• House of Representatives moves to halt Obama forced-diversity scheme.
By Robert Romano —
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has finalized its “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” rule that empowers the government to condition eligibility for community development block grants on redrawing zoning maps to achieve racial and income integration by building high density, low-income housing in middle-class neighborhoods.
In 2012, HUD disbursed about $3.8 billion of these grants to almost 1,200 municipalities. To continue receiving those grants, zoning plans will now need federal approval that they met with the government’s racial guidelines.
This could be Obama’s biggest power grab yet.
HUD is now claiming authority over local zoning decisions in an effort to redraw every neighborhood in America—to achieve an unachievable, utopian vision of forced community development. Yet the government assures us, in the regulation, that “This rule does not impose any land use or zoning laws on any local government.”
Really? It doesn’t?
The rule continues: “Rather, the rule requires HUD program participants to perform an assessment of land use and zoning to evaluate their possible impact on fair housing choice.”
Then, when those zoning plans are submitted in conjunction with the grant application, “This final rule, and assessment tools and guidance to be issued, will assist recipients of federal funding to use that funding and, if necessary, adjust their land use and zoning laws in accordance with their existing legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.”
So, the program will not impose land use or zoning laws on communities, it will simply assess and if necessary adjust those laws as a condition for receiving the funding. But nobody forced them to take the money. Thanks for clearing that up.
Choosing where you want to live is not discrimination, and yet, the Obama administration, through its rule, is saying that we have all apparently discriminated against ourselves by determining for ourselves where to buy or rent a home.
Never mind that some houses cost more than others, that some neighborhoods have higher taxes, and that not everyone can afford to live in every community—not by design, but simply due to high demand for housing in certain areas.
As demand for homes rises, so too does the price. That may lead to certain outcomes, such as pricing particular income brackets out of purchasing homes in more expensive communities, but that is not discriminatory. Real estate markets are volatile, and home values are very much subject to economic conditions.
Besides, individual cases of housing discrimination are already illegal and have been for almost 50 years.
The fact is, people make individual decisions every day about which neighborhood they want to live in. Every American with access to sufficient credit and an income can already buy a home in any neighborhood they can afford.
Yet the Obama administration believes it can tell people where to live based on social engineering.
It will fail. And not because of discrimination.
The government could spend the next hundred years redrawing neighborhoods, and the department would find, upon periodic review, that some people had up and moved somewhere else, and that, gosh, this affected the demographic makeup of those communities.
It would find that peoples of certain shared ethnic and language backgrounds normally choose to live together in the same neighborhoods.
It would find that changing economic conditions regionally and periodic national recessions would affect the decisions of where people chose to live as employment opportunities shifted.
Here’s a prediction: The more HUD sticks its unwanted nose into neighborhoods with its high-density, low-income housing goals, property values of affected communities will be adversely impacted, and those with the means will simply find somewhere else to live.
What will ensue will be a never-ending round of regulatory whack-a-mole with the department developing more and more coercive means to achieve perceived racial integration, only to be confounded every time economics and individual decisions do not produce the outcomes that the bureaucrats desire.
Thankfully, the House of Representatives has already taken action, passing an amendment by Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) to the Transportation and HUD appropriations bill that would bar the department from using funds to carry out the rules.
Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning urged Senate action.
“It is up to the Senate to take action and then hold firm and insist that this blatant federal takeover of local zoning authority be stopped,” said Manning.
Obama thinks he can command the demographic makeup of neighborhoods. Yet the real estate market simply doesn’t work that way. And Congress does not have to fund his radical rule-making.
Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.
‘Sanctuary Cities’ Anger Many Americans
By Victor Thorn
According to President Barack Hussein Obama, his cabinet members and the four Democratic presidential candidates, the lives of illegal aliens are more important than the safety of law-abiding citizens living in this country. Indeed, Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Senator Bernard “Bernie” Sanders (D-Vt.), not to mention Representative Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi (D-Ca.) and Senator Harry Mason Reid (D-Nev.), all support the idea of sanctuary cities.
Sanctuary cities refer to cities in the United States that officially shelter illegal immigrants in violation of U.S. laws. The concept dates back to the 1970s with governments in an estimated 31 U.S. cities issuing directives to law enforcement to ignore the immigration status of individuals. Local officials in the largest cities in the U.S.—New York City, Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami, Chicago and Houston, to name but a few—have all announced publicly that they govern sanctuary cities.
The treasonous nature of these sanctuary cities came under increased scrutiny on July 1 when an illegal alien, 45-year-old Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who “used more than 30 aliases over the course of a 25-year life of crime,” randomly shot and murdered a 32-year-old white woman named Kathryn Michelle “Kate” Steinle as she strolled along a San Francisco pier with her father. Sanchez, a seven-time convicted felon who had been deported to Mexico on five previous occasions but kept sneaking back into the U.S., said that he chose San Francisco as his residence because of its status as a sanctuary city.
Not only has the Obama White House refused to denounce the existence of sanctuary cities, they took Arizona legislators to court in 2014 for trying to enforce federal immigration laws. Worse, when several so-called sanctuary cities refused to obey the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that requires them to turn over criminal border-crossers to agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Obama turned a blind eye. According to Obama, these laws are “voluntary,” thus explaining why so many Hispanic criminals are released back onto American streets.
Rather than highlighting the Obama administration’s betrayal of our nation’s laws, the mainstream media has instead castigated presidential candidate Donald Trump as a racist. But during his June 16 presidential announcement speech, Trump couldn’t have been more correct. He boldly stated: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best . . . they’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime [and] they’re rapists.”
Not only have strong conservative voices such as Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Pat Buchanan lent their support to Trump, but a September 10, 2014 article by Erin McIntyre and Deborah Borello of Fusion magazine confirmed the real estate mogul’s assertions. Their report noted: “A staggering 80% of Central American girls and women crossing Mexico en route to the United States are raped along the way.” Thousands of other similar crimes are perpetrated by these criminal hordes.
To obtain some firsthand insights, on July 7 this reporter interviewed C.J. Bryant of California’s Nevada County Tea Party.
“We grieve for the family of that young girl that was slain, but there are many more instances of illegals coming to this country and committing heinous crimes,” said Ms. Bryant. “Here’s the question we keep asking: Why do leaders like Barack Obama want them here? There’s a bigger agenda at hand.”
Following this line of thought, Ms. Bryant continued: “Never before in history has one president so disregarded the rule of law than Obama. He picks and chooses what laws he wants to follow. But immigration laws are not voluntary. Guards in San Francisco are told to release illegal aliens. They don’t have a choice because they’re ordered to do so.”
Ms. Bryant provided a specific example: “In the Bay Area, the arrival of illegal aliens is not only permissible, it’s encouraged. Then, after the same criminals are incarcerated, they’re let out over and over again instead of being deported. The American people are being victimized.”
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 50 books.