View Full Version : The Principle of Self-Government is Dead!
Trapper John
06-26-2015, 08:19
In the midst of all of the hoopla over the SCOTUS decision re: ACA, the following was overlooked and IMO has the potential to transform our society far beyond the impact of ACA or the recent ruling on same sex marriage. Probably the single most important principle of our form of government is that of self-government. Or at least it has been up to now.
In its decision yesterday in Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project upheld the notion that racial discrimination within a community is proved by the absence of racial diversity in a neighborhood for instance, the so-called disparate racial impact doctrine.
This is a fundamental reversal of the evidentiary basis of proof, i.e. evidence of discriminatory intent or treatment. Now the outcome is sufficient to prove racial discrimination.
More disturbing still is the opinion expressed by Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority opinion, explained that lower courts have upheld disparate impact through various rulings since 1988. The problem is that Congress outlawed disparate racial treatment in the 1968 Fair Housing Act. In justification for the SCOTUS ruling, Kennedy argued that Congress failed to address the disparate impact issue when it reauthorized the Act in 1988 and therefore by its silence on the matter ratified disparate impact.
As a result of this ruling the principle of self-government is dead! IMO this ruling dwarfs the impact of the ACA and same-sex rulings. The latter two will receive all the attention in the media and become a giant misdirection for the sheeple as the most sacred principle of government has just been swept into the annals of history.
Streck-Fu
06-26-2015, 08:21
upheld the notion that racial discrimination within a community is proved by the absence of racial diversity in a neighborhood
Does this mean that opposition to Gentrification is evidence of discrimination?
What gets me is how they are wanting to move poor people into affluent neighborhoods to "give the poor a chance." This kind of thing was tried in the past, and all it tends to do is move the types of people that many people worked hard to get away from right next door. The result is lawns don't get mowed and crime and drugs are brought in. I agree with the Court's upholding of same-sex marriage.
And then the affluent people move....again.....and again.
Idiots.
As a result of this ruling the principle of self-government is dead! IMO this ruling dwarfs the impact of the ACA and same-sex rulings. The latter two will receive all the attention in the media and become a giant misdirection for the sheeple as the most sacred principle of government has just been swept into the annals of history.
TJ,
Agree 110%!!! :confused:
This is a sad day in American History, and the saddest part being, most US citizens do not even understand why....Freedom is being taken away inch by inch, and ruling by ruling!:mad:
Holly
TJ,
Agree 110%!!! :confused:
This is a sad day in American History, and the saddest part being, most US citizens do not even understand why....Freedom is being taken away inch by inch, and ruling by ruling!:mad:
Holly
Frightfully, I'm not sure that "most" Americans are even aware of the decisions that were announced -- other than the fact they saw the announcement on the MSM. Once they see it...they may remark about it and then go back to the Kardashians or other such things of importance.
I am afraid that "Reality TV" has trumped SCOTUS decisions in many people's daily lives.
Old Dog New Trick
06-26-2015, 12:42
Frightfully, I'm not sure that "most" Americans are even aware of the decisions that were announced -- other than the fact they saw the announcement on the MSM. Once they see it...they may remark about it and then go back to the Kardashians or other such things of importance.
I am afraid that "Reality TV" has trumped SCOTUS decisions in many people's daily lives.
They never saw it!
It's been clouded by gays can marry each other, and Obummer gets his way on ACA. Even the Kardashians will tweet their fans how proud they are for people like their FIL turned ?IL.
Old Dog New Trick
06-26-2015, 13:01
Does this mean that opposition to Gentrification is evidence of discrimination?
No, this means that the absence of proof of discrimination is proof of discrimination.
Stand here, file grievance here, no proof necessary. Accusations are a justification for remedy.
FWIW, discussions of this case are available here (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-department-of-housing-and-community-affairs-v-the-inclusive-communities-project-inc/) and the ruling is available there (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf).
IMO, a piece by Myron Orfield, "Romney was right about disparate-impact" (http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/symposium-romney-was-right-about-disparate-impact/) is especially thought provoking not the least because it suggests that Nixon and other Republicans believed that disparate impact was a good tool to use against entrenched segregationist policies and practices.
TJ,
Agree 110%!!! :confused:
This is a sad day in American History, and the saddest part being, most US citizens do not even understand why....Freedom is being taken away inch by inch, and ruling by ruling!:mad:
Holly
What freedom(s) were taken away from you today?
What freedom(s) were taken away from you today?
Concerning ObamaCare, the freedom to choose my insurance company and the coverage that I want to pay for. Also, the freedom to not have health insurance, if I choose.
The same sex marriage decision took away my freedom to vote my conscience. In, arguably, the most liberal state in the union, California, we overwhelmingly voted against same sex marriage, yet it was overturned by an unelected judicial court. Also, the CEO of Mozilla lost his job for supporting that vote.
Pat
No, this means that the absence of proof of discrimination is proof of discrimination.
Stand here, file grievance here, no proof necessary. Accusations are a justification for remedy.I make my living by counting parking spaces and parked cars, sorting the beans, and then writing reports. I can name a couple of municipalities that have attempted to use parking policies as a form of ethnic cleansing. (It took a while, but my boss and the project manager eventually realized what I was telling them.)
Were I to team up with an unscrupulous municipal planning department and a complicit (or unwitting) city council member, I could help draft parking requirements and regulations that would drive and keep out certain groups of people. Put a similarly motivated transportation planner on this team, and the resulting regulations would work as well as a concrete wall in keeping out "undesirables." You can plug almost any cohort into the "undesirable" slot. We would figure out that group's parking and travel needs and then make meeting those needs a significant PITA, if not entirely unsustainable.
A few activists would understand what was happening, but they'd have zero proof. The physical project folder would have a copy of the scope of services and a blandly written technical report. The digital files and correspondence would be gone. The expense reports and invoices would be detailed and transparent. Moreover, their observations would get very little traction politically -- most of their neighbors would simply be happy to have more available "free" parking, and who gives a hoot about "undesirables," anyway?
Frightfully, I'm not sure that "most" Americans are even aware of the decisions that were announced -- other than the fact they saw the announcement on the MSM. Once they see it...they may remark about it and then go back to the Kardashians or other such things of importance.
I am afraid that "Reality TV" has trumped SCOTUS decisions in many people's daily lives.
Anywhere we dine for lunch it is ESPN that Trumps all.....
Trapper John
06-26-2015, 19:18
FWIW, discussions of this case are available here (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-department-of-housing-and-community-affairs-v-the-inclusive-communities-project-inc/) and the ruling is available there (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf).
IMO, a piece by Myron Orfield, "Romney was right about disparate-impact" (http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/symposium-romney-was-right-about-disparate-impact/) is especially thought provoking not the least because it suggests that Nixon and other Republicans believed that disparate impact was a good tool to use against entrenched segregationist policies and practices.
As you point out, this issue has transcended political party affiliation. I am now of the opinion Republican v Democrat is a distinction without a difference. We have generated a permanent political class and no matter what party is in power, the objective is the same - retain the position of power. The people that are governed are just that - the governed and have less and less influence (let alone control) over the governing process.
The ruling re: disparate impact is disturbing in that it shifts power to an agency of the executive branch simply on the basis that the legislative branch failed to address the issue when the law was reauthorized. Now there is a SCOTUS ruling on the matter rendering it very difficult to reverse if not impossible.
Now we have yet another agency that can promulgate a rule with the effect of law outside of the legislative (representative) branch of government. An activist Department of Housing and Urban Development can, and IMO will, mandate changes in the complexion of communities and neighborhoods by rule. [And ya thought "taxation without representation" was onerous! :eek:]
Worse still may be the dangerous precedent that is set by what is now case law, i.e. failure by Congress to object to this or that becomes a de facto ratification and therefore law (??) i.e. de facto centralization of power in the Executive branch. What might be next?
[Note: I previously stated in an early post that I thought that the SCOTUS was the last bastion protecting our process of government and as a result, our liberties. TS called me out on that point and politely, in a TS sort of way, pointed out that I was naive. You are correct TS and yes, that was a rather naive POV in light of what has just transpired at the hands of the SCOTUS. ;)]
Many would argue though that the Court overturning that was just the court doing its job, i.e. protecting the right of a minority against the majority. For example, if the people of California overwhelmingly support a gun control measure and then a court strikes it down, conservatives would applaud the court for doing so.
Yeah, except in that case (gun control) the decision would be tethered to the constitution. The same sex marriage ruling, for better or worse, doesn't seem to be.
Self-Government
...just looking at that particular collection of letters gives me a chuckle.
What freedom(s) were taken away from you today?
In its decision yesterday in Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project upheld the notion that racial discrimination within a community is proved by the absence of racial diversity in a neighborhood for instance, the so-called disparate racial impact doctrine.
This is a fundamental reversal of the evidentiary basis of proof, i.e. evidence of discriminatory intent or treatment. Now the outcome is sufficient to prove racial discrimination.
WCH,
Am very glad you asked this question.
The principle of the government thinking it has the right to step in and save us from ourselves, becasue they can, is my problem with this ruling. The freedom to choose where we hang our hats should be ours, not the governments, IMHO.
Take for instance my sisters house. The land it sits on was bought and paid for in cash, as were all the materials used to build it, as well as all of the furniture and equiptment that is inside it. It was constructed for a person with special needs, and it sits on a quiet street in a quiet area, away from the city noise. The neighboorhood itself is only ten years old, and of the 50 or so houses, maybe 95%are occupied by caucasian families.
Why? Who knows?
The lots were available to the general public for sale, and all HOA rules for constrution had to be followed by all who wanted to build. All plans had to be pre-approved by the same desk at city hall, and all fees had to be paid to the same desk, again, at city hall. As far as my memory can serve, the only rules were for square footage, roof pitch, driveway width, and a fun one...the amount % of brick versus other materials used for the ediface of the house. ;)
The race of the occupants was not on the list for future residents of this neighborhood.
So what door does this ruling open up? Is the government now going to come to our door and cry racial discrmination due to who chooses to live where?
The choice should be ours, not the governments, IMVHO.:munchin
Team Sergeant
06-27-2015, 10:31
FWIW, discussions of this case are available here (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-department-of-housing-and-community-affairs-v-the-inclusive-communities-project-inc/) and the ruling is available there (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf).
IMO, a piece by Myron Orfield, "Romney was right about disparate-impact" (http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/symposium-romney-was-right-about-disparate-impact/) is especially thought provoking not the least because it suggests that Nixon and other Republicans believed that disparate impact was a good tool to use against entrenched segregationist policies and practices.
Yeah, desegregation busing was another "tool".
As has been said, you grow up and fight your way out of the ghetto/poorhouse, get a good education, buy a nice house in a "safe" neighborhood and "BAM" the government decides to bring the ghetto to your doorstep.
Having grown up "dirt" poor I'll be the first to say screw that. I don't live in major liberal asshole cities for a reason. And it's funny my black/brown/yellow neighbors have nice houses and nice cars and cute little kids that play outside.
And it has zero to do with forced government integration.
Seems old Alex misjudged the judges. From Federalist 78:
"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
Pat
Seems old Alex misjudged the judges. From Federalist 78:
"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
Pat
They don't spend money but their decisions can force local, state governments and private businesses to spend money to comply with their decisions.
FlagDayNCO
07-10-2015, 07:22
This recent ruling concerning who lives where and why, should open the eyes for anyone concerned about freedom. Well, the amount of freedom our elected leaderships allows us to believe we have. To those that aren't paying attention, there is no change, as "it doesn't affect me".
The housing ruling pretty much declares anyone, any town, must continuously prove they are not discriminating. Forms and declarations must be made every year or so, and all of these must show how your local gubmint is appeasing the Feds to satisfy their desire to weaken the self-governed mentality. Forget about voting district restructuring, this will blow that away. It looks like the Russians moving their own citizens and loyal Communists into the towns of occupied nations under the USSR.
Now the Progressives will be able to have a bigger say in areas they were traditionally excluded from/ kept out. All they need is ONE person to raise the discrimination flag and the whole Federal Gubmint comes swooping into to squash your little town. We've been watching this form up for decades.
Combine the housing rulings with:
Environmental - Your well water is not your own, as you stick a straw into the People's water; some places even restrict rain water collection. Have a well, expect to see regulations requiring EVERY household to have a water meter to record usage, which accompanying taxes/ fees.
Communications - Telephone and cable are under constant attack to limit what is considered "fair" and authorized by Gubmint. First Amendment doesn't cover wireless or electronics, and if our Founding Fathers intended it too, they would have included it, right?
Education - Our children and the future of our Nation are being instructed along Gubmint lines. Oh wait, our Founding Fathers must have missed this one, so SCOTUS will support GUBMINT regulation into what our children learn.
Utility/ Power - Solar is regulated to the point that you would think the Gubmint owns the Sun. Try stopping your local electric utility from installing the smart meter on your home.
Transportation - Mileage taxes are constantly being presented.
The list just goes on. The SCOTUS rulings and the Executive moves are clear indication of a group of people that intends to stay in power. All of these little noticed actions are an effort of the bigger cause for their desired Utopia.
Agh... So disappointing.
They don't spend money but their decisions can force local, state governments and private businesses to spend money to comply with their decisions.
In its decision yesterday in Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project upheld the notion that racial discrimination within a community is proved by the absence of racial diversity in a neighborhood for instance, the so-called disparate racial impact doctrine.
This is a fundamental reversal of the evidentiary basis of proof, i.e. evidence of discriminatory intent or treatment. Now the outcome is sufficient to prove racial discrimination.
WCH,
Am very glad you asked this question.
The principle of the government thinking it has the right to step in and save us from ourselves, becasue they can, is my problem with this ruling. The freedom to choose where we hang our hats should be ours, not the governments, IMHO.
Take for instance my sisters house. The land it sits on was bought and paid for in cash, as were all the materials used to build it, as well as all of the furniture and equiptment that is inside it. It was constructed for a person with special needs, and it sits on a quiet street in a quiet area, away from the city noise. The neighboorhood itself is only ten years old, and of the 50 or so houses, maybe 95%are occupied by caucasian families.
Why? Who knows?
The lots were available to the general public for sale, and all HOA rules for constrution had to be followed by all who wanted to build. All plans had to be pre-approved by the same desk at city hall, and all fees had to be paid to the same desk, again, at city hall. As far as my memory can serve, the only rules were for square footage, roof pitch, driveway width, and a fun one...the amount % of brick versus other materials used for the ediface of the house. ;)
The race of the occupants was not on the list for future residents of this neighborhood.
So what door does this ruling open up? Is the government now going to come to our door and cry racial discrmination due to who chooses to live where?
The choice should be ours, not the governments, IMVHO.:munchin
I asked what freedoms YOU (not someone else) lost today. Since you brought your sister's situation in Texas up, what exactly did she loose by the decision made by the TDOH?
Unique Calling
07-10-2015, 08:45
Well said FlagDayNCO! The sad fact is that the bureaucracy grows by the day, not only in size and scope, but in power and political activism. Liberty, to a large degree, is a facade at this stage...
This recent ruling concerning who lives where and why, should open the eyes for anyone concerned about freedom. Well, the amount of freedom our elected leaderships allows us to believe we have. To those that aren't paying attention, there is no change, as "it doesn't affect me".
The housing ruling pretty much declares anyone, any town, must continuously prove they are not discriminating. Forms and declarations must be made every year or so, and all of these must show how your local gubmint is appeasing the Feds to satisfy their desire to weaken the self-governed mentality. Forget about voting district restructuring, this will blow that away. It looks like the Russians moving their own citizens and loyal Communists into the towns of occupied nations under the USSR.
Now the Progressives will be able to have a bigger say in areas they were traditionally excluded from/ kept out. All they need is ONE person to raise the discrimination flag and the whole Federal Gubmint comes swooping into to squash your little town. We've been watching this form up for decades.
Well - this sort of housing exclusion foofarah is an old story in which one, when reviewed and whether in agreement with them or not, can certainly see how it must impact these sorts of rulings today.
<snip> Their efforts {restrictive covenants} were buttressed by the federal government. In 1934, Congress created the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA insured private mortgages, causing a drop in interest rates and a decline in the size of the down payment required to buy a house. But an insured mortgage was not a possibility for Clyde Ross. The FHA had adopted a system of maps that rated neighborhoods according to their perceived stability. On the maps, green areas, rated “A,” indicated “in demand” neighborhoods that, as one appraiser put it, lacked “a single foreigner or Negro.” These neighborhoods were considered excellent prospects for insurance. Neighborhoods where black people lived were rated “D” and were usually considered ineligible for FHA backing. They were colored in red. Neither the percentage of black people living there nor their social class mattered. Black people were viewed as a contagion. Redlining went beyond FHA-backed loans and spread to the entire mortgage industry, which was already rife with racism, excluding black people from most legitimate means of obtaining a mortgage.<snip>
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
And so it goes...
Richard
I asked what freedoms YOU (not someone else) lost today. Since you brought your sister's situation in Texas up, what exactly did she loose by the decision made by the TDOH?
WCH,
Since you have asked, I will divulge the specifics of the scenario in question, so that it may assist in the understanding of my post.
My twin sister has a closed head injury from a car accident, and is now blind, and unable to walk to talk. She lives with a disability, like alot of folks in this Country, and therefore has other family members to help ensure her quality of life is maintained. We are not special, just regular Americans attempting to live life like everybody else. Hence we built a house, with my aforementioned posts' attributes, for this purpose.
She does not live in Texas, but the Supreme Court Case in this ruling was a case intialized in a case from the state of Texas.
The broad brush of this ruling applies to ALL Americans in any State, County, or neighboorhood, and it is attempting to take away OUR rights to choose where we live and build our houses. This is intended to drag in Race as a form of discrimination, to populate ANY area the government chooses is not duly populated with...Diversity, IMVHO.
(If my sister could type her reply to your question, she would, as we discuss these rulings, and topics presented here on PS.com on a regular basis.):)
I am just speaking for her, and our joint opinion about this particular topic of Rights.
Holly:munchin
I fail to see that you sister lost any of her freedom that day. Have a nice day!
I fail to see that you sister lost any of her freedom that day. Have a nice day!
WCH Sir,
My appologies for not being able to correctly convey the POV in my posts to help you understand my thinking. My posts were JMHO.
But please know this, you do not ever have to wish me to have a nice day, because it is us, the average American, who owe You SF Men a warm wish of thanks, and hope you all have a nice day! One filled with accomplishment, success, and fulfillment. :)
For me and my sis, like many Americans, please know that we realize each and every day, we enjoy our freedoms because of you and all brave SF Men!
Each and every freedom we have we cherish, hold dear, and pray for, everyday.
You mean so much to us as Americans, and no matter what, we will never quit or give up supporting you all. Never.
Took this little thread to say this, but it needs to be said more these days IMHO.
Holly
Trapper John
07-11-2015, 08:47
This recent ruling concerning who lives where and why, should open the eyes for anyone concerned about freedom. Well, the amount of freedom our elected leaderships allows us to believe we have. To those that aren't paying attention, there is no change, as "it doesn't affect me".
The housing ruling pretty much declares anyone, any town, must continuously prove they are not discriminating. Forms and declarations must be made every year or so, and all of these must show how your local gubmint is appeasing the Feds to satisfy their desire to weaken the self-governed mentality. Forget about voting district restructuring, this will blow that away. It looks like the Russians moving their own citizens and loyal Communists into the towns of occupied nations under the USSR.
Now the Progressives will be able to have a bigger say in areas they were traditionally excluded from/ kept out. All they need is ONE person to raise the discrimination flag and the whole Federal Gubmint comes swooping into to squash your little town. We've been watching this form up for decades.
Combine the housing rulings with:
Environmental - Your well water is not your own, as you stick a straw into the People's water; some places even restrict rain water collection. Have a well, expect to see regulations requiring EVERY household to have a water meter to record usage, which accompanying taxes/ fees.
Communications - Telephone and cable are under constant attack to limit what is considered "fair" and authorized by Gubmint. First Amendment doesn't cover wireless or electronics, and if our Founding Fathers intended it too, they would have included it, right?
Education - Our children and the future of our Nation are being instructed along Gubmint lines. Oh wait, our Founding Fathers must have missed this one, so SCOTUS will support GUBMINT regulation into what our children learn.
Utility/ Power - Solar is regulated to the point that you would think the Gubmint owns the Sun. Try stopping your local electric utility from installing the smart meter on your home.
Transportation - Mileage taxes are constantly being presented.
The list just goes on. The SCOTUS rulings and the Executive moves are clear indication of a group of people that intends to stay in power. All of these little noticed actions are an effort of the bigger cause for their desired Utopia.
Agh... So disappointing.
You got it, FlagDayNCO!!!
And WCH, to your question to Echoes, "What freedoms did you lose today?" Please see above highlighted in red.
It's not always about "me" and how something effects "me" personally in the moment. IMO, Echoes, you, and every American lost something very precious. Oh, maybe it's not perceptible at this moment, but the subtle shift of power to the Executive branch will have it's impact nonetheless.
We all, and our rights as individuals have lost a level of protection from Federal incursions into our lives. No, today nothing will change for me or Echoes or you tomorrow as a result of this ruling. But rest assured the effect will ultimately be felt by all of us sooner or later.
This ruling is not about Fair Housing, that's the misdirection! It is about shifting power and the precedent set by the majority opinion is what scares the hell out of me. The precedent set by this ruling virtually guarantees that the aggregation of power will continue in every other agency of the Executive branch of government.
Just look at the actions taken by the Bureau of Land Management last year. A good example of Executive over-reach that was only thwarted by the likely possibility of armed resistance resulting in the political decision to back-off only because of the terrible optics that would create. This single act, IMO, revealed the intent. Now the Executive branch has another tool to use in an extra-Congressional manner as it sees fit. The anti-Federalists worst nightmare on steroids! Show me where in the Constitution it is written that "Any action not taken by the Congress shall be deemed to have the same effect as affirmative action."
Let alone the illogical position that outcomes are proof of any premise: e.g. Your neighbor is dead, you were the last person to see your neighbor alive, ergo you caused your neighbor's death. Or how about this: Women got the right to vote, since then we have experienced a great depression and two world wars, ergo women's right to vote cause economic depression and world wars? How the SCOTUS came up with that logic just makes my head hurt!
So, WCH, the corollary question back to you is: Name one important aspect of your life that is not regulated in some way by an agency of the Executive branch of the Federal government? Then name me one freedom, one right, that you have as an individual citizen that cannot be effectively taken away by Executive fiat?
After thought: WCH, it just occurred to me that your question may have been probative to elicit Echoes' thought process on this matter. So, in that case - NEVERMIND! :D
Dragbag036
07-19-2015, 17:31
Yeah, desegregation busing was another "tool".
As has been said, you grow up and fight your way out of the ghetto/poorhouse, get a good education, buy a nice house in a "safe" neighborhood and "BAM" the government decides to bring the ghetto to your doorstep.
Having grown up "dirt" poor I'll be the first to say screw that. I don't live in major liberal asshole cities for a reason. And it's funny my black/brown/yellow neighbors have nice houses and nice cars and cute little kids that play outside.
And it has zero to do with forced government integration.
Sooo, I'm a kid from the great state of TEXAS, where I never paid attention to "white neighborhood/black neighborhood" whether real or perceived. What I do remember, is that you worked to afford a better place for your family. I now live in the communist state of Maryland (finally a Republican Governor), but my county is rife with inclusion. When I moved here 8 years ago, I could go to the Harris Teeter, and see the occasional "gansta", but I was proud of what I had accomplished after 19 years in the military.
Now I hear loud music, the contrivance is full of ghetto acting kids, and families are moving, including me. Why, because it doesn't matter that the area is full of hard working Americans with nice homes, lets put section 8 and apartments so everyone can have the same "lebensraum" for less than what we worked hard for. It wouldn't be so bad if they moved here with pride and took care of the community, but it is the exact opposite.
And by the way, I don't define myself by this, but I'm black (note I didn't say African American, I fricken spend a lot of time on that continent...you can have it)
AMERICAN!!!
Peregrino
07-19-2015, 18:19
Housing is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://nypost.com/2015/07/18/obama-has-been-collecting-personal-data-for-a-secret-race-database/
The implications are staggering.
Trapper John
07-19-2015, 20:10
Although the Post article is sensationalizing a bit, this was reported on the AP wire a month or so ago that HUD was preparing to start racial profiling of communities. From the Post article..... "So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists." The two reports are consistent in that statement.
I think this is credible INTEL and now the Executive Branch has a clear path.....and so it begins.
Ladies and Gentlemen everything else is a misdirection...this is real and it's just the beginning.
GratefulCitizen
07-19-2015, 20:21
Although the Post article is sensationalizing a bit, this was reported on the AP wire a month or so ago that HUD was preparing to start racial profiling of communities. From the Post article..... The two reports are consistent in that statement.
I think this is credible INTEL and now the Executive Branch has a clear path.....and so it begins.
Ladies and Gentlemen everything else is a misdirection...this is real and it's just the beginning.
IMO, the ultimate goal is for high-tax cities to recapture the fleeing tax base.
Golf1echo
07-19-2015, 21:58
When it comes to the liberal ideas of government involved housing in America they should tread lightly. There are several of the most spectacular failures in history attributed to their strategies of social engineering and entitlements as it relates to housing.
Cabrini Greens a Chicago Housing Authority project started in the 40's with the final buildings demolished in 2011. They actually tore down a vibrant neighborhood to build the project which housed as many as 15000 living in high rise apartment buildings.
Pruitt Igoe a St Louis urban housing project from the 50's to it's demolition in 1976 became an icon of public -policy planning and urban renewal failure.
A previous example which was slightly more sustaining project came from the National Recovery Act passed by congress in 1934 creating the Homestead Corporations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_Homesteads_Division. This program was intended to give safe residence to urban poor and small plots of land to sustain themselves on, it was based on family members having a part time job and industry was created in conjunction. Politically it ran into opposition from agriculture, unions for undercutting prices and labor. The Roosevelt's championed the program in particular Eleanor became involved with setting up the first community, Aurthurdale ,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthurdale,_West_Virginia West Virginia sustaining it into the 60's. Roosevelt herself was "deeply disillusioned" by a visit to the community in 1940, in which she observed that the community had become increasingly dependent on government and lacking in independent initiative.
I find the last part very telling in many ways and have seen that as a part of human nature.
At least with the homestead project families were integrated into communities and in many cases an enduring record of American work is left on the landscape.
Last 3 images are from the Cumberland Homestead and the state park some of it has become.
The elected government has way too much to lose to EVER cultivate the concept that any level of self governance is possible...
The Reaper
07-20-2015, 07:27
Soul City, NC.
TR
Trapper John
07-20-2015, 09:18
Housing is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://nypost.com/2015/07/18/obama-has-been-collecting-personal-data-for-a-secret-race-database/
The implications are staggering.
Staggering indeed!! This goes far beyond fair housing. The precedent set by the SCOTUS can be applied within every bureau and agency of the Executive branch of the Federal government and it effectively marginalizes the Legislative (representative) branch of government.
I would argue that Congress has been effectively marginalized over the last several years (maybe decades) anyway and this ruling just seals it. Take the Budget for instance (a Constitutional requirement), when was the last budget passed by Congress and signed by the POTUS? We have been operating by Executive fiat for some time now and bounded only by Judicial review and oversight.
Name one aspect of your life, one freedom, that is not regulated to one degree or another by a Federal agency. I can't think of any!
Billy is correct in his statement that NO elected governmental official (Democrat or Republican) will tolerate the notion of self-governance. We have a permanent political class and they are going to act in a manner that is consistent with their self-interest and that certainly is not representative of our interests or desires. We live under the illusion that we have a say in our collective destiny.
At some point there will come a watershed moment (the BLM issue last year was nearly it IMO) and when it happens, fasten your seat belts boys and girls 'cause it's gonna be a bumpy ride. :D
Read the book Term Limits by Vince Flynn. It's a trash fiction spy novel, but offers an attractive solution to our current political class issue.
ddoering
07-20-2015, 11:38
Staggering indeed!!
At some point there will come a watershed moment (the BLM issue last year was nearly it IMO) and when it happens, fasten your seat belts boys and girls 'cause it's gonna be a bumpy ride. :D
Don't you mean "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
Trapper John
07-20-2015, 13:00
Don't you mean "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
:lifter
Nous Defions Brother :D
The Obama administration’s heavy-handed attempts at social engineering just moved to a disturbing new level — right in Westchester.
The Justice Department wants the county held in contempt of court, fined $60,000 a month and forced to set up an escrow account of $1.65 million — in a move growing out of its longstanding claim that the county’s housing policies are racist.
It’s a preposterous claim, of course. And Friday, County Executive Rob Astorino holds a press conference to decry it.
Good for him. Because the move is based on a technicality, and it actually says more about Team Obama’s overreach than about anything the county has or hasn’t done.
The Justice Department’s claim focuses on 28 units of “affordable” housing that are to be built in downtown Chappaqua, home of Hillary Clinton. Under a 2009 consent decree, Westchester agreed to build 750 units in wealthy, largely white towns and to “market them aggressively” to non-whites. Financing for the first 450 units was to have been approved by the end of last year.
Westchester actually met that deadline — but the feds disqualified the Chappaqua project anyway, because the town hadn’t yet issued all required permits by Dec. 31. And because Astorino’s office, the feds say, didn’t ride roughshod over the town and bully it into submission.
Let’s be honest: For years, the administration has been trying to, as one official put it, “remove zip codes in the quality of life in America.” Meaning anyone should be able to live anywhere, even if they can’t afford it.
Its legal case is based on the dubious notion of “disparate impact” — statistical differences by race without any specific proof of actual discrimination.
Want more evidence Justice’s act is politically motivated? Note, then, that it filed its motion despite the fact that the Chappaqua housing project was recently fast-tracked.
This is a case of pure harassment — and an outrageous violation of home rule and fair play. And if disparate impact becomes the sole test of discrimination, no place in America will be safe from unfounded accusations of racism.
Source (http://nypost.com/2015/07/23/team-obama-claims-westchester-is-racist-in-latest-overreach/)
Regionalists consider the entire city-suburb system bigoted and illegitimate, so there are few local governments that HUD would not be able to slap with a disparate-impact suit on regionalist premises. It’s unlikely that any suburb has a perfect demographic and “asset” balance in every category. All HUD has to do is decide which suburban governments it wants to lean on. With every locality vulnerable to a suit, every locality can be made to play the regionalist game.
Leftist housing activists worry that AFFH never specifies the penalties a suburb will face for imbalances in its housing patterns. These activists just don’t get it. A thoughtful reading of AFFH, including its extraordinary “dialogue” section, makes it clear that HUD can go after any suburb, any time it wants to. The controlling consideration will be politics. HUD has got to boil the frog slowly enough to prevent him from jumping.
It will take time for the truth to emerge. Just by issuing AFFH, the Obama administration has effectively annexed America’s suburbs to its cities. The old American practice of local self-rule is gone. We’ve switched over to a federally controlled regionalist system. Now it’s strictly a question of how obvious Obama and the Democrats want to make this change — and when they intend to bring the hammer down. The only thing that can restore local control is joint action by a Republican president and a Republican congress to rescind AFFH and restrict the reach of disparate impact litigation. We’ll know after November 8, 2016.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421389/attention-americas-suburbs-you-have-just-been-annexed-stanley-kurtz
Trapper John
07-25-2015, 07:59
Whereas I agree with the National Review article for the most part, I disagree with the premise that a Republican president and congress will reverse this trend.
Paslode, you have not been paying attention ;). Republican v Democrat is a distinction without a difference. We have a permanent political class and it is only an illusion that we mortal citizens choose the destiny of our country. Sorry to say - no we don't.
Maybe at one time we did, but no longer I'm afraid.
De Oppresso Liber
Whereas I agree with the National Review article for the most part, I disagree with the premise that a Republican president and congress will reverse this trend.
Paslode, you have not been paying attention ;). Republican v Democrat is a distinction without a difference. We have a permanent political class and it is only an illusion that we mortal citizens choose the destiny of our country. Sorry to say - no we don't.
Maybe at one time we did, but no longer I'm afraid.
De Oppresso Liber
Hell sitting her in a foreign airport I have realized that they be smarter than us..... They do not hide their differences. The poor are just poor. And it is in plain sight. The rich are in power and do not hide it....... Much easier to function if the lines are drawn.:eek: Now let me arrive in my 3rd world destination so I can find some beautiful poor woman that wants a rich guy. Isn't that is how it should work without all these hidden agendas. Life is great :p:D
Whereas I agree with the National Review article for the most part, I disagree with the premise that a Republican president and congress will reverse this trend.
Paslode, you have not been paying attention ;). Republican v Democrat is a distinction without a difference. We have a permanent political class and it is only an illusion that we mortal citizens choose the destiny of our country. Sorry to say - no we don't.
Maybe at one time we did, but no longer I'm afraid.
De Oppresso Liber
I thought about pink highlights for the entire quote, but left it alone. Another article that I believe tied into this and the stated illusion was how the Chamber of Commerce is going to war with the rogue Republicans.
I have been asking myself for months and months......Who is going to move into all those thousands and thousands of of new apartments out in suburbia and rent all those foreclosed homes that investment firms like Blackstone gobbled up across the country.......Welcome to Section 8!
It's all about short term profits, power trips and damn the long term consequences. Trying to fix it would be like finding a particular Lego in a 55 gallon drum full of similar Legos.....it is a near impossible task.
The longer this goes on the more I can visualize Igor Panarin's vision of the US dividing along ethnic and cultural lines...and we might now include sexual orientation and sexual preferences as well.
I thought about COLOR="Magenta" pink highlights[/COLOR] for the entire quote, but left it alone.
You're color blind. This is Pink. This is magenta. ;)
Pat
You're color blind. This is Pink. This is magenta. ;)
Pat
And in need of a hearing aid! Getting old is a bi@tch.
You're color blind. This is Pink. This is magenta. ;)
Pat
... and this is a picture of a bunny with a banana on its head ...
Old Dog New Trick
03-08-2019, 08:50
No, this means that the absence of proof of discrimination is proof of discrimination.
Stand here, file grievance here, no proof necessary. Accusations are a justification for remedy.
Wow, quoting myself from nearly 4-years ago...prescient.
“No proof necessary - accusations are justification for remedy”
Just ask, well everyone who’s a Democrat or liberal left if they need any proof or factual relevance to smear, tarnish or destroy any person or group they despise if somehow connected to Trump.
Trapper John
03-08-2019, 09:07
Wow, quoting myself from nearly 4-years ago...prescient.
“No proof necessary - accusations are justification for remedy”
Just ask, well everyone who’s a Democrat or liberal left if they need any proof or factual relevance to smear, tarnish or destroy any person or group they despise if somehow connected to Trump.
And you are surprised why? :p Truths are enduring. :D
Old Dog New Trick
03-08-2019, 09:10
And you are surprised why? :p Truths are enduring. :D
Used to be said where there is smoke there is fire...now the Democratic Congress is rubbing two sticks together in hopes of making smoke.
Where there is smoke - there is smoke.
It only turns into fire when someone fans it - feeds it - encourages it.