nation’s preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S.  The only problem is…….there are just as many on the left and in the middle who are determined to preserve our liberty and our republic and who find the activities of the likes of SPLC to be a cancer on the nation.  This mixing of political ideals seems to pass by those big thinkers at SPLC.

It is our constitutional right!

Who ever thought we would see the day in this country, that advocating for the Constitution, for fundamental freedoms and liberty would be deemed a threat…to the government.  And why would SPLC decide that pro-liberty, anti United Nations interference in our country, and the refusal of law officers and military personal to violate our rights, to possibly use lethal force against us…… as something that represents a threat?  A threat to whom?

We have fundamental liberties that include the right to freely assemble, to freely associate, to travel freely between the states and the freedom of speech, among many others.  The lists SPLC has compiled is viciously opposed to the exercise of these freedoms unless it is in correlation with their philosophy……..whatever that actually is.

An Uber wealthy “non-profit”

The Southern Poverty Law Lie Center had an illustrious history at one time.  Founded primarily to fight for civil rights, the SPLC has devolved into a modern day electronic propaganda machine that peddles disinformation for the government and makes a truckload of money doing it.  This so-called “non-profit” corporation now has net assets as of 2012 ending, of $256,554,758.

From SPLC pages:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is the country’s most effective nonprofit organization fighting dangerous extremist groups. We’ve documented a staggering 1,007 hate groups operating in our country — a nearly 70% increase since 2000.

Actually the SPLC is the country’s most lucrative non-profit dedicated to creating fictional threats out of thin air and, it is by far one of the most dangerous extremist groups operating at this time.  SPLC exists today as a clear and present danger to our Constitutional Republic and advocates ferociously for an end to it.  That is what is staggering.

In truth, the Southern Poverty Law Lie Center has documented very few actual so-called [hate groups].  There are the usual suspects, i.e., the Aryan Brotherhood, etcetera, and instead have focused on those who support the Constitution and who object to the infringement of rights secured by that document. More

The Absolute Right to a Trial by Jury

2 Comments

strip banner

  new-logo25 Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. Don Bird below is pressing the point with his California State Legislator, with whom he has gained an open door of opportunity.

You see, back in 1969 a plot was engineered by the California Legislators that if they could dispose of the right to a jury in criminal cases, they could expedite cases much faster without the involvement of juries. To pull off this plot against the People of California, they had to “invent” a whole new class of jury less crimes33049_1thm heretofore unrecognized in the Constitution called “Infractions.”

While Don Bird wishes to keep his challenge limited to the State of California Constitution, I am not so limited in my lead-in statements. The fact is, in our U.S. Constitution it is clearly written:

“The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.” Article III, Section 2, Clause 3.

The two controlling words herein are “except,” and “shall.” There is but only one criminal jury trial exception, and that is in matters of impeachment, otherwise there “shall” be a jury trial.

And, yes, the California State Constitution, as well as all states, recognizes that its Constitution and laws are subjective to the U.S. Constitution,

“The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.” Article III, Section I.

Here, I would like to relate to a humorous actual incident of a criminal trial in which I was called upon to appear in court and to answer to the criminal charge involved therein. Pursuant to Article I, Section 16, “Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all,” More

The FDA: Close this abomination down!

13 Comments

Marti Oakley  2012/All rights Reserved

_______________________________________________________________

One of the greatest threats we face today is what many refer to as the “Food and Death Administration”. (FDA) Far from being a protector of the public health, the true intent of this agency was revealed in the ongoing senate hearings regarding S 3187.

The American public has become increasingly alarmed over the use of the word “modernization” in connection with anything coming out of the District of Criminals. Modernization generally means we are about to get another federal corporate agency expansion that will subject us to foreign agreements, which will grossly infringe on our rights to be left alone by government, and, which will effectively militarize some federal agency against the public. These “modernizations” generally conflict with constitutional protections and grossly expand or create enforcement arms of various agencies.

S 3187 is primarily concerned with increasing the pay-to-play administrative fees; in other words they are going to charge those who contract with them more while at the same time shortening the time it takes to get all pharmaceuticals approved. Well! My goodness! That is exactly what we need to do. We need to fast track the approval process for more drugs that kill, harm and impair the public.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D) IA, introduced the bill claiming it had broad support and acknowledging that they had a great deal of input from stakeholders: THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG MANUFACTURERS, THE PHARMACISTS, THE DRUGSTOREs. He also claimed that consumer groups were involved in the process. More

TS Radio: Guardianship Abuse with Mary Ellen & Michael Taylor

Leave a comment

Join us Tuesday evenings at 7 CST! More

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: