×

Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu




Listen to it Button

RUSH: Do you remember the name Stanley Kurtz? Stanley Kurtz is a writer of books, writer of columns and essays at National Review. Stanley Kurtz is a guy who has… He’s not been monolithic, but he’s had one focus point above all others when it comes to Obama that he has attempted to alert people to, and that is Obama’s intention to destroy the suburbs. He’s written a book about it, maybe even two, a number of different articles.

We’ve quoted from some of them here. His belief is that this is one of the things that Obama is doing — and it’s under the radar. Nobody else is really talking about it, other than Kurtz and those citing his work. But it’s one of the things Obama is doing that will be a legacy thing that will survive along after Obama’s gone. It’s happening under the radar, and nobody knows, and it is a fundamental ingredient to Obama’s transformation of America.

The one thing you have to understand about liberals is they hate suburbia. They despise it. They despise suburbia ’cause of who lives there. They despise suburbia ’cause it exists. They despise suburbia because there’s no mass transit. They despise suburbia ’cause it’s a lot of cars and SUVs and soccer moms destroying the planet by climate change. But mostly they despise it because it’s liberty and freedom. And then the third reason they despise it is, it’s people that used to live in the cities.

But they grew tired of living in the cities because they became jungles and hellholes and whatever else. So they decamped. This has taken place over generations, and people have moved to the suburbs, and they have established communities out there to get away from what they thought were deteriorating cities. And people like Obama think that’s not fair. It’s not fair some people should be able to leave and go to wealthy suburbs, and, meanwhile, the city dwellers — the urbanites — have to stay there. “Not fair! Not fair!”

So what Obama’s doing with Housing and Urban Development and all kinds of regulations is basically demanding that developers in suburbia build housing for people that can’t afford it, right next door to people who can obviously afford it and have afforded it and have built houses and have built developments, retail and residential. Obama’s plan is to make any future development, and even current ones, change. If they want to make any changes whatsoever, they have to also build affordable housing, no-income housing, low-income housing.

Therefore move some inner-city dwellers who can’t afford it out to suburbia. It’s a form of payback, and there is a story about this in the New York Post today not by Stanley Kurtz, but Paul Sperry writing in the New York Post has picked up on this. “Obama’s Last Act Is to Force Suburbs to Be Less White and Less Wealthy — Hillary’s rumored running mate, Housing Secretary Julian Castro, is cooking up a scheme to reallocate funding for Section 8 housing to punish suburbs for being too white and too wealthy.”

Now, this may be Julian Castro, but this all started with Obama.

“The scheme involves super-sizing vouchers to help urban poor afford higher rents in pricey areas, such as [New York’s] Westchester County, while assigning them government real estate agents called ‘mobility counselors’ to secure housing in the exurbs. Castro plans to launch the Section 8 reboot this fall, even though a similar program tested a few years ago in Dallas has been blamed for shifting violent crime to affluent neighborhoods.” It’s exactly what happens. It’s by design! It’s payback for people that move to the suburbs from the city.


It basically is transferring that which they left to where they now live. “It’s all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs. … Castro last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse even Section 8 tenants with criminal records.” This is no different, except it’s actually a deeper scale. It’s no different… (interruption) You better believe it. It’s already happening. Dallas was a proving ground. It was judged to have worked by virtue of the…

(interruption) You have to bring them into your neighborhood, and you have to build housing that’s so-called affordable for them to live right next to the people in whatever neighborhoods. However you want to describe ’em, affluent or whatever. Yeah, it’s by design and on purpose. They tried it in Dallas, and the crime rate skyrocketed with the introduction of people with no jobs, and it was judged to be a success. So now they’re doing it in Westchester County, which has long been a test-market.

It’s not new. It’s just being written about here for the first time in the New York Post. “Castro last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse even Section 8 tenants with criminal records.” We told you about this last week. You have to rent to somebody — we’re gonna get rid of, in fact, the term “criminal” and we’re gonna get rid of the term “felon.” This will facilitate them being hired by mandate or given affordable so-called places to live by mandate. And this is gonna survive long after Obama’s out of office, unless somebody does something about it. It’s happening under the radar.

Look, on a deeper scale, it’s no different than you run a bakery and somebody walks in, “I’m getting married, I’m gay, I want you to bake a cake.”

“Sorry, not our values.”

“Okay, fine, we’re going to sue you and put you out of business.” You’re a photographer, same thing. “We’re having a gay wedding, we want you to take pictures.”

“Sorry, religious beliefs say I can’t do that.”

“Well, you’re gonna pay, we’re gonna sue you out of existence.” Same thing here. If you will not permit Section 8 tenants, felons and so forth, with criminal records to move into your neighborhood, we’re gonna sue you. This is “I hope he fails.” This is the chip on his shoulder, everything I’ve said here, America as the problem, America as flawed, morality flawed since the founding, payback time.

Folks, when statists are in control there’s something that’s a universal truth, undeniable truth. Statists, socialists, communists, what have you, when they are in control, one of the first orders of business is always to punish those who have done well without government. They must be made examples of. They have to be stigmatized so that others don’t try it. And favors are bestowed upon those who are dependent on government. This is exactly what I said last week. This is the Regime getting all their ducks in a row before Obama leaves office.

This is how — I’ll use the word “pollute,” others might say corrupt — this is how Obama is gonna leave his fingerprints on America after he’s out of office. They’re getting all their ducks in a row. This is gonna add up to economic damage. It’s gonna add up to declining property values. It stigmatizes successful people. But, more importantly, it conditions people. If you are dependent, and if you have what you have because of government, you’re fine, you’re great, you’re a model citizen. But if you’ve gone outside that, if you are a success independently, then you’re gonna be targeted and you are going to be stigmatized, you’re gonna be punished, you’re gonna pay a price for it.


The Democrat Party today wants to punish people who have prospered under capitalism, under the premise it’s unfair and they got lucky, as Obama told the people at Howard University. They didn’t do nothing, they got lucky. And there’s no reason — this is the flaw with capitalism, you see. It’s not because of merit or success. It’s luck, it’s connections, and since not everybody has luck and connections, the people who do are gonna pay a price for it. People that prospered under capitalism are corrupt. People who prospered under capitalism have done so unfairly and it’s time to level the playing field, so to speak.

This is what the Democrat Party today is, this is what progressivism is about. And the plan here is meant, this plan for Westchester County and Dallas, this plan is meant to trickle down so that most everybody is in a state of poverty or just north of it, and the largest asset that most people have, their home, falling in value under threat or fear of violent crime in the neighborhood. It is a targeted punishment of capitalist success stories. The only ones exempt are those that donate to the Democrat Party. There will be obvious exceptions for certain neighborhoods, say, in southern California. Westchester County elected a Republican county executive, remember?

So this story in the New York Post, which Stanley Kurtz has been warning about for years now, is all about how Obama and Hillary’s rumored vice president, Julian Castro, are going to force — Congress is not involved in any of this, by the way. This is more regulation from Housing and Urban Development, faceless, nameless bureaucrats, bringing inner city dwellers into your suburban neighborhood. It’s already been established by government’s own studies to be disastrous for everybody, what happened in Dallas, but that’s not gonna stop them from doing it anyway because that’s the objective, when you get right down to it.

They don’t care. They don’t care about the circumstances of people; they care about having power over people. We’ll link to this story, RushLimbaugh.com. Koko, put all the other things by Kurtz, Stanley Kurtz, K-u-r-t-z, that we have mentioned on previous broadcasts, link to those in a segment here over what Obama intends for suburbia or the suburbs.


BREAK TRANSCRIPT

The guy who wrote this New York piece I just quoted from, Paul Sperry, is author of a book called The Great American Bank Robbery, which exposes the racial politics behind the subprime mortgage crisis. This is where the government mandated that banks lend money, mortgage money, to people that they knew couldn’t pay it back, because it was the American dream and home ownership, the Democrat Party, wanted to make sure everybody had a home, even those who couldn’t afford it.

Folks, it’s been so much, the assault on this country has been so steady and so consistent that nobody’s been able to get their hands on it ’cause every day it’s something new to react to. The outrage just recycles, but it never focuses on anything because it never stops, but it should have. The last seven and a half years, there should have been exactly the kind of anger and outrage that’s being directed at the Republicans and at Trump, should have been every day directed Obama and Hillary. I know, media. I know all the reasons why. It doesn’t matter. We did. We expressed it here.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This