Palaces & Packing Crates

[Flanders]

Crime-ridden inner-city housing projects are palaces compared to this:

Those who grew up under communism are familiar with the Soviet style, mass movement of entire villages to high density urban areas.

Social engineers had decided that land was better used in co-operative farms owned by the communist government. Private homes located on farm land were bulldozed and people were moved into densely populated cities with grey concrete apartments of 400-500 square feet, mushrooming practically overnight. They could not build them fast enough. Often it necessitated moving two families into a 600 square feet apartment, sharing the kitchen and the bathroom.

XXXXX​

In this country, city planners who oppose urban sprawl and begrudge the average 2,300 square foot homes as environmental destroyers of the planet, have designed and built living units of 140-200 square feet, called aPodments in Sammamish, Washington. Resident Judy Green “shares the kitchen with seven other tenants on the second floor.” To get to her loft cubicle, she must climb six flights of stairs. Because of non-existent global warming, cars and elevators are not allowed. The “micro-units” are smaller than a hotel room and rent for $600-900 per month. I checked with my favorite hotel chain - their average hotel room is 375 square feet. The average jail cell is 6 feet by 8 feet.

The “eco-progressives” use local government zoning to impose their ideas of “sustainable urbanism,” “sustainable communities,” and “equitable communities,” by changing the counties’ desired low density character and scale to high-density crime-ridden slums.

In Fairfax County, Virginia, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission are crafting a plan to place Lilliputian slum dwellings in every area of the county. The Residential Studio Units (RSUs) will have a total surface of 220-320 square feet. Each high-rise will contain 75 such units and one parking space per unit.

XXXXX​

“Social engineering is on the verge of being imposed on entire neighborhoods,” said Rush Limbaugh in a brilliant tirade. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will dismantle local zoning and force people to move into certain areas in order to achieve what they consider “racial, economic, and ethnic diversity.” This is “nationalizing neighborhoods” on a grand scale for our “own good and to achieve utopia.” By obliterating zoning regulations, we will have neighborhoods by government quota. (Rush Limbaugh EIB monologue, September 12, 2013)

I always forget to list HUD as one the most of the most destructive Communism-oriented federal bureaucracies. I suspect that HUD has plans to build smaller packing crates for the homeless, too.

Cramming Americans into tiny living spaces to appease environmental freakazoids makes me wonder if HUD coordinates its activities with the EPA’s agenda?

Most Americans have never heard of such tiny dwellings, love their spacious homes, and are not remotely aware that they are an intricate part of a larger plan of social engineering people off the land, out of suburbia, and into inner cities.

It is certainly not the new American dream; it is the new forced reality as envisioned and carefully planned by the elite’s UN Agenda 21.

Does anyone want to argue that the EPA is NOT a de facto United Nations agency implementing the UN’s environmental agenda?

Or argue that the people in the final excerpt do NOT provide the UN’s environmental muscle at the same time they are creating crowded conditions in our cities with tens of millions of illegal aliens and millions more to come:

Has anyone seen any influential people, CEOs, wealthy people, politicians, actors, Hollywood producers, radio and TV mouth pieces, lobbyists, corporatists, crony capitalists, who advocate that we live in spaces slightly larger than a jail cell and drive tin cans, give up their large mansions and multiple homes around the world, their jets and yachts?

The New American Dream: A Lilliputian Home
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh July 12, 2014

The New American Dream:* A Lilliputian Home​

If you happen to be a little slow on the uptake —— NO —— is the answer to Dr. Paugh’s question. Here’s another question:

How come Democrats do not preach class and economic warfare against those people?

NOTE: The media —— owned and controlled by the people Dr. Paugh cites —— puts the number of illegal aliens at 11,000,000. That number has not changed in more than a decade if you believe the amnesty crowd. My guesstimate is 20,000,000 and growing daily. Granting amnesty to 11,000,000 illegal aliens sounds a lot better than 20,000,000.

Finally, the evil gunslinger who was the Terror of Tiny Town in an entertaining movie has been replaced by Socialism's ideology. The UN does not need a gunslinger. Tiny town itself is terrifying and not the least bit entertaining:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Pehsws6QYEo]The Terror of Tiny Town - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Crick]

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will dismantle local zoning and force people to move into certain areas"

And how, exactly, do you expect them to do that?

 

[Flanders]

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will dismantle local zoning and force people to move into certain areas"

And how, exactly, do you expect them to do that?

To Crick: The same way the EPA and every federal bureaucracy does things; with regulations and/or executive orders.

 

[mamooth]

Your kook paranoia threads are getting boring. You need something new and fresh.

 

[boedicca]

Poor lil mamooth, so reality challenged.

The same housing trend is occurring in San Francisco and Oakland. The empty land in the inner Bay Area is largely off limits to development, so the only choice is higher density.

Both cities allow micro apartments. I think the SF limit is 220 sq ft; Oakland has one project with units of 174 sq ft (the size of a shipping container). Such rentals units are targeted at young techies who want to live close to their offices and get all of their meals at work. They are basically long term hotel rooms.

 

[Crick]

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will dismantle local zoning and force people to move into certain areas"

And how, exactly, do you expect them to do that?

To Crick: The same way the EPA and every federal bureaucracy does things; with regulations and/or executive orders.

Using regulations and executive orders (from the president), HUD will force people to move into certain areas?

Using eminent domain, the government can force people to move OUT of a given area, but they do NOT have the power to force anyone to move anywhere they do not wish to go. See Article Four of the US Constitution. Your contention here is paranoid, fantasy nonsense of the first order.

 

[Flanders]

Using regulations and executive orders (from the president), HUD will force people to move into certain areas?

Using eminent domain, the government can force people to move OUT of a given area, but they do NOT have the power to force anyone to move anywhere they do not wish to go. See Article Four of the US Constitution. Your contention here is paranoid, fantasy nonsense of the first order.

To Crick: You and your kind cite the Constitution the same way atheists quote the Bible. Conservatives can cite the Constitution because they want it upheld, but nobody defending anything a Democrat or a federal bureaucracy does should use the Constitution to defend the very people who are hellbent on abolishing it.

 

[Crick]

Using regulations and executive orders (from the president), HUD will force people to move into certain areas?

Using eminent domain, the government can force people to move OUT of a given area, but they do NOT have the power to force anyone to move anywhere they do not wish to go. See Article Four of the US Constitution. Your contention here is paranoid, fantasy nonsense of the first order.

To Crick: You and your kind cite the Constitution the same way atheists quote the Bible. Conservatives can cite the Constitution because they want it upheld, but nobody defending anything a Democrat or a federal bureaucracy does should use the Constitution to defend the very people who are hellbent on abolishing it.

I am more than a little fond of the US Constitution. Feel free to take your alternate opinion and shove it up your ass.

 

[mamooth]

Poor lil mamooth, so reality challenged.

Yet I'm not the claiming the government will be forcing people to move into tiny apartments.

The same housing trend is occurring in San Francisco and Oakland. The empty land in the inner Bay Area is largely off limits to development, so the only choice is higher density.

And given that's nothing new, exactly what prompts you to agree with Flanders that it's a great socialist conspiracy?

Both cities allow micro apartments. I think the SF limit is 220 sq ft; Oakland has one project with units of 174 sq ft (the size of a shipping container). Such rentals units are targeted at young techies who want to live close to their offices and get all of their meals at work. They are basically long term hotel rooms.

Those cities are just allowing small apartments to be built. They're not forcing anyone to build them or buy them. People will only build them if there is a demand for them in the free market. It's a removal of unnecessary regulation and a victory for the free market. No wonder it upsets poor Flanders so much.

 

[Kosh]

Your kook paranoia threads are getting boring. You need something new and fresh.

The irony of those comments from an AGW cult member..

 

[Kosh]

Using regulations and executive orders (from the president), HUD will force people to move into certain areas?

Using eminent domain, the government can force people to move OUT of a given area, but they do NOT have the power to force anyone to move anywhere they do not wish to go. See Article Four of the US Constitution. Your contention here is paranoid, fantasy nonsense of the first order.

To Crick: You and your kind cite the Constitution the same way atheists quote the Bible. Conservatives can cite the Constitution because they want it upheld, but nobody defending anything a Democrat or a federal bureaucracy does should use the Constitution to defend the very people who are hellbent on abolishing it.

I am more than a little fond of the US Constitution. Feel free to take your alternate opinion and shove it up your ass.

Says the one who voted for Obama twice..

 

[Flanders]

I am more than a little fond of the US Constitution. Feel free to take your alternate opinion and shove it up your ass.

To Crick: Are you fond of the US Constitution Taqiyya the Liar despises and Ginsburg thinks is obsolete? or is it the US Constitution Tea Partiers are fighting to save?

​

Notice that Taqiyya the Liar is now changing your Constitution, and laws, unilaterally irrespective of his stated support for legislative change:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM]2001 Obama WBEZ Interview Redistribution Wealth Warren Court - YouTube[/ame]​

Since you claim fondness for the US Constitution, I assume you agree with Taqiyya the Liar’s interpretation of the Constitution —— every Democrat does.

 

[SSDD]

And how, exactly, do you expect them to do that?

To Crick: The same way the EPA and every federal bureaucracy does things; with regulations and/or executive orders.

Using regulations and executive orders (from the president), HUD will force people to move into certain areas?

Using eminent domain, the government can force people to move OUT of a given area, but they do NOT have the power to force anyone to move anywhere they do not wish to go. See Article Four of the US Constitution. Your contention here is paranoid, fantasy nonsense of the first order.

What do you think happens to lower middle class and poor rural folks who earn a living in a nearby city when regulations force fuel prices up to the 5 or 6 dollar per gallon range or more?

 

[SSDD]

Using regulations and executive orders (from the president), HUD will force people to move into certain areas?

Using eminent domain, the government can force people to move OUT of a given area, but they do NOT have the power to force anyone to move anywhere they do not wish to go. See Article Four of the US Constitution. Your contention here is paranoid, fantasy nonsense of the first order.

To Crick: You and your kind cite the Constitution the same way atheists quote the Bible. Conservatives can cite the Constitution because they want it upheld, but nobody defending anything a Democrat or a federal bureaucracy does should use the Constitution to defend the very people who are hellbent on abolishing it.

I am more than a little fond of the US Constitution. Feel free to take your alternate opinion and shove it up your ass.

Fond in theory perhaps, but I have never met a lib who would actually want to live under a government that followed it....ergo the living document meme.

 

[Flanders]

What do you think happens to lower middle class and poor rural folks who earn a living in a nearby city when regulations force fuel prices up to the 5 or 6 dollar per gallon range or more?

To SSDD: Their primary goal is support for the government middle class. No matter how high prices rise the parasite class simply raises taxes and their tax dollar incomes.

Fond in theory perhaps, but I have never met a lib who would actually want to live under a government that followed it....ergo the living document meme.

To SSDD: Exactly so. And they even adjust the theory to suit the needs of the moment! Ergo, their theory is a living conjecture.

 

[Flanders]

The balloon should say: “And with just a wave of my Constitution I can make you all citizens.”

 

[Crick]

To Crick: You and your kind cite the Constitution the same way atheists quote the Bible. Conservatives can cite the Constitution because they want it upheld, but nobody defending anything a Democrat or a federal bureaucracy does should use the Constitution to defend the very people who are hellbent on abolishing it.

I am more than a little fond of the US Constitution. Feel free to take your alternate opinion and shove it up your ass.

Fond in theory perhaps, but I have never met a lib who would actually want to live under a government that followed it....ergo the living document meme.

Where do you think I and the 150 or so million Americans to your political left DO live? I have served this nation and its Constitution for the majority of my adult life, asshole, a good part of it in uniform and at risk of life and limb. What have you been doing that makes you think you know what motivates me?

PS: I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...[it] will be said it is easier to find faults than to amend [the Constituion]. I do not think...amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly.[12][13]

---Thomas Jefferson

 

[Flanders]

What do you think happens to lower middle class and poor rural folks who earn a living in a nearby city when regulations force fuel prices up to the 5 or 6 dollar per gallon range or more?

To SSDD: It gets better:

Americans have to pay more for electricity and compete for fewer jobs because of President Obama’s regulatory curbs on fossil fuels at home, even as their tax dollars support expansion of those same energy sources abroad.

XXXXX​

At the same time, the administration pressed for reauthorization this fall of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal agency that offers billions of taxpayer dollars for development of fossil fuels in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Mexico and other countries.

In effect, Heritage Foundation policy analyst Diane Katz says, the Obama administration is “imposing a hefty energy tax on Americans” while “subsidizing fossil-fuel projects in foreign countries.”

How U.S. Taxpayers Subsidize Fossil Fuels in Russia, Saudi Arabia While Being Penalized at Home
Kevin Mooney / July 14, 2014

The Daily Signal: Policy News, Conservative Analysis and Opinion​

 

[mamooth]

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Therefore, I _must_ oppose SSDD and Kosh and Flanders. Such action is not optional for me, my oath makes it mandatory.

 

[Flanders]

Where do you think I and the 150 or so million Americans to your political left DO live?

To Crick: Illegal aliens are not Americans, although liberals count them as such whenever they throw numbers around. Your 150 million is even more suspect when you phrase it conservatives versus liberals. Polls consistently show that liberals come in around 20 percent of the adult population.

I have served this nation and its Constitution for the majority of my adult life, asshole, a good part of it in uniform and at risk of life and limb. What have you been doing that makes you think you know what motivates me?

To Crick: Whenever a liberal wraps himself in the flag, I always wonder if they were conscientiously fighting to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic as their oath of service requires, or if they were fighting for the United Nations. They certainly objected to defending the Constitution by fighting against Communist expansion in SE Asia, and the only reason they might have fought in Korea was because it was a United Nations Police Action.

PS: I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...[it] will be said it is easier to find faults than to amend [the Constituion]. I do not think...amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly.[12][13]

---Thomas Jefferson

To Crick: Your clever little combination of T.J. quotes was unnecessary. Of the many, many, things T.J. said he did recognize the need for a mechanism to amend the Constitution:

Let us go on perfecting the Constitution by adding, by way of amendment, those forms which time and trial show are still wanting. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX​

Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide a mode of amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall have manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the nation. In some of our States it requires a new authority from the whole people, acting by their representatives, chosen for this express purpose, and assembled in convention. This is found too difficult for remedying the imperfections which experience develops from time to time in an organization of the first impression. A greater facility of amendment is certainly requisite to maintain it in a course of action accommodated to the times and changes through which we are ever passing. Thomas Jefferson

There is no way in hell Americans, or T.J., meant the Constitution should be amended to give parasites access to the public purse so they could fund a welfare state, yet that is exactly what Democrats did to the country without passing one constitutional amendment.

Amending the Constitution is the only say Americans have in the laws they live under. The fact is: Socialists know that they cannot implement their ideology by amending the Constitution; so they do it through the Courts, and with unconstitutional legislation. That has not been working out of late; so Taqiyya the Liar amends the Constitution unilaterally with EOs, bureaucratic regulations, or simply not enforcing laws he disagrees with. He goes so far as pervert his oath of office:

US Constitution, Article II​

Section 1
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Taqiyya faithfully executes the New World Order’s anti-America sovereignty agenda. When he is called out on it he says he is faithfully executing the office of president. The only way to cut through his doublespeak is to think 1984: “War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

Parenthetically, the XVI and XVII Amendments were not ratified according to many. Regardless of the evidence this never went anywhere but it’s worth mentioning:

On Thursday, Jan. 18, Bill Benson of Illinois filed suit in the Oklahoma County District Court to secure a judicial determination that the second Oklahoma Legislature didn't ratify the Sixteenth Amendment as Congress proposed it in 1909 and as it appears in the U.S. Constitution today. At a meeting held subsequent to the Capitol rally, Oklahoma citizens charted a course to promote a resolution that will be presented for consideration of the current Oklahoma Legislature.

Benson will shortly file a parallel suit in California then a third in Kentucky or Tennessee. The theory is that if three of the 38 states that allegedly ratified the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 or before confirm that legislatures of their respective states did not ratify the Sixteenth Amendment, the so-called income tax amendment will be left in the lurch. In 1984, Benson secured documents from capitols of the 48 states that participated in the ratification process. The documents prove that very few of the state legislatures that allegedly endorsed the Sixteenth Amendment between 1909 and 1913 actually approved it.

According to Devvy Kidd, spokesman for The Wallace Institute, initiatives relating to the Seventeenth Amendment will follow shortly on the heels of the Sixteenth Amendment initiative. Under the original Constitution, U.S. Senators were elected by state legislatures. The Seventeenth Amendment changed the process by switching the Senate to direct electoral process by the people, thereby nullifying state representation in Congress and opening the door to what Kidd described as a raft of treaties that in the last century compromised American sovereignty and solvency. Benson documented Seventeenth Amendment irregularities simultaneous with his Sixteenth Amendment research.

Subject: SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT RALLY The Income Tax is Illegal.

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT RALLY​

Finally, on the one hand Democrats invented a living Constitution while they scream “settled law” out of the other side of their hypocritical mouths. Example: Roe v. Wade is settled law after a mere 40 years, while more than 40,000 and counting gun control laws says the Second Amendment is not settled law after more than two centuries. Hell, Democrats cannot repeal an amendment they don’t like let alone get one ratified.

Bottom line: Settled law is obviously not a living thing, yet it is not subject to repeal like laws or constitutional amendments if you believe Democrats.