May 30, 2014

“Obama Hits Suburbs After Election”

This is for all the GOP “pragmatists” and nuanced realists who wasted so much time (and in some cases continue to do so) identifying Obama for who he is and has always been — in so doing, allowing progressive policy and bureaucratic lawlessness to reach troubling speeds, the formula for which can only be adequately figured out using some advanced physics theorem.

I’ve written before about the feds’ tracking the racial makeup of neighborhoods — for reasons we all know are forthcoming:  diversity!  Fairness!  People have a civil right to live in a gated community!  And so on.

Similarly, I’ve written for years, as have many others, about the commingling of the Marxist agenda with the environmentalist agenda, the goal being to rein in the populace, to keep us less dispersed and easier to manage by “nudging” us into cities and keeping us near public transit lines.  For the good of the earth!  But the truth is, they want us in pens because at base, they think of us as economic units who need to be managed, corralled, controlled.  And once we’re in that existential state, we’ll become more reliant on government largess, which in turn will increase the scope of government and entrench its outsized (and unconstitutional) social and legal reach.

Obama’s executive orders and policy desires have all been part of an effort to move society in this direction.  Because far from being a garden variety liberal Democrat, as the editors at many “conservative” sites have argued while trashing conservatives who recognize just how wrongheaded are these supposedly nuanced (and frankly ostentatious and needy) conclusions, Obama is a movement radical.  Which is obvious and should have been from the start:  pant crease or no, a virtually unknown political figure with a lot of missing pieces in his past and a couple of autobiographies written before he was really anyone, should have been a major red flag to anyone with a degree of skepticism.  What we did know of Obama pointed to his socialist leanings, his training in movement and academic Marxism and its leftist/progressive off-shoots, be it Fabianism, post-colonial theory, Black Liberation Theology, critical race theory, et al.; his associations, from Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrne to Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, Francis Piven, and Saul Alinsky — coupled with his known prior vocation as a community organizer (what used to be known as an “outside agitator”) — all pointed away from the Manchurian candidate created by the media and through “his” autobiographies:  the “Barack Obama” we were being fed was never the Barack Obama who was living inside the carefully managed and manipulated political simulacrum.

So when Rush Limbaugh famously noted that he hoped Obama failed, he was absolutely speaking a conservative and constitutionalist truth, as many are only now coming to realize and reluctantly coming to admit, if only in private.

With his lame duck status and this being his “year of action,” we should be terribly wary of what institutionalized edicts he’s putting in place — and especially, those we haven’t really heard much about.  Because fundamental transformation has been given its legal go ahead through ObamaCare, and the offshoots of that re-imagining of the relationship between the people and the government, with the citizens as subjects and the government the sovereign, will be used in any number of ways to constrain liberty and choice, all in the name of the greater good.

Kurtz, who did some of the most important work in exposing Obama’s actual past and real-life ties, teasing the fictional “Barack Obama” apart from the man who has a demonstrable, if largely hidden, trail of associations and inculcations, is here once again ahead of the curve, waiting for the media to take notice (or rather, stop pretending there is no notice to be taken).  Because what is being put into place can complete the transformation Obama and the progressives have long had in mind for us; and virtually no one knows about it.

Kurtz:

[...] not a word has been heard of late about a truly transformative Obama executive action, his rule on “affirmatively furthering fair housing” (AFFH).  That rule will push Americans into living how and where the federal government wants.  It promises to gut the ability of suburbs to set their own zoning codes.  It will press future population growth into tiny, densely-packed high-rise zones around public transportation, urbanizing suburbs and Manhattanizing cities.

You won’t see a more ambitious Obama administration initiative than this.  Yet Obama never discusses AFFH.  Although a preliminary version of the rule was released in July of 2013, the president didn’t mention it in his State of the Union address.  The controversial rule was the subject of a Weekly Standardcover, yet as far as I can tell neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post has ever done a story on AFFH.

Now it emerges that the Obama administration released its planned regulatory agenda quietly on Friday, just ahead of the three-day holiday weekend.  The object, of course, was to minimize press coverage of controversial rules like AFFH.

As I read it, the long-delayed issuing of the finalized version of AFFH is now scheduled for December of 2014, right after the midterms.  The Obama administration seems to specialize in short-circuiting democratic accountability.  Obama’s reelection bid would likely have failed had he not delayed the implementation of Obamacare until after 2012.  His scheme to nationalize Common Core was developed out of stimulus funding, with no public debate.  Now Obama plans to launch a housing initiative dedicated to gutting suburban independence and urbanizing America, but only after the midterms.

I can’t think of an issue more worthy of public debate and discussion in advance of the 2014 midterm election than the AFFH rule and the Obama administration’s “regionalist” housing policies.  You can see dry runs for what Obama hopes to do with his new housing rule in recent planning initiatives in the San Francisco Bay Area and the TwinCities.  This is a hugely ambitious program.

There is a way to break the Obama administration’s silence on the AFFH rule and its anti-suburban regionalist agenda.  San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, widely touted as a possible 2016 Democratic vice-presidential candidate, has just been nominated to replace Shaun Donovan, chief architect of the administration’s regionalist policies, as secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Why not ask Castro about his intentions for AFFH, and about the administration’s regionalist policy more generally?  On AFFH, how far will Castro go to force densification?  What penalties will he levy?  What measuring sticks will he use?  What steps will he take to pressure suburban municipalities to participate in regional governing bodies?  How does he square AFFH with America’s long tradition of local governance?

On regionalism and densification more generally, does Castro see the recent planning efforts in San Francisco and Minneapolis—with crucial federal participation in both cases—as models for the country?  Does he agree with former Obama transportation secretary Ray LaHood that the administration’s goal should be to “coerce people out of their cars?”

These are the sorts of questions that the Obama administration has been trying to avoid for the past six years, even as it has systematically moved to change the way Americans live.  If ever there was an issue deserving of legitimate debate before an election, this is it.  And if Julian Castro has hopes of being Vice- President of the United States he ought to be willing to publicly defend the Obama administration’s regionalist policies.  After all, he’ll soon be enforcing them.

If ever there was a tacit initiative that, once exposed and fully implemented, could quite literally bring about a battle between states and the federal government, this is it.  Which is perhaps one of the reasons behind the heavy arming of federal agencies.  It’s fashionable to believe that violence or civil unrest on a large public scale is the bailiwick of the Other; it can never happen here, after all.

And yet it already has, many times, the most significant of which was during the Civil War.

The left is using the EPA to kill energy production in this country.  It is spending taxpayer funding creating super trains that nobody wants — but that they believe people will eventually need once they are able to control where they live, how large a house they are permitted to have, and how much they can influence the cost of fuel and the byproducts of energy shortages:  higher food prices, higher clothing prices, higher prices for goods, etc.   This will “nudge” people into lower mortgages, or even smaller rental units, which successfully gentrifies the country and does away with the gauche middle class, with its maddening initiative and its borderline offensive IKEA taste.

What the left wants — what it has always wanted — is to manage the masses, a plan it sells by promoting egalitarianism that somehow never applies to those who are doing the planning and managing that enforces the conformity.  As I’ve noted for years now, collectivism ends in liberal fascism, with cronyism, corporatism, the veneer of a market economy that is meant to quell competition and polarize the citizenry, with the self-selected elites lording over the “masses” they claim always to champion.

Alinsky argued that in order to destroy the middle class, you must first set yourself up as its champions.  This has been the playbook of the Democrats for years.  But the thing is, yesterday’s Democrats are today’s New Leftists.  They care not a whit about the little people except inasmuch as they can get them reliant on government and so wrangle them in as a permanent voting bloc.

It won’t be long now before the real social inequality becomes evident:  rich government cronies in private industry and the ruling class politicians will be the haves; the rest of us will be the have nots, or at least the should nots.  Determining where we live, the size of our houses, the number of cars we have and the gas mileage they must attain, the nature of our healthcare (and its offshoots, the nature of our dietary and leisure habits) — all of this is part and parcel of the progressive social engineering program to realign society back to its “rightful” organizing principles, namely, not some phony appeal to natural rights, but man ruling over man.

These people are not our political adversaries.  History shows they are the existential enemies of liberty and a free people.

It’s time we stopped dancing around those unpleasant facts and make the arguments, even if it means we have to endure the sneers of those who believe their hand-waving dismissals and the labeling of we constitutionalists as fringe kooks, is sufficient to shame us, silence us, or marginalize us.

Because believe me:  there are more of us out there than many of us are conditioned to think, and the left knows this.  Pointing to the naked emperor’s hoary, putrified dongle — which has been impotent as a way to grow and multiply societies historically — is the way to fight back.  Be unafraid.  Return the scorn. Refuse to let the left set the parameters of debate and dismissal.

Or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

(h/t Mark Levin)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:34am
39 comments | Trackback

Comments (39)

  1. nobody wants to live next to section 8 trash except other section 8 trash, and sometimes not even them

  2. I’m pretty sure the point of both the Kurtz piece and of Jeff’s comments upon it is you’ll live where you’re told to live and next to whom we tell you to, and you will like it.

  3. lower mortgages, or even smaller rental units

    these are super-cute for weekend getaways or even for to enjoy retirement, especially if you travel a lot

    (i’d insist on adding central air though with a secured unit on the roof somewheres… getting all sultry southern and sweaty is fine sometimes where you can smell the magnolia and listen to the cicadas but at the same time you can end up with nasty boils and fungus issues if all you ever do is sweat)

    …. but i suspect this is the sort of thing the fascists want americans raising kids in

    and that’s not America

  4. Eventually the oft ill-cited Shakespeare line “first we’ll kill all the lawyers” will be modified to substitute “architects”, a more dreamy-utopian top-downy tribe of socialist schemers one could not hope to find. It’ll be cutesy soviet apartment blocks all the way down. And subsidies for Amtrak, world without end, amen.

  5. I am not living in 700 square feet of housing. It’s not the way adults live; it’s the way starving grad students live.

  6. …these are super-cute…

    For the same money you can get a brand new fully decked out single-wide at 1300 square feet, or a used double-wide at about 2300 square feet.

    However, I suppose that would be too declasse for the Salon and pikachu crowd.

  7. Pre-fab homes are the schnitz. I’ve seen some really nice double-wide homes that would put those cracker boxes (pun intended) to shame.

  8. …those cracker boxes (pun intended)…

    Indeed, however, what the Salon and pikachu crowd don’t get is how much like sharecropper shacks those places really are, regardless of the indoor plumbing.

    Of course, like science and economics, history appears not to be one of their long suits either.

  9. If a private contractor/entrepreneur wants to build tiny affordable houses, they will run into building codes and be accused of being a greedy slumlords. Government bodies can propose the same thing and be called clever and forward thinking.

  10. Note well that all but one of the pictures features “persons of color” in these shotgun shacks.

    My parents busted their asses to NOT live in sharecropper housing.

  11. whether it’s little houses or more trailer parks, loser-assed americans need to get used to a lower standard of living

    whereas chinesers need to get used to not being able to afford enough furniture to decorate their whole house right away

    it’s the future

  12. It’s likely the China people figure they’ll be takin’ extra furniture from their newly wealthy neighbors in S. Korea, Vietnam, Singapore and Taiwan, or heck, wherever the he’ll they up’n’ choose to take it.

  13. it’s a whole different culture

    they don’t value human life the same way we do

    but they love to shop

  14. It’s a whole different all right, since time was having a nice Chinese empire meant staying at home and keeping the nasty foreigners out. They’s got a new idea.

  15. they’re buying pretty much every house that goes on the market here in Los Angeles

  16. there some slight exaggeration there

    but not an egregious amount

  17. jaysus, you can just google image “sharecropper” house and see the cracker boxes look almost identical

    what a way to beat people into even more submission to The Progressive Man

  18. sometimes the sharecropper would build his house under a tree and as the seasons passed the tree would grow ever more heavenward, and the shade under its limbs would grow deeper and cooler every year

    one day when the lord calls me home, just bury me under this ole tree y’all hear?

    That’s what the sharecropper would say.

    And that’s exactly what came to pass.

  19. “little pink boxes for you and me”

    proggtard tour

    John Mellencamp Pink Houses Inaugural We Are One Concert

  20. the gaysters are funny with the “pink houses”. #waronwoman

  21. happyfeet says May 30, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    Stick with the cupcakes, you do a lousy minstrel show.

  22. you just wanted to say something mean

    i know how you are

  23. swiss cake roll time

  24. i already had my treat it was a croissant with nutella and banana

    very tasty

  25. I see, you go into snotty stereotyping mode – an improvement over your usual potty mouth mode, though – and having been called on it, your delicate sensibilities are offended, you fragile buttercup, you.

  26. i’m tougher than a new kid on the block in new shoes and a members only jacket

    fragile my yellow fuzzy ass

  27. Keep telling yourself that and one of us will believe it.

  28. “Make Money in Your Spare Time! Take in Washing!”

    Just keeping with obvious direction the mini-homes are taking us on.

  29. i’m tougher than a new kid on the block

    Tiny Tim’s “wife” Miss Vicki is tougher than any of that lot, so when the bar is actually subterranean, it ain’t hard to keep from tripping over it. Amazingly enough, you still stumble.

    Imagine our shock.

  30. this Vicki sounds like one feisty broad

  31. Not so much. You’re just so far down the scale of “manliness”, they would have to use negative numbers.

  32. oh shit i got a zit on my chin

  33. California’s Green Bantustans

    [...]

    You can argue that San Francisco and Los Angeles are hemmed in by ocean and mountains, respectively, but that really doesn’t answer the question. In most cases, these cities can expand along endless freeway corridors to the north, south, and east, if not west, and new urban centers can arise along these corridors to attract jobs. But they don’t, and the reason for this are the so-called “smart growth” policies. In an interesting report entitled “America’s Emerging Housing Crisis,” Joel Kotkin calls this policy “urban containment.” And along with urban containment, comes downsizing. From another critic of smart growth/urban containment, economist Thomas Sowell, here’s a description of what downsizing means in the San Francisco Bay Area suburb Palo Alto:

  34. I love Weld County, Colorado. Not only do we have a nationally-renowned pro-Second Amendment Sheriff and state congresswomen who have said publicly that they won’t enforce or even abide the Democrat’s Bloomberg-bought gun laws, but you can get a 6100 square foot house here for half the price of a 1500 square foot house in San Fran, or 2/3 the price of a 900 sq ft condo in SF.

    Think about that: you can fit almost 7 San Fran condos into a house that size, and the build would cost you $300K less than the condo — fully loaded, to boot.

    Sure, we don’t have the chilly summers and all the colorful people walking about; and we have to drive about 15 minutes to find good sushi. But we do have a lake and a golf course directly behind us, the mountains in front of us, a much larger lake about 400 yards across some open space public land, with a hiking/biking/horse path surrounding it, and an award winning micro brewery within walking distance. Plus, our toilets are the normal kind, so shit won’t suddenly pile up everywhere.

    I know. It’s kind of a trade off.

    Which reminds me: Yesterday I was able to save one of the biggest turtles I’ve ever seen in the wild. I was driving to the new build and a truck suddenly stopped in front of me, drove over into the other lane of two-lane, two-way road, and revealed a turtle trying to cross the road, right in the middle of traffic.

    I pulled off-road, got out and stopped traffic for a minute, and — after trying to pick the thing up (SNAP! — bad idea) — I was able to nudge it with my foot until it turned around and made it’s way to an embankment, which it slid down into a creek.

    Pretty cool.

    And because this wasn’t San Francisco, the people who were driving by weren’t at all angry that I was standing in the middle of the road holding up traffic. In fact, they were quite nice and thankful I was taking the time to move the big booger out of harm’s way. Probably because they have more than 700 square feet to live in. Which makes them less cranky than people who pay a premium to be crammed into a condo, so long as they have the right zip code.

  35. that was a very beautiful thing that you did

  36. Is it bad that I perked up at the “award-winning microbrewery within walking distance” line?

    That sounds like a great place to live.

  37. …we have to drive about 15 minutes to find good sushi.

    Ever wonder why there’s no restaurant that offers to let you eat free if you can finish a 72-ounce sushi dinner in an hour?

  38. Nope, haven’t done McG, but at first glance I’d reckon it has something to do with tunny being unionized.

  39. Pingback: From Around the Blogroll | The First Street Journal.

Leave a Reply