The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Saturday, September 05, 2009

Rothschild replaces Merrill Lynch as Irish government adviser


The Irish government has appointed investment bank Rothschild to advise on the restructuring of the country’s banking sector, a source close to the firm said on Tuesday.

“We will advise the Department of Finance on how to shape the banking system going forward, including the establishment of the National Asset Management Agency and any possible consolidation in the sector,” the source said.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAC.N) was hired to advise the government in September, although that contract expired in the summer and was put out to tender in July, a spokesman for the Department of Finance said.

The spokesman confirmed Rothschild’s new role.

Rothschild will also advise on dealings with the European Commission and recommend how relationships with lenders participating in the “bad bank” scheme should be managed, according to a tender document posted on Ireland’s public procurement website.

Dublin plans to take over risky property loans with a book value of up to 90 billion euros ($129.2 billion) from Allied Irish Banks (ALBK.I), Bank of Ireland (BKIR.I) and other lenders and park them in a National Asset Management Agency, or bad bank, to free up the flow of credit.

Government bonds issued in return for the assets will boost Ireland’s national debt by 60 billion euros, according to the median forecast of 6 economists in a Reuters poll on Tuesday, compared with a national debt level of 67 billion euros at the end of July.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Circumcision for All; Free Choice for None

by Stephanie R. Murphy

I was shocked, surprised, and flabbergasted to hear it. I’m sure that you'll never believe it, either. The federal government is – get this, readers – butting into your most personal and private business.

OK, you’ve caught me in a rare moment of sarcasm. Maybe I wasn't really that surprised. After all, government bureaucrats attempt to control what types of substances you put into your body, what kind of work you do with your body, and even how you can legally dispose of your body after death; it makes perfect sense that they would also scramble for power over what parts of your body should remain attached. Yes, that’s right. The CDC is now considering a campaign for universal circumcision in the US.

The reason for pushing this one-size-fits-all policy stems from the results of several studies, all done in Africa, which have demonstrated the benefits of male circumcision for reducing the transmission of HIV.

The studies on circumcision and HIV transmission are very interesting. They are large, randomized, controlled trials; the methodology is solid. They show, on average, a 40–60% reduction in the risk of a circumcised, HIV negative man contracting the virus from an HIV positive woman, as compared to an uncircumcised man. The precise mechanism of circumcision’s protective effect is unknown. There are many potential explanations, none of which are mutually exclusive. First, the foreskin has a relatively high population of cells that are receptive to being infected by HIV. Second, it acts as a reservoir which may trap infected secretions. Third, the foreskin has a higher propensity to ulcerate (become scraped) and become infected with other sexually transmitted infections that cause open sores. It seems that removing the foreskin also removes several potential avenues for HIV entry into the body.

However, when considering the benefits of circumcision, there are some significant caveats. For one, circumcision is not a panacea; it does not completely prevent transmission of HIV, it just lowers the probability that a man will contract the virus during any given sexual encounter with an HIV positive woman. It should be noted that these studies only examined the effect of circumcision on transmission of the virus from an HIV positive woman to an HIV negative man. While this is a relatively common scenario in Sub-Saharan Africa, HIV epidemiology in the US is different. Overall rates of infection are lower. Also, HIV in the US is relatively more common among men who have sex with men (MSM). There is no evidence that circumcision protects against HIV acquisition in MSM. Circumcision also does nothing to protect anyone against acquiring HIV via bloodborne routes, such as sharing needles with an HIV positive person. It should go without saying that men can protect themselves from acquiring HIV in other ways besides getting circumcised, such as practicing safe(r) sex and avoiding intravenous drug use. These methods are much more reliable than the 40 – 60% risk reduction conferred by circumcision.

Circumcision also has risks and demerits. My personal philosophy on medicine leads me to look skeptically at any procedure that removes a part of the body which is not causing harm, pain, or annoyance to the patient; in other words, don’t mess with success. As with any surgical procedure, infections and pain after circumcision are both possibilities that should not be ignored. Medical errors should be considered as a legitimate risk during circumcision, too. There are rare case reports of penile amputation that have occurred during botched circumcisions. There are also many more reports of less extreme, but still real, consequences resulting from circumcision mishaps.

Of course, the question on the minds of many who are considering circumcision is that of whether the procedure impacts sexual enjoyment and satisfaction. That question is, in my opinion, impossible to answer accurately. To distill the immense debate surrounding this issue to its barest essence, choice seems to play a significant role in how men view their foreskins (or lack thereof). Men who choose to get circumcised tend to be happy that they did so; those who did not have a choice in the matter because they were circumcised at birth are more likely to lament it.

That brings me to my main point in writing about the prospect of universal circumcision: the issue of choice. If my patient asked me about circumcision, I would discuss with him the information above. I would also encourage him to do his own research about the procedure if he felt interested. He would make his own decision about whether he wanted to have the surgery.

By contrast, the CDC’s attitude demonstrates a lack of consideration for patient autonomy and consent, two essential elements in all medical decisions. The CDC would like every baby boy born in America to be circumcised, no matter the opinion of his parents and, more importantly, without the boy’s consent. If circumcision were a medically necessary and life-saving procedure with no possible ill effects, things might be different. In reality, it is a surgical procedure that is not essential for the health of a normal man; furthermore, it has both risks and benefits. The relative importance of those risks and benefits is subjective. Every man may value them differently. For that reason, it’s essential that each individual be afforded the choice about what to do with his own foreskin.

To be perfectly blunt, I do not see any justification for removing a part of a baby boy’s body without his consent. Men can always get circumcised as adults if they wish; by contrast, once the foreskin is gone, it’s gone forever. Most people will concede that the procedure is painful even for babies, but they insist that the pain is justified because the baby will not remember it. I wince at the thought of causing pain to a newborn boy. I say that even if he does not remember the physical pain as an adult, he may still suffer from the psychological sting of having had a body part removed without his permission.

Another argument from the advocates of universal circumcision is that it makes good hygiene easier. This is a typical government one-size-fits-all solution: parents are too stupid, in the minds of government agents, to teach their sons good hygiene, so instead we should just circumcise everyone. People are also too stupid to practice safe sex, so we should circumcise them all because they will gain a marginal reduction in the overall risk of contracting HIV. I’ve also heard arguments for circumcision based in religious tradition and cultural norms. Sure, circumcision is common – and a very old tradition in some religions and cultures. But does that make it right? I don’t think that’s for us to decide. I think that each individual, the owner of his own body, should make the call about whether or not circumcision is appropriate for him.

It’s difficult for me to assume the mindset of statists who advocate for this kind of thing, so I raised the issue of universal circumcision in conversation with a few people whose opinions I thought would be unencumbered by that pesky philosophy of leaving others alone and letting them make their own decisions. In addition to the religious and culturally based arguments that several people trotted out, one colleague had an interesting comment. He thought that universal circumcision was a good idea, envisioning a world where no more would awkward teens have to worry about getting teased in the locker room, because "everyone would look the same." Oh really? The last time I checked, people came in all shapes, colors, and sizes, and that was a good thing! I guess that if everyone looked alike, wore the same clothes, and had the same hairstyles, nobody would ever have to worry about not fitting in. Would this egalitarian also propose to redistribute the wealth from the best-endowed men to those who are not quite as blessed by Mother Nature? Ridiculous.

I certainly cannot agree with the CDC’s move toward making a blanket recommendation that all boys should undergo a medical procedure at birth, without their consent. I want each man to have the opportunity to make his own decision about what to do with his foreskin when he reaches an age at which he is capable of doing so, based on his understanding of the risks and benefits, and how much he personally values each. The bloated, overreaching federal government apparently does not want the same.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

True News: Health Care

Well worth the time to watch. Excellent explanation of what REAL health care costs are and where they come from!
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Friday, September 04, 2009

Why swine flu vaccines just don't add up: Doing the (fuzzy) math

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) Here's a seventh grade word problem for you: If swine flu has infected one million people and killed 500, how many people might be expected to die if it infects 150 million people (assuming no major changes in the virus)? The correct answer, of course, is 75,000 people, and that's within the range of the number of swine flu deaths now being publicly predicted by the White House.

But there's another part to this word problem: How many vaccine shots and hand washings does it take to boost vitamin D levels in the average person?

The question, of course, makes no sense. Vaccine shots don't boost vitamin D levels any more than eating pork infects you with swine flu. So why is the official advice on swine flu protection essentially limited to "wash your hands, get your vaccine shot and cough into your elbow?" (Seriously. I'm not making this up.)

The Associated Press has distilled swine flu advice to "10 things you need to know." None of those ten things include boosting your nutrition, getting more vitamin D or taking anti-viral medicinal herbs. They do, however, include hilarious explanations like "If you develop breathing problems, pain in your chest, constant vomiting or a fever that keeps rising, go to an emergency room."

Emergency room in a pandemic?

Whatever for? They don't bother to mention that in a pandemic scenario that strikes you with constant vomiting, the entire emergency room is likely to be overrun with other people joining you in a hospital room vomit fest.

Nor do they mention some other important math: The very limited number of anti-viral medication courses available in the U.S. The last time I checked, that was roughly 50 million courses. If the U.S. population is roughly 300 million people, and there are 50 million courses of anti-viral meds available, how many Americans will have no access to those meds? (Ahem... 250 million people...)

Here's an even more interesting brain buster for you: If each vaccine shot generates $25 in revenue for drug companies, and the U.S. government orders the production of 160 million vaccines, how much money is Big Pharma making off the pandemic? That answer is roughly $4 billion in net revenues.

But even that doesn't count all the repeat business from the future victims who suffer neurological side effects from the vaccines and have to be institutionalized and subjected to high-dollar medical care for years on end. In all, a mass vaccination program could end up generating over ten billion dollars in revenues for drug companies.

These numbers just don't add up

Now let's look at some serious statistics: If one million people have already been infected with swine flu, and 500 have died, that's a fatality rate of 1 out of 2000 people. Depending on which research you believe, vaccines might at most be credited with preventing 1% of flu deaths during any given flu season (and that's being very generous to the vaccine).

Read the rest at this link.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Maryland Gov Says Taking Toxic Vaccination is “Patriotic Duty”

by Kurt Nimmo

Government demands on the people never end. Once you give in to government, you may as well lay down and let them walk all over you. In fact, you may as well let them kill you.

Democrat Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley wants to kill or make seriously ill the subjects of his state, although he may not realize it. On Wednesday, according to the Washington Post, O’Malley said it was residents’ “patriotic duty” to take the toxic and deadly fly shot. Maryland residents are to serve as guinea pigs. O’Malley says taking a worthless seasonal flu shot makes it easier for health officials to determine if outbreaks are related to H1N1.

If residents do not get vaccinated against seasonal strains and later get sickened by them as a result, there will be little way to determine if those falling ill this fall and winter have been infected by less worrisome strains, or by the more contagious H1N1 virus, O’Malley said.

In other words, for the efficacy of the state and the sake of bureaucrats, you will line up and get injected with triton X-100 (a detergent), polysorbate 80 (a carcinogen), formaldehyde, dangerous microorganisms, gelatin (causes allergic reactions and anaphylaxis) and the ever-present neurotoxin thimerosal, that is to say mercury. There is plenty of evidence that flu shots are linked to brain injury, autoimmune disease, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

“You’ll be doing your patriotic duty to get your seasonal flu shot this year,” O’Malley said. If you’ve never received one, “by golly, this is a very good year to do it for the first time,” he said.

It would seem O’Malley is taking his marching orders directly from the insidious vaccine cartel and Big Pharma. He is either completely ignorant of the dangerous side effects of vaccines or he is involved in the criminal plan to make seriously ill and kill untold number of Marylanders.

Maryland’s swine-flu vaccination campaign is like a “military operation,” according to John M. Colmers, secretary of Health & Mental Hygiene. He told the Post the state is waiting for “precise directions” from the CDC before injecting pregnant women, school-age children, toddlers and others. “If it’s pregnant women, we’ll send those initial doses directly to OB/GYN and others who specialize in their care. If it’s children less than 4 years old, we’ll send them straight to pediatricians’ offices,” said Greg Reed, head of the Maryland Center for Immunization. Seasonal flu shots are not just for seniors anymore.

“Vaccination of healthy adults only reduced risk of influenza by 6%, and reduced the number of missed work days by less than one day (0.16). It did not change the number of people needing to go to a hospital or take time off work,” the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews reported in 2006. In a review of 64 studies in 98 flu seasons, for elderly living in nursing homes, flu shots were non-significant for preventing the flu. For elderly living in the community, vaccines were not significantly effective against influenza or pneumonia. In a review of 51 studies involving more than 294,000 children, it was found there was “no evidence that injecting children 6 to 24 months of age with a flu shot was any more effective than a placebo. In children over the age of 2 years, it was effective only 33% of the time in preventing the flu.

In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than children who do not get the vaccine, according to the American Thoracic Society’s International Conference, held May 15-20, 2009, in San Diego.

There is evidence flu shots actually spread influenza. “Not only does the shot manipulate the immune system, it contains foreign microorganisms that can easily replicate in the body. It is ridiculous for the CDC to say that none of these germs are contagious. There are many well-respected health experts who believe that the number of people coming down with the flu would be drastically reduced if flu shots weren’t administered. One of the best ways to avoid the flu is to stay away from people who have it. This includes staying away from those who have recently received a flu shot,” writes Greg Ciola.

Both the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security take orders from the United Nations. The UN’s Biodiversity Assessment on Sustainable Human Population calls for a massive reduction in world population.

Canadian doctor Ghislaine Lanctôt, author of the Medical Mafia, takes this one step further. She says the coming H1N1 shot is a biomedical weapon of mass destruction. The virus will be used in a pandemic concocted and orchestrated by the WHO, an international organization that serves military, political and industrial interests, warns Lanctôt. The virus will be used specifically as a eugenics weapon for “massive and targeted reduction of the world population.” A pandemic will also be used to further establish martial law and a police state.

In the weeks ahead, expect more government officials to exploit the patriotism of the American people in order to line them up like complacent cattle for their toxic eugenics shots. As more and more people learn about the serious dangers of ineffective flu shots and refuse to take them, the government may resort to vaccination at gunpoint.

Massachusetts is leading the charge. It is steamrolling a bill through the state Senate and House that will force vaccinations on state resident and allow the government to declare martial law in the event of a pandemic. The bill would allow the government to quarantine people against their will and permit the state to enter property without a search warrant and destroy the property without a court order.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

U.S. Military Receives Order for Mandatory Vaccination

by Jim Garamone

All military personnel will be vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus, and the vaccine will be available to all military family members who want it, a Defense Department health affairs official said today.

The H1N1 vaccination program will begin in early October, said Army Lt. Col. (Dr.) Wayne Hachey, director of preventive medicine for Defense Department health affairs.
The vaccine, which has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration, will be mandatory for uniformed personnel, Hachey said. “What we want to do is target those people who are at highest risk for transmission,” he said.

Health-care workers, deploying troops, those serving on ships and submarines, and new accessions are at the top of the list. “Any place where we take a lot of people, squash them all together and get them nice and close and put them under stressful conditions will get the vaccine first,” he said.

The department will use the usual seasonal flu vaccine distribution chain for the H1N1, Hachey said, noting that while the mass H1N1 vaccinations are new to the general population, the process for vaccinating against seasonal flu is old hat for the Defense Department. “We’ve been doing this for decades,” he said. “The system is tried and true.”

The department initially will receive 1 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine, and another 1.7 million doses later in October.

Officials don’t know yet whether people will need one dose or two, Hachey said. “The assumption right now is that people will need two doses, 21 days apart,” he said. “That may change.”

FDA officials still are studying H1N1 and the vaccine, and the results should be known by the end of the month.

Seasonal flu vaccine already is available, and the Defense Department will begin giving those shots shortly, Hachey said. “That has been our message to immunizers: to try and get as many people as they can immunized against the seasonal flu early,” he said.

Guidelines for giving priority to family members will follow those for the general population, Hachey said. The Department of Health and Human Services is buying millions of doses of the vaccine.

“Installations are going to register with each state as an immunizer,” Hachey said. “They will tell how many people they care for. This includes dependents, retirees and so on.”

The Centers for Disease Control will place the order and will ship the vaccine where needed. Family members will have multiple opportunities to get the vaccine, whether at Defense Department medical facilities or off post, Hachey said.

The CDC has established target groups for those at greatest risk for transmitting or being affected by the H1N1. They include pregnant women, health-care workers, those younger than 25 or older than 65, and those with pre-existing health conditions.

Hachey said previous plans are serving the Defense Department well. “We have been preparing for pandemic flu because of its potential impact on the mission,” he said.
The symptoms of the H1N1 flu are almost the same as the seasonal flu: fever, sore throat, runny nose, nausea, muscle aches and feeling rundown. The 2009 H1N1 virus – formerly known as swine flu – is a pandemic virus, according to the World Health Organization. U.S. officials call the virus “troubling” and urge communities across the United States to take actions to mitigate the effects of it. The federal government is urging states and municipalities to begin preparing now for the fall flu season.

President Barack Obama addressed the H1N1 pandemic following a White House meeting today.

“As I said when we saw the first cases of this virus back in the spring, I don’t want anybody to be alarmed, but I do want everybody to be prepared,” he said. “We know that we usually get a second, larger wave of these flu viruses in the fall, and so response plans have been put in place across all levels of government.”

But government cannot do it all, and the American people have a responsibility to stop the spread of the disease, Obama said. “We need families and businesses to ensure that they have plans in place if a family member, a child or a co-worker contracts the flu and needs to stay home,” he said.

“And most importantly, we need everyone to get informed about individual risk factors, and we need everyone to take the common-sense steps that we know can make a difference,” the president said. “Stay home if you’re sick. Wash your hands frequently. Cover your sneezes with your sleeve, not your hands. And take all the necessary precautions to stay healthy. I know it sounds simple, but it’s important and it works.”

The H1N1 is a never-before-seen combination of human, swine and avian flu viruses, officials said. First detected in Mexico in February, it quickly spread around the world. According to July WHO statistics, there have been 94,512 H1N1 cases worldwide, and 429 people have died from it. In the United States, 33,902 contracted H1N1, and 170 have died.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Health Care Reform IS Important

Shepard on Politics and Policy

In the current debate over health care reform I believe both of the typical sides (left/right, liberal/conservative, statist/statist-lite) are completely missing the mark.

Wednesday night, at the Indianapolis North Side Libertarian MeetUp, I heard the story of a young man the other night who said that repair of his broken arm cost around $4,500. He said when he went to the emergency room they couldn't tell him what treatment would cost. Interestingly, I also was recently looking at a procedure and the surgeon had no idea what the total cost would be, he couldn't tell me. Huh?

Anyway, broken arm guy ended up at a med check place and after some questioning indicated that, including getting a couple of different casts over the healing cycle, he spent no more than 3 or 4 hours with an actual physician and did not require anesthesia.

Let's put this in perspective of other vocations.

A well paid Telecommunications or IT Consultant might make $120 to $220 an hour depending on what they are doing and whether it is 'after hours' work. It would not be unusual for a lawyer to charge $200, $230 or for an experienced partner or specialist (but perhaps not Johnny Cochran or Mark Garagos) up in the $300 or $400 an hour range. So, let's just use $250 an hour as a fair figure.

Four hours of time = $1,000 + materials (orthopedic cast, an x-ray).

So, maybe, worst case this should have cost less than $1,500 and maybe very close to $1,000 even ... CERTAINLY not $4,500.

Now, we know that since Medicare/Medicaid underpay physicians for services so much that it drives up costs on the rest of us by at least fifteen percent and potentially up to one third and that over reliance on "prepaid healthcare" separates consumers from the actual cost of each unit use of services. We also know that a high default rate on (far too high) medical expenses shifts the burden of those bills to those who do not default. We also know that the AMA has leveraged a lot of government protectionism of physician services into the marketplace which limits supply, specialization, innovation and other things that could drive changes in the industry or increase the supply of doctors.

So, when we talk about health care "reform" can we please talk about it outside the scope of just having somebody else (like the government) pay for everything and instead focus on why it costs $7,000 to lay in a hospital bed for two days with a kidney stone (arguably not a good use of the bed) or $4,000 to put a cast on a broken arm? How about $6,000 for an out patient procedure to fix an umbilical hernia? I'll bet, physicians or hospitals who declined to accept insurance or government payments for services could easily drop their costs down to $2,000 or $3,000 for the stone (including the MRI and the IV bags of fluid) and $1,000 or less for the arm.

The point is, libertarians and conservatives are not opposed to health care "reform". But, as is typical in arguments with more left leaning big government folks we just have a much better grasp of the root of the problem and the economics of it rather than just not caring and begging for our woefully inept government to come sweep the problem under the rug.

The cost problem in health care must get resolved before any kind of dialog on how to cover the 8.6 to 12.5 million chronically uninsured people is addressed.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Cops jump on swine-flu power: Shots heard 'round the world

by Chelsea Schilling


A "pandemic response bill" currently making its way through the Massachusetts state legislature would allow authorities to forcefully quarantine citizens in the event of a health emergency, compel health providers to vaccinate citizens, authorize forceful entry into private dwellings and destruction of citizen property and impose fines on citizens for noncompliance.

If citizens refuse to comply with isolation or quarantine orders in the event of a health emergency, they may be imprisoned for up to 30 days and fined $1,000 per day that the violation continues.

Massachusetts' pandemic response bill

"Pandemic Response Bill" 2028 was passed by the Massachusetts state Senate on April 28 and is now awaiting approval in the House.

As stated in the bill, upon declaration by the governor that an emergency exists that is considered detrimental to public health or upon declaration of a state of emergency, a local public health authority, with approval of the commissioner, may exercise the following authorities (emphasis added):

to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;
to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material;
to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;
to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority;
to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;
to adopt and enforce measures to provide for the safe disposal of infectious waste and human remains, provided that religious, cultural, family, and individual beliefs of the deceased person shall be followed to the extent possible when disposing of human remains, whenever that may be done without endangering the public health;
to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency;
to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth;
to waive the commonwealth's licensing requirements for health care professionals with a valid license from another state in the United States or whose professional training would otherwise qualify them for an appropriate professional license in the commonwealth;
to allow for the dispensing of controlled substance by appropriate personnel consistent with federal statutes as necessary for the prevention or treatment of illness;
to authorize the chief medical examiner to appoint and prescribe the duties of such emergency assistant medical examiners as may be required for the proper performance of the duties of office;
to collect specimens and perform tests on any animal, living or deceased;
to exercise authority under sections 95 and 96 of chapter 111;
to care for any emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs that individuals may exhibit, with the consent of the individuals
State and local agencies responding to the public health emergency would be required to exercise their powers over transportation routes, communication devices, carriers, public utilities, fuels, food, clothing and shelter, according to the legislation.

Don't let the fear get to you! Read "How To Overcome The Most Frightening Issues You Will Face This Century"

Local public health authorities will be required to keep records of reports containing the name and location of all people who have been reported, their disease, injury, or health condition and the name of the person reporting the case. In addition, citizens may be subject to "involuntary transportation."

Line 341 of the bill states, "Law enforcement authorities, upon order of the commissioner or his agent or at the request of a local public health authority pursuant to such order, shall assist emergency medical technicians or other appropriate medical personnel in the involuntary transportation of such person to the tuberculosis treatment center. No law enforcement authority or medical personnel shall be held criminally or civilly liable as a result of an act or omission carried out in good faith in reliance on said order."

Vaccinate or isolate

Whenever the commissioner or a public-health authority decides it is necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health, they are authorized:

(1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis (preventative procedure) to individuals as protection against communicable disease and to prevent the spread of communicable or possible communicable disease, provided that any vaccine to be administered must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual; and
(2) to treat individuals exposed to or infected with disease, provided that treatment must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual. An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined … if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction. (emphasis added)

Under such circumstances, authorities are also allowed to decontaminate individuals and perform physical examinations, tests and specimen collection to determine whether "an individual presents a risk to public health." If a citizen refuses, he or she may be isolated, quarantined and/or detained "for as long as may be reasonably necessary," the bill states.

Law enforcement authorities are authorized to "arrest without warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order for isolation or quarantine and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order. Any person who knowingly violates an order for isolation or quarantine shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than 30 days and may be subject to a civil fine of not more than $1,000 per day that the violation continues." (emphasis added)

Read more at this link.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Indoctrination Alert! Protect your kids on Sept. 8th

by Claire,

This Tuesday Sept. 8th President Obama is planning to address the nation's school children DIRECTLY, through a live internet broadcast at 12 noon. If you do not want Obama to have access to your children to say whatever he wants to them during their school hours without you being there, there are a few things you can do:

-Call the school's principal to find out whether the school was planning to show the speech, and if they are, let the principal know that you feel the role of the school is to educate, not to indoctrinate, and that you do not consent to have your child spoken to directly by any politician or government official, for any reason. Maybe if enough parents call, the school will not show the speech to students.

-If the school is going ahead with plans to show the speech, you can keep your child out of school that day.

-You can write up a consent form that would allow a parent of your choice, in your community, to remove your child (and all other children whose parents consent to it) from the area where the speech is being broadcast, and for that period of time, engage the children in some alternate educational activity, such as reading the text of the Constitution, for example.

Here is the government website, with details of the event:

and a letter from Education Secretary Arne Duncan to School Principals, encouraging them to broadcast the speech, and to accompany it with other activities promoting the same agenda:
[Check out the suggested activities that are meant to accompany the speech-- I think the intention is for schools to make this a day-long event in honor of the President]

The ostensible message that students should work hard to educate themselves may seem relatively benign, but the insidious subtext is that you should work hard not for yourself and your own individual happiness, but for the country, society, the state-- to make America more competitive in the world, to raise standards of living (through redistribution, presumably) for all Americans, etc... I personally don't want my children to grow up believing that they exist to serve the state, that it is somehow normal to think this way.

But fundamentally, it doesn't really matter what it is that Obama is planning to tell American children on Tuesday. What does matter is that it is totally inappropriate for him to be addressing children directly at a time when they are away from their parents, and a captive audience in their classrooms. State indoctrination of children is a hallmark of totalitarian government. Don't let it happen here.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

John Pilger: Obama Is A Corporate Marketing Creation

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Study Proves Link Between Thimerosal and Autism Neurotoxicity

by Aaron Turpen

(NaturalNews) In a study just published, a causal connection between Thimerosal, the preservative often used in vaccines, and the brain pathology found in patients diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), has been established. The study, A Mitochondrial Dysfunction, Impaired Oxidative-Reduction Activity, Degeneration, and Death in Human Neuronal and Fetal Cells Induced by Low-Level Exposure to Thimerosal and Other Metal Compounds was published in the June 2009 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Toxicology & Environmental Toxicology.1

In the study, it was found that the amounts of Thimerosal found in inoculations commonly given to infants in the 1990s and still in use today (though more limited) induced levels of cellular toxicity. This cellular damage was consistent with that found in studies of patients diagnosed with ASD.

Both studies found significant mitochondrial dysfunction, reduced cellular oxidative-reduction activity, cell degeneration, and cell death being tied to ASD. All of these contribute significantly to ASD diagnosis and are also often attributed to other childhood and early development maladies.

Here at Natural News, of course, readers are likely well aware of the links between Thimerosal and autism. Until now, those links have mostly been implied and inferred through anecdotal evidence and court cases. Nevertheless, the link between mercury, Thimerosal and childhood autism rates has been exhaustively covered here.2

Now, conclusive scientific evidence that cannot be ignored has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This gives those of us concerned with the issue more ammunition to use in forcing lawmakers to acknowledge the link and for pharmaceutical companies who've been pushing their wares on us to become accountable for it.

This study also showed that Thimerosal is much more toxic than other metal compounds included in the study and commonly found in vaccines. Other compounds studied included aluminum sulfate, methylmercury hydroxide (often blamed for autism), lead acetate, and mercuric chloride. This study does not take those compounds off the hook, of course, but does show that Thimerosal is significantly more toxic than even methylmercury.

The explanation for that higher toxicity lies in the fact that Thimerosal is not naturally-based, but manufactured.

Read the rest here.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Take Our Freedom Back! by Band of Patriots - Music Video

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Why a "Public Option" Won't Work

Government has to run it.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

George Carlin on Conspiracy Theorists

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

McCain booed for saying Obama respects the Constitution

National Expositor

Speaking to a town hall in Sun City Arizona on Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) drew choruses of loud boos from the audience by saying that President Barack Obama respects the Constitution of the United States.

On the town hall, Arizona Central reports:

An overflow crowd of mostly seniors, totaling about 1,250, applauded McCain as he laid out a plan to slash medical malpractice costs for doctors, create a $5,000 tax rebate for families to use on private insurance and offer rewards for people who take steps like quitting smoking to stay healthy.

He also said insurance companies should not be allowed to use pre-existing conditions to deny Americans coverage.

“I want to reform health care. The costs are out of control,” McCain said. “But let’s not forget the quality of health care is what must be preserved as well.”

And it seemed to be going well for McCain until an older woman stood up and asked, “I would like to know how the President is getting by with all of this money … It’s against the Constitution. Doesn’t he know that we still live under a Constitution?”

The audience erupted in cheers and applause. McCain just smiled.

“I’m sure … I’m sure that he does,” he said.

The audience laughed, as if the Senator were joking.

“No, no, I’m serious,” McCain said. “I’m sure that he does and I’m sure that he respects the Constitution of the United States.”

“No, no, no, no …” he trailed as a roar of boos cascaded through the crowd. “Now wait, I really do. I’m absolutely convinced of it. I just believe, my friends, that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy about the role of government. That’s why we have competition for public office and competition amongst parties and competition about different ideas and visions for the future of America.”

He concluded: “I am convinced the President is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.” The crowd booed again. “Wait a min … Wait a minute! I’m saying he’s sincere in his beliefs. We just happen to disagree and he is the President of the United States and let’s be respectful.”

The episode seems like an echo of a McCain campaign rally in 2008 when an audience erupted in jeers after a man, playing off Sarah Palin’s “palling around with terrorists” rhetoric, was told by McCain that Obama is “a decent man that you don’t have to be scared [of] as President of the United States.”

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Did You Hear the One About...

by Floy Lilley

Did you hear the one about bobbing heads on Sunday agreeing that the cause of the Great Depression was the absence of government guidance? "The Great Depression would never have happened if there had been any economic regulations," agreed the policy wonks.

Oh, really?

So you think a free society generated that monstrosity?

It is accurate to say that in 1900 a free society did exist. The government still approximated a minimal state, exerting minimal guidance, and commanding minimal economic regulation. But, after 1900, virtually all public policy proposals called for more extensive governmental guidance.

Perhaps the television talksters could benefit from a bit of homeschooling. An excellent source of data is Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episode in the Growth of American Government by Robert Higgs (1987). The time frame of the period up to and into the 1920s, in other words those years before the Great Depression, included WWI. That dramatic episode birthed government expansion and intervention, much of which remained in regulatory force after the generating crisis had past.

A partial list of interventions – those government economic regulations – would include:

Bureau of Corporations (1903)
Interstate Commerce Act major amendments (1903, 1906, 1910)
Meat Inspection Act (1906)
Pure Food and Drug Act (1906)
Corporation Tax (1911)
Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1913) (Income Tax)
Federal Reserve System (1913)
Clayton Antitrust Act (1914)
Federal Trade Commission (1914)
U.S. Immigration (cut to a trickle during 1915–1920)
Adamson Act (1916) (railroad labor wage rates)
Shipping Act (1916)
National Defense Act (1916)
Army Appropriations Act (1916) (later took over railroads)
Selective Service Act (1917)
Espionage Act (1917)
Lever Act (1917) (food and fuel) (prohibited alcohol)
Overman Act (1918) (executive powers)
War Finance Corporation Act (1918)
President’s Mediation Commission (1917) (labor relations)
Federal Control Act (1918)
Sedition Act (1918)
Does this look like a laissez-faire list?

Higgs summarizes just exactly how guided and regulated all economic activities were:

The two years, 1916–1918, witnessed an enormous and wholly unprecedented intervention of the federal government in the nation’s economic affairs. By the time of the armistice, the government had taken over the ocean shipping, railroad, telephone, and telegraph industries; commandeered hundreds of manufacturing plants; entered into massive economic enterprises on its own account in such varied departments as shipbuilding, wheat trading, and building construction; undertaken to lend huge sums to businesses directly or indirectly and to regulate the private issuance of securities; established official priorities for the use of transportation facilities, food, fuel, and many raw materials; fixed the prices of dozens of important commodities; intervened in hundreds of labor disputes; and conscripted millions of men for service in the armed forces. It had, in short, extensively distorted or wholly displaced markets, creating what some contemporaries called war socialism.

Additionally, Higgs documented that,

The public debt, which had been slightly more than $1 billion before the war, was over $25 billion at the end of the war and remained almost $17 billion as late as 1929.

While their heads were bobbing, my head was shaking.

This all had to have been a joke. Right?

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Monday, August 31, 2009

Imagining a Country

by Dan Cooper

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."

Some of the latest town hall meetings show that our representatives have absolutely no fear of their constituency. In the irresponsible and unprofessional case of the old and crotchety Arlen Specter, he makes it clear that he has no patience for any of his constituents that disagree with him, ask a question that he doesn’t feel is appropriate or can’t bullshit his way through. He makes comments to the affect that a question is "too vague" to have his support and moves on to the next question. In one video he is seen and heard shouting at one man to leave for passionately expressing his disgust with business as usual on Capitol Hill. A comment in which the man received resounding applause from Specter’s other constituents. But that’s how our government deals with dissent: you simply have it forcibly removed.

Barney Frank is another example of a congressman who doesn’t hesitate to label, criticize and insult his constituency, among many, many others.

I wonder just how long you or I would last at our current jobs if we spoke to our employers in such a manner.

Truth is we could fire them all today and it would have absolutely no long-term ill effects on the country or the economy. Except for probably national defense and a body to coin and regulate a sound currency – this would be only to decrease the transaction costs of doing business amongst the states and with foreign countries – I believe that we really have no need for a federal government at all. The framers of the constitution had a similar point of view and hence wrote that document in such a way as to purposefully limit the government’s power to a small subset of economic responsibilities. Even they were too optimistic though as the federal government has proven that it can’t even provide simple postal services without fraud, waste and abuse.

An idea like this always sounds odd and radical to people since our entire lives all we’ve ever known is a behemoth bureaucracy that invades our personal and professional lives at all levels. We’ve just come to expect it and tend not to think what life would be like without it, or even if life would be possible without it.

My wife grew up in communist Romania. She was 14 in 1989 when Nicolaie and Elena Ceausescu were taken out back of the federal building in Bucharest, Romania and summarily executed by a firing squad for decades of abuse of Romania’s people and resources.

My wife and others have told me on many occasions of how the Romanian government literally disappeared overnight. How the day after the communist party was driven out that everyone looked at each other as if to say: what do we do now?

It was a surreal time since all most of the people had ever known was the government’s control of them and the factors of production.

It turned out that the Romanians didn’t need the central government at all. They actually knew how to make it through their daily lives all by themselves. They knew how to get up and get dressed and cook breakfast and drive to work without imposing any costs on anyone else in the process. They knew how to be productive at work and get along with their boss and colleagues. They knew how to go grocery shopping and pay for their goods all by themselves. They knew how to communicate with one another and trade with one another. And oh how they traded.

Literally overnight, as quickly as communism disappeared, new markets appeared. Once the government constraints on trade no longer existed people were free to trade as they wished and there was an unprecedented economic boom in the 90’s. The only ill effect of this boom was the fact that the government had controlled prices for so long and kept them artificially low for so long – as the current administration is now proposing doing with healthcare prices – and had printed so much worthless currency that when those price controls were lifted and the markets cleared it became evident just how artificially low the prices had been held and hyperinflation ensued.

But other things appeared that hadn’t previously existed: innovations in technology and science, inventions in businesses and commerce, newfound creativity in the arts and social sciences. It was remarkable. And all of it because of the lack of government intervention.

It would seem though that the only way to ensure lack of government intervention is to limit government. Since even such a clearly written document as our constitution isn’t able to invoke the necessary integrity and morality in our federal civil servants, it’s clear that the only solution is to limit the federal government to nothing and allow the states to govern and trade amongst themselves and with other economic agents.

I don’t think it’s difficult for a man to imagine a country in which he actually gets to keep 95% or more of the money he earns. A country in which he doesn’t have to pay rent on his own land in the form of property taxes. A land of opportunity where hard work and ingenuity is rewarded and laziness and political posturing is punished. A land where men like Arlen Specter, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and so many others can’t make a living off of the fruits of hard-working people but rather are forced to compete with everyone else for their share of the economic pie. A country where our president is treated as the civil servant that he is and not as royalty at the expense of the commoners.

I think I’d call this land: America.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks trial on global warming

by Jim Tankersley

Reporting from Washington - The nation's largest business lobby wants to put the science of global warming on trial.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.

Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.

"It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."

The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.

The EPA is having none of it, calling a hearing a "waste of time" and saying that a threatened lawsuit by the chamber would be "frivolous."

EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency based its proposed finding that global warming is a danger to public health "on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare."

Environmentalists say the chamber's strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science -- and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end.

The chamber proposal "brings to mind for me the Salem witch trials, based on myth," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist for the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists. "In this case, it would be ignoring decades of publicly accessible evidence."

In the coming weeks, the EPA is set to formally declare that the heat-trapping gases scientists blame for climate change endanger human health, and are thus subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The so-called endangerment finding will be a cornerstone of the Obama administration's plan to set strict new emissions standards on cars and trucks.

The proposed finding has drawn more than 300,000 public comments. Many of them question scientists' projections that rising temperatures will lead to increased mortality rates, harmful pollution and extreme weather events such as hurricanes.

In light of those comments, the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing, which is allowed under the law but nearly unprecedented on this scale, is the only way to "make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science."

Most climate scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions, caused by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, are warming the planet. Using computer models and historical temperature data, those scientists predict the warming will accelerate unless greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically reduced.

"The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable," said a recent letter to world leaders by the heads of the top science agencies in 13 of the world's largest countries, including the head of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

The EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, as proposed in April, warned that warmer temperatures would lead to "the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems."

Critics of the finding say it's far from certain that warming will cause any harm at all. The Chamber of Commerce cites studies that predict higher temperatures will reduce mortality rates in the United States.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Invisible Empire Official Trailer

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Invisible Empire Official Trailer

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Violence by Any Other Name...

by Larken Rose

Whenever I speak of forcible resistance against "government," some people respond with things like, "How can you be for violence?" And almost everyone who says that is both delusional and hypocritical.

I admit, compared to almost everyone else, my political views are very extreme. For example, I don't advocate that anyone ever be forced to fund something that they don't want to fund. I don't support robbery, even when the stolen loot is to be used for something supposedly noble or beneficial. No Democrat or Republican can honestly say that. Though they differ on how the politicians should spend the loot, every single one of them advocates that I be robbed, under threat of violence, to pay for things that I don't want. And, of course, they also advocate that you be robbed to pay for things that you don't want.

I don't. Ain't I extreme?

The trouble is, even though every Republican and Democrat advocates the initiation of violence against millions of people who haven't harmed anyone, the way people see reality is so warped by the "authority" myth that they can't see that what they advocate is coercion. They think that calling it "law" or "taxation" somehow makes it legitimate and disqualifies it as violence. And yet they know that anyone who doesn't pay the federal Mafia's extortion fees will be punished, with either extra robbery or imprisonment (or death if they continue to resist). It's not that they are unaware of the violence behind all "laws"; it's that they think it's automatically righteous when "government" does it, and so they don't call it violence.

The most bizarre example is the people who say, "I abhor violence, so I'm for gun control." Oh, really? And how, exactly, will this "gun control" be imposed? By friendly suggestion? By rational argument? By a group hug? Or by men with guns forcibly disarming the general public? "Gun control" is violence. Even worse, it is the initiation of violence against people whose only sin is having the ability to defend themselves. And using violence against someone merely because that person possessed the means to protect himself is violent, evil, hypocritical and insane.

And such lunacy is the direct result of the belief in "authority." If, for example, a burglar broke into someone's house, and the homeowner pulled out a knife and threatened to attack the crook if he didn't leave, how would most people judge that? Most would obviously see the invader as the bad guy, and the guy trying to chase him away as the good guy. But if the burglar happens to be called a "tax collector," and tries to forcibly rob someone, and his intended victim resists, nearly everyone would loudly condemn the victim of the extortion as being a nasty, "violent" criminal.

That is why, when I say that using force to defend against those who initiate violence--even when that violence is called "law" or "taxes," and even when the attackers call themselves "government" or "law-enforcement"--most people view me as the violent one. This is because almost everyone truly believes that when you make an actual crime (trespassing, robbery, extortion, assault, kidnapping, murder, etc.) "legal," it ceases to be a crime. They further believe that resisting a crime, when the crime has been "legalized," is a horrible thing to do.

Almost everyone in this country advocates constant, widespread violence, but they are too deluded to know it. Often the violence is fairly hidden, because the mere threat of authoritarian retaliation (for not paying "taxes," for building something without a "permit," for possessing an "illegal" weapon or an "illegal" substance, and so on) is often enough to coerce compliance. In those cases, statists can pretend that people obey "voluntarily," though that makes about as much sense as saying that someone "voluntarily" gave his car to a carjacker, in order to avoid being shot. But even when the government violence is overt and bloody, as with the "war on drugs," or foreign wars, or even some traffic stops these days, statists are still unable to see that what they are advocating is BRUTAL, BLOODY VIOLENCE. Worse yet, when I suggest that it would be justified to use whatever force it takes to stop such aggressive force, the statists see me as the "violent" one.

To illustrate this hypocrisy, I like to make the following offer, to anyone and everyone who considers himself peaceful and civilized: "I will never initiate violence against you myself, nor advocate that anyone else do so." When I ask if someone will do the same for me, he always says "yes." And almost no one who says that means it, as a simple follow-up question easily illustrates: "So you don't advocate that I be forced, via 'taxes,' to fund anything that I don't want to fund?" That's when they start to backpedal, make excuses, start to use vague euphemisms about one's "fair share," and so on. "Okay, so you won't promise to refrain from advocating the initiation of violence against me. That's good to know."

Here is a very simple principle that almost everyone understands: "Don't ever start a fight, but if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself." And yet, because of the cult belief in "government," that simple rule sometimes turns completely upside-down: "It's okay to start a fight with everyone in the country (via 'taxes' and other 'laws'), and okay to violently crush anyone who tries to defend himself against your attack." Well, if such lunacy is considered to be an acceptable, civilized, mainstream attitude--which it is in this country, and throughout most of the world--then I'm happy to be "extreme."

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Census Bureau: We’ll Work with ‘Community Organizations’ to Count All Illegal Aliens in 2010

by Nicholas Ballasy

( - The acting director of the U.S. Census Bureau, Thomas Mesenbourg, told that the bureau intends to work with community organizations to make sure every illegal alien in the United States is counted in the 2010 Census.

The Census is used to apportion the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. There are 435 House seats that are divided among the states in proportion to their population, which is determined by the decennial census. States with more people get more seats in the U.S. House.

This means that a state harboring more illegal aliens can gain more House seats as long as the Census Bureau finds the illegal aliens and counts them. This also means that the illegal alien population resident in the United States during a census year has the potential to alter the regional and philosophical balance of power in Congress.

Mesenbourg’s comments were made after a press conference on Wednesday where Commerce Secretary Gary Locke joined several interest groups, including Univision, the National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) to talk about efforts to ensure a full count of Latinos in the 2010 Census.

When asked whether he intended to maximize the count of illegal aliens in next year’s census, Mesenburg said: “Our job is to count everyone that resides in the U.S.--count them once. So, certainly that’s our goal to count every individual, every resident whether they’re documented, undocumented, whether they are citizens or non-citizens.”

He said local community organizations will play a key role in making sure all illegal immigrants are counted.

“The local communities are going to have a strong partnership program in each of the local communities, and we’re going to focus on the hard to count geographic areas. That typically has been areas with high numbers of undocumented workers but it’s much more diverse than that,” he said.

“So, what we’ll do is we’ll have Census Bureau folks out in those neighborhoods recruiting community organizations, faith-based organizations, and local media to get that message out that it’s safe, it’s easy, and it’s important to file your 2010 Census form,” said Mesenbourg.

Mesenbourg also said the Census Bureau intended to reach out to illegal aliens through local organizations that the aliens see as “trusted” voices to let them know it is safe to cooperate with the Census Bureau in being counted.

“It’s more than just the Census Bureau telling them that it’s safe,” said Mesenbourg. “We need somebody that they view as a trusted voice--somebody from that community, whether perhaps the local pastor or somebody in a community organization that can assure them that it’s safe.”

“One way to improve the safety is you get a census form, fill it out, return it by mail and no one will come knocking on your door after that,” he said.

The forms Mesenbourg referenced are available on the Census Bureau’s Web site. They do not require a Social Security number to be completed and counted.

Both English and bilingual versions of the census form are available for downloading in PDF form from the Census Bureau's website.

Mesenbourg explained why he and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke attended the event with several Latino special interest groups.

“Well, getting a full and accurate count is job number one for us,” said Mesenbourg. “The secretary recognizes that and we recognize that the Census Bureau and the Department Commerce alone can’t carry out a successful census.”

“We need to partner with organizations that are viewed as trusted voices in their local community, and certainly this coalition’s going to go a far way in terms of accomplishing that goal,” he said.

The executive director of the NALEO Educational Fund, Arturo Vargas, said they want to make sure every single person who resides in the county is counted.

“You know the census is something that’s required by the United States Constitution, and the Constitution says that it should be an enumeration all persons. So, we want to make sure that every single person who resides in this country gets enumerated,” Vargas told during the press conference.

Ruben Keoseyan, publisher of the newspaper La Raza, said the organizations at the press conference have partnered with the Census Bureau to help undocumented immigrants “come out and register” for the census.

“This is not just a partnership among the people that you see here,” said Keoseyan. “This is also a partnership with the Census Bureau because we believe that we can aid in helping those people come out and register and participate in the census. It’s a much easier form. It’s going to be in Spanish.”

“It will be a bilingual form which we will replicate in our publications, but most importantly it’ll be a pencil and paper type of thing and we will be there to support this,” he said. “But if the Census Bureau and the federal government doesn’t support the efforts and the trust that we’re going to have put out there to have people believe in what we’re trying to get there.”

Below is the full transcript of the interview with the acting director of the U.S. Census Bureau Thomas L. Mesenbourg: “Do you want to maximize the counting of illegal immigrants in the 2010 Census?”

Mesenbourg: “Our job is to count everyone that resides in the U.S. Count them once. So, certainly that’s our goal to count every individual, every resident whether they’re documented, undocumented, whether they are citizens or non-citizens.” “Why do you think the commerce secretary and you as well came to this event?”

Mesenbourg: “Well, getting a full and accurate count is job number one for us. The secretary recognizes that and we recognize that the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce alone can’t carry out a successful census. We need to partner with organizations that are viewed as trusted voices in their local community and certainly this coalition’s going to go a far way in terms of accomplishing that goal.” “They had mentioned during the actual event, local communities and their role in counting. How does that relate to the illegal immigrant counting in the census?”

Mesenbourg: “Well, the local communities are going to have a strong partnership program in each of the local communities and we’re going to focus on the hard to count geographic areas. That typically has been areas with high numbers of undocumented workers, but it’s much more diverse than that. So, what we’ll do is we’ll have Census Bureau folks out in those neighborhoods recruiting community organizations, faith-based organizations, and local media to get that message out that it’s safe, it’s easy and it’s important to file your 2010 census form.” “I imagine it must be difficult counting them if they think it’s not safe.”

Mesenbourg: “Yeah, and it’s more than just the Census Bureau telling them that it’s safe. We need somebody that they view as a trusted voice--somebody from that community, whether perhaps the local pastor or somebody in a community organization that can assure them that it’s safe. One way to improve the safety is you get a census form, fill it out, return it by mail, and no one will come knocking on your door after that.”

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website: