Stanley Kurtz is expanding on the facts about Obama’s disdain of suburbs and suburbanites. How dare we move out of ugly, dangerous urban environments. It’s common knowledge that we move to the suburbs for only one reason: to make life doubly miserable for those who stay. It’s just how we are – cruel, hateful bitter clingers who move our guns and our religion to areas where we hopefully won’t have a need for our guns, and where we can practice our religion without getting gunned down on the way to church.
Obama’s plans to undercut the political and economic independence of America’s suburbs reach back decades. The community organizers who trained him in the mid-1980s blamed the plight of cities on taxpayer “flight” to suburbia. Beginning in the mid-1990s, Obama’s mentors at the Gamaliel Foundation (a community-organizing network Obama helped found) formally dedicated their efforts to the budding fight against suburban “sprawl.” From his positions on the boards of a couple of left-leaning Chicago foundations, Obama channeled substantial financial support to these efforts. On entering politics, he served as a dedicated ally of his mentors’ anti-suburban activism.
The alliance endures. One of Obama’s original trainers, Mike Kruglik, has hived off a new organization called Building One America, which continues Gamaliel’s anti-suburban crusade under another name. Kruglik and his close allies, David Rusk and Myron Orfield, intellectual leaders of the “anti-sprawl” movement, have been quietly working with the Obama administration for years on an ambitious program of social reform.
The Gamaliel Foundation might sound familiar to you from the “Hear Our Prayer, Obama,” “Deliver us Obama,” chant, where the Prophet Jeremiah is quoted (no, really) (see the video below).
One of the founders of Gamaliel, Gregory A. Galluzzo, and ex-Jesuit priest, met with Barack Obama “on a regular basis” during the creation of this Gamaliel – a Black Liberation Theology – Saul Alinsky-ACORN-Community Organizing at it’s worst-based group. At the same time, Obama was creating the Developing Communities Project. This was before Obama entered Harvard Law School. In the words of Galluzzo: (see video below)
When Barack decided to go to Harvard Law School, he approached John McKnight, a professor at Northwestern and a Gamaliel Board member for a letter of recommendation. When Barack was leaving he made sure that Gamaliel was the formal consultant to the organization that he had created and to the staff that he had hired.
Barack has acknowledged publicly that he had been the director of a Gamaliel affiliate. He has supported Gamaliel throughout the years by conducting training both at the National Leadership Training events and at the African American Leadership Commission. He has also attended our public meetings.
Back to the Stanley Kurtz article:
In July of 2011, Kruglik’s Building One America held a conference at the White House. Orfield and Rusk made presentations, and afterwards Kruglik personally met with the president in the Oval Office. The ultimate goal of the movement led by Kruglik, Rusk, and Orfield is quite literally to abolish the suburbs. Knowing that this could never happen through outright annexation by nearby cities, they’ve developed ways to coax suburbs to slowly forfeit their independence.
One approach is to force suburban residents into densely packed cities by blocking development on the outskirts of metropolitan areas, and by discouraging driving with a blizzard of taxes, fees, and regulations. Step two is to move the poor out of cities by imposing low-income-housing quotas on development in middle-class suburbs. Step three is to export the controversial “regional tax-base sharing” scheme currently in place in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area to the rest of the country. Under this program, a portion of suburban tax money flows into a common regional pot, which is then effectively redistributed to urban, and a few less well-off “inner-ring” suburban, municipalities. Please, read it all here.
Mike Kruglik (mentioned above), long considered a Barack Obama mentor is also involved with Metropolitan Equity or CORE (Conversation on Regional Equity). This article claims that a photo of Kruglik and Obama was scrubbed from the Building One America website because of Kruglik’s Metropolitan Equity (another name for Social Justice) connection – perhaps seen as uncomfortable for Obama with an election looming.
Irony: The Ford Foundation is funding CORE, which hopes to kill off the use of automobiles.
On the Building One America website sidebar, I don’t yet see Building One Oklahoma, but I do see Building One Pennsylvania, Building One Colorado and Building One Ohio.
Those of you enjoying your Rocky Mountain high. Watch your backs.
Quote from Building One Pennsylvania: Building One Pennsylvania’s mission is to build the capacity to take collective action in order to advance an agenda of social inclusion, sustainability and economic growth.
Inclusionary Housing or IH is an effective policy that at its core is very simple: It is a use of the “police powers” that are reserved to the states under the tenth amendment…Inclusionary Housing legislation requires or creates incentives so that affordable housing is provided as part of the development of the community, often as an integral part of the local zoning laws or land use plan…
State and local land use policy must be influenced by Federal policy to promote competitiveness, efficiency in the use of federal funding, environmental protection, and access to opportunity;
Much of this sounds tailor made to Agenda 21’s Sustainable Development, which is working to downsize everything you have, inside and outside of your own home. Key word: Sustainability. Watch the zoning laws in your area. Take note of what your local newspaper reports, who got a zoning provision and who didn’t (if you can still stomach your local rag – I can’t mine). What suburban areas lost public transportation?
What is Sustainable Development?
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.
Social Equity (Social injustice)
Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.
Agenda 21 and Private Property
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.
“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.
I am seeing a tie to Agenda 21 to the death of suburbia as a possibility. Stanley Kurtz is not making that assumption, and I’m simply noting the creepiness of it all.
Where might areas be that are considered “unsustainable?” Why, in suburbia of course, such as:
Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.
My state of Oklahoma has one city taking part in Agenda 21, the most conservative city in the state, my city, Tulsa. OK-SAFE website says this:
The following comparison clearly shows the goal of Smart Growth (Sustainable Development) is to severely curtail automobile use and to reduce the foot print of Human habitation on the landscape. This type of planning is characteristic of Socialist central planning ideology and should be rejected by people desiring Freedom and private enterprise.
The Kurtz article comes from from the point of his book Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities. The National Association of Scholars writes about the book and it’s “thesis,” and says the book:
…is not likely to be a campus bestseller. Some 88 percent of contributions from faculty members to candidates in the 2008 presidential election went to Obama and estimates of the percent of voting faculty members who voted for him range from 80 to 92 percent. Though some of the ardor for Obama has cooled, he remains far and away more popular on campus than Mitt Romney. Moreover, books arguing that Obama is committed to leftist policies receive an especially chilly reception from the left-leaning professoriate. The storyline they generally prefer is that Obama is a pragmatic centrist.
Kurtz’s provocative thesis is that under bland-sounding labels such as “regionalism” and “Building One America,” Obama has laid the regulatory groundwork for curtailing the political autonomy and the economic vitality of the nation’s suburbs. He traces Obama’s animus against the suburbs back to his days as a community organizer and traces the community organizers Obama worked with in the 1980s and 1990s forward to their participation in White House meetings during Obama’s presidency.
Does this not clearly fit with making life in the suburbs not nearly so nice, not nearly so safe, and not nearly so productive, because it may be impossible to do business in or near a surburban area? Or keep your children safe? The wicked continue their march on civil society. Many thanks to Janet Meyerhoff Blaze, my FaceBook Friend.
Gamaliel Foundation: “Deliver us Obama” (video)