republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

After some grandstanding to placate outraged constituents, establishment Republicans in Congress quietly voted to fund Obama's unconstitutional plan to fundamentally transform your neighborhood by bringing in more federally funded “diversity.” In short, if Big Brother's race-obsessed data-gathering machine determines that there are not enough poor or minority residents on welfare living in your city, town, zip code, or neighborhood, Obama wants to change that using your tax dollars. The scheme also sidelines states and borders by considering “regions” instead, a key element of the agenda to break down the traditional United States and its federalist system of government.  

But the battle is far from over. And Americans still have many tools at their disposal to block the scheming. For instance, the “Affirmatively Further Fair Housing” plot is contingent on successfully bribing local officials into compliance. As more than a few analysts have observed, that means cities and communities can easily reject the plan. Simply stated, all they have to do is refuse to accept unconstitutional bribes from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). If the bribes (disguised as “grants” and so on) from a bankrupt Uncle Sam are refused, the strings they come attached with are null and void, leaving Washington, D.C., bureaucrats with no leverage. Some cities are already leading the way.

Separately, state governments can and should stand up to the agenda as well. Among other tactics, lawmakers can use the power of nullification to prohibit cities and towns from becoming federal agents in Obama's quest to re-shape America via anti-constitutional housing policy. Nullification has been used by American states since the 1700s to resist unconstitutional activities, including the “Fugitive Slave Act” purporting to require the return of runaway slaves. The powerful tool promoted by America's Founders remains relevant and in use today — including by liberals in states such as Colorado, which voted to nullify federal and international prohibitions against marijuana.   

Leading the charge to quash the Obama administration's lawless AFFH program at the federal level was U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), one of the leading advocates of liberty and constitutional government in Congress. Last month, Senator Lee proposed an amendment to the Senate Transportation and HUD appropriations bill that would have defunded Obama's AFFH edicts and their implementation by the federal Leviathan. It was a simple vote that would have definitively shut down the scheme to relocate government-funded housing projects to middle-class suburbs. And in a passionate speech on the Senate floor, Lee explained why it was so urgently needed.

“Proponents of AFFH, including President Obama, claim that it fulfills the original purpose and promise of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. But the truth is, HUD’s new housing rule isn’t the fulfillment — but a betrayal — of the Fair Housing Act of 1968,” Lee told his colleagues. “The original intent of the Fair Housing Act was to protect the God-given right of individuals and families — no matter their skin color or ethnicity — to buy and rent homes where they please. By contrast, the explicit purpose of HUD’s new rule is to empower federal bureaucrats to dictate where a community’s low-income residents will live. This is not what 'progress' looks like, Mr. President.”

Lee also outlined how the Obama HUD edict would purport to empower D.C. bureaucrats to run roughshod over local communities and their elected officials. “If any aspect of a community’s housing and demographic patterns fails to meet HUD bureaucrats’ expansive definition of ‘fair housing,’ the local government must submit a plan to reorganize the community’s housing practices according to the preferences and priorities of the bureaucrats,” he explained. “Critics of AFFH often say — as I have said — that this rule turns HUD into a National Zoning Board with the power to unilaterally rewrite local zoning laws and land-use regulations in every city and town in America.... Under the new rule, HUD doesn’t replace local Public Housing Authorities — it conscripts them into its service.”

“To make matters worse, this new rule will end America’s unique — and uniquely successful — commitment to localism and diversity,” Lee continued, adding that neighborhood-level construction decisions would now be subject to the “whims” of future presidents. “If this past year has not yet done enough to give you pause about handing over such power to the Executive Branch, you’re not paying close enough attention.” He also expressed hope that lawmakers in the House — where GOP leadership has already caved to Obama on this issue (and practically every other) on multiple occasions — would pass a similar measure again in the near future.  

Instead of voting to protect their constituents and defend the Constitution, which they all swore an oath to uphold, establishment Republicans joined with Senate Democrats to quash Lee's amendment. In its place, lawmakers did overwhelmingly support a weaker amendment — described as “toothless” by critics — that was offered by Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a liberal establishment Republican. Under the Collins amendment, HUD may not directly force local authorities “to undertake specific changes to existing zoning laws.” But as Lee explained, the Collins measure would allow the “underhanded and subversive” mechanics of the AFFH to continue.

In fact, the amendment was beyond toothless, because it tackled the non-existent problem of Obama's HUD being able to force local governments to take particular actions or adopt particular policies. In reality, neither HUD or HUD Secretary Julian Castro have, or have ever had, the authority to compel local governments to do anything. Instead, the AFFH scheme relies on federally funded bribes and the threat of lawsuits to impose HUD's schemes on local communities — something the Lee amendment would have tackled head on, but which the Collins amendment ignores and enables.

The Collins amendment passed by huge margins, with 87 in favor versus just nine against, showing that a national zoning board is incredibly bad politics, even for extremist Democrats. The Lee amendment, by contrast, which would have actually stopped Obama's HUD from re-engineering American communities for sinister “progressive” purposes, was defeated by establishment Republicans and Democrats. More than a few analysts and commentators concluded that the Collins amendment was in fact a cheap and transparent ploy aimed at providing political cover for pro-Obama Republicans to bankroll Obama's AFFH scheme with federal tax dollars. And there can be little doubt about it.  

Critics were outraged. “Americans wonder what is going wrong with the system in Washington, D.C. where Senators seem more interested in playing paddy cake with President Obama and his radical agenda rather than standing up and fighting it,” said a statement by Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning, who supported Lee's measure to de-fund Obama's schemes bribing local governments for “racial and income gerrymandering zoning requirements.” “Unfortunately, too many of [Lee's] Republican colleagues were more afraid of the race hustlers who seek to put low income high rise apartments into middle-class neighborhoods.”

Others vowed to keep fighting despite the failure of Lee's amendment. Property-rights attorney Ethan Blevins with the College of Public Interest Law at the Pacific Legal Fund, for example, vowed to use legal action. “Perhaps Senator Lee’s amendment will get another chance once people begin to feel the impact of the AFFH rule,” he said, citing government-engineered changes in home prices, neighborhoods being re-shaped, communities getting sick of “mummification by red tape,” and people realizing that “the strings attached to federal money end in a noose.” However, in “the meantime,” Blevins said, the Pacific Legal Fund “won’t hesitate to resort to the courts to do what the Senate cannot.”  

The New American first reported on Obama's plan in 2013, long before it became a major political flash point in the administration's war on America. Among other schemes, the HUD decree makes billions of dollars worth of funding to local governments contingent on the communities accepting federal control of their policies. That means neighborhoods must be re-zoned along income and racial specifications developed by the federal executive branch, rather than the wishes of local communities. It is basically extreme social-engineering on a national scale to further Obama's “fundamental transformation” of America.

The plan also deliberately ignores state lines in favor of “regions.” The people of Dubuque, Iowa, found this out the hard way when the Obama administration coerced local officials into recruiting welfare recipients from Chicago to live in its tax-subsidized low-income housing. The outrageous policy — and its disastrous effects, not to mention the assault on traditions of local self-government and state boundries — was outlined in areport by the Public Interest Institute last year. And that is just the beginning of what Obama and his allies have planned.       

Aside from the fact that the U.S. Constitution delegates no authority over housing policy to the federal government, making the entire HUD bureaucracy unconstitutional, the evidence also suggests that the HUD “Community Development Block Grant” bribes used to advance AFFH are a massive failure. Indeed, according to a study by the Reason Foundation, the flow of taxpayer dollars has primarily benefited cronies and special interests, while doing basically nothing to reduce poverty. So taxpayers are being unconstitutionally bilked out of almost $15 billion a year to shower on crony capitalists. Now Obama wants to use the handouts to help re-shape America too — and, presumably, to transform the demographics of America's state legislative and congressional districts.

In fact, even the federal government's own studies show that the radical “housing diversity” machinations being pushed from D.C. have failed miserably to accomplish the feds' own stated objectives. “A 2011 study sponsored by HUD found that adults using more generous Section 8 vouchers did not get better jobs or get off welfare,” reported Paul Sperry in the New York Post. “In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools. Worse, crime simply followed them to their safer neighborhoods, ruining the quality of life for existing residents.”

It is time for the American people's elected representatives to put a stop to Obama's AFFH scheme, as well as the broader “fundamental transformation” of America that he has helped oversee. The agenda is unwise, unconstitutional, unaffordable, and dangerous to American traditions and liberty. It must be stopped and reversed.   

Related articles:

Obama Seeks to Reshape Neighborhoods With Housing “Diversity”

Private Property Ownership — the First American Right To Die Under Barack Obama’s Tyranny

CFR Globalist: End U.S. States, Build China-style Regional Gov't

President's New Housing Plan: Another Racist Policy

A New Symbol Has Been Cast: People • Property • Liberty

HUD Seeks to Address "Inequality" in Wealthy Neighborhoods Through Regulations

_______________________________________________________



Say goodbye to your neighborhood: Obama ‘fair housing’ rule enforces racial, religious, income ‘desegregration’

BY DR. EOWYN

SEE: https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/05/04/say-goodbye-to-

your-neighborhood-obama-fair-housing-rule-enforces-racial-religious

-income-desegregration/; 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
If you’re living in a neighborhood of mainly “whites,” or Christians, or non-refugees, or middle-class income earners, or traditional man-woman households, and your town or city receives federal dollars, say goodbye to the neighborhood as you have known it.

That’s because last July, the Obama Administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) finalized a new “fair housing” rule called “affirmatively further fair housing choice” (AFFH), which will begin to be enforced nationwide in 2019.

As explained by Ed Gramlich of the National Low Income HousingCoalition, in “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Final Regulations,” the new rule is an addition to the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibits housing discrimination against the “protected classes” of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability, by requiring “program participants” to“affirmatively further fair housing” by taking steps “to actively overcome historic patterns of segregation“.

“Program participants” are defined as “jurisdictions” (towns/cities/counties/states) and public housing agencies (PHAs)that receive federal funds for housing and urban development, which in practice means every neighborhood in the US, for is there a town or city or county or state that doesn’t receive federal dollars for housing and urban development?

Translated into plainer English, that means if your town/city/county/state contains sections and neighborhoods that lack blacks, Muslims, LGBTs, Mexican illegals, Syrian refugees, and the mentally ill, the assumption is that the homogeneity is a result of discriminatory housing practices. And if your town/city/county/state gets federal dollars for housing and urban development — which means everywhere in the U.S. — then your local government is required to “desegregate” and break up your neighborhood’s offensive homogeneity.

In the preamble to the rule, HUD stresses that “the new AFFH approach does not mandate specific outcomes. Rather, it establishes a standardized fair housing assessment and planning process to give program participants a more effective means to affirmatively further the purposes of the Fair Housing Act.” Blah, blah, blah.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN

(1) HUD will provide each “program participant” (henceforth, I’ll call it “your town”) with the following:

Data on housing in your town and the surrounding region.
The new “affirmatively further fair housing choice” (AFFH) rule that provides “a standard framework” for program participants to use to identify and examine “fair housing issues” and the underlying “contributing factors” that cause any housing discriminatory issues. A “fair housing issue” is defined as “a condition that restricts choice or access to opportunity, including:

Ongoing local or regional segregation, or lack of integration.
Racial or ethnic concentrations of poverty.
Significant disparities in access to opportunity.
Disproportionate housing needs based on the “protected classes” of race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability.
Evidence of illegal discrimination or violations of civil rights laws, regulations, or guidance.




(2) Your local government then uses the data to assess whether and how “fair” the housing is in your town; identify neighborhoods lacking “fair housing”; and set “fair housing goals and priorities”. All of that should be submitted to HUD in an “Assessment of Fair Housing” (AFH), the development of which requires “public participation”.

(3) HUD receives, reviews, and decides whether to accept your town’s AFH.

(4) If accepted, your town must “certify (pledge) that they are affirmatively furthering fair housing choice” by incorporating its HUD-approved AFH into its Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) and Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plan. Specifically, this means, your town must “take meaningful actions” to “address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to community opportunity” by:

“Replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns.”
“Transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.”
“Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing law.”
Removing “obvious impediments” to “fair housing,” such as “refusing to rent to families with children,” lack of large rental units, zoning that limits multifamily housing, and “insurance practices that reinforce segregated housing patterns” (whatever that means). See “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice“.


(5) HUD will “monitor” your town’s “compliance” to the new “fair housing” rule by requiring your local government to submit an Annual Performance Report of its ConPlan (called CAPER), wherein your local government must:

Summarize the “impediments to fair housing” in your community;
Describe the actions taken in the past year to overcome the effects of those “impediments”.


(6) Your town must submit a new AFH every 5 years, which will result in a new ConPlan and PHA Plan.

WHEN NEW RULE WILL BE ENFORCED

HUD says “Most program participants will not be required to use the new AFFH system until 2019.” The exact timing or due date for a “program participant” to submit an “Assessment of Fair Housing” (AFH) depends on:

Whether the “jurisdiction” (town/city/county/state) receives less or more than $500,000 in federal funds;
Whether the public housing agency has less or more than 550 public housing units and vouchers.


If you thought Agenda 21 is bad, this new “fair housing” rule is Agenda 21 On Steroids, and it will wreak havoc in neighborhoods and communities across America. And yet, not a word from Congress or the useless media.

_____________________________________________________

Hussein Soetoro Strikes Again At Further Freedoms Through AFFH Which the House and Senate Passed

Even with a majority Republican House and Senate, establishment Obama-loving GOP members have voted to remove further rights of citizens using our own tax dollars.

BY SUZANNE HAMNER

SEE: http://freedomoutpost.com/hussein-soetoro-strikes-again-at

-further-freedoms-through-affh-which-the-house-and-senate-passed/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:



The hits keep on coming at the American public.  Unfortunately, it is the elected officials in Washington, DC, that keep betraying their constituents and voter base who are swinging the bats.  Even with a majority Republican House and Senate, establishment Obama-loving GOP members have voted to remove further rights of citizens using our own tax dollars.

As Infowars.com reports from the New American:


After some grandstanding to placate outraged constituents, establishment Republicans in Congress quietly voted to fund Obama’s unconstitutional plan to fundamentally transform your neighborhood by bringing in more federally funded “diversity.” 

In short, if Big Brother’s race-obsessed data-gathering machine determines that there are not enough poor or minority residents on welfare living in your city, town, zip code, or neighborhood, Obama wants to change that using your tax dollars. The scheme also sidelines states and borders by considering “regions” instead, a key element of the agenda to break down the traditional United States and its federalist system of government.

 Friends, this is where the final blow to liberty and freedom, outside of quashing Christianity, will occur – in our own city councils, county commissioners and local elected officials.  It works very simply, in disguise, and enticing to local officials.  The New American explains, "the 'Affirmatively Further Fair Housing' plot is contingent on successfully bribing local officials into compliance."  These bribes take the form of unconstitutional "grants" and other funds coming from the federal government's unconstitutional agency, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, giving the agency and the federal government the upper hand in "planning."

However, there is a remedy.  It is called nullification.  If no other link is read, the link for nullification is a must read by everyone.  The States can simply nullify this unconstitutional housing project to "prohibit cities and towns" from morphing into agents of the federal government.   Nullification is the rightful course against unconstitutional legislation going back to the 1700s.  For those who question nullification in this day and age, remember, liberals, LIBERALS, used it in states like Colorado to nullify "federal and international prohibitions against marijuana."

Likewise, local governments can refuse to accept money in the form of unconstitutional grants and funds from HUD.  This leaves the long arm of the lawless in Washington, DC, with zero leverage over local governments and officials.  This is probably the simplest way to thwart this forced change.  States have long since sold out to be subjects of the federal government.

One Republican who led the way against this latest lawlessness by the Obama administration is Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).  He proposed an amendment to the Senate Transportation and HUD appropriations bill that would have defunded Obama's AFFH dictatorial decree and implementation by HUD.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Lee explained how this edict works, what is violated, and how this amendment would prevent it.


Here’s how the rule works.

AFFH requires cities and towns across the country to audit their local housing policies, under close supervision by HUD regulators, who may have never have lived anywhere near there.

If any aspect of a community’s housing and demographic patterns fails to meet HUD bureaucrats’ expansive definition of “fair housing,” the local government must submit a plan to reorganize the community’s housing practices according to the preferences and priorities of the bureaucrats.  

Critics of AFFH often say – as I have said – that this rule turns HUD into a National Zoning Board with the power to unilaterally rewrite local zoning laws and land-use regulations in every city and town in America.

But that’s not quite how the rule works, and it’s why Senator Collins’ amendment would not do anything to prevent the implementation of AFFH.

In the 10 months since the rule was finalized, it has become clear that the mechanics of AFFH are much more underhanded and subversive than critics have often claimed.

Under the new rule, HUD doesn’t replace local Public Housing Authorities – it conscripts them into its service.

Mr. President, this gets to the heart of the difference between my amendment and the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Collins.

The danger of AFFH is not that HUD will direct local governments and public housing authorities to make specific changes to their zoning policies. It will just threaten them, by tying obedience to federal Community Development Block Grants.

...

Traditionally, local officials have been free to use their CDBG grant money according to their community’s needs and priorities. But under AFFH, HUD officials will withhold a local government’s CDBG funds unless that local government adopts HUD’s preferred housing policies.

This comes down to Americans being able to retain the choice in where they live.  Lee explained:

As currently written, it permits the Department of Housing and Urban Development to proceed in the implementation of its radical new regulation, the insultingly misnamed “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule,” or AFFH.

Proponents of AFFH, including President Obama, claim that it fulfills the original purpose and promise of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

But the truth is, HUD’s new housing rule isn’t the fulfillment – but a betrayal – of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

The original intent of the Fair Housing Act was to protect the God-given right of individuals and families – no matter their skin color or ethnicity – to buy and rent homes where they please. By contrast, the explicit purpose of HUD’s new rule is to empower federal bureaucrats to dictate where a community’s low-income residents will live.

This is not what “progress” looks like, Mr. President.

AFFH not only grants unprecedented new powers to HUD that were not contemplated by – and have no legitimate basis in – the Fair Housing Act of 1968, but it will ultimately hurt the very people it purports to help: public-housing residents – especially African-American public-housing residents – who too often find themselves trapped in dysfunctional, broken neighborhoods.

To make matters worse, this new rule will end America’s unique – and uniquely successful – commitment to localism and diversity, and make neighborhood-level construction decisions subject to the whims of future presidents.

If this past year has not yet done enough to give you pause about handing over such power to the Executive Branch, you’re not paying close enough attention. 


So, instead of housing and neighborhood planning being left to local governments who know the needs of their area better than Washington bureaucrats, the bureaucrats would then dictate to local governments the planning.  How does that work out for the population?  Again, Lee provided an appropriate example that fell on deaf ears.


Predictably, proponents of the rule claim that this will be a collaborative process, with local-government officials in the driver’s seat while the bureaucrats at HUD merely provide “support” and “guidance.” But the 10-month track record of AFFH suggests that the opposite will be true.

In fact, I have already heard from the Housing Authority of Salt Lake County predicting that the costs of complying with AFFH will stretch their already-thin resources, add hundreds of hours of bureaucratic paperwork to their workloads, and eliminate their autonomy to determine the best ways to provide adequate low-cost housing to their community.

...

The history of Chicago is instructive here.

In the 2000s, Chicago’s city government demolished many of its public-housing facilities without a plan to replace them.

Those with the resources and wherewithal to choose where to live moved to places where housing is cheap and economic opportunity is plentiful. But the less fortunate were relocated to more remote, less prosperous towns, like Dubuque, Iowa, at the behest of – who else – the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In 2008, the city of Dubuque was struggling to meet the needs of its own public-housing residents. Yet in stepped HUD, declaring that the city’s housing policies would fail to meet the agency’s fair-housing standards – and that, therefore, the city would be ineligible to receive federal funding from HUD – unless the local government actively recruited Section 8 voucher holders from Chicago. 

Unwilling to lose access to federal funding on which the city had come to rely, the small Iowan town acquiesced to HUD’s demands. 

This imposed an enormous administrative burden on the city’s resource-strapped housing agencies, but HUD’s real victims were Chicago’s public-housing residents who were forcibly displaced to an unknown town 200 miles from the city they used to call home.


As we see in the example, state boundaries are totally ignored and replaced with "regions" that clearly cross state lines.  In other words, bypass of the State government occurs, violating the Tenth Amendment, in favor of the Washington, DC "region" platform.  Lee's amendment would have effectively defunded this travesty and stopped its implementation.

According to Lee, "... low-income families are not statistics to be managed by distant bureaucrats – they’re human beings, our neighbors in need, who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect."

But, Lee's amendment was rejected by the DC traitors in favor of an amendment by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), a known liberal establishment type.  The DC traitors, instead of upholding their oath and supporting the Constitution, clearly continued the status quo of violating it.  The amendment proposed by Collins has been called "a cheap and transparent ploy aimed at providing political cover for pro-Obama Republicans to bankroll Obama's AFFH scheme with federal tax dollars. And there can be little doubt about it."


Under the Collins amendment, HUD may not directly force local authorities “to undertake specific changes to existing zoning laws.” But as Lee explained, the Collins measure would allow the “underhanded and subversive” mechanics of the AFFH to continue.


How did this atrocity come to pass?  It's very simple really and best explained by Rick Manning, President of Americans for Limited Government.


“Americans wonder what is going wrong with the system in Washington, D.C. where Senators seem more interested in playing paddy cake with President Obama and his radical agenda rather than standing up and fighting it,” said a statement by Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning, who supported Lee's measure to de-fund Obama's schemes bribing local governments for “racial and income gerrymandering zoning requirements.” “Unfortunately, too many of [Lee's] Republican colleagues were more afraid of the race hustlers who seek to put low income high rise apartments into middle-class neighborhoods.” [emphasis mine]


And, this is the true issue as stated by Manning – race hustlers seeking to disrupt all middle-class neighborhoods by putting low income high rise apartments in their midst.

The issue at hand boils down to freedom and constitutionality.  The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government over housing or the movement of people.  What authority not granted to the federal government becomes the authority of the States or the people, respectively – the Tenth Amendment.  Individuals are free to choose where their live, in what type of dwelling they live and how they live based on their income.  Cities and localities create ordinances on dwellings and initiate zoning laws in order to protect property values of the citizens who live there.

Besides being unconstitutional and HUD being an unconstitutional agency, the New American indicates "the evidence also suggests that the HUD 'Community Development Block Grant' bribes used to advance AFFH are a massive failure."


According to a study by the Reason Foundation, the flow of taxpayer dollars has primarily benefited cronies and special interests, while doing basically nothing to reduce poverty. So taxpayers are being unconstitutionally bilked out of almost $15 billion a year to shower on crony capitalists. Now Obama wants to use the handouts to help re-shape America too — and, presumably, to transform the demographics of America's state legislative and congressional districts.

In fact, even the federal government's own studies show that the radical “housing diversity” machinations being pushed from D.C. have failed miserably to accomplish the feds' own stated objectives. “A 2011 study sponsored by HUD found that adults using more generous Section 8 vouchers did not get better jobs or get off welfare,” reported Paul Sperry in the New York Post. “In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools. Worse, crime simply followed them to their safer neighborhoods, ruining the quality of life for existing residents.”


The failure of Lee's amendment to pass does not mean the fight is over as others, like property-rights attorney Ethan Bevins with the College of Public Interest Law at the Pacific Legal Fund, vow to keep fighting by using legal action.  According to Bevins, once the people start feeling the effects of Hussein Soetoro's AFFH in the form of "government-engineered changes in home pricing, neighborhoods being reshaped, communities getting sick of 'mummification by red tape,' and people realizing the strings attached to federal money end in a noose," Lee's amendment might stand another chance at passage.  Bevins stated the Pacific Legal Fund will not hesitate "to resort to the courts to do what the Senate cannot."

It's time to face facts here.  The War on American Citizens is here, now, and has every intention of escalating.  Our elected officials in Washington, DC, are bought and paid for by special interest, the wealthy, and blackmailed by one Hussein Soetoro to eradicate every last bastion of freedom, liberty and unalienable God-given rights of the people.  It is a move toward totalitarianism not seen since the Bolshevik revolution resulting in the installation of communism in the land of Russia and Mao Tse Tung's revolution producing dictatorial communist rule of China.  If you are unfamiliar about what happened during those historical events, do some research – millions were murdered by their own government, millions starved to death, and the people were herded wherever the government wanted them to go;  they owned nothing, had zero freedoms and worked in jobs the government dictated.  Everyone was equally miserable except for the controlling political elite and wealthy.

While some may be perfectly content with the "nanny police state," many are not.  The point of no return is almost upon us.  What we choose now, will determine what fate will await our posterity and what we will choose to leave them.  Anyone who thinks the situation will be different here than in Russia or China does not understand the evilness that absolute power can generate.   While the majority of people may think their idea of "equality" will be the norm should the farce of communism overtake this nation, they would be wrong, as it is what the "ruling elite" think is equal for the people, excluding them, that will be prevalent.

Sometimes it is easier to "cut out the tumor" than it is to try to eradicate it with chemotherapy or radiation.  For once the big offense has been removed, the smaller fragments can be managed with the smaller measure.

_______________________________________________________

Limbaugh: Obama Is Trying To Punish Suburbs By Encouraging Affordable Housing


Published on May 9, 2016


RUSH LIMBAUGH (HOST): [President Barack] Obama’s last act is to force suburbs to be less white and less wealthy. Hillary [Clinton]’s rumored running mate housing Secretary Julian Castro is cooking up a scheme to reallocate funding for Section 8 housing to punish suburbs for being too white and too wealthy. Now, this may be Julian Castro, but this all started with Obama. The scheme involves supersizing vouchers to help the urban poor afford higher rents in pricey areas, such as Westchester County in New York while assigning them government real estate agents called mobility counselors to secure housing in the ex-urbs. Julian Castro plans to launch the Section 8 reboot this fall, even though a similar program tested a few years ago in Dallas has been blamed for shifting violent crime to affluent neighborhoods. Exactly what happens. It’s by design. It’s payback for people that moved to the suburbs from the city. It basically is transferring that which they left to where they now live. It is all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs. Castro, Julian Castro, last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse Section 8 tenants with criminal records. This is no different, except, it’s actually a deeper scale. It’s no different than – you better believe it, it’s already happening. Dallas was a proving ground. It was judged to have worked by virtue of the – you have to bring them into your neighborhood, you have to build housing that’s so-called affordable for them to live in right next to people in whatever neighborhoods, however you want to describe them, affluent or whatever. Yeah, it’s by design, nuts on purpose. And they tried it in Dallas, and the crime rate skyrocketed with the introduction of people with no jobs, and it was judged to be a success. So now they’re doing it in Westchester County, which has long been a test market of this. It’s not new, it’s just now being written about for the first time here in the New York Post. Castro last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse Section 8 tenants with criminal records. We told you about this last week. You have to rent to somebody – we’re going to get rid of, in fact, the term “criminal,” and we’re going to get rid of the term “felon.” This will facilitate them being hired by mandate or given affordable so-called places to live by mandate. And this is going to survive long after Obama is out of office unless somebody does something about it. It’s happening under the radar. Look, on a deeper scale, it’s no different than you run a bakery and somebody walks in. I’m getting married, I’m gay, I want you to bake a cake. Sorry, not our values. OK, fine. We’re going to sue you and put you out of business. You’re a photographer, same thing. We’re having a gay wedding, want you to take pictures. Sorry, religious beliefs say I can’t do that. Well, you’re going to pay. We’re going to sue you out of existence. Same thing here. If you will not permit Section 8 tenants, felons and so forth with criminal records to move in to your neighborhood, we’re going to sue you. I hope he fails. This is the chip on his shoulder.



"MOBILITY COUNSELORS" WILL HELP LEVEL 

THE PLAYING FIELD FOR THE 

"POOR" CITY PEOPLE