Posted on 05/23/2016 5:03:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
They’re coming for your home. Right now. I suggest you save it. I can guide you, but you must do exactly as I say.
Except, this isn’t The Matrix. You’re no actor, like Keanu Reeves, playing a distraught programmer-hacker named “Neo.” Nor am I an actor, like Laurence Fishburne, playing your guide “Morpheus.” This is real life, baby.
Your home or apartment—and the neighborhood in which you live—is under siege. “Agents”—sans black glasses and black business suits—who work for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have written a new regulation called “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) that rejects your Fourth Amendment private property rights under the guise of fighting “discrimination.”
16 Senate Republicans joined the Democrats last week and voted to uphold AFFH. Now, we must use our voting power to fire these Republicans and ensure our future president overturns their disastrous mistake.
Biological females may soon have no choice but to share their restrooms with individuals with male genitalia who identify as female—which is very discriminatory toward women. (Could we get a vote on this, please? Or are we regressing to the pre-suffragette days?)
I also recently wrote how HUD is giving preferential treatment to convicted criminals. So, if anyone is orchestrating social discrimination, it’s folks within the Obama administration—not local zoning municipalities.
Bad omens
Every name reflects its namer. For example, pop star Beyoncé and actress Gwyneth Paltrow’s decisions to name their daughters “Blue” and “Apple” respectively say more about them than their offspring. Likewise, HUD’s choice to name its newest housing edict the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule” tells you this federal agency is out of good ideas—and resorting to vague, flowery language to hide its inadequacy.
Effectively, AFFH regulations will eliminate local zoning in 1,200 cities and counties (see if yours is on the list) by mandating new federal rules based on race and income that will override all local jurisprudence.
Today, if you want to live in a certain neighborhood in America—you are already 100%free to move into that area. There are no laws hindering Hispanics, African Americans, women, gays, Muslims, poor people or any other so-called minority or “protected” group from living in the neighborhood of their choosing.
Jimmy Carter knew it. Bill Clinton knew it. Barack Obama knew it. Hillary Clinton knows it. The dirty little secret is: if you can convince people that you will help them buy homes, you can turn them into voters for your party. Because humans have an innate desire to own and care for a special plot of space, and call it home.
In 2016, young voters will be particularly susceptible to lofty housing promises. Millennials—who Pew Research Center now says account for as many eligible voters as the Baby Boomer generation—are also beginning to start families. Nine thousand babies are born every day in the U.S. to Millennial parents. Meanwhile, Millennials are struggling to shelter their families independently.
Obama’s great “recovery” has created so few jobs that—according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Longitudinal Surveys program—over half (55%) of Millennials are moving back home with their parents by the time they reach age 27. Conniving politicians know, as more Millennials start families, the pressure to move out will escalate.
Victims, victims, everywhere
What the AFFH really does is create a new definition of victim that has never existed in America. If you are low income or a minority, AFFH assumes that you are a victim.
AFFH creates a new definition called “fair housing choice,” which states that the federal government must micromanage local zoning so “individuals and families… [are] able to achieve fair housing choice given the legacy of segregation, ongoing discrimination, and residential patterns that offer different levels of access to community assets.”
Our existing law already states that all men are equal and all have the right to choose how to go about pursuing happiness, including where to live.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” –from the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Furthermore the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is quite clear that “houses” are untouchable by the federal government without “probable cause.” And the federal government has no probable cause of the “ongoing discrimination” that HUD claims in defending AFFH.
Lest you doubt me, consider how MTV recently found that nearly 90 percent of Millennials oppose affirmative action! Three in four Millennials also told MTV that they believe it would be more productive for society to stop considering race altogether. HUD is clearly behind the times, writing new housing rules that pretend first-time home buyers face an epic level of racism. If anything, our youngest home buyers are ready to move on and fully embrace the principle our country was founded upon: equality.
By ceding property rights, which stem from our individual personhood, to the federal government, we would be saying that we are not equal to our neighbor. Worse, we would be saying that we—or our neighbor—need an artificial boost from a blustering bureaucrat in order to walk shoulder-to-shoulder. What a farce.
Let’s take a tip from Millennials and tell Congress, and the Republican presidential nominee, to respect our private property rights.
We're nearly there and I'm confident the ghetto will NOT follow us that far.
It's too much work.
Of course we'll have to go "into town" on occasion - but that's what 2A is for.
Only if we let it. As Ben Franklin said upon the passing of the Dec of Independence, "You have your republic...if you can keep it".
The trick is to effectively oppose it while avoiding the charge of RACISM.
I see all the usual suspects.
All of them need to be voted out of office.
Well if that’s the argument, the author is wrong about which Constitutional argument covers this. That’s a 5th Amendment Takings Clause argument, not a 4th Amendment search and seizure argument. That doesn’t mean I disagree with the substantive concern about the Federal Government rationing land use in a Soviet-style state controlled system. But the actual argument made is not Constitutionally correct.
bfl
Don’t forget Chappaqua, NY.
That was after WW2. Housing of ANY kind was in high demand then...virtually none had been built since 1931. Plus there was an entire generation of GIs that had left their parents’ already-crowded homes as boys and were now coming home as men seeking their own families.
MARK
**AFFH creates a new definition called “fair housing choice,” which states that the federal government must micromanage local zoning so “individuals and families… [are] able to achieve fair housing choice given the legacy of segregation, ongoing discrimination, and residential patterns that offer different levels of access to community assets.”**
Doesn’t sound too friendly.
So what?
I would resist this as a violation of the 10th Amendment, the 5th, and the 4th. There is also an issue of involuntary servitude if a homeowner is forced to sell to a party against his own wishes.
The bottom line is that in the liberal (socialist) world, private property really doesn't exist. Any property can be controlled by the State for the betterment of the Collective. That is exactly the reasoning behind this draconian program, and one reason it must be resisted, defied, and overturned.
Congress should act to un-fund HUD if this is allowed to continue. Using taxpayer money to oppress taxpayers is about as socialist as it gets.
They don’t care about the 10th Amendment, why would they care about the 4th?
I prefer instead the terms "collective rights" and "individual rights." The individual rights are those enshrined in our Bill of Rights, as well as those found here and there in the body of the Constitution itself. "Collective rights," however, are supposedly rights to things like food, housing, employment, education and health care. Most Americans on the left like to point to the South African Constitution as a "model" of granting collective rights, since those rights are all found there. What the left doesn't want people to know is that the real source of those "rights" is the Soviet constitution, from which the South African constitution was cut and pasted. Of course, it makes sense, since the ANC leadership were all Soviet communists.
I consider collective rights to be inherently in conflict with individual rights. You cannot have an enforcement of collective rights without an encroachment on the individual ones. And what is not pointed out is that collective rights are not really rights at all. To go down the list of these rights, do I have the "right" to a college degree, a job that pays $1 million per year, to live in a huge home and to eat steak and lobster for dinner every night? I may think I do, but realistically, we all know that isn't possible.
So what happens is that the State determines how much of your "rights" you get through process of rationing. That ration is determined on a political, not economic basis. You get what the State says you get, and if you are a "kulak," the State takes what it says it will take. "Collective Rights" come right out of Stalin's playbook, with his forced collectivization, five-year plans, and gigantic state planning agency, Gosplan. Don't forget all the repression that comes with it to make it work.
But it doesn't work; it's a bad business plan. That's why the USSR went out of business. The academics and power hungry activists on the left don't care about that. They care about advancing their totalitarian agenda, and collective rights are a very useful tool.
The HUD decree is a perfect example of "collective rights" in action.
The French revolution was about equality. ~ MNnice
Exactly!
Abolish HUD.
Must be done by Trump on day one.
I did exactly as you did. I didn’t take too kindly to their threat to escalate either. Their notices were destroyed.
The rights usurped by government are in direct defiance of Article 10, yet we continue to tolerate it. These days, it's a rare individual who even asks if the government has the authority to do what it proposes. They simply accept that whatever the government wants, it should get.
That is exactly the opposite of what our country was founded on. Increasing collectivization REQUIRES a corresponding lack of freedom for the citizenry. It is implicit in the notion of Social Contract.
Cuz it’s NOT FAIR that after spending years in school, earning your MBA and sweat-busting your way up the corporate ladder, you get to live in a place with better schools for your kids.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.