When the census taker came to our door, we told them how many adults of voting age lived in the home, period. They then had the nerve to send someone back to pry us for more information, and our hotline was flooded with calls from people who claimed they were being threatened with fines for not answering.
The number of adults of voting age is the only legal purpose for taking a census. We ignored any follow up questionnaires, such as the invasive “American Community Survey” which arrived later, and landed straight in the trash. Others, fearful of being fined or even jailed, filled them out.
The American Community Survey wanted to know things like race, employment, miles driven to work each day, food grown on the property and what was done with it, how many bedrooms the home contained and what they were used for.
None of this is any of the government’s business, mind you.
A friend was asked to fill out a government-sponsored survey regarding women in business. It sounded voluntary and promised confidentiality, but then claimed there would be a $500 fine for anyone who refused. We also noted in the fine print that the results would be shared with private “groups” that were not even legitimate government entities, but “advocacy groups”.
Small farmers in NH have also told us the number of surveys they have been asked to fill out has increased dramatically.
In case you have not figured it out by now, these surveys from the feds are part of a system used to justify government overreach and control over your local affairs. In keeping with the global agenda, the “data” collections are used to back support for one new rule or another. These sources of are often cited within many master plans we have seen, plans that are cooked up by regionalists in order to impose the federal government’s will on your town.
The latest laughable item on the list of things the United Nations wants to control is your happiness. That’s right, how are you feeling?
Author James Bovard might be surprised to know that the United Arab Emirates has already set up a Minister of Happiness. The UN has lately been measuring the world’s happiness, and had even put out this report in 2015.
Don’t believe it? Don’t take our word for it, NPR has written up a story about the UAE’s new apointee for a job which sounds like it came straight out of Orwell’s 1984.
If you are a reader of this website you are aware that we have been calling attention HUD’s new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Act which hopes to engage in the process of promoting and funding with federal money, the integration of neighborhoods viewed as too homogeneous or too wealthy, by virtue of new zoning rules.
Once you arrive at this AFFH tool, you can set the parameters to give your own area a look. We did, and we were shocked to discover that when we zoomed in on our area, we could see the blue dot representing a black family that lives nearby. (For the record this writer’s neighborhood is very diverse, with immigrants from Ireland, Pakistan, Germany, Poland, Korea and Japan living nearby. Like us, they worked for what they have, no government entity had to forcibly include them.)
Stanley Kurtz has a website dedicated to AFFH issues…
AFFH.net: How HUD Hustles Communities
http://affh.net/2016/02/01/how-obamas-hud-hustles-dubuque-and-other-virgin-communities/
This is not just a USA problem, but is happening everywhere. This came from Australia:
https://www.freedomadvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ASIO-UN-Complaint.pdf
Next time the census comes knocking or you receive that 28-page survey in the mail, think twice about giving out too much information.
Our friend John Anthony from Sustainable Freedom Lab and Property Value Defense had this to say about HUD grants:
Many communities are so used to routinely receiving HUD grants, they miss the severe dangers under the new AFFH rules. In this issue PVD dispells three common myths about why it is still ok to accept HUD grants.
Busting 3 Myths of Accepting HUD Grants
Q. In your presentation, you mentioned HUD took legal action against Westchester and Marin Counties because they did not affirmatively further fair housing. You also mentioned several other HUD enforcement actions against fund recipients. I do not see how any of this applies to us. We are not a wealthy community like those mentioned and we have always been in compliance with HUD.
A. Failure to affirmatively further fair housing refers to disparities between classes of people in all communities, not just the very wealthy. For example, fund recipients are required to take “meaningful actions” that “address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.”
Consider what it now means to “be in compliance” with HUD’s above definition. Your community must abide by the federal agency’s demands in return for the grant funds. Typically, this would seem reasonable. But, AFFH is not typical. HUD uses broad terms and never clearly defines what they mean by “affirmatively furthering fair housing.” What happens if HUD requires your town council to pass zoning regulations your community members overwhelmingly oppose? This happened in Rockford, IL. Some jurisdictions were forced to market in nearby communities to “import” minorities against the will of the current residents. The results are often community members pitted against one another amid lawsuits and legal threats.
In past years, HUD grant demands were less of an issue. There was less rigid enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, and communities had greater leeway to honor local concerns. Under AFFH, there are three key changes:
• One, HUD now has a legal enforcement mechanism they seldom used before.
• Two, the HUD secretary warned recipient communities that the agency will strictly enforce requirements.
• Three, HUD continues to expand their role into entire community social areas and “adult outcomes” that are well beyond affordable housing.
To apply for HUD grants today, believing it will be ‘business as usual’ could be a catastrophic mistake. HUD engaged in more legal actions in 2011 than in the entire preceding decade. And they are accelerating. With the agency’s hazy definitions and aggressive legal actions, communities can be compelled to alter voters’ decisions, change zoning and land use rules and join a region, all against their community’s wishes.
Q. I have checked HUD’s interactive maps and we do not have concentrated areas of poverty in our jurisdiction. Should we still be concerned about accepting a HUD CDBG grant?
A. Yes, you should. While eliminating R/E CAPs is important and laudable, HUD’s new rule requires communities to go further. They must take “meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”
It is no longer sufficient to avoid actions that lead to discrimination. All fund recipients are required to take actions to stop discrimination.
Q. Isn’t our town better to keep doing as we always have, rather than reject HUD funds and raise red flags? Sometimes it is better to fly under the radar rather than rock the boat.
A. There is no way to “fly under the radar” with the AFFH rule. Grassroots and legal advocates enforce HUD’s compliance at the local level. For example, one of the grant application requirements is to invite civil rights groups and grassroots organizations to participate in defining potential areas of discrimination.
In addition to the normal legal vulnerabilities, easy wealth provides a perverse incentive for participants to bring lawsuits against communities that apply for AFFH funds.
In the Westchester vs HUD case, a small non-profit operated by a husband and wife team, Greg and Lori Gurian charged the NY county with falsely stating they were affirmatively furthering fair housing. Westchester lost the case and the Gurians walked off with $7.5 million for their trouble. In Baltimore, HUD complainants received $150,000 for reporting possible AFFH violations to the agency.
According to civil rights attorney Michael Allen, AFFH “provides a foundation on which civil rights and [legal] advocates can build anti-segregation campaigns at the local level.” AFFH works best in communities “where grassroots and legal advocates mobilize and create their own enforcement strategies.”
If you receive AFFH covered funds, you defy HUD at your community’s peril.
Property Value Defense helps your community understand the severe consequences accompanying AFFH. If you know of any community members, officials or municipal attorneys interested in joining our group, please feel free to forward this update.)
So we have to ask, in addition to dictating who can live where and how, will the census bureau help the government to round up homeschoolers, patriots, gun owners, gardeners, or others they see as dangerous to the state when push comes to shove?
We shall see.
