Vanguard News Network

As sick and degenerate as the ‘Kwa has become, I think this idiotic lawsuit will eventually be tossed out of court. Liberal ZOG judges, you see, love the idea of abusing their authority to force integration down Whitey’s throat. BUT, since those same judges live in small, affluent communities like Winchester a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor would mean the judges would have to allow spics and spooks to move in next door. And we certainly can’t allow that to happen, eh, your honor?

In the Westchester County NY case, the propaganda in favor of the supposed “desegregation” is to tell other Whites that we are all Liberal millionaires cruising around in limos and living in mansions, and that we therefore “deserve” to be punished. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Westchester lost most of its big corporate employers in the 90s, and the targeted towns are comprised of ordinary middle-class communities. As far as I know, we don’t have any major celebrities in Westchester at all, unless you count Hillary. If you were to drive through the county and look at these little towns, you would be shocked at the difference between reality and the Hollywood image of Westchester. Believe me: underemployment is rampant, young people are fleeing high taxes and the poor job market, the cost of housing is enormous, and most of us are struggling to get by.

Another argument they use to turn other Whites against us is that we supposedly should have known better than to accept fed funds.

Westchester County applied for and received funds from the Office of Housing and Urban Development. As Westchester’s former deputy commissioner of planning, Norma Drummond was responsible for producing the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) which was a requirement for accepting these HUD funds; however, there was no requirement that the AI even be written down. Surely, the County is “analyzing” such problems continuously.

Cote. page 5:

The HUD Guide informed grantees that “AIs are not to be submitted to, or be approved by, HUD. However, HUD could request submission of the AI in the event of a complaint or as part of routine monitoring.

The accusations against Westchester County are based on contrived distinctions between terms such as “fair” and “affordable.”

Cote, p. 15:

Given the evidence ADC [Anti-Discrimination Center] adduced, including the HUD [Housing and Urban Development] Planning Guide, the training materials [Norma] Drummond received, and the internal County Planning Department memoranda, all of which informed the County that failing to analyze race appropriately was a violation of its AFFH obligations, a reasonable fact-finder could find that the County acted in knowingly or in reckless disregard as to the falsity of its certifications.

Drummond did not actually analyze race directly; rather she made the reasonable assumption that in this county income could be used as a proxy for race. No federal agency or representative made any objection to this approach.

Drummond’s main assertion was that the biggest obstacle to minorities obtaining “fair” housing is that the cost of housing in the County is so high.

Cote, page 10:

A review of the 2000 and 2004 AIs demonstrates that they were conducted through the lens of affordable housing, rather than fair housing and its focus on protected classes such as race. Both AIs are devoted entirely to the lack of affordable housing in the County and related obstacles. While the AIs specify that lack of affordable housing is the “greatest” impediment to fair housing, a determination that affordable housing is the greatest impediment does not absolve the County from its requirement to analyze race-based impediments to fair housing.

Cote disagrees with Drummond’s assertion, and then claims that Drummond’s AI was not really an AI simply because Cote herself disagrees with Drummond’s analysis.

Ms. Drummond was set up. The feds led her to believe that she was only applying for money to which the county was rightfully entitled, then gave her instruction materials that were as clear as mud, and after offering no objection to her analysis, years later they attack her conclusion that affordability is an impediment to housing with the above convoluted verbiage about the meaning of the word “fair” and so forth.

And, these malicious and specious arguments against the county were accepted in a federal court. Does anyone really believe that justice was served?

I grew up in CT and lived there for 15 years.

There are generally two types of neighborhoods in CT – white or minority.

The white towns are generally clean and attractive while the hispanic and black neighborhoods are dirty and ugly.

Bridgeport and New Haven were once nice white areas but now that these cities are full of muds the crime rate is way up and areas get run down.

I use to take a train from the southeast part of the state to near New York. I would have to change trains halfway on the trip. The first half of the trip was a train carrying all whites essentially, and it was perfectly clean. Once you change in New Haven, the train smells with garbage and gum and it’s full of nigs and spics. Coincidence? I think not.

Channel 12, Westchester’s local television news station, gave incorrect reports to the effect that the people to receive the housing would be required to meet minimum income requirements prior to its approval by the County Legislative Board in the fall of 2009.

Channel 12’s report was entirely false. No minimum income requirements would apply to the new housing.

Let’s refer to page 8 of 38 of the Settlement:

At least fifty (50) percent of the Affordable AFFH Units shall be rental units, of which rental units at least twenty (20) percent shall be affordable to and occupied by households with incomes at or below fifty (50) percent of Area Median Income (“AMI”), with the remainder of such rental units affordable to and occupied by households with incomes at or below 65% of AMI.

Now, page 9 of 38:

The remaining portion of the Affordable AFFH Units shall be home-ownership units affordable to and occupied by households with incomes at or below eighty (80) percent of the AMI and shall be controlled by deed restrictions or other legal measures to ensure that they remain affordable to and occupied by eligible households for a period of no less than fifty (50) years.

Maximum incomes are being set, not minimum incomes. In response to Channel 12’s report, many people relaxed their objections, assuming that if the beneficiary household is producing an income within a reasonable range of the area’s median income, they are probably normal people who work full-time and for the most part share the community’s values. But the truth is that people who earn zero income would be fully qualified for all housing units provided by the settlement. Sadly, even educated professionals put their trust in the TV; too busy to read the actual settlement, and too trusting that Channel 12 would not risk its reputation by misleading the public about its terms.

Listen Up Pilgrim’s !

There is not a single county in the USSA that will Not recieve refugee’s soon, if you don’t already have them for years now.

There might only be 100 joo’s in a county, but add in regimes money, and TV trained leftist, and itz an army undermining your public commons and in your face, with a happy, happy smile for you.

Some of the most isolated rural areas will have them now. The out right communist severe White haters and joos are extremely happy.