Written by Robert Knight

President Trump caused a stir in July when he issued an order terminating some Obama housing policies aimed at killing off the suburbs.

“The [Democrat] plan is to remake the suburbs in their image so they resemble the dysfunctional cities they now govern,” he wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal column jointly authored with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Benjamin Carson. “As usual, anyone who dares tell the truth about what the left is doing is smeared as a racist.”

Outraged Democrats called the president a racist.

The rule he overturned, Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) program, would “abolish single-family zoning, compel the construction of high-density ‘stack and pack’ apartment buildings in residential neighborhoods, and forcibly transform neighborhoods.”

Meanwhile, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are doubling down. Their plan, costing $640 billion over 10 years, would unleash a tsunami of social engineering.

As the Biden website proclaims, “Housing is a right, not a privilege.”

Everybody needs a home, no doubt about it.  The question is how best to ensure liberty and encourage home ownership while still making sure the poorest have a place to live.  America’s “safety net” of welfare and public housing provides minimal needs, but it’s also created a permanent underclass of fatherless families. The Democrats’ war on marriage was tailor-made to create a dependent, Free Stuff Army.

Once-thriving cities have huge areas where it’s not safe to go even in the daytime. Newly elected Democrat district attorneys financed by George Soros have abandoned the “broken windows” method of curbing crime and are reaping the whirlwind.  BLM mobs are still rioting.

It’s no secret why millions of people, including minorities, have moved to the suburbs. They want a safer, better quality of life.  But the Democrats, motivated by extreme environmentalism and political ambitions, want to force urban patterns on the burbs.

Mr. Biden says he is going to ensure that “every American has access to housing that is affordable, stable, safe and healthy, accessible, energy efficient and resilient, and located near good schools and with a reasonable commute to their jobs.”

That’s sweeping. Maybe he should ask the Communist Chinese how to go about achieving this. They move millions of people around to where they want them.

The Biden scheme includes expanding the Community Reinvestment Act.  That was the Bill Clinton/Barney Frank law forcing banks to issue mortgages to people who could not afford them.  It triggered the collapse of the stock market and the Great Recession.

So, now Mr. Biden wants to apply it “to mortgage and insurance companies.”  This would create more ways to pressure lenders to issue toxic mortgages.  If only we had some experience as to how this sort of thing turns out.  Maybe Mr. Biden could get Barney Frank to run it.

The sneakiest part of the Democrat housing plan is to use zoning laws to end suburbia as we know it. “It will be as if America’s suburbs had been swallowed up by the cities they surround,” social anthropologist Stanley Kurtz wrote recently in National Review.

“They will lose control of their own zoning and development, they will be pressured into a kind of de facto regional-revenue redistribution, and they will even be forced to start building high-density low-income housing.”

Are all those suburban moms who supposedly are going to vote Democrat in November listening?

Some jurisdictions are already going down this road.  In January, Minneapolis, where the city council has also decided to disband the police department, became the first major city to ban zoning for single-family homes.

“Our landmark 2040 Comprehensive Plan helps advance those goals by tackling our city’s long history of exclusionary zoning,” Mayor Jacob Frey exulted.

Mr. Frey, if you recall, was shocked that he was shouted down by rioters during his foray into the war zone that BLM and Antifa created in the wake of George Floyd’s death.  He refused to say he would defund the cops, but did bemoan a “systemic racist system.”

This guy is doing his best to turn Minneapolis into a mob-ruled version of Stalingrad. You’d think the mob would show more gratitude.

Minneapolis is not alone.  In 2019, the state of Oregon banned single-family zoning in cities with more than 10,000 residents.

In California, a pending bill would require California cities and counties to permit duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes on residential land zoned for single-family homes.  Take that, Orange County! Wait. Ballot harvesting swept Democrats into power in the formerly conservative bastion. Maybe never mind.

Senate Bill 50, sponsored by San Francisco Democrat Senator Scott Wiener, has been endorsed by the leftist mayors of Oakland, Sacramento, San Jose, and San Francisco.  Wonder if a fourplex will rise someday behind Nancy Pelosi’s mansion?  She could wave to the neighbors while scarfing down some of that $12 a pint ice cream from her giant freezer.

As for the Democrats’ lust for power over housing, letter-to-the-editor writer Roger Ruvolo put it this way in the Wall Street Journal:

In the Democratic vision of the future, antireligious automatons will live in small ‘multifamily’ units stacked sky high next to bus or train stations.

This election is no more about President Trump than it is about Vice President Biden; it’s about freedom, or not.

Robert Knight is a Townhall contributor. You can follow him on Twitter at @RobertKnight17 and his website is roberthknight.com.

Retiring open homosexual U.S Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), has told the Washington Blade that the 15-member panel of the Democratic Party platform committee unanimously approved language calling for the unraveling of marriage via support for same-sex marriage. This is an historic policy shift that is in disagreement with the views of many Democrats.

Ironically, the platform will be voted upon during the party’s convention later this summer in North Carolina, the 32nd state adopt a marriage protection amendment that seeks to give the next generation the best shot at having both a mom and a dad.   Many observers believe that President Obama’s admission that he supports the undefining of marriage, and now this liberal platform plank, will cost him that state this fall.   Democrat support of homosexual marriage will hand those electoral delegates to Mitt Romney who understands that men and women are different and therefore both are vital, irreplaceable components of the family.

This position is also causing enthusiasm problems for the President among African-Americans who for decades have seen the devaluing of marriage and its negative implications throughout their communities.   Other segments of Democrat voters, particularly those with a faith basis or heritage, may also have problems with this move against traditional family values.

The Obama administration is clearly taking a gamble that this platform move will generate more campaign money from homosexual activists and campaign enthusiasm among liberals.   The risk is that it will alienate too many marginal Democrat voters and independents. 

Episcopal Church

The Episcopal Church has lost its collective theological mind. On Monday, July 9, 2012, the Episcopal Church General Convention voted to add the terms “gender identity and expression” to its anti-discrimination canon. That’s seems at minimum  odd because God clearly discriminates against cross-dressing.

What this means is that those who choose elective body mutilation (i.e., “sex reassignment surgery”) and cross-dressing can be ordained within the Episcopal church. Those who reject the sex that God has assigned them and who reject Scripture on cross-dressing and marriage and church leadership will now be teaching in churches.

Ironies abound, including the tragic irony that while Christ beckons children to come to Him, “trans-inclusive” Episcopalians will make church a place where children should not go.

Barney Frank

The arrogant U.S. Representative Barney Frank now has the dubious distinction of being the first member of Congress in the history of the United States to “marry” someone of his own sex. Frank also has the dubious distinction of having been reprimanded by the U.S. House of Representatives for fixing 33 parking tickets for the male prostitute whom Frank hired and housed in his home.

Frank recently pouted in an interview that none of his Republican colleagues had publicly congratulated him on his nuptials. He acknowledged private kudos from a few Republicans and hearty congrats from many Dems. Shame on anyone for congratulating Franks for his participation in a sham marriage that contributes to the further erosion of the institution that stands at the center of civilized public life.

Penguin Sexual Antics

The BBC is reporting  that a detailed account of the sexual activities of adelie penguins written by biologist George Murray Levick, who was part of Captain Scott’s expedition to the South Pole in 1910, has just been made public. This report reveals that adelie penguins were seen engaging in “sexual coercion, sexual and physical abuse of chicks, non-procreative sex,” sex with penguin corpses, and homosexual acts.

Much ink has been spilled about the children’s picture book And Tango Makes Three, which tells the heartwarming tale of purportedly homosexual penguins Roy and Silo who hatched a chick together.  They were deemed homosexual despite the fact that no one ever saw them engaged in sex.

Much less ink has been spilled—at least in the mainstream press—about the end of this saga. The purportedly homosexual Silo jubilantly celebrated by homosexual activists is now ex-gay, having been transformed by the alluring female Scrappy who sashayed into his life.

The larger question that Levick’s South Pole account brings into focus is, should we really be looking to the animal kingdom for our ideas about human morality?

And let’s pray that there are no picture books based on the penguin antics described by Dr. Levick.

Pride Parades

Parents who take their children to parades that celebrate deviant sexuality (aka “gay pride” parades) with obscene public behavior demonstrate their unworthiness to be parents. Americans for Truth has provided a glimpse into the sordid world of “pride” parades with photos from the recent sorry spectacle in Philadelphia which children of all ages not only attended but participated in.

What kind of government leaders permit and participate in such sickening public displays? What kind of business leaders sponsor and participate in such decadent spectacles? Has their lip-smacking lust for power, position, and money devoured their consciences?

And what kind of darkness clouds the hearts and minds of parents who bring their children to witness such soul-destroying pollution?

Click here to see some of what our business and government leaders think serve the best interests of the Philadelphia community, but be forewarned, it ain’t pretty.

Brad Pitt’s Mom

Jane Pitt deserves our thanks, admiration, and prayers for saying publicly what so few have the courage to say. She sent a letter to her local Springfield, Missouri newspaper in which she stated the unvarnished truth that Barack Obama supports “same sex marriage” and the killing of the unborn.

And how do those who clamor for “equal rights” while denying unborn babies the right to mere existence and who decry name-calling respond to Mrs. Pitt’s respectfully expressed views?  They respond by issuing death threats and hurling hair-curling epithets at Mrs. Pitt. So much for tolerance and diversity.

Please pray for Mrs. Pitt. Pray that God grants her peace, comfort, protection, wisdom, and courage.  And pray that we all, including Mrs. Pitt, remember that Jesus said, “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”

Family “Diversity”

The notion that no one should ever feel bad about their behavior or the behavior of loved ones has proven to be a cultural toxin. In the service of non-discriminating non-judgmentalism, we now have picture books read to children in early elementary school that teach that all family structures are indistinguishable in terms of their inherent goodness. These books proclaim deceitfully that it matters not to the welfare of children whether they’re raised by single parents, divorced parents, or homosexual partners.

Silence in public schools on the topic of “diverse family structures” is not an option for “progressive” teachers who view themselves as “agents of change.” And teaching that intact, married heterosexual parents are best for children would be a grotesque injustice to these change agents. Nope, nothing less than affirmation of all structures will do—well, almost all. It will be at least a year or so before affirmation of polyamorous structures will be demanded.

But, if society is prohibited from saying, for example, that unwed single motherhood or divorce are harmful to children because saying so will make children feel bad, how will society discourage unwed single motherhood or divorce? 

An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruling that gender identity is covered by Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex is being hailed as a ”sea change’‘ by transgender activist organizations. But an attorney for Liberty Counsel Action notes that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was never intended to cover gender identity and the ruling “basically says that a Bible bookstore owner, for instance, could not turn away a homosexual, cross-dressing man, a man who likes to wear a miniskirt and lipstick….”

You may remember Laurie Higgins’ articles identifying Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum, a lesbian activist who became President Obama’s appointee to lead the EEOC.  Laurie pointed out that Feldblum sees the battle between “gay rights” and moral opposition to homosexuality as a zero sum game.  One side will win, and the other will lose.   Feldblum is on record saying: 

“Sexual liberty should win in most cases.  There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”  And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Of course, Feldblum is correct.  Religious freedom and special homosexual so-called “rights” cannot co-exist. 

Passage of nondiscrimination legislation – specific to sexual orientation – has been attempted since 1974 in the U.S. Congress. Currently, several bills promoting ENDA are circulating in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives promoting ENDA.  Homosexual activist and U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is the chief sponsor in the U.S. House. 

Longtime U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) announced on Monday that he would retire after his current term expires in January 2013, leaving an important Massachusetts district open for next year’s election. Several individuals from both the Republican and Democratic parties have expressed interest in the seat.

Frank’s district was redrawn this year after Massachusetts lost a congressional seat following the 2010 census, and he would have to had run in towns and cities where his name had never been on the ballot before. He is also the “co-author of the cumbersome Dodd-Frank bill and the prime mover behind the destruction of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” writes the Washington Times. Frank marks the 17th House Democrat to announce he will not seek re-election, compared with only 6 Republicans, giving credence to the opinion that he does not want to continue to be in the minority party.

Since his election in 1980, Barney Frank has always been one of the most liberal members of the U.S. House of Representatives, championing abortion, as well the homosexual agenda. He was the first person elected to Congress to voluntarily self-identify as a homosexual in 1987, and was formally reprimanded in 1990 for allegations of political impropriety relating to his association with a male prostitute.

In the U.S. House, he was a lead opponent to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and was a vocal advocate for repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that prohibited homosexuals from serving openly in the military. He also worked hard to help defeat the Marriage Amendment in Massachusetts in 2007, and has been an outspoken supporter of legalizing Internet gambling.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) may be voted on in US House this week. Please read this note and take action as recommended. Then please forward this note to everyone you know, and especially to anyone associated with a Christian business, charitable organizations, or religious school!

ENDA would prohibit employers from making employment decisions — such as hiring, promotions and firing — based on an individual’s “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.” While the bill purports to exempt religious groups, it really doesn’t do that. The court has to decide if your purpose is sufficiently religious enough in character.

ACTION: Please tell your U.S. Representative in Washington D.C. to please vote ‘NO’ on ENDA (H.R. 2015)!

ENDA would add gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons to the list of federally protected groups included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This bill would institutionalize homosexuality and other long condemned sexual and social behaviors to a protected right under the law, and it would punish employers, landlords and others who discriminate in any way against such persons.

ENDA will require the accommodation of language, dress and “gestures” by ENDA-covered individuals, including transvestites and others experimenting with their “gender identity” at public facilities that provide services for CHILDREN or whose facilities are frequented by children.

Please contact your Congressman today!

Background

Here is more information about ENDA (H.R. 2015) from our friends at the Family Research Council:

• ENDA affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged.
• The issue is not job discrimination: It is whether private businesses will be forced by law to accommodate homosexual activists’ attempts to legitimize homosexual behavior.
• The first “religious exemption” clause is very narrow and offers no clear protection to church-related businesses: Religious schools or charitable organizations, religious bookstores, or any business affiliated with a church or denomination fall outside this narrow definition, and could presumably be required to hire homosexual applicants. 
• The second “religious exemption” clause fails to offer protection for all hiring by church-related organizations or businesses. The position of a teacher of religion at a church-related school would be exempt, but, e.g., that of a biology teacher would not. Thus, most of the teachers and staff at a religious school would be covered by ENDA, which means that the church would be forced to hire homosexual applicants for such positions-despite the fact that their lifestyle would be in direct opposition to the religious beliefs of the organization or company. 
• It is unlikely that the “religious exemption” included in the bill would survive court challenge: Institutions that could be targeted include religious summer camps, the Boy Scouts, Christian bookstores, religious publishing houses, religious television and radio stations, and any business with fifteen or more employees. 
• ENDA violates employers’ and employees’ Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their most deeply held beliefs into account when making hiring, management, and promotion decisions. This would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people’s lives.
• ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.