FAIR HOUSING OR POLITICAL BULLYING???

Recently, I was exploring the Whitehouse.gov site, looking for a transcript of our deal with Iran.  Before finding it, I was distracted by two Obama videos.  In the first, his weekly message to America on July 11th, he spoke about his new plan to make housing fairer. In the second, he spoke about criminal justice in America.   Next week I’ll talk about his criminal justice speech.  Today, a few words about the AFFH.  Here’s an excerpt:from his weekly video address.

“In some cities, kids living just blocks apart lead incredibly different lives.  They go to different schools, play in different parks, shop in different stores, and walk down different streets.  And often, the quality of those schools and the safety of those parks and streets are far from equal – which means those kids aren’t getting an equal shot in life.

“That runs against the values we hold dear as Americans.  In this country, of all countries, a person’s zip code shouldn’t decide their destiny.  We don’t guarantee equal outcomes, but we do strive to guarantee an equal shot at opportunity – in every neighborhood, for every American.

There is much to know about Obama’s newest program – the Affirmitively Furthering Fair Housing Regulation.  Author Stanley Kurtz, in an article for the National Review, gives the following example of one of its potential effects.

“…So if some Montgomery County’s suburbs are predominantly upper-middle-class, white, and zoned for single-family housing, while the Philadelphia region as a whole is dotted with concentrations of less-well-off African Americans, Hispanics, or Asians, those suburbs could be obligated to nullify their zoning ordinances and build high-density, low-income housing at their own expense. At that point, those suburbs would have to direct advertising to potential minority occupants in the Greater Philadelphia region. Essentially, this is what HUD has imposed on Westchester County, New York, the most famous dry-run for AFFH.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421389/attention-americas-suburbs-you-have-just-been-annexed-stanley-kurtz

What the president seems to be missing (where do we start?), is that a person’s zip code is not the “opportunity” he implies that he wants to provide.  A person’s zip code is in fact, the “Outcome” that those within it have created through hard work, perseverance and sacrifice.  A person’s zip code can also be the “Outcome” of a life spent spewing hate, perpetrating, or ignoring violence, shirking parental responsibilities; or preferring welfare over work.  No, that’s not a universal truth, but it is one of many truths that prove it is not the zip code that determines a person’s destiny.  It is the residents who determines the zip code’s quality. Obama knows this.

I invite everyone to read pages 156 and 157 of his first book; Dreams from my Father. Here’s a few short excerpts that will give you an idea of what he knows. It should leave you with a question about what he is now trying to do.  Remember – his words:

“…With the passage of fair housing laws, they began to buy homes, one at a time, in Roseland and other white neighborhoods.  Not because they were necessarily interested in mingling with whites, they insisted, but because the houses there were affordable, with small yards for their children; because the schools were better and the stores cheaper, and maybe just because they could.”

“..when the blacks who’d now lived in their homes for ten or fifteen years looked back on the way things had turned out, they did so with some measure of satisfaction.  On the strength of two incomes, they had paid off house notes and car notes, maybe college educations….the better these children did, the more likely they were to move away.

“In their place, younger, less stable families moved in, the second wave of migrants from poorer neighborhoods, newcomers who couldn’t always afford to keep up with their mortgage payments or invest in periodic maintenance.  Car thefts were up; the leafy parks were empty.  People began to spend more time inside.  They invested in elaborate wrought-iron doors; they wondered if they could afford to sell at a loss and retire to a warmer climate…. conversations were marked by another, more ominous strain.  The boarded-up homes, the decaying storefronts, the aging church rolls, kiids from unknown families who swaggered down the streets – loud congregations of teenage boys, teenage girls feeding potato chips to crying toddlers, the discarded wrappers tumbling down the block – all of it whispered painful truths, told them the progress they’d [the first group of buyers] found was ephemeral, rooted in thin soil; that it might not even last their lifetimes…”

Two things are clear.  The first is that the zip codes in Obama’s story were products of the people who inhabited them – not the other way around.  Good people with two incomes who could afford to purchase homes in the neighborhood did well, sent kids to college and contributed to the quality of the area.  The ones who came after – who had not earned their way into the area, destroyed it.  In the process, they destroyed the lives of hardworking people whose homes reflected a lifetime of work and savings.  The second truth is that Obama wrote these words and must therefore know exactly what he is doing, in suggesting the building of low income housing in affected suburbs. Is this the future he plans for those who have worked hard throughout their lives?  Is this the fundamental change he offered?  Is this his warped idea of fairness and equal opportunity?  Is this his perverted idea of helping the poor, or is it merely a way in which he can shortcut the tough process of creating jobs, giving people a hand up and unlocking the human potential of those currently in bad “zip codes?”

All people should be – and in fact are – able to buy any home in any neighborhood in America, so long as they can produce sufficient cash, or obtain necessary financing.  It follows that they will be able to maintain their homes and will be welcomed additions to the area.  The use of taxpayer dollars to promote low income housing in more expensive suburban areas is likely to increase crime while destroying both neighborhoods and lives.

However, when Obama speaks of kids not getting a fair shot, he is right.  It is absolutely true and it is heartbreaking.  But, as usual, his target identification is skewed.  These kids will not be saved by a new zip code.  The answer will not be found in cut and paste housing, or in the redistribution of wealth.  The answer lies in programs that provide incentives for leaving the welfare rolls; programs that create jobs and opportunities, reduce births out of wedlock, promote skill development and higher education.  The single greatest opportunity for these children lies in our ability to control crime and to influence politicians, parents, teachers, clergy and people in general, to stop teaching hopelessness and hate.

The greatest hate crime of them all is to have disempowered still another generation by fanning the flames of hate and perpetuating dependency and a bizarre pride of victimization.

Who could possibly do it better than Barack Obama?

A House Divided – Part 3 of 3

Here’s some old news with continued relevance.  According to a March 25, 2007 Chicago Tribune Article: The not-so-simple story of Barack Obama’s youth, by Tribune Correspondents Kirstan Scharnberg and Kim Barker; and reporter Ray Gibson,

 “…one word Obama learned quickly in his new home [Indonesia] was curang, which means “cheater.”

“When kids teased him, Obama yelled back, ‘Curang, curang!’ When a friend gave him shrimp paste instead of chocolate, he yelled, ‘Curang, curang!’”

It appears that very little has changed since those days.   How many speeches have we heard in which Obama blames Republicans for failures in foreign and domestic policy, immigration, gun control, climate change and probably for dirty restrooms in the Capitol Building!  Remember his first year as President and the constant repetition of complaints regarding the mess “I inherited”  from George Bush?  Remember his reports on alleged U.S. abuses  to the United Nations  Human Rights Council?

Our memory doesn’t have to be that good, because he’s still doing it!  As reported by Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart, on May 11, 2015, the Obama Administration has once again reported so-called U.S. Human Rights violations to the United Nations including:

  • “Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri
  • Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques
  • Voter identification laws in Texas and elsewhere
  • Predatory lending in home mortgages
  • Suspension of black children in schools
  • Women earning ‘78 cents on the dollar’”

Was this his “Cheater” list for the year?  Close your eyes.  Can you just picture this guy running down the street, looking over his shoulder and shouting at Republicans: Curang, Curang?

Here’s some older ones.  In his book OBAMA:Promise of Power, David Mendell says

“…white people from the better neighborhoods nearby walk their dogs down our block to let the animals shit on our curbs.” 

Was that a simple observation, a misperception, bias?  What do you think?

Curang, Curang – those damn white people again!!!

In the same book, he also made these comments:

“…Security guards tailing me as I shop in Department stores…”

“…white couples who toss me their car keys as I stand outside a restaurant waiting for the valet…” 

See something familiar in Michelle’s Tuskegee speech?

In what alternate universe does Barack Obama present himself as a person who would either provoke security to follow him, or restaurant patrons to throw keys at him?

Curang, Curang, America!!!

How many times has Obama suggested that police are racists?   In bringing a negative spotlight on police and fostering racial tension between communities and the police who serve  them, Obama’s is once again worthy of the title “Agitator.”‘

I guess it’s a matter of Curang, curang police!!!

At an April, 2010, speech at the Ottumwa, Iowa Town Hall, Obama managed to incorporate  his view of police into the discussion of a proposed Arizona State Statute aimed at immigration enforcement.

“If you are a Hispanic American in Arizona – your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state.  But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.  That’s something that could potentially happen.”

Curang, Curang Arizona – Curang, Curang again Police!!!

And of the Republicans stressing the need for border security, President Obama declared:

“Those aren’t the kind of folks who represent our core American values.”

Curang, Curang Republicans!!!  Curang, Curang Senator McCain

Sadly, if we are indeed a “House Divided,” President and Mrs. Obama seem, to be without a strategy, or inclination to repair what they have so quickly and enthusiastically destroyed.

President Obama has had possibly,  the greatest opportunity of any Chief Executive who has ever occupied the White House to make a positive and profound difference in the black community and by extension, in America at large.

He could have worked to reduce black on black crime.  He could  have  championed  the right of black children to attend schools of their choice.   Instead, for those in Washington, DC at least, he killed their best shot: the voucher program.  He could have lobbied for programs to strengthen the traditional family unit.  He could have encouraged and supported initiatives to help people climb out of poverty and re-integrate with the larger community.  He could have increased job opportunities for African-Americans.  He could have lead the black community in turning the page from an inter-generational sense of victimization, to new levels of economic self sufficiency and achievement.

He could have done all of these things and divided nobody.  Instead, he did none of these things and divided everyone..

Perhaps it should really be:  Curang, Curang Mr. Obama – Curang, Curang.

###

A House Divided – Part 2 of 3

….Recently, Mrs. Obama gave the commencement speech for the 2015 graduating class of Tuskegee University.  She warned the young graduates about the world they would soon encounter, saying in part:

“…They  [presumably White Americans]  will make assumptions about who they think you are based on their limited notion of the world.  And my husband and I know how frustrating that experience can be.  We’ve both felt the sting of those daily slights throughout our entire lives — the folks who crossed the street in fear of their safety; the clerks who kept a close eye on us in all those department stores; the people at formal events who assumed we were the “help” — and those who have questioned our intelligence, our honesty, even our love of this country. 

“And I know that these little indignities are obviously nothing compared to what folks across the country are dealing with every single day — those nagging worries that you’re going to get stopped or pulled over [by the police] for absolutely no reason; the fear that your job application will be overlooked because of the way your name sounds; the agony of sending your kids to schools that may no longer be separate, but are far from equal; the realization that no matter how far you rise in life, how hard you work to be a good person, a good parent, a good citizen — for some folks, it will never be enough.  (Applause.)”

I wonder if the history books will reflect that children from low income neighborhoods didn’t have to attend those separate but unequal schools.  They were sentenced to those schools by an Obama Administration that almost immediately after Inauguration Day, got rid of school vouchers in Washington, DC. (U.S. News & World Report online, Obama Wrong on D.C. School Vouchers and Hypocritical, Just Like Congress, by Peter Roff, located at:  http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/04/22/obama-wrong-on-dc-school-vouchers-and-hypocritical-just-like-congress) 

I wonder how the disenfranchised children of Washington, DC and the Tuskegee graduates will perceive and react to life’s inevitable challenges and setbacks?  Will they ignore race, see things objectively, accept them with grace, continue to compete and climb the ladders of success; or, will they cling to the words of the First Lady, seeing a bigot behind every adverse event and passing  those perceptions of prejudice and hatred to still another generation?  Sadly, or luckily – I don’t know – we cannot look 20 years into the future to see what those not so small seeds of hatred will have produced over time.

As discussed in Part 1 of 3 last Friday, as a white man, I experienced the same type of  traffic stop in the 60s, that former Attorney General Holder claims to have experienced as a college student.  I couldn’t claim it was race-based. But, I can tell you that my so-called “white privilege” didn’t help one iota!

Does the First Lady really expect us to believe that she and Barack were mistaken for being “the help” at “formal events?”  Does the President really expect us to believe that white restaurant patrons throw keys at him, while he is waiting for the valet?  Well, according to guidelines published at University of California, under University President Janet Napolitano (you remember – Obama’s first Director of Homeland Security!), if we were students or faculty members at University of California, we’d have to believe it, because  “Denying the experiences of students by questioning the credibility/validity of their stories” is a “microaggression.”  I suppose that questioning a story told by the First Lady would then qualify as a MACROAGGRESSION.  …just sayin’

Other so-called “microaggressions” in the UC world now include saying that:

  • “America is the land of Opportunity”
  • “There is only one race: the human race”
  • “I believe the most qualified person should get the job”
  • “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough”
  • California professors instructed not to say ‘America is the land of opportunity’” by JOSH HEDTKE – UCLA JUNE 10, 2015 http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22839/

And, so  the drumbeat of divisiveness, painting pictures of hopelessness and a disdain for all things American doesn’t stop at the edge of the Tuskegee University campus, or the 10 University of California Campuses.

 

To be Continued…

Astronaut: “…We just backed down and quit…” – Reason #80

Only 75 Days Remaining!!

Astronaut:  “…We just backed down and quit…”

Former Astronaut Gene Cernan – the last American to walk on the Moon – noted in an interview with FoxNews’ Megyn Kelly, that China’s interest in maintaining a “consistent space program as they look to the future, really surprises no one.

“What is a surprise and what hurts…is we’ve just abdicated our future leadership in space, and I think that’s significantly important – both from a civilian point of view, military point of view and certainly, it’s going to have a tremendous economic impact and make us vulnerable in the future…I think this has got long, long term implications…the country that controls outer space in one way or another – the country that controls the high ground…if they destroy the capability to destroy satellites…to interrupt communications.  Look what it would do to our banking system.  Look at our navigation system.  They’re going to put up a whole…GPS system of satellites, which is going to challenge those that we’ve already got up there.

“…we won’t be able to put an American on an American piece of hardware until the end of the decade.  That’s unacceptable…we just backed down and quit quite frankly…The whole nation hasn’t yet fully grasped the situation that we’re being put in by the present Administration…We’re cheating future generations…”[i]


[i] Gene Cernan, (Dec. 30, 2011), Fox Nation web-site, Interview with Megyn Kelly, Last American to Walk on Moon Tears Obama Apart Over Weak U.S. Space Program, retrieved December 31, 2011 from http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/12/30/last-american-walk-moon-tears-obama-apart-over-weak-us-space-program

Is This Hope and Change? – Reason #54

Only 117 Days Remaining!

Safe Schools Czar – Really?

From 2009 – 2011, Kevin Jennings served as Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” with the formidable official title of Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education.

According to Fox News, Jennings – a former teacher himself – has advocated for the promotion of homosexuality in schools and, on one known occasion, failed to report a probable sexual encounter between a 15 year old student and an older adult.[i]  When told by the boy: ‘Well, I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him,'” Jennings told the student, “You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.”  The young man answered “Why should I? My life isn’t worth saving anyway.”[ii]

Following media reports showing the boy as 15 and therefore, underage in Massachusetts, where the incident occurred, the ex-student reportedly came forward to advise that he was actually 16 at the time – the Massachusetts age of consent.  He also said in an interview with Media Matters, that he “…had no sexual contact with anybody at the time.”[iii]  In a 2000 speech however, Jennings indicated the boy was 15.[iv] This was apparently Jennings’ belief at the time of the incident.


[i] Maxim Lott, (September 23, 2009), Fox News web-site: Politics, Critics Assail Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar, Say He’s Wrong Man for the Job, retrieved March 3, 2011 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/critics-assail-obamas-safe-schools-czar-say-hes-wrong-man-job/

[ii] Fox News, (October 3, 2009), Fox News web-site:Politics, Former Student Defends Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar Against Allegations, retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/03/student-defends-obamas-safe-schools-czar-allegations/

[iii] Ibid

 

[iv] William F. Jasper, (December 7, 2009), The New American, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar”: Homosexual Activist and Founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network Kevin Jennings, Now Obama’s Safe-Schools Czar, Is Using His Position to “Queer” American Education, Volume 25, Issue 25, 17+

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are You Using “Low Value” Speech? – Reason #52

Only 119 Days Remaining!

First Amendment Threatened

Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, reflects the radical nature of the Obama administration in several ways: In his beliefs that:

“Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives…”[i]

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be “…a two-tiered First Amendment with a distinction between high-value and low-value speech,”[ii]

In mocking conservatives on the 2nd Amendment, as believing a “trigger lock interferes with his efforts at self-defense against criminals,” [iii] and

In his belief that “There is no liberty without dependency…That is why we should celebrate tax day…” [iv](Emphasis added)


            [i] Scott Wheeler and Peter Leitner, ed., (Washington, DC, 2009, National Republican Trust PAC),  Shadow Government: What Obama Doesn’t Want You to Know About His Czars, 143

[ii] Kevin W. Saunders, Violence as Obscenity: Limiting the Media’s First Amendment Protection, (Durham, NC, 1996, Duke University Press), 150

[iii] The Washington Times, (Sept. 9, 2009), Editorial: Sunstein Flunks Gun Rights Test, retrieved March 8, 2012 from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/9/sunstein-flunks-gun-rights-test/

[iv] Stephen Holmes and Cass R. Sunstein, (April 14, 1999), Chicago Tribune web-site, Article Collection, Why we Should Celebrate Paying Taxes, retrieved March 3, 2011 from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-04-14/news/9904140015_1_tax-day-property-owners-installment

Enhanced by Zemanta

Black Liberation Theology and Obama – What’s Behind the Words?

Only 123 Days Remaining!

Obama and Black Liberation Theology

As with nearly everything else, Obama has been given a free pass on his associations and what they might mean to America – with him in the White House.  He freely admits sitting in the pews of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for more than 16 years, but somehow claims to have missed the Pastor’s most hateful, America bashing sermons.  While the odds against that claim being true are statistically astronomical, perhaps the even bigger point here, is the influence of James H. Cone on Wright’s day-to-day operation of the church.

Says Brad O’Leary, author of The Audacity of Deceit, “Wright denounces ‘Colored Preachers’ who don’t subscribe to Black Liberation Theology (of James H. Cone) as people who:”

“…hate themselves, who hate black people, who desperately want to be white and who write and say stupid things in public to make ‘Masa’ feel safer.”

Obama – attributing the words to the character “Rafiq,” tells us in Dreams from My Father, that:

“…they [blacks with whom Obama was working] spend half they lives worrying about what white folks think.  Start blaming themselves for the shit they see every day, thinking they can’t do no better till the white man decides they all right.”[i]

The person credited with this statement was reportedly explaining to Obama how he would be dead if not for Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

James H. Cone, on whose Black Liberation Theology, Wright’s church was based,  is credited with statements such as:

“While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.”[i]

But, it is Obama himself who makes perhaps the most revealing and frightening statement of all:

“I wondered whether…a black politics that suppressed rage toward whites generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyalty above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.”[i]

Apparently, Obama did take away something of Jeremiah Wright and James H. Cone during thos 832+ Sundays he spent listening to Wright’s less offensive sermons.


[i] Ibid,199


[i] James H. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power, (New York, 1997, Harper & Row), 15

(Excerpt from 203 Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama)


[i] Barack Obama, Dreams From my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, 1st pbk Edition, (New York, 2004, Three Rivers Press), 197

Enhanced by Zemanta