The framing of news reports about Obama’s diversity policy centers around race and economic class, but government low-income housing would be a convenient spot to place the increased numbers of Muslim refugees that the administration desires. Theres no reason to think the government wouldnt go maximum diversity and no tribe is more differently cultured than Muslims.
Speaking of which, the latest Islamic enemies to be welcomed into America are the Syrians, millions of whom have been displaced by the current war. The population of Syria is 90 percent Muslim, and curiously few non-Muslim Syrians have been considered by Washington for resettlement. In May, 14 Senate Democrats, including Minority Whip Dick Durbin, called on Obama to resettle at least 65,000 Syrian refugees as directed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who apparently directs such things.
Below, a Syrian refugee camp.
Nothing diversifies a neighborhood — or America — like a gaggle of Middle Eastern Muslims. In fact, it is quite clear that an agenda exists to erase America, or “fundamentally transform” it, in the words of Obama. Muslim refugees are already being resettled in small towns throughout the nation so there is no escape from extreme diversity, and the housing scam is just an additional pile-on.
Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar and Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared with Stuart Varney to discuss the implications of the government mandated diversity in neighborhoods whether they want it or not.
VARNEY: It looks to me like this is an attempt to shoehorn people of color using taxpayer money into housing within wealthy white neighborhoods. You approve of this?
GOSAR: I dont approve with it thats why Ive offered the amendment, Stuart, this is micro-engineering down at the Planning and Zoning level that should be left to local government. This is about what they want to make the fabric of American look like, their way or the highway.
VARNEY: Can you stop it by using the financial mechanisms within congress?
GOSAR: Absolutely thats what we have to get good at, Stuart, by defunding the mechanism for the implementation of the rule. Thats why Congress had the power the purse and the rule wall behind it and thats how we intend to do and this will become a big issue because if the government can supersede the local Planning and Zoning, they could do anything and that thats why this is outright egregious. . .
This is a total overreach by this administration. . .
VARNEY: Whats the legal aspects to this, judge?
NAPOLITANO: I think there are profound constitutional implications here and they are the following: One, can the president spend discretionary funds in a manner never even contemplated by the congress when it gave him the money to spend; Two, can the president use his pen and his phone to regulate an area of government totally exclusively historically and indisputably local and not federal; Three, what to do about a president who doesnt respect the confines of the Constitution and thinks he can social engineer things as local as who can build what building on what city block,
Look, the way theyre going to do this is to offer money to local municipalities to change the zoning laws. Now if you and I walked into a government office and said change those rules and Ill pay for it we’d be arrested by the FBI for bribery, but when the federal government does it, the Supreme Court says its an acceptable way for them to to get laws changed in an area that they dont have authority over under the Constitution. Its reprehensible and I hope the congressman that you just had on and his colleagues will stop it.
I dont see a racial implications here. This is an Orwellian overreach by that central government into an area exclusively in a under the control of the locals since 1791.
Does anyone else think Obama’s last few months will be like nothing weve seen?
Obama making bid to diversify wealthy neighborhoods, The Hill, By Tim Devaney, June 11, 2015
The Obama administration is moving forward with regulations designed to help diversify America’s wealthier neighborhoods, drawing fire from critics who decry the proposal as executive overreach in search of an “unrealistic utopia.”
A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country.
The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities.
“HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all,” a HUD spokeswoman said. “The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.”
It’s a tough sell for some conservatives. Among them is Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who argued that the administration “shouldn’t be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble.”
“American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching federal government,” said Gosar, who is leading an effort in the House to block the regulations.
Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, are praising the plan, arguing that it is needed to break through decades-old barriers that keep poor and minority families trapped in hardscrabble neighborhoods.
“We have a history of putting affordable housing in poor communities,” said Debby Goldberg, vice president at the National Fair Housing Alliance.
HUD says it is obligated to take the action under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited direct and intentional housing discrimination, such as a real estate agent not showing a home in a wealthy neighborhood to a black family or a bank not providing a loan based on someone’s race.
The agency is also looking to root out more subtle forms of discrimination that take shape in local government policies that unintentionally harm minority communities, known as “disparate impact.”
“This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they don’t want to,” said Margery Turner, senior vice president at the left-leaning Urban Institute. “It’s really about addressing long-standing practices that prevent people from living where they want to.”
“In our country, decades of public policies and institutional practices have built deeply segregated and unequal neighborhoods,” Turner said.
Children growing up in poor communities have less of a chance of succeeding in life, because they face greater exposure to violence and crime, and less access to quality education and health facilities, Turner suggested.
“Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today,” she said.
To qualify for certain funds under the regulations, cities would be required to examine patterns of segregation in neighborhoods and develop plans to address it. Those that don’t could see the funds they use to improve blighted neighborhoods disappear, critics of the rule say.
The regulations would apply to roughly 1,250 local governments.
Hans von Spakovsky, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called the Obama administration “too race conscious.”
“It’s a sign that this administration seems to take race into account on everything,” Spakovsky said.
Republicans are trying to block the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule. Before passing HUD’s funding bill this week, the GOP-led House approved Gosar’s amendment prohibiting the agency from following through with the rule.
Though segregationist policies were outlawed long ago, civil rights advocates say housing discrimination persists.
HUD is looking to break down many barriers, but Gosar suggested the regulation would have negative repercussions.
“Instead of living with neighbors you like and choose, this breaks up the core fabric of how we start to look at communities,” Gosar said. “That just brings unease to everyone in that area.”
“People have to feel comfortable where they live,” he added. “If I don’t feel comfortable in my own backyard, where do I feel comfortable?”
Critics of the rule say it would allow HUD to assert authority over local zoning laws. The agency could dictate what types of homes are built where and who can live in those homes, said Gosar, who believes local communities should make those decisions for themselves rather than relying on the federal government.
If enacted, the rule could depress property values as cheaper homes crop up in wealthy neighborhoods and raise taxes, Gosar warned.
It could also tilt the balance of political power as more minorities are funneled into Republican-leaning neighborhoods, he suggested.
The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on housing discrimination in a related case in the coming weeks. At issue is whether government policies that unintentionally create a disparate impact for minority communities violate federal laws against segregation.
The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs is facing accusations that it makes low-income housing funds more readily available in minority neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. This promotes segregation, critics argue, by encouraging minorities to continue living in poor communities where government assistance is available.
Court observers say the case could have a profound impact on HUD’s rule.
