Thursday, March 31, 2016

Trump the kind of President we need

TED NUGENT: Posts THIS about Trump on Facebook And MELTS The Internet

Ted Nugent points out some things about Donald Trump and what a Trump Presidency would mean. What do you think?

Ted Nugent via Facebook:
At this time I do not endorse Donald Trump anymore than I endorse Ted Cruz as I admire both gentlemen. But these points are SO damn special!

Ted Nugent says:
Obama is against Trump
The Media is against Trump
The establishment Democrats are against Trump
The establishment Republicans are against Trump
The Pope is against Trump
The UN is against Trump
The EU is against Trump
China is against Trump
Mexico is against Trump
Soros is against Trump
Black Lives Matter is against Trump
MoveOn. Org is against Trump
Koch Bro’s are against Trump
Hateful, racist, violent Liberals are against Trump

Bonus points:
Cher says she will leave the country
Mylie Cyrus says she will leave the country
Whoopi says she will leave the country
Rosie says she will leave the country
Al Sharpton says he will leave the country
Gov. Brown says California will build a wall

Sounds like the kinda president the US needs!

Trump Priorities

Trump: Top 3 Functions of U.S. Government Are Security, Health Care, and Education, by Lauretta Brown, 3/30/16
( – Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was asked to name the top three functions of the United States Government at CNN’s town hall on Tuesday, and he said they are security, health care, and education.

At the event, Robert Kitelinger, an Army veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, asked, “In your opinion, what are the top three functions of the United States government?”
Trump said, “Well, the greatest function of all, by far, is security for our nation. I would also say health care, I would also say education. I mean, there are many, many things, but I would say the top three are security, security, security.”

“We have to have security for our country so that we can continue to exist as a country,” he explained. “We are in danger. Thousands and thousands of people are infiltrating our country. We don't know who they are.”

“So top three, you're saying, security?” CNN host Anderson Cooper asked.

“Security, I say all top three are security, but health care, education, would be probably three that would be top, and then you can go on from there,” Trump replied.

“But the military and the secure country, so that we have a country,” Trump emphasized. “Believe me, we've never been in a position, in my opinion, where our country is so vulnerable. Our military is being eaten away.” 

“So in terms of federal government role, you're saying security, but you also say health care and education should be provided by the federal government?” Cooper followed up.

“Well, those are two of the things,” said Trump.  “Yes, sure. I mean, there are obviously many things, housing, providing great neighborhoods.”

“Aren't you against the federal government's involvement in education? Don't you want it to devolve to states?” Cooper asked.

“I want it to go to state, yes, absolutely,” Trump replied.
“So that's not part of what the federal government --” Cooper began to point out.
“The federal government,” Trump interjected, “but the concept of the country is the concept that we have to have education within the country, and we have to get rid of Common Core and it should be brought to the state level.”

“And federal health care run by the federal government?” Cooper asked.

“We need health care for our people,” Trump replied, adding that, “Obamacare is a disaster.”

“But is that something the federal government should be doing?” Cooper asked. “The government can lead it, but it should be privately done,” Trump said.

“It should be privately done,” he added.  “So that health care -- in my opinion, we should probably have -- we have to have private health care. We don't have competition in health care.”    


Trump is aware that healthcare and education cost too much and do too little. To begin to bring those costs down, Trump knows that the federal government has caused this and needs to get out of the way and let the free market go to work on these two industries. He also knows that Obama has decimated our military and he wants to restore it to protect the U.S., not everybody else.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader 

Clinton v Trump Economic Plans

Andrew Busch | On March 30, 2016
This election season has simply been the story in the United States if not the world. The emergence of billionaire Donald Trump and the presence of Hillary Clinton are providing the media with great story lines and captivating, if sometimes crude, sound bites. Sadly, the noise level has grown to such heights that the actual policy stances of these candidates gets lost. This article looks at the frontrunners’ business policies to understand how these could impact economic growth and jobs.

Trump’s plans

Like most Republicans, Trump’s plans focus on business/corporate tax and economic changes to stimulate growth in GDP and jobs. First, he wants to reduce the nominal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. Next, he wants to limit the pass-through entity (LLCs, Partnerships, Subchapter S) to 15 percent. For international tax purposes, he has a one-time 10 percent tax on all foreign profits currently held overseas, which are estimated to be over $2.3 trillion. Lastly, he wants to eliminate all other corporation tax expenditures or breaks, eliminate the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, and substantially reduce the deductibility of interest expenses from debt.

He eliminates the estate tax and taxes carried interest at ordinary income rates. While Trump is tough to nail down on issues, he has said he supports energy production and would sign into law the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. On capital gains, Trump has said he would eliminate the Obamacare 3.8 percent tax hike on the net investment income. Coupled with his tax cuts for individuals, Trump’s plans expand economic growth (+11 percent GDP) and job creation (5.3 million) over ten years. Yet, the U.S. debt (+$11.98T) and deficit will expand rapidly as well if his full plans for both corporate and individual plans are implemented, according to think tanks like the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center.

Clinton’s plans

Like most Democrats, Clinton’s plans focus on direct government spending to stimulate growth in GDP and jobs. Her policy has no change to the corporate tax rate or the pass-through rate. She has new corporate tax credits (15 percent) for incentivizing companies to provide their employees profit sharing and apprenticeships. Clinton has a $275 billion infrastructure spending plan to create jobs and increase efficiency in the economy through better roads, bridges and tunnels. Additionally, her plans include a $25 billion infrastructure bank to support “critical infrastructure improvements” and reauthorize a Build America Bonds program to help finance projects. On international tax issues, she keeps the current structure and adds three proposals tied to specific goals: broadens definition of an inversion transaction, attempts to stop “earnings stripping” by limiting U.S. interest deductions and adds an “exit” tax on U.S. companies re-domiciling to lower corporate tax countries like Ireland.

She wants to spend additional funds on clean energy and scientific and medical research. Recently, she has stated she wants to stringently regulate the process of fracking to ensure reduction of the release of methane and eliminate water contamination. To accomplish these goals, she plans to raise taxes in many places to pay for the spending. The majority of the revenue raised by Clinton would come from three areas: a cap on itemized deductions, the Buffet Rule, and a 4 percent surtax on taxpayers with incomes over $5 million.
For investors, she has a new long-term capital gains tax rate schedule. Under this plan, her stated goal is to incentivize investors to extend the holding periods for investments and to dis-incentivize short-term profit taking.
According to the Tax Policy Center, Hillary Clinton proposes raising taxes on high-income taxpayers, modifying taxation of multinational corporations, repealing fossil fuel tax incentives, and increasing estate and gift taxes.
“Her proposals would increase revenue by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes. Marginal tax rates would increase, reducing incentives to work, save, and invest, and the tax code would become more complex.”
Over ten years, the Tax Foundation scores the plan mildly negative for the economy (-1.0 percent), mildly negative for jobs (-311k) and mildly negative for the U.S. budget deficit (-$374 billion). However, the Tax Policy Center states that her plan would reduce the federal debt by over $1.2 trillion over the 10-year budget window.
On trade, both Trump and Clinton are against the free trade pact called the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP. This free trade pact is a long-term positive for the U.S. economy with 18,000 tariff cuts for U.S. businesses. Trump goes further to say he would attempt to tear up other free trade agreements like NAFTA.

Trump vs. Clinton

Clearly, the candidates have a carrot vs. stick approach to making policy changes to the U.S. economy. Trump uses the carrot approach and cuts corporate, pass-through, and international tax rates to generate growth. To accomplish this (and coupled with his individual tax cut plans), Trump vastly expands the U.S. deficit and debt. Clinton uses the stick approach and raises taxes to enact spending plans on infrastructure, clean energy and scientific and medical research. To achieve her goals (and coupled with her individual plans), Clinton significantly raises taxes on the top 10 percent of income earners, increases regulations and rules in the tax code, but does reduce the U.S. federal debt.
Overall, this is a trade-off between Trump’s short-term rapid growth and long-term debt expansion and Clinton’s essentially static growth with a $1 trillion long-term debt reduction.

Originally posted on Andrew Busch’s website.

Trump endorsed by Border Patrol

Donald Trump has gained the endorsement of the National Border Patrol Council — a union that claims to hold membership for some 16,500 Border Patrol agents, or 75% of all those eligible to sign up.

In a statement first obtained by Breitbart, Brandon Judd, the president of the council, said: “Unlike his opponents, Donald Trump is not a career politician, he is an outsider who has created thousands of jobs, pledged to bring about aggressive pro-American change, and who is completely independent of special interests. We don’t need a person who has the perfect Washington-approved tone, and certainly NOT another establishment politician in the W.H. Indeed, the fact that people are more upset about Mr. Trump’s tone than about the destruction wrought by open borders tells us everything we need to know about the corruption in Washington.”

Since the start of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has maintained that a border wall will be built during his time as president, and that it would be paid for by Mexico.

“As an organization we expect our elected officials to aggressively pursue the interests of the country. America has already tried a young, articulate freshman senator who never created a job as an attorney and under whose watch criminal cartels have been given the freest border reign ever known.”

Judd called Trump “bold and outspoken,” adding: “There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border. And there is no greater political threat than the control of Washington by special interests. In view of these threats, the National Border Patrol Council endorses Donald J. Trump for President – and asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late.”

The primary endorsement is an historic first for the council.

80% of Muslims in Europe on Welfare

Muslims Refugees Sucking Up European Welfare Benefits, by Alice Greene, 3/30/16

Belgium struggles with violent, non-working Muslim population

A staggering 80% of Muslims in Europe are on welfare. It’s particularly bad in Belgium and the Netherlands, where each country's meager (about 5%) Muslim population consumes roughly 50% of the generous welfare budget. 

So what is this giant non-working population doing?  They are creating Islamic zones that do not tolerate Western society. Far from trying to integrate with the countries that have taken them in, the Muslims in Europe are forming bands of bullies that enforce Sharia law. They whine about the evils of pork, alcohol, and cigarettes while groping or even raping women who venture out alone and uncovered. 

“The problem isn’t intolerance. It’s the multiculturalist socialist paradise that the entire European Union affords Muslim immigrants," reads an editorial published last week in Investor’s Business Daily. 

As multi-million dollar mosques are erected and the Shahs and Imams live in luxury, many of the faithful live in squalor. The resulting ghettoes are no-go zones for non-Muslims. Not even law enforcement dare enter for fear of committing some political correctness faux pas.

In summation: Muslims immigrants do not work. They do not assimilate. They take over and force countries to convert. Belgium has already de-Christianized considerably to ease the minds of its growing Muslims population: Christmas Break is now "Winter Break," Easter Break is now "Spring Break," Lenten Vacation is now "Rest and Relaxation Leave," etc. 

The EU is basically paying immigrants to mistreat its citizens. Unless this behavior does not change, Islam and the Caliphate threaten to take over Belgium, the Netherlands, and all of the EU.  And their next target is the US. 

Even worse, Belgium has become a breeding ground for Islamist extremists (as exemplified by last week’s terror attacks in the country’s capital). Some estimate as many as 500,000 Belgian Muslims have gone to Iraq and Syria to fight to ISIS. It has been discovered that the mastermind behind last year's brutal attacks in Paris was the Belgian radical Abdelhamid Abaaoud.

25% Immigrants in 6 States

25 Percent of Six U.S. States Are Immigrants and their Children, by Caroline May, 3/28/16

Immigrants and their young children now make up more than 25 percent of the population in six U.S. states, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

As CIS previously analyzed, based on government data, there are more than 61 million immigrants and their American-born children under the age of 18 living in the U.S.

In a series of interactive maps released Monday, CIS experts Steven Camarota and Bryan Griffith break down the percentage of immigrants and their young children in the U.S. by state and growth rate since 1970.

As of December 2015, immigrants and their young children made up more than 25 percent of the populations of California, Nevada, Texas, New York, New Jersey, and Florida.

In another 11 states, more than 15 percent of the population were immigrants and their children: Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut.

As CIS noted in its earlier analysis, while there are currently more than 61 million immigrants and their young children in the U.S., or nearly one in five U.S. residents, in 1970 there were just 13.5 million immigrants and their young children, or one in 15 U.S. residents.

“The numbers represent a complete break with the recent history of the United States,” Camarota and Griffith wrote Monday.

The dramatic increase in the immigrant population in the U.S. has varied across the states. While just five U.S. states saw their immigrant populations grow by less than 100 percent since 1970, the vast majority saw their immigrant populations more than double.

The immigrant population in Nevada, North Carolina, and Georgia, for example, grew by more than 2,000 percent. Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, and South Carolina had immigrant populations grow by more than 1,000 percent.

“These numbers raise profound questions that are seldom asked: What number of immigrants can be assimilated? What is the absorption capacity of our nation’s schools, health care system, infrastructure, and, perhaps most importantly, its labor market?” the authors added in their analysis.

Why health care costs keep rising

Medical Innovation Rejected, Too Affordable, by Alice Greene, 3/30/16

When health insurance companies are willing to pay for everything, doctors, hospitals, and urgent care centers have zero incentive to use less expensive methods. 

The rejection of the anesthesiology robot is a perfect example of such unchecked spending. Anesthesiologists have a vitally important job: they keep you unconscious, pain free, and - most importantly - alive. 

Enter Sedasys, the anesthesiologist robot that brings a $2,000 anesthesiology procedure down to just $200. The only problem is that nobody wants it. When hospitals can get their hands on $2,000 per procedure from an insurance company, why settle for $200?

Sedasys’ creator, Johnson & Johnson, will stop selling the robot due to poor sales. This incredible piece of machinery would have been able to administer accurate anesthesia for routine procedures and continue monitoring a patient’s vitals throughout the process. 

A single nurse or clinician would have been able to operate the robot. The cost of hiring a trained professional for routine anesthesia would be eliminated, but the amount of money pulled in by facility would also decrease. 

The Sedasys robot was approved by the FDA in 2013. But according to the Washington Post, it “was never welcomed by human anesthesiologists. Before it even hit the market, the American Society of Anesthesiologists campaigned against it, backing down only once the machine’s potential uses were limited to routine procedures such as colonoscopies.”

Many Americans avoid regular exams like colonoscopies because they are unaffordable. These procedures, however, are an important preventative measure when it comes to cancer and other diseases.  Early diagnosis could mean the difference between life and death – and a whole lot of money. 

Sedasys would not have put anesthesiologists out of work. What it would have done was make routine treatments far more affordable for those visiting clinics and community hospitals.

Editor's note: We picked this as an example of how screwed up our health system and why prices can't do anything but go up. When solutions like this are rejected so that hospitals and insurance companies will make more money, things need to change.


The Insurance industry is a single-cell animal with no brain and 3 working parts.  They charge premiums, pay claims and increase premiums.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Utah Voter Fraud

GOP Hires Voting Company that Rigged Elections to Help Out in Utah

David Knight of Infowars recently reported on the suspicious goings on at the GOP Utah caucus that suggests there may have been some skullduggery going on behind the scenes.

As it turns out, the GOP hired Venezuelan company Smartmatic to the tune of $80,000 to handle the caucus voting in Utah.

It is important to note that Smartmatic has been accused of malpractice for rigging elections in Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Chicago, and the Philippines, among others. One has to wonder why the GOP would hire a company with such a questionable and shady reputation. Knight reported,

“Not only were there allegations of irregularities at the polling places, but of course we also saw somehow an overnight surge of more than 20 points in the support for Ted Cruz. And I can’t find any exit polling done by anyone in the area.

… One person gave us his first hand reports, and you probably saw this linked on the Drudge Report, talking about how once they got their initial credentials, they didn’t check their credentials as they went into the room and were handed presidential ballots. They seated them in rows and passed the ballots down the rows. He was at one end and he said at one point he said, ‘I’m sitting there holding fifty ballots in my hand.’ Then they had them mark the ballots and put them in the collection plate that they passed around. A very unusual procedure. Anyone who has ever voted at primaries, it doesn’t happen that way. That’s where you can interject fraud.”

He waited after everybody had left. About 15 minutes after everyone thought it was over and left, some people came in with boxes full of envelopes. And in those envelopes were stuffed with anywhere from two to five ballots.

He said, ‘What in the world is this?’ They said all these are absentee ballots. He was somebody that had election experience. He goes, ‘Absentee ballots aren’t brought to the caucus locations. This is very suspicious.’ They told him he had to leave. At which point he walks out there’s another room where they’re starting the caucus and he was curious as to what was going on there. He was allowed to just walk into that room. He could have voted a second time if he had wanted in that room.”

Does any of this make anyone curious about what in the world is going on with the GOP these days? We’re all familiar with the reports in the news that the establishment has been plotting ways to block Trump’s path to the nomination, is this all part of that plan?

Stopping UN Agenda 21 in the US

Some Important Developments in My Fight to Stop Agenda 21

24 years. That’s how long it’s taken. 24 years of sounding the warnings and issuing the pleas for someone to listen about the great threat to our nation, to our system of government, to our property rights and to our children’s future, from the UN’s Agenda 21. Finally… finally… it’s starting to happen. What has changed?

Elected officials – the ones charged with developing policies for our communities and our state governments are starting to listen. In fact, many aren’t simply listening, they are openly seeking me out to teach them how to stop Agenda 21 policies.

Let me give you some examples. As I reported a few months ago, I addressed a legislative committee in Maine to give them the background and origin of some of the anti-property rights - pro-Agenda 21 policies they are facing.

I assure you they had never heard much of what I told them. I could tell by the shocked looks on some of their faces. The room was very quiet when I finished.

Now, in the past month I have made two important trips to Michigan. I have given talks to over 500 people in several parts of the state. In those audiences there have been state legislators, city councilmen and county commissioners, in addition to activists like you and me.

Several have come to me after the talks and said they wanted to learn more. After hearing me speak, one state representative told me he had voted for some of these policies and at that time had no idea how dangerous they were.

He has now invited me to the state capital in Lansing to meet with several other legislators to create a “Freedom Coalition” so they can work together to introduce effective legislation to stop the growth, reach and cost of government.

I will be returning to Michigan to have that meeting soon.

I then had a meeting with a County Township Supervisor. He has been trying to fight these policies and now wants me to address a full meeting of Township Supervisors from across the state.

I have also been approached to address new County Commissioners and the Planning Board of a very rural area in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. There, pro-freedom activists succeeded in electing new Commissioners who understand the threat. They then put the right people on the local planning board. Now they want me to help them make sure Agenda 21 plans are stopped in their county.

These are the people who have been targeted by the Planners, the NGOs and the federal officials to enforce Agenda 21 policies. The elected officials have been pressured, threatened and nearly run over by these pro Agenda 21 forces. But some of the officials are starting to wake up to the reality of Agenda 21. They want to stop it.

These are astounding actions taking place in Michigan. I have never seen anything like it. These are victories for us! But it doesn’t stop there. I’m seeing similar stirrings across the nation.

I've been invited to Kansas to address local officials in that state. And I have been approached by activists in Delaware and Connecticut.

Meanwhile, I have been working with a very effective state legislator in Washington. He is succeeding in creating an effective plan and strategy to pass effective legislation in that state. I need to spread his ideas across the nation.

As you might know, I have been trying to raise the necessary funds to sponsor a training seminar for both activists and elected officials. The plan was for them to be able to meet around the table and work out a legislative plan that could then be taken to every state in the nation.

There has been great interest from officials for such a plan. However, to date I have failed to raise enough money to do that. But I’m not defeated. Far from it!

To get things started, I am planning to produce an Internet webinar specifically for these elected officials who have expressed an interest in learning tactics and creating legislation to fight back.

Yes, I’d rather have them all together in a room, around the table where they can network and interact with each other. But this is a start. It can get the conversation going.

The webinar cost is much less and it will help us begin to move forward.  And we must move forward because the threat from Agenda 21 policy is getting more dangerous every day.

The new arm of Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda, clearly reveals the frightening goal of global governance and how they intend to achieve it. The Sustainablists are determined to finish the job as fast as possible.

And Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (AFFH) is the worst assault we have yet faced. It’s pure social engineering that will not only destroy property rights – but also will mean the end of local representative rule as HUD agents dictate policy.

The only way to stop that is by teaching local representatives the dangers and, more importantly, how to stop it. That’s what I intend to do.

My first step is to produce a special report on the HUD AFFH Rule, specifically written for elected officials so they can clearly see the dangers to every community.

My second step will be the production of the special training webinar for the elected officials. I have a fantastic team of experts (including elected officials to do the training).

Third, I will also begin again to produce monthly webinars for activists – as we did last year. We had over 1,000 activists participate in each of the ten I hosted, featuring some of the most effective leaders in the nation fighting Agenda 21.  Now I have lots of new information and tactics to teach them.

And finally, I am going to step up my efforts to personally meet with as many elected officials as possible in every state. This is key to our winning the battle to stop the federal takeover of our cities and our private property.

This is my mission. I’ve dedicated my life to stopping Agenda 21. And after being a lone voice for the better part of 24 years, I can proudly see hundreds of new spokesmen taking up the cause and thousands of activists joining in the fight. We’ve made the fight against Agenda 21 a national movement.

And now, we finally have the missing piece we’ve needed all along – elected officials who understand the dangers and want to take action to stop it in their communities.

I already have the invitations to travel to Michigan, Kansas, Delaware and Connecticut. I am also working with activists in Ohio, Florida, Montana and Washington. They all want me to come to their state to educate activists and elected representatives. But because of lack of funds they haven’t been able to invite me

I’ve been in the fight for 24 years. I have never seen a better opportunity to turn the tables on the forces who are destroying our property rights and working to change our representative system of government through Agenda 21.

Americans across the country are fed up. They are angry. And they are finally starting to listen to my warnings. The time is NOW!

I believe I have an effective, efficient plan stop them, but I need your financial help to make it happen. I hope you will stand with me.

Sincerely, Tom DeWeese, President

View this email in your browser (

Click here to make a donation now ([UNIQID])

Will you help me to make this happen? A contribution will help me travel to several states to meet with elected officials. A gift will help me print the special report on HUD’s AFFH Rule and get it into the hands of these officials. That one report, reproduced in booklet form, will help set off a fire storm of activity and protest in every state.  Your gift will make it happen! Will you please send a contribution to my American Policy Center right now so I can begin to organize these webinars and prepare the materials I’ll need for my meetings with these elected officials?

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Federal Agencies and the Birth of HUD’s AFFH

Agency Tyranny Page | 24

By combining HUD, DOT and the EPA into a single Partnership for Sustainable Communities, President Obama force-multiplied the regulatory power of these massive agencies. Increasing the Power of Federal Agencies.

The move embedded HUD’s Livability Principles, which directs local zoning choices toward regions and densified communities with smaller parcels of land, in all three agencies. By claiming the change made it more efficient for government to protect the environment, social equity and the economy, most Americans paid little attention to its effect on private property. The executive branch’s new ability to impose demands on local communities was nearly unprecedented.

The Department of Transportation, redirected their funds toward “livability and sustainability improvements.” These initiatives create “opportunities to connect mixed income housing with transit or economic development initiatives to locate new jobs within a region along highly accessible multimodal corridors.40” None of these initiatives shows regard for individual property rights. Many are collectivist solutions that are at the expense of private property.

The EPA changed their decision-making process. Rather than base their actions and decisions on research and science, in 2012 the agency incorporated feel-good “sustainability” as the basis for their decision-making

Agency Tyranny Page | 25
To assure no mistake about their intent, the agency defines “sustainable” by quoting the UN’s 1987 Brundtland Report, Our Common Future.41

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan will devastate energy producers and make electricity unaffordable for many families. Yet, when asked by Congress for the science behind their actions, EPA Director Gina McCarthy could not produce it. In 2015, based on nothing but “sustainability,” the EPA deemed itself authority over all of the waters of the US, including backyard ponds and dried-up streambeds.

Opponents have called this a severe “blow to American’s property rights.” As agencies issue more grants, communities find themselves with fewer and more restrictive choices. HUD’s Community Challenge Planning grants use various ‘strings’ to coerce communities into adopting “inclusionary zoning ordinances” and land acquisition, altering building codes and boosting construction of mixed-use and affordable housing. In this grant, HUD uses a point system weighted in favor of the Livability Principles to enable applicants to win the funds. The only way to get the grant is to comply with HUD’s restrictive Livability demands.

HUD’s Untapped Authority
By 2011, the administration realized that together, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act, gave HUD controlling authority the agency had barely tapped.

Agency Tyranny Page | 26
For years, HUD awarded Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to recipients for a wide range of community needs. While HUD provided recipients with guidelines for using the funds, in general, the agency believed local communities were better equipped to decide what to do with the money than the federal government. As a result, many of the more stringent requirements of affirmatively furthering fair housing, as required since the Fair Housing Act, were only sporadically enforced. For example, many recipients never knew that once they accepted HUD CDBG funds for a project related to fair housing or urban development, the government could then control how recipients spent all other moneys related to these projects, whether public or private. Though mostly ignored, this rule has been in HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide since 1996.

A New York lawsuit was about to change all of that. Westchester County and the Launch of AFFH. In 2009, HUD intervened in a False Claims Act lawsuit brought against Westchester County by the Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York* (ADC) three years earlier. ADC argued that for several years, the county had made false statements on its HUD grant applications by agreeing they had met their obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing” and removed all barriers to minority discrimination.

Agency Tyranny Page | 27
The courts decided against Westchester, ordering them to return $30 million in HUD funds and build 750 new affordable homes, most in white and wealthier areas. The court further decided that, since Westchester had a very small African-American community, the county would have to market in nearby counties to import minority families.

Outraged, in 2009 the county sought HUD’s assistance to lessen the settlement. Rather than assist the county, HUD saw this as an opportunity to become more aggressive. They imposed additional burdens on Westchester including that the required minority homes be built near “above average” schools and that a court appointed monitor should oversee the county’s implementation of the plan. The case was finally resolved in September of 2015 and HUD won on most counts.

*Note: The law firm of Allen, Relman, Dane and Colfax represented ADC in this case. As a leading plaintiff’s civil rights law firm, you will find them quoted throughout this report. There are three relevant points in this case.

First, the court ordered Westchester to pay $30 million from their own county budget to build 630 of the minority homes and affirmatively further fair housing. Second, HUD failed in their attempt to prove that Westchester engaged in any discrimination.

Agency Tyranny Page | 28
As the court notes : “It bears emphasizing that this decision does not mean that any of Westchester County’s municipalities violated the Fair Housing Act or engaged in discrimination on the basis of race. In short, there has been no finding, at any point, that Westchester actually engaged in housing discrimination.” This is a critical point. Even though the discrimination charges failed, the False Claims Act charges were spectacularly successful.

The third is the most important lesson for other HUD entitlement communities. The attorneys used Westchester’s False Claims Act lawsuit as a test case to use in bringing other HUD recipients into compliance with AFFH.

After the 2009 settlement, then HUD deputy secretary Ron Sims made HUD’s intentions clear: “We’re clearly messaging other jurisdictions across the country that there has been a significant change in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and we’re going to ask them to pursue similar goals as well,”

HUD wasted no time pursuing those “goals”. Westchester’s False Claims Act (FCA) settlement became the foundation for a new HUD ruling, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and other cities were already in the agency’s sights.

Agency Tyranny Page | 29
How HUD’s AFFH Devastates Property Rights

Agency Tyranny Page | 30
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is a term HUD has used for decades. On July 16, 2015, AFFH became the basis for a new rule adding severe strings to housing and urban development grants. These new stipulations shake the very foundation of private property ownership. As important as private property is to individual freedom, most landowners must still balance their rights between those of other members of the community. If your neighbor installs a 450’ tall windmill on his property, it can create noise pollution, increased danger, and reduce the value of neighbors’ home.

That is why local land use and zoning laws are so important. They resolve issues locally to protect both individual property owners and the community. Because these laws directly affect where and how you will live, the value of your home and what it will cost to maintain, it is vital for community members to keep decisions at the local level and to keep a watchful eye over the local officials who make them. HUD is about to change that.

Under their new, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation, if public officials or public housing authorities accept HUD grants that effect fair housing or urban development, your community can lose its control over local zoning and land use, and be forced to join a region, even if that is against your community’s wishes. In some cases, the government can even coerce communities into reversing voters’ decisions.

Agency Tyranny Page | 31
The reasoning behind HUD’s heavy-handedness seems logical on the surface. The Civil Rights Act of 1968, often called the Fair Housing Act, was a follow up to the original 1964 Civil Rights Act. The 1968 legislation was Congress’ response to the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King. The purpose of the Fair Housing Act was to end housing discrimination against minority groups. In HUD’s words, “the Fair Housing Act protects people form discrimination when they are renting, buying or securing financing for any housing.”

Congress passed several Fair Housing related laws. In 1974, Community Development Block Grant program expanded HUD’s role by providing funds for communities to build and restore affordable housing. In spite of the advances in providing affordable housing, by 2013, the Obama administration concluded HUD had not done enough to eliminate America’s “legacy of housing discrimination and segregation.” The President believed that HUD had not been aggressive enough in managing how local communities spend the federal grant money.

AFFH Hidden from the Public Agency Tyranny Page | 32
To address this, in April of 2013 HUD announced its proposal to create a massive new integration plan that would target the recipients of HUD housing funds in over 1200 communities.52 That plan was called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Because of the plan’s political volatility, the administration shielded it from public view for over a year. They withheld the proposal from the spring 2012 Unified Agenda announcement and again from the fall 2012 Unified Agenda. The Office of Management and Budget finally released the proposal to the public on December 21, 2012, during the Christmas holiday, after government operations had shut down. Because of the timing of the release, AFFH received little notice. The administration published the proposed rule in the Federal Register, July 19, 2013 and public comments ended September of 2013. (An additional period of comments ran from January 15, 2015 to February 17, 2015.) HUD received over 1000 comments from supporters and opponents of the plan.

A Tricky Review Process
In spite of the extended comment period, a review of HUD’s responses in the Federal Register reveals that the agency engaged in deceptive assurances to opponents’ concerns.
For example, when commenters wrote, “HUD’s rule is an effort to impede local control on zoning,” the agency replied, “This rule does not impose any land use decisions or zoning laws on any local government.”

Agency Tyranny Page | 33
However, HUD reverses their assurance several paragraphs later when it states the agency will “assist recipients to adjust their land use and zoning laws to meet their legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.” In other words, it is technically true that HUD does not impose new zoning laws themselves; instead, they “obligate” you to impose them.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is not a HUD grant. Rather, it adds additional requirements to what you can and cannot do with funds received from other HUD grants. The effected grants are :
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
• HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)
• Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG)
• Housing Opportunities with Persons with Aids (HOPWA)
It is vital for public officials, community members, and especially property owners, to understand that a recipient’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing does not stop with the grant money.

According to the Fair Housing Planning Guide, The recipient’s strategies and actions “will be accomplished primarily by making investments with federal and other resources.” Attorneys Allen, Relman, Dane and Colfax explain : “Although the grantee’s AFFH obligation arises in connection with the receipt of Federal funding, its AFFH obligation is not restricted to the design and operation of HUD-funded programs at the State or local level. The AFFH obligation extends to all housing and housing-related activities in the grantee’s jurisdictional area whether publicly or privately funded.”

Agency Tyranny Page | 34
If your community accepts a HUD grant to build affordable housing and a private citizen donates money to improve the parks in your community that private money falls under the affirmatively furthering fair housing obligation.

HUD’s Fair Housing Assessment – Instrument of Coercion
As mentioned earlier, under AFFH, HUD can force your community to alter your land use and zoning laws, overturn voters’ decision and coerce your community into joining a region. Here is how the coercion occurs. Under HUD’s new rule, it is no longer sufficient for communities who accept AFFH related grant money to refrain from discrimination. They must take ‘meaningful actions” to end it. According to the ruling, grant recipients must take… “proactive steps to address the issues of segregation and related barriers, particularly as reflected in racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty.”

To assure recipients take these steps, HUD requires grant applicants to complete an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) as part of the application process. This assessment replaces the older Assessment of Impediments (AI) and requires far more community data. HUD estimates completion of the form will require approximately 200 hours, though some communities claim it can take substantially longer.

Agency Tyranny Page | 35
Completion of the AFH involves a house-by-house analysis of community data including race, ethnicity, and concentrated areas of poverty, Limited English Proficiency, persons with disabilities and more.

Next, the AFH requires a full listing of community resources. These include “proficient” schools, jobs, transportation, housing, parks and recreational activities.

Finally, you will itemize any barriers that could make it harder for protected groups to access the community resources. HUD even provides a list of 40 barriers, or “contributing factors” recipients must agree to reduce or eliminate to qualify for the grant. Some “contributing factors” are as commonplace as community opposition to affordable housing; your community’s current zoning laws, or the failure of your community to cooperate with a region. HUD not only expects you to remove these barriers, they expect you to find and resolve even more. “Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about disparities in access to opportunity in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics.

The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of disparities in access to opportunity.”  Allen, Relman, Dane and Cofax make it clear that HUD expects applicants to identify all impediments experienced by all protected classes, and must keep records of this analysis:

Agency Tyranny Page | 36
“– Whether created by public or private sector, impediments must be analyzed
“– Impediments may include actions or policies that discriminate on the basis of protected class, whether by way of intentional discrimination or disparate treatment
“– A recipient is not excused from such an analysis by identifying the “greatest” or “most challenging” impediment; it must analyze everything it finds”.

HUD expects recipients to do more than complete the AFH. They expect deep community participation. According to HUD’s directions…III. Community Participation Process
1. Describe outreach activities undertaken to encourage community participation in the AFH process. Identify media outlets used and include a description of efforts made to reach the public, including those representing populations that are typically underrepresented in the planning process such as persons who reside in areas identified as R/ECAPs, persons who are limited English proficient, and persons with disabilities.
2. How successful were those efforts at eliciting community participation?
3. Summarize all comments obtained in the community participation process. Include a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons why.

Agency Tyranny Page | 37
In addition, the new Assessment of Fair Housing has other serious effects. Douglas County CO, has received HUD CDBG for years. They strive to be inclusive and a model of the type of community HUD desires.62 However, when the county first reviewed HUD’s Assessment of Fair Housing Tool, commissioners were surprised at what it contained.

Castle Rock, Co, a town in Douglas, seeing the restrictions, rejected the HUD grant money for 2016. Meanwhile, Douglas County conducted a thorough review of the Tool and concluded HUD’s Assessment of Fair Housing will “negate the county’s rights” and “seriously hamper our ability to…manage local affairs...” They noted that organizations such as NACo, NAHRO, NACCED, and NCDA submitted concerns during the initial 60day comment period (ending November 25, 2014) that went largely unaddressed.

“The Tool does not clearly define the intent of what it means to affirmatively further fair housing. “The information and definitions provided are vague, subjective and therefore open to interpretation.” “After reviewing the contributing factors identified in the Tool we find many to be contradictory in nature. Addressing one contributing factor may actually create barriers to furthering fair housing in another contributing factor.” 64

Agency Tyranny Page | 38
Setting the Table for a Civil Rights Lawsuit
HUD expects you to invite civil rights advocates, affordable housing developers, community development organizations and any interested members of the public, to participate in identifying potential areas of discrimination. In completing the AFH, each contributing factor you identify is a potential area of discrimination. You are identifying potential discriminatory areas side-by-side with the very civil rights and activist groups most inclined to sue your community for discrimination. It is hard to impress enough how effectively the mere process of applying for these AFFH related funds sets the table for a costly civil rights lawsuit.65

Coercing Communities to Join a Region
Throughout the Assessment of Fair Housing Tool, HUD mentions the word regions over 70 times. This is for good reason. Though HUD never says as much, by creating your required plan to remove the contributing factors to discrimination, you are automatically self-annexing into a region. Here is how it happens. Applicants must use HUD’s own data tables, and their jurisdictional and regional trend maps to design your plan to remove the barriers and create an “integrated and balanced lifestyle.”66 (HUD does allow applicants to provide their own data, but must approve it first.) Agency Tyranny Page | 39 /click?u=ec7f192a872c6e5829dbbc97e&id=2c865c1a5b&e=49a2c9e532