The federal government is collecting information for a very interesting database on all American citizens. Most Americans will receive a simple form with just the few standard questions asked in most commercial surveys. One American in six, however, will receive a very intrusive questionnaire that is designed to invade many areas most people would class as their own private business.

Both forms ask for age, sex, relationship with those you're residing with, marital status, and race. Of course, they will also want your name, address and telephone number.

The long form also includes occupation, work status, veteran status, employer's address, income, all alternate sources of income, how you get to work, number of vehicles in the household, the education level of everyone there, the language spoken at home, everyone's place of birth, how long you have lived there and a rundown of household living expenses, how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have, the type and age of dwelling, where you lived five years ago and how much that cost, and how much you paid last year for heating and telephone. Also, if there's an elderly or disabled person in the home, they want to know who that is and who is the caregiver.

The Commerce Department says this is all mandatory information needed for the Census. Their Bureau of the Census wrote the survey. And, there is a penalty of between $100 and $500 attached for not answering correctly, depending on how you do it.

The applicable law is 13 USC 221, "Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers":

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Libertarian Party Director Steve Dasbach says,

Real Americans don't answer nosy Census questions. You can strike a blow for privacy, equality, and liberty by refusing to answer every question on the Census form except the one required by the Constitution: How many people live in your home?

http://www.lp.org/rel/20000114-census.html

"We live in an information age," Dasbach said. "But the only information the government deserves on the Census, beyond the number of people in your home, is: None of your business."

We agree. According to the Constitution, the Census shall be taken every ten years simply to set Congressional districts. Therefore, the federal government has reason to ask how many people are at each address and their ages. The number of bathrooms and vehicles, the resident's sex, race and incomes, and their living expenses are none of government's business.

In one section of the Bureau's web site (http://www.census.gov), they explain that all information will be kept confidential. However, in another section, they admit the information will be used by many of the federal bureaucracies, such as the Labor Department, Agriculture, Banking, Education, HUD, EPA, and the Veterans Administration.

In itself, that is a good reason for not providing the information. First, these departments have no legal need for this information unless a citizen specifically applies for benefits from the department. Second, a survey of only one in six households is not enough to extrapolate a useful statistical model. And third, this information is far afield of that needed to set Congressional districts, as per the Constitution.

These questionnaires look like commercial business surveys simply because that is probably what they are. The Commerce Department recently sold out everything they had to foreign concerns, including the communist Chinese. There is no reason for us to believe they will not also sell this information to private business concerns.

We should, therefore, aggravate the hell out of Congress to get the forms simplified before the Bureau of the Census starts aggravating us with their intrusive questions next April.

While snooping around on the Federal Election Commission web site to see who is contributing to which election campaigns this year (to check on that, go to: http://www.fec.gov/1996/sdrindex.htm), I stumbled upon an FEC preliminary rule making call for replies that concerns political speech on the Internet.

At the moment, there is little to worry about. However, it is possible that the FEC could attempt to promulgate rules and regulations that would stifle most free political speech here. Obviously, they are thinking about it.

The original announcement -- notice of inquiry and request for comment -- was released in the Federal Register (Vol. 64, No. 214, Page 60360) last November 5 and reads in summary:

The Commission is currently examining the issues raised by the use of the Internet to conduct campaign activity. The Commission is conducting this review in order to assess the applicability of the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Commission's current regulations to campaign activity conducted using this medium. In order to assist its review, the Commission invites comments on the application of the act and the current regulations to Internet campaign activity. The Commission will use the comments received to determine whether or not to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM"), which may include proposed changes to its regulations. An NPRM would seek further on any proposed revisions to the Commission rules. The Commission has made no final decisions regarding the issues discussed in this notice, and may untimely [sic] decide to take no action.

Unfortunately, comments were due by January 4. However, FEC reports that "the Commission has received more than 1,200 comments regarding our Notice of Inquiry on this subject." They say that most comments were received electronically, and are available to be downloaded. http://www.fec.gov/

It appears that, for the moment, FEC is mostly interested in those who set up web pages and/or distribute banners in support of (or against) a political candidate or issue. They say that this activity is a time and money contribution and should probably be regulated.

We, of course, have a greatly different opinion. That is, we class our conversations with friends and acquaintances on the Internet as the very same speech we would have at a neighborhood meeting, or by distributing an opinion flyer around the neighborhood. That the Internet neighborhood is somewhat larger than the brick and mortar neighborhood does not change the amount of protection due this type of political speech.

Because, according to the United State Supreme Court, political speech is the most protected of all speech. That is, citizens are free to display political signs as they wish, write either signed or anonymous texts for or against candidates or issues and peacefully assemble with like minded people to propose and plan political action. Doing this in cyberspace changes nothing. It is still political speech among American citizens.

The Federal Election Commission also has a problem with anonymous political speech on the Internet. But, again, that's their problem, not ours. The United States Supreme Court decided that little problem in our favor back in 1995.

The State of Ohio passed a law against anonymous pamphleteering, tried to fine someone, and was taken to court. The case is McIntyre v. Ohio (93-986) and should apply to any of us on the Internet. While lecturing Ohio's attorneys for defending such nonsense, the Court pointed out some very pertinent historical examples:

That tradition is most famously embodied in the Federalist Papers, authored by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, but signed 'Publius.' Publius's opponents, the Anti Federalists, also tended to publish under pseudonyms: prominent among them were 'Cato,' believed to be New York Governor George Clinton; 'Centinel,' probably Samuel Bryan or his father, Pennsylvania judge and legislator George Bryan; 'The Federal Farmer,' who may have been Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia member of the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence; and 'Brutus,' who may have been Robert Yates, a New York Supreme Court justice who walked out on the Constitutional Convention. A forerunner of all of these writers was the pre-Revolutionary War English pamphleteer 'Junius,' whose true identity remains a mystery.

As the court pointed out, anonymous political speech has been around for quite a while. It was very popular with this nation's Founding Fathers and was used extensively during the campaign to ratify the Constitution.

Knowing this, then, makes the majority opinion of the Supreme Court rather easy to understand. In part, the opinion states:

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

So, if the FEC tries to regulate political speech on the Internet, we'll be within our rights to tell them to go away and mind their own business.

It's time for the campaign "silly season" to begin anew. Therefore, it is the season when current and would-be Members of Congress will often answer our questions -- especially when the questions are asked in public and the candidate can't get out of it.

Americans have a right to know the exact position taken by those representing them in government. We keep spouting off about Congress not following the Constitution, but we Americans never seem to make a serious attempt at pinning down our Congress critters' positions with specific questions. Well, we should. And we should demand specific answers.

To that end, we offer suggestions for ten Constitutional questions that should be put to each current Member of Congress, as well as to all new candidates for the House and Senate.

Actually, these are rather simple questions for any candidate who actually intends to obey their oath of office. However, they will seem to be rather difficult, and almost like trick questions, to those candidates supporting big government control of everything.

Inform them that the reply you receive will be your guide in the November election.

1. Will you support and defend our United States Constitution, as written, and all of the Amendments to our Constitution, as per your Oath of Office?

2. If so, then do you believe that the American people have a right to expect that every elected official obey and support our United States Constitution in its entirety, at all times?

3. What recourse do you believe American citizens should have when a public official acts, or proposes a law, contrary to the American Rule of Law, as set down in our United States Constitution? Please explain.

4. Do you believe that all branches of government, including regulatory and tax collection agencies, should support and obey our United States Constitution? Please explain under what authority you may feel that a government agency could be immune from the rules set down for all government agents by our Constitution.

5. Do you support the right of an American citizen to protect life, family and home against all intruders, with the exception of officials first presenting a duly sworn warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution? If not, please describe two basic situations where you believe the Fourth Amendment no longer applies, why, and where in the Constitution that authority was derived.

6. Do you support the right of an American citizen to move around and function in society as they please, unimpeded by any government agent, so long as they do not bother other citizens with their activities? What restrictions to personal liberty do you support, and why? Where in the Constitution was that authority derived?

7. Do you support the right of American citizens to acquire, keep and if necessary to defend, real and personal property, free from restriction by the federal government? If not, please explain under what Constitutional authority the federal government may restrict the use of personal and private property.

8. What exceptions do you support to the Bill of Rights, and how may these exceptions be justified under the law without amending the Constitution? When, if ever, does the Bill of Rights not apply to a government agency?

9. Are there any areas of human behavior or activities that cannot be regulated by the federal government? If so, please list any ten that come to mind and explain exactly where in the Constitution the authority was derived to regulate others.

10. Will you certify that you will reject any bill coming before you that does not conform, strictly, to the United States Constitution as intended by the Founding Fathers and described for us in the Federalist Papers? Furthermore, will you work to repeal all laws, rules, regulations, and executive orders not conforming to the written words and intent of the Constitution?

When these questions are answered, go over to http://www.gunowners.org and see how your current Reps. and Senators voted on the important Second Amendment issues. As a benchmark, use the records of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Senator Bob Smith (I-NH).

NOTE: This piece was published last August but seems to be a popular news item again. Actually, I have been writing on the topic for nearly a decade.

Years ago, I was tasked by a couple State legislators to speak with scientists at a large oil company that was trying to have our State government force its reformulated fuel on at least some of the people of our State. I was quickly appalled to learn that the corporation's chief chemist on the project seemed to have absolutely no idea of the physiological ramifications of the concoctions they proposed. Nor did he seem to care.

The cold hard facts were, as related to me repeatedly, that EPA approved the mixture, it was available for sale and they intended to market it in various areas of our State. Case closed.

It should also be noted that the ethanol produced from biomass that is added in the gasoline is not exactly, in and of itself, the problem. It is the methyl tertiary butyl ether that is the major culprit.

They were told repeatedly that they were harming people, but they didn't care. And, there was nothing much we could do about it. They were government and we were . . . well, we were but citizens. Subjects, actually.

The list of health problems they caused is rather long, too. Headaches, nausea, hives, skin rashes, respiratory distress, kidney disease, arthritis, cardiac arrhythmia, and even cancer all make the list. Still, government didn't care. There was a bureaucratic mandate and that was that. No one is allowed to argue with a federal regulatory agency decision.

That was a decade ago. Today, due to the outright negligence of the EPA, there are millions of American citizens drinking water containing unnatural chemicals like methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and benzene, both of which are known carcinogens. And finally, after the harm has been caused, the EPA admits that its actions were directly responsible for poisoning a portion of the nation's water supply.

We were told, a decade ago, that oxygenates added to gasoline, called reformulated gasoline (RFG), would reduce emissions from vehicle traffic. These reformulated gasolines contain either methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), methanol, tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA), or ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE). Most used is MTBE. All have produced a great many health problems but have done little to help keep the air clean. Instead, they add a disagreeable smell to the air when used.

Reformulated gasoline also causes a number of problems with automobile engines, in addition to lowering fuel economy significantly. And, of course, reformulated gasoline costs more that untreated gasoline.

Never mind, though. EPA knows better than everyone else and so made the use of reformulated gasoline mandatory in many areas of the country. In some areas, unknowledgeable State legislators and bureaucrats forced the reformulated gasoline on citizens as a way of pacifying federal regulators and collecting brownie points from big local producers.

Well, now comes the day of reckoning.

At a news conference last August, an advisory report prepared for the EPA concluded that significant amounts of MTBE can now be found in 5 percent to 10 percent of the drinking water supplies in areas where the reformulated gasoline is mandated. The reason that MTBE is contaminating the nation's water is that it flows rapidly through soil and is extremely soluble in water. Effectively, it is alcohol and ether and is nearly as soluble as pure alcohol and ether. Therefore, it gobbles up other impurities and carries them along with it -- into our water supply.

EPA knew this years ago. But, they forced it on us anyway.

Dr. Peter M. Joseph, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, told The Washington Times he believes the rise in MTBE use is responsible for the "huge incomprehensible increase" in certain disorders, including asthma and wheezing, that have been seen in Philadelphia, the District of Columbia and other cities where MTBE-laced gas has been mandatory during most of the past decade. Dr. Joseph believes the gas additive is also responsible for other medical conditions, including sinusitis, unexplained coughing, insomnia and heart palpitations. "I'm convinced this is a public health disaster," Dr. Joseph told The Washington Times last July.

So, we follow the money trail. Congress, of course, has their fingers buried deep into this pie, too. It's called the politics of campaign contributions. That is, Archer Daniels Midland, a huge campaign contributor, produces about half of the ethanol used for fuel.

To "encourage" ethanol production -- and receive even larger campaign contributions -- Congress gave those producing ethanol from biomass a special tax break. The incentive currently totals 54 cents per gallon of ethanol used as, or in, highway fuel. About 1.1 billion gallons of ethanol per year qualify for that tax incentive.

Back in April 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stayed EPA's rule mandating the use of ethanol in RFG, and ruled that EPA did not have the authority to mandate ethanol use. Later, the court refused to hear an appeal by EPA. However, that didn't quite help. EPA mandates reformulated gasoline in many areas of the country anyway. Each inflicted area uses varying amounts of MTBE and ethanol in their concoctions.

There was a time, a couple decades ago, when the Environmental Protection Agency actually had something worthwhile to do. It helped clean a few lakes and rivers and made the smokestack industry clean up its act. And now, its job is done. Sure, there are still a few polluted areas around the country. But, pollution in these areas is better handled by the States, rather than an over intrusive federal bureaucracy. Clearly, the EPA should be abolished.

Ethanol produced from biomass could someday become an inexpensive fuel -- if we can get the politicians to quit "helping" the budding industry. Unnoticed by many is the fact that, as fuel cells become available for low cost home and transportation energy, ethanol starts looking very, very attractive as an inexpensive fuel cell fuel.

However, those government environmental whackos responsible for mandating RFG with MTBE and the other concoctions should be tried and convicted for criminal negligence. They have harmed thousands of American families around the country.

  ** uhuh **

The President said he is reducing taxes.

uhuh.

Congress says they are balancing the budget.

uhuh. Sez who?

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com

---

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 1996 by Forest Glen Durland.

hu167.htm. Revised 1-15-02. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.