Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States stunned us all with their egregious misinterpretation of the plain wording of the ludicrously titled “Affordable” Care Act to once again save Obamanablecare. They followed that up on Friday with their deliberate misrepresentation of the Constitution in usurping the right of the States to determine the question of queer marriage within their own borders.
But in between these two desecrations of the Constitution, the Court dropped a little bomb shell that probably went unnoticed to most Americans. On Thursday, the Court found for the plaintiff in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
In 2008, the Inclusive Communitiues Project (ICP) brought suit against the Texas Department of Housing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging “disparate-impact” discrimination. Disparate-impact means you don’t have to prove intent, only effect.
The allegation was that the Texas Department of Housing, in alocating federal low-income housing tax credits predominantly to developers building low-income housing in Black neighborhoods in Dallas (as oppose to building them in Dallas White neighborhoods) effected housing segregation. The District Court agreed and ordered the State of Texas to amend its ctieria for alocating such federal tax credits.
Texas appealed, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed the Circuit Court’s rediculous finding. the ICP then referred the case to the Supreme Court.
First of all, the premise of this case flies in the face of common sense. If the State ofTexas is truly interested in providing low-income housing, they would naturally concentrate on those areas containing low-income renters. To facilitate the building of low-income housing in White neighborhoods, where there are no low-income tennents, would be stupid.
Unless, of course, the objective is not to provide low-income housing but to integrate White neighborhoods. The ICP is not even interested in ant-discrimination. The very name of the project – Inclusive Communities Project – tells you what their agenda is It’s Black infiltration into White neighborhoods.
But I’ve got news for the ICP. Blacks don’t want to live in White communities. Aint no drug dealers and prostitutes there, man. And Whites, understandably, are reluctant to have prostitutes and drug dealers invading their neighborhoods. They are so reluctant, in fact, that whey will do what they have done to the whole city of Detroit – move away and let the drug dealers and prostitutes have it.
When I was a kid in the 40s and 50s, the South Side of Chicago was one of the most affluent areas in the city. I remember the sumptuous apartment buildings with uniformed doormen at the entrances and Duesenberg broughams parked out front. The last time I was brave enough to venture into South Chicago, those same buildings were run down tenements with cardboard-patched broken windows, graffiti desecrated walls, and street gutters clogged with liter.
Memo to ICP: you cannot integrate White neighborhoods. You can only convert White neighborhoods to Black ghettos. A White suburb is not a place, it’s the people who choose to live there.
If you truly want to improve the Black condition in America, work on improving Black people and stop wasting your time trying to move them out of the ghetto – because wherever you move them, they will take the ghetto with them. A ghetto is not a place, but the people who live in that place and make it a ghetto.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in their effort to facilitate the quixotic dream of Black infiltration into White neighborhoods, re-affirmed the concept of disparate-impact. They established precedent in the highest court in the land that if your actions result in what a court decides creates a disparity between diverse groups, you are liable regardless of your intent.
What do you think the queer coalition will do with that?
G. E. Kruckeberg