Netanyahu Gives Sweden The Heave Ho! Is Hillarious Being Bagged By Her Own Actions? Allen West Comments!

===
An article about our granddaughter's Wall Paper Line:

THE FIND

A New Wallpaper Collection Sure to Inspire the '90s Kid in You

Brooklyn-based illustrator Emma Darvick looked to Nickelodeon and Trapper Keepers for her new collaboration with Chasing Paper.

By Jill Slattery on January 13, 2016

5)
4)

Chasing Paper

Interior design can be a lofty endeavor, but, ultimately, don't we just want our homes to be all that and a bag of chips?

Removable wallpaper gurus Chasing Paper have announced a brand new collaboration with Brooklyn-based illustrator Emma Darvick, who has created a line that is sure to inspire the ‘90s kid in you. The collection, which is offered in four prints in various colors, offer a graphic punch reminiscent of Trapper Keepers and the Saved by the Bell opening theme song.

"It was only after reflecting on my completed collection that I began to notice where the inspiration came from: 90's Nickelodeon TV, middle school binder doodles, and a college crush on Joan Miró,” Darvick says of the collection.

Chasing Paper

Chasing Paper

The best part? Chasing Paper’s removable wallpaper design makes it easy to indulge in your inner Kelly Kapowski without the full commitment of permanent wallpaper. We can definitely picture these playful prints offering a burst of energy to a kids playroom, a guest bathroom, or your home office.

Retailing for $35 per panel, the collection is sold in 2’x4’ panels and can be viewed here.

Chasing Paper

===

This is the type of prisoner Obama released and he has sworn to kill Americans .

How the Sec. of Defense could have signed off on the release of this terrorist thug is beyond me and any logic one can conjure. (See 1 below.)

====

Netanyahu fed up with Sweden's anti-Semitic attitude. (See 2 below.)

===

 Interesting new Naval development: New Navy “Bullet" ...  Cheaper than a missile

http://www.asminternational.org/news/videos/-/journal_content/56/10192/20085491/VIDEO

===

Meanwhile, back to reality. (See 3 and 3a below.)

===

Is Hillary being bagged by her own lack of ethics?  Time will tell.  (See 4 below.)

===

The SIRC's President Day Dinner Speaker, Allen West. comments on Obama's SOTU. (See 5 below.)

===

Obama has a year left and he will attempt , through agency over reach, to accomplish his remaining arrogant agenda, That which he cannot do by executive order he will do by thuggery.After all, this comunity organizer knows what is best for everyone. (See 6 below.)

===

Dick

===========================================================================================

1)

Gitmo 'High-Risk' Prisoner Released; Vows to Kill Americans

Muhammad Abd al-Rahman Awn al-Shamrani is on record as vowing to 'kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan,' if he was ever let go.

America released a recruiter for al-Qaeda from Guantánamo. Muhammad Abd al-Rahman Awn al-Shamrani, 40, considered a “high-risk prisoner” is on record as vowing to “kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan,” if he was ever let go from the prison.

Al-Shamrani, originally from Saudi Arabia, will be transferred back to the desert kingdom.

===============================================

2)  Israel to bar Sweden from any role in future diplomatic process with Palestinians

By HERB KEINON, KHALED ABU TOAMEH, LAHAV HARKOV 

Move comes following Swedish FM comments on 'extrajudicial killings' that infuriated Israel, pleased the PA.

Sweden will not have any role to play in the Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic process as a result of Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom’s hostility toward Israel, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Wednesday.

The statement came as the ministry announced that its deputy director-general for Western Europe, Aviv Shir-On, called in Swedish ambassador Carl Magnus Nesser to protest Wallstrom’s comments.

The decision to summons Nesser was made by Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who directed Shir-On to protest not only the statements, but to register the government and the country’s anger at what they see as Sweden’s imbalance and hostile attitude toward Israel.

Wallstrom on Tuesday called for an investigation to determine if Israel was guilty of extrajudicial killings of Palestinians during the current wave of terrorism. “It is vital that there is a thorough, credible investigation into these deaths in order to clarify and bring about possible accountability,” she said during a parliamentary debate, according to the Swedish news agency TT.

The Foreign Ministry said Wallstrom’s comments indicate that “she does not understand what is happening in our region and is apparently not aware of the difficult situation facing Israeli citizens, and the continuous danger of murderous terrorism.”

Foreign Ministry director- general Dore Gold, speaking to a group from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said that anyone attacking Israel over its right to defend itself from terrorism is “in practical terms encouraging terrorism.”

Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nachshon said Wallstrom would not be welcome to visit Israel. His comments served as a clarification to remarks made earlier in the day by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely who said Israel was closing its door to visits from Swedish officials in the wake of Wallstrom’s words.

Speaking during a tour of Samaria with cadets in the Foreign Ministry diplomatic training course, Hotovely said “Israel was sending in the clearest manner possible a very sharp message to Sweden saying that it is backing terrorism and giving a tail wind to Islamic State to act throughout Europe.”

Wallstrom’s comments were a “bad combination of folly and diplomatic stupidity, and Israel will close its door to official visits from Sweden,” Hotovely said.

Knesset House Committee chairman David Bitan (Likud), meanwhile, called in a letter to Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein for a cancellation of the Israel-Sweden Parliamentary Friendship Group. The letter was also sent to the chairman of the group, MK Eyal Ben-Reuven (Zionist Union).

According to Bitan, Wallstrom “positions the terrorists as victims, thus encouraging hatred of Israel in the world and backing terrorism.”

Ben-Reuven responded that the friendship group will continue defending Israel and explaining what is wrong with what Wallstrom’s comments.

“The Swedish foreign minister’s behavior and statements are very serious.

Israel has a moral army and a strong judiciary. Therefore, Sweden and no other country can involve itself in our internal processes,” Ben-Reuven stated.

He said that because her comments were so harsh, there was a need “to explain ourselves to the Swedish parliamentarians and public, by showing Israel’s stances and why they are just.

We cannot run away from the arena; we must struggle and win.”

The Palestinian Authority, meanwhile, praised Sweden and welcomed the call for an inquiry into Israeli “extrajudicial killings.”

The PA Foreign Ministry called on all countries to endorse “this courageous and humane” position, saying it is aimed at preserving the peace process.

The ministry urged all countries to put aside “political fears” and ignore Israel’s “systematic state terrorism.” It accused Israel of hindering the implementation of international law.

The PA ministry condemned Israel’s “ferocious campaign and political terrorism” against the Swedish foreign minister. It said the campaign was designed to cover up Israeli “crimes” against the Palestinians.

The ministry also condemned Israel for pursuing its “brutal extrajudicial executions” of Palestinians and renewed its call for an investigation into “war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Tayseer Khaled, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, expressed hope that the Arab League secretary- general would visit Sweden as soon as possible to voice support for Stockholm’s “brave political and humane positions.”

In addition, Khaled denounced Israeli opposition figures, such as opposition leader Isaac Herzog, who also came out against Wallstrom’s statements, saying they were “feeding fascist and radical trends” in Israel.

=========================================

3)

The failures Obama forgot to mention

U.S. President Barack Obama, who is now officially a lame duck, wanted an Iranian legacy. He is getting one in spades. Obama wanted a nuclear deal from the Iranians, but instead he is being bamboozled by Tehran.

Boaz Bismuth

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at Baxter Arena in Omaha, Neb., Wednesday |  Photo credit: AP

U.S. President Barack Obama just received his own personal lesson in Iranian ingratitude. Mere hours before his State of the Union address before Congress, a dramatic incident was unfolding in the Persian Gulf. Iran seized two U.S. Navy boats and 10 sailors (among them one woman). The video subsequently released by Iran, of the captive American sailors, on their knees with hands behind their heads, can only be titled one thing -- humiliation. Obama wanted an Iranian legacy. He's getting it in spades. Obama wanted a nuclear deal from the Iranians but is being bamboozled by Tehran instead.

The American president found a great way to address the embarrassing incident during his speech -- he simply ignored it. Those who compare him to Jimmy Carter remember how the Iranians humiliated Carter the appeaser when they released American hostages only after he had left the White House. The Iranians fixed a dose of embarrassment for Obama on the day of his last major speech. That's what happens to appeasers.

Instead of mentioning the incident, Obama described a wonderful American reality. He was a little like the Obama of 2008, the candidate who promised a solution for every problem. Obama is ending just like he began -- instilling hope. Back then, however, it really was promising, because it was just the beginning -- and now it's almost over. The promise was an illusion.

Obama, according to his speech, thinks he was a huge success. That's life when you live it in an alternate reality. The 44th president is convinced that his time in the White House was a success in regards to foreign policy, the economy, social issues, anything possible really. If only Americans felt the same way. The end-of-year polls, including those that appeared in the Obama-friendly New York Times, revealed the exact opposite: Obama's America, the polls say, is not headed in the right direction.

Out in the world, according to Obama, the Islamic State group is not a threat. It may be "dangerous," but America is stronger than ever. Obama apparently forgot he was handed the keys to the strongest superpower on the planet. It goes without saying that only eight years later it would still be the strongest country. One problem, out of several, is that America is "leading" from behind, empowering enemies and weakening friends. The photo of the American sailors, which is an embarrassment to every American ally, is precisely the result of Obama's weak policy toward Washington's traditional enemies.

Just a few hours before Obama's last speech, another Islamic State terrorist attack in central Istanbul killed 10 German tourists. Islamic State, or the "junior varsity" squad as Obama called it, is terrorizing wherever it sees fit. America's friends -- Turkey, France, Germany -- are all taking a beating. But at least Obama is talking about success.

In his speech Obama forgot to mention the red lines he has ignored. He forgot to discuss his helplessness in Syria and also forgot to mention the serious consequences of the migrant crisis (beyond the poor and downtrodden drowning at sea, there are also terrorists and rapist crossing the border).

The Donald Trump phenomenon is disconcerting for Obama. The liberals used to say that George W. Bush was so bad that his polar opposite, Obama, was elected. Perhaps this explains Trump's success in the polls so far? Even Obama admits that Americans are focused not on his speeches but rather on Iowa, where next month the presidential race will begin.

Upon concluding his final State of the Union speech, Obama the swan officially became a lame duck. Actually, he is almost a lame duck. He still needs to stand up and lift economic sanctions from the Iranians. Maybe in his eyes this is the best way to thank them for treating those 10 sailors so well. He and his secretary of state, John Kerry, might just call the incident a diplomatic achievement.

3a) Former Pentagon official (Harold Rhode) to ‘Post': ‘Iran humiliating US with no consequences’

By ARIEL BEN SOLOMON

Photo by: screenshot

Analysis: Did Iran take US equipment? Will it share what it learns with North Korea?

Iran’s capture and release of 10 US sailors demonstrated that “moderates” such as President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif have no real weight, while the real power continues to be wielded by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his hardline allies, such as the Revolutionary Guard, several commentators said Wednesday.

Propaganda videos of the soldiers blindfolded and kneeling released by Iranian media humiliated the world’s superpower and shows that Iran can continue its aggressive behavior with no consequences.

The Obama administration will not allow anything to get in the way of the nuclear deal’s implementation and the lifting of sanctions on Iran, they said.

“Test fire ballistic missiles. Check. Fire missiles near US ships. Check. Torch US ally’s missions. Check. Seize US sailors. Check. Get paid,” tweeted Tony Badran, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Iran’s continued aggressive behavior since the nuclear deal was agreed upon last summer gives it, and other rogue actors, the impression that it can act with a rather free hand.

Such a message must be terrifying to Israel and other US-Arab allies in the region.

Besides the question of whether there was a US apology to Iran, which administration officials deny, it remains unknown whether there was a secret deal or promise that facilitated the release of the sailors.

“Detainment of the US sailors was short, but the IRGC achieved its goal: The IRGC communicated the message to the domestic and the international audience that it calls the shots in Tehran, and humiliated the US,” Ali Alfoneh, an Iran expert and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington- based think tank, told The Jerusalem Post.

Harold Rhode, a distinguished senior fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute and a former adviser at the Pentagon, told the Post that much of the equipment on the US boats was probably previously unavailable to Iran.

“Did Iran take US equipment? Will it share what it learns with North Korea, Russia and China?” “There is no concept of good will in the Middle East,” said the former Pentagon official.

The fact that until to now the US has not reacted on numerous issues – such as Iran’s testing of a ballistic missile in October in violation of a UN Security Council resolution and the firing of rockets near US naval ships – “demonstrates America’s weakness to Middle Easterners,” Rhode said.

“This is another case of America demonstrating that it is an unreliable ally and a harmless enemy,” he added.

“In the Middle East, when people smell weakness, they pounce,” said Rhode.

“Most amazingly from the Iranian point of view,” he continued, “is that they captured these sailors right before Obama’s State of the Union speech, and the president didn’t even mention it.”

“Did the Iranians do that on purpose to further humiliate Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry? From an Iranian cultural point of view, the answer is yes!” exclaimed Rhode.

This is a huge win-win situation for Iran, he continued, as Iran gets US advanced technology, it humiliates America, and it gives the US administration – so desperate to implement the unsigned Iran-US nuclear agreement – the excuse to say that Iran is cooperating with the US as a result of the agreement.

“A grand-slam for Iran, and a huge defeat for the US. Now Iran can continue advancing its ultimate goal of gaining nuclear weapons,” said Rhode.

Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Pentagon official, told the Post the incident benefited the IRGC and other hardliners.

“They humiliated the United States. They received a groveling apology. They broadcast photos of the captured Americans.”

Rubin recalled a similar incident involving the UK in 2007, and how the photos and footage of the detained sailors made their way into the campaign commercials of former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“To credit diplomacy for their release is like giving a slap on the back to an arsonist who started a fire and then wants credit for putting it out,” said Rubin.

=============================================================
4)

The Clinton Mail Baggage

Are Hillary’s ethics behind the Bernie Sanders surge?

Hillary Clinton has taken to attacking Bernie Sanders in the wake of polls showing the Vermont socialist is beating her in Iowa and New Hampshire. The fascinating question is how much Bernie’s comeback is related to his message, and how much to the continuing doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s honesty and thus her ability to win in November.

The former Secretary of State wants voters to believe that her private email server scandal is old news, but every month brings new evidence that she put state secrets at risk in order to hide her emails from the public. The slow public release of new emails commanded by a judge, combined with an expanding FBI probe, may be making Democratic voters wonder if they should nominate such an ethically challenged nominee.

The latest cache hit Friday when the State Department released 1,262 more of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. That dump contained another 66 emails deemed classified, which means State has now discovered some 1,340 instances of the nation’s top diplomat handling sensitive material on an unsecure server—including spy satellite information and the name of at least one confidential CIA source. Given that we know Mrs. Clinton’s server was the target of attempted hacks, this is grossly negligent behavior.

Mrs. Clinton’s assurance that none of these emails were classified “at the time,” and that she always handled such material properly, also looks to be undercut by one recently released message. In a June 17, 2011 email thread, aide Jake Sullivan tells Mrs. Clinton that he can’t get her certain documents she wants because “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax.” Mrs. Clinton appears to direct Mr. Sullivan to ignore protocol and send the information by insecure methods. “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she wrote.

The State Department says it can find no proof the information was sent. 

On CBS ’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, Mrs. Clinton said she was only requesting the transmittal of information that was “unclassified.” You can believe this if you choose, but there is no documentary evidence that she made this classified versus unclassified distinction to Mr. Sullivan. There is evidence of the former Secretary of State instructing an aide to ignore security procedures that State presumably had in place for a reason.

The State Department’s inability to find a record of transmittal counts for little, given that State has proven incapable of tracking the private email accounts of employees, or even locating and producing documents requested in Freedom of Information Act requests. Last week the State Department Inspector General skewered the department for giving “inaccurate and incomplete” answers to groups seeking Mrs. Clinton’s records.

IG Steve Linick included the example of State in 2013 telling an outside group that it had no information about Mrs. Clinton’s use of private email for public business, though “dozens of senior officials throughout the Department” knew about it. State has its own interest in hoping the email issue goes away.

Meanwhile, Fox News reported Monday that three intelligence sources say the FBI has expanded its email probe and is now looking at the “intersection” between Mrs. Clinton’s State Department business and her Clinton Foundation work. Mrs. Clinton told the Des Moines Register that “there is nothing like that that is happening” at the FBI, but the question is how Mrs. Clinton would know. The FBI rarely alerts subjects on the details of its probes.

Voters may get more insight into this “intersection” this spring now that State has belatedly and begrudgingly agreed to process and release the personal emails of Mrs. Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, who appears to have been the nexus between Mrs. Clinton’s official and nonofficial duties.

The Clintons are banking that most of the media will continue to ignore the email scandal. Democratic elites and their media allies have invested their hopes for 2016 on Mrs. Clinton’s electoral inevitability. Mr. Sanders’s latest polling boomlet is a message that many rank-and-file Democrats are having second thoughts.

=============================================================

5)

State of the Union Address

By Allen West

President Obama’s final State of the Union address was 59 minutes in length and brilliantly delivered.

Now, the bad news.

My technique is to not watch Obama speak but rather read the speech or have it on in the background and focus on the words. My assessment is that Obama spoke much about nothing that is pertinent to where we find ourselves today in America. His defined policy objectives were criminal justice reform, heroin abuse, our immigration system (meaning amnesty for illegals), gun violence, equal pay, paid leave, and raising the minimum wage.​

.President Obama talked about giving everyone a "fair shot" at opportunity in a new economy. First of all, who defines what a "fair shot" is? It appears that this is just more coded language for government-guaranteed equality of outcomes. The “every kid gets a trophy mentality” is not what America is about. That ideology is what gave us Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, and eventually, the financial crisis and meltdown. Government decided that it was their mandate to give a "fair shot" to everyone who wanted to buy a home, and it did not end well. Government works best when it creates the policies that advance individual sovereignty so individuals may pursue their own defined dreams, the pursuit of happiness. Anything else, as we have seen and as President Obama champions, is antithetical to who we are.

Somehow, President Obama failed to address the 40-year low workforce participation rate and the fact that more Americans have been dropped from the workforce under his "fair shot" policies. Obama said nothing about a national debt that threatens the future of America. The poverty and food stamp rolls have exploded in these past seven years. That is not the best of America. It is certainly not the best that we can do. We must grow this economy and we can do so, along with reforming government spending, and eliminating crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

Obama's vision of the future is centered on an ideological agenda that puts in peril the hopes and aspirations of our children and grandchildren. They will have less economic freedom and certainly less liberty if the Islamic terrorists prevail.

I have additional concerns from President Obama's final SOTU address. First of all, if our military was so very strong then why did we have 10 U.S. Navy Sailors detained by the Iranians because the engines on two riverine assault boats malfunctioned? That makes no real sense to me. Nor have we taken care of our Veterans. I wear a ring on my salute hand trigger finger to remind me about the 22 Veterans a day who are committing suicide in America. While we know there are problems in our VA system, no major reform has been made and many perpetrators of this heinous wrong still hold their positions.

Obama said nothing about the Taliban's resurgence and their hold on more territory than any time since 2001. It was just last week that the Taliban had an American Special Forces team trapped in Helmand province, yet Obama cannot bring himself to refer to this as "combat." Obama's own former acting CIA Director Mike Morrell testified Tuesday during a House Armed Services Committee that ISIS affiliations have grown far more Al Qaeda’s and that they comprise a legitimate strategic threat to the world and our homeland. There was no mention of ISIS’ most recent attacks in Baghdad and Istanbul. Again, Obama just could not bring himself to say Islamic terrorists or jihadists. In Obama's mind, they are just “killers and fanatics,” and shutting down GITMO will reduce their recruiting efforts. No, Mr. President, your fecklessness and exhibited weakness emboldens ISIS and their allies which are growing from Boko Haram in Nigeria to Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines. Obama asked for Congress to vote on an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) but first we need a strategic plan to defeat ISIS. He could have articulated that but chose more lofty rhetoric and lecturing instead.

Russia has expanded and is in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. China is building manmade islands by destroying reef systems and landing planes on these islands. Where are the environmentalists? China is also about to open up its first military base in Africa in Djibouti, as we have announced we are departing. The Iranian nuclear deal is a failure and has only served to empower and fund the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism. Iran is now exploiting their new-found strength and becoming a regional hegemony. Hence, the very open schism between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

President Obama talks about "protecting the American people" yet we had the biggest Islamic terrorist attack since 9-11 on his watch, San Bernardino. Before that it was Ft. Hood. And in the U.S., the enemy attacks our men and women in uniform with impunity, such as at the Naval Reserve Support Facility in Chattanooga. In the last week, we have arrested former refugee ISIS supporters in Sacramento and Houston. And who can forget the video of the horrific attempt to assassinate Philadelphia Police Officer Hartnett by an admitted Islamic jihadist. The American people are kind and willing to open up our arms to embrace those fleeing persecution, such as the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Coptics, and Yazidis, but those were not mentioned by President Obama. What the American people will not allow is what is happening in Germany and the rest of Europe. We will not allow a war on our women, as we are seeing there due to a clash of civilizational values, principles, and morals.

I can only wish that President Obama saw the enemy for who it is, and not the ideologically driven “threat” of climate change.

I, too, believe we should work together for the greatness and exceptionalism of America. However, telling people that "I have a pen and a phone" is not “working together.” It is ruling by edict. Our system of governance in this Constitutional Republic is about separation of powers, coequal branches of government, and checks and balances. It is about rallying support based upon the strength of ideals deeply rooted in the fundamental principles of this Nation. If we want to secure a better future for America, that must emanate from a government that respects the constraints of the Constitution at the federal level. We need to have a government that will be fiscally responsible and value our defense. The government must respect the sovereignty of the individual thereby empowering individual economic success, achievement, investment, innovation, and ingenuity. Those are the ingredients of a strong, free enterprise economy. And lastly, it is about the preeminent responsibility of the federal government to provide for the common defense.

I truly believe the greater days of America are ahead. Those will come, not from speeches enshrined in lofty rhetoric, but from a restoration of the American Republic. It will come from recommitting to the foundational principles that make America the greatest nation the world has ever known. Sadly, last night we got lots of optics and more talk and not a lot of substance.

=======================================================
6)

AFFH-world comes to Iowa

In discussing the radical implications of President Obama’s “Affirmative Furthering Fair Housing” rule (AFFH), I typically point to what happened in Westchester County, New York as a sneak preview. But Stanley Kurtz directs our attention to an even more chilling example — Dubuque, Iowa.

In Westchester County, Obama’s Department of Housing and Urban Development forced the local government to build low-income housing in an upscale community and to encourage people outside the County to move into these units. This struck me as radical, considering that moving people from jurisdiction to jurisdiction is a hallmark of totalitarian governance.

In Dubuque, however, the feds have taken this one step further. It is forcing the city to build low-income housing for folks in Chicago, Illinois.

Kurtz cites a report by Deborah Thornton, a policy analyst for Iowa’s Public Interest Institute:

The report tells the story of how Dubuque was pressured to cede large swathes of its governing authority to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has forced the city to direct its limited low-income “Section 8” housing resources, not to its own needy citizens, but to voucher-holders from Chicago.

Dubuque has plenty of needy citizens. As Kurtz points out, unlike Westchester County, it is not an upper-middle-class suburb, but rather a small and economically struggling city:

At $44,600, median income in Dubuque is well below the state median of $51,843. Like other nearby Mississippi river towns with aging populations, Dubuque is hard-pressed to provide good jobs and decent housing for the low-income people already there: poor families with children, retired elderly, and disabled adults.

The city’s priority is to revive its economy by keeping its young people from moving away, and by attracting new residents who are willing and able to start businesses. Like any city, Dubuque’s first obligation is to see to the needs of the citizens who already live there, vote, and pay taxes. Or so it was in pre-AFFH America.

In AFFH-America, the federal government forces Dubuque to provide low-income housing for Chicago residents. Unlike, say, an elderly Dubuque resident, the folks from Chicago have never paid a dime of taxes in Dubuque. Their only claim on Dubuque’s resources is their low-income status and, of course, their race. In other words, they have no legitimate claim.

How, then, did they obtain the right to move into Dubuque housing units ahead of Dubuque residents? Kurtz explains:

Our story begins about eight years ago. Just as Dubuque was reeling from the effects of the 2008 recession and dealing with an uptick in its own low-income housing needs, the city was hit with a wave of “Section 8” low-income housing voucher applicants from Chicago. A few years earlier, Chicago had systematically demolished its most drug- and crime-ridden high-rise public housing facilities, using grants from HUD. Yet through its own mismanagement, Chicago had failed to properly replace its now depleted low-income housing stock, leaving many Chicago residents looking to use their Section 8 vouchers elsewhere.

With many more Section 8 applicants than it could house, Dubuque instituted a low-income housing point system granting preference to Dubuque residents, county residents, state residents, and out-of-state residents, in that order. [Note: What could be more reasonable?] Although HUD’s rules ostensibly allow localities to craft their own housing priorities, Dubuque’s point system was deemed unacceptable by HUD. The feds undertook a review of Dubuque’s housing policy that effectively treated the city as part of greater Chicago.

That Dubuque is 200 miles from Chicago and in a different state was no obstacle to the Washington bureaucrats at HUD. To them, race trumps geography (and everything else):

[B]y effectively treating Dubuque and Chicago as part of the same “region,” HUD was able to declare Dubuque’s low-income housing point system discriminatory. Since the vast majority of Section 8 applicants from Chicago were African-Americans, Dubuque’s preferences for citizens of its own city, county, and state were deemed racist. HUD insisted that Dubuque would have to admit housing applicants in conformity with the demographics of the larger (HUD-defined) region.

How did HUD make its disregard of geography, common sense, and the right of local self-government stick?

Having previously accepted HUD funding through the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program, as well as HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program, Dubuque was formally obligated to “affirmatively further fair housing” in whatever way HUD defined that obligation. Refusal to submit to HUD’s dictates would have led to the withdrawal of federal funding, a lawsuit for supposed discrimination, or both.

The cowed elected officials of Dubuque accordingly signed a “voluntary” (in truth, forced) consent agreement that effectively ceded control of the city’s housing policy to HUD for at least five years.

This is why Kurtz is calling for a nationwide campaign to persuade local officials not to accept HUD money. It’s a deal with devil for any locality that wishes to preserve its right of self-governance. As Kurtz points out:

The feds have essentially commandeered Dubuque to solve Chicago’s public housing shortage. HUD’s diktat also imposes a huge administrative burden on Dubuque, with monthly, quarterly, annual, and five-year plans to be filed and followed up on. (Yes, a “five-year plan.”) Having “voluntarily” consented to a federal takeover, Dubuque is now obligated to follow HUD’s every command for at least five years.

And this is what’s in store for the rest of the country under HUD’s AFFH rule. How unfortunate that Speaker Ryan caved on the Gosar Amendment that would have defunded AFFH.

To my knowledge, no GOP presidential candidate has injected AFFH into the race, despite its radical application in Iowa, where the first rest of candidate strength will occur very soon.

In fairness, Marco Rubio sponsored an equivalent of the Gosar Amendment in the Senate, and I’m told that Ted Cruz is aware of, and concerned about, this issue. It’s time, though, to push the matter into the presidential race. The upcoming GOP debate wouldn’t be a bad time for candidates to lay down a marker.