tom tancredo Archives - Help STOP Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

Melting Pot Has Been Destroyed by Diversity

Simple introduction by Smith Young: This article exposes how liberals oppose tradition American assimilation while pushing HUD’s AFFH mandate for racial balancing. Once again this liberal logic may sound inconsistent to oppose assimilation on one hand while supporting racial balancing on the other, but it’s consistent with this oppressive Obama government that promotes aggressive diverse enclaves who revel Continue Reading

Smith Young July 13, 2016 Knowledgeable About AFFH assimilation, diversity, tom tancredo 706 Comments

Elevator Speech

AFFH gives FREE federal grant money to the suburbs. But what they don't tell you is that by taking the money, you the suburbs will be forced to gentrify your neighborhoods with low-income racially diverse high density housing.

1) HUD is imposing requirements that go far beyond what the 1968 Fair Housing Act demands
2) Moves high density low income (rental) housing to the suburbs
3) The new rule restricts private choice, local government authority, and the evolutionary history of American residential growth patterns
4) Uses subsidies (block grants) as blackmail against 1,194 targeted U.S. localities
5) HUD grantees must consider statistical data such as education and transportation that are only remotely related to housing
6) Communities threatened with huge legal expenses from allegations by HUD and Civil Rights groups
7) HUD requires racial analysis of demographic data that should instead be colorblind (race baiting?)

Editors Note

The AFFH rule does not do anything for or against discrimination, it merely revamps the planning process of localities applying for grant monies, replacing Analysis with Assessment using the new Tool.
The AFFH rule neither replaces nor extends the 1968 Fair Housing Act
1) We are against discrimination and we do support the 1968 Fair Housing Act
2) We oppose the AFFH rule and it's anti-American implementation of the Supreme Courts decision on "disparate Impact"