Try to find someone who is opposed to being more prosperous. As long as someone understands the meaning of the words, how many employees turn down a raise that could make them more prosperous after a raise is offered? What manager says no to a bonus that makes them more prosperous? How many business owners who see the path to improving their bottom line honestly and ethically ignore that opportunity for greater prosperity? Don’t investors and shareholders want a bigger, “more prosperous,” rate of return on investment (ROI)? Wouldn’t the vast majority of retirees, students, ethnic or religious group, or any most other Americans 0bviously want to be more prosperous? Thus, Kurt D. Kelley’s, J.D., in that headline remark – quoted in context below – answers the second top question. More prosperity is routinely regarded by “We the People” as being good.

This is President’s Day (2.20.2023), so most banks and the markets are closed. Some will be off and have extra time to reflect on Kelley’s statement which he previously emailed to this leading manufactured housing (MH) industry focused publication. But what Kelley wrote would arguably be as applicable to virtually any other profession or business. More on that further below. Here is some added context to what Kelley said.

“Predictability in law is the key to a prosperous Republic.  Laws must be interpreted based on the language in them first and foremost. Only, when the language is unclear, should a judge seek evidence on related legislative discourse and legislative intent at the time the law was passed to help interpret it.  Otherwise, law risks becoming whatever a particular Judge or powerful person/group wants it to be.”

The highlighting above was added by MHProNews.  The historic context of his remarks are linked here. But Kelley’s for publication legal view arguably raises issues that are as or more timely today then when they were first stated approaching 5 years ago. Note that a Google search on this date reveals no other person who made that same word-for-word statement that Kelley did: “Predictability in law is the key to a prosperous Republic.” That said, there are several individuals in the legal and other professions who stressed the value of predictability by judges in making their legal rulings. So, Kelley’s phrasing is apparently unique, but the premise he advanced is supported by others too.

That preface brings us to the first headline question which is addressed Part I of this discussion. Is the U.S.A. a Democracy or Republic? Note that in the context of this report and analysis, this is not a question of political parties. Furthermore, numerous examples of members of both major parties using these terms incorrectly could be advanced, so common usage is not helpful.

Some people have deliberately muddled, and/or have incorrectly been led to think, of the two terms – democracy and republic – as interchangeable. But they demonstrably are not interchangeable.

A democracy or republic may, at some level be related, somewhat akin to how a mobile home is related to a manufactured home.

But the terms “democracy” and “republic” have distinctive and important legal differences, somewhat similar to the distinctive legal, construction standards, and other possible differences between a pre-HUD Code “mobile home” and a post-HUD Code “manufactured home.”

Part I will explore elements of an essay that reviews the history and relevance of the terms “democracy” and “republic” as presented by John McManus, with his full essay found at this link here. As an introductory note in support of McManus’ facts, it is worth mentioning the obvious. In the Pledge of Allegiance, Americans say: “…and to the Republic for which it [the U.S. flag] stands…” That brief but accurate response to the inquiry is useful. But McManus presented far deeper insights which go further by explaining why the differences between a democracy and republic are relevant to our era. Indeed, McManus’ evidence-packed thesis will show how important the differences are between a democracy and a republic were for centuries before our time or any future years too.

Part II of this report, analysis, and commentary will then consider in greater depth why this issue is every bit as important as Kelley’s headline remark suggested.

 

Part 1 – is the U.S.A. a Democracy or a Republic and Why it Matters

Per McManus’s research: “the difference between a democracy and a republic is not merely a question of semantics but is fundamental. The word “republic” comes from the Latin res publica — which means simply “the public thing(s),” or more simply “the law(s).” “Democracy,” on the other hand, is derived from the Greek words demos and kratein, which translates to “the people to rule.” Democracy, therefore, has always been synonymous with majority rule.”

Note that majority rule may sound good. But what if the majority vote to take what you honestly earned? Or what if you are a minority of some kind? Those are just two problems with pure ‘majority rule.’  A republic is supposed to legally balance the rights of all citizens but does have some democratic features. Most specifically, when voting for representatives, the one candidate who earns the most legitimate votes is supposed to become the elected official.

To some of these points, McManus said this.

The Founding Fathers supported the view that (in the words of the Declaration of Independence) “Men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” They recognized that such rights should not be violated by an unrestrained majority any more than they should be violated by an unrestrained king or monarch. In fact, they recognized that majority rule would quickly degenerate into mobocracy and then into tyranny. They had studied the history of both the Greek democracies and the Roman republic. They had a clear understanding of the relative freedom and stability that had characterized the latter, and of the strife and turmoil — quickly followed by despotism — that had characterized the former. In drafting the Constitution, they created a government of law and not of men, a republic and not a democracy.”

For evidence in support of that contention, McManus insightfully remarked: “the Constitution does not contain the word “democracy,” but does mandate: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.””

 

He cited these additional points.

But don’t take our word for it! Consider the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, who — one after another — condemned democracy.

• Virginia’s Edmund Randolph participated in the 1787 convention. Demonstrating a clear grasp of democracy’s inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Constitutional Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was “to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy….”
• John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. “Democracy never lasts long,” he noted. “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” He insisted, “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’”
• New York’s Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his state, thundered: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”
• James Madison, who is rightly known as the “Father of the Constitution,” wrote in The Federalist, No. 10: “… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.” The Federalist Papers, recall, were written during the time of the ratification debate to encourage the citizens of New York to support the new Constitution.
• George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention and later accepted the honor of being chosen as the first President of the United States under its new Constitution, indicated during his inaugural address on April 30, 1789, that he would dedicate himself to “the preservation … of the republican model of government.”
• Fisher Ames served in the U.S. Congress during the eight years of George Washington’s presidency. A prominent member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution for that state, he termed democracy “a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders.” On another occasion, he labeled democracy’s majority rule one of “the intermediate stages towards … tyranny.” He later opined: “Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes.” And in an essay entitled The Mire of Democracy, he wrote that the framers of the Constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism.”

Changes in Perception from the 19th and 20th Centuries

These principles were once widely understood. In the 19th century, many of the great leaders, both in America and abroad, stood in agreement with the Founding Fathers. John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835 echoed the sentiments of Fisher Ames. “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos,” he wrote. American poet James Russell Lowell warned that “democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.” Lowell was joined in his disdain for democracy by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who remarked that “democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.” Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans. “I have long been convinced,” he said, “that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” Britons Benjamin Disraeli and Herbert Spencer would certainly agree with their countryman, Lord Acton, who wrote: “The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”

By the 20th century, however, the falsehoods that democracy was the epitome of good government and that the Founding Fathers had established just such a government for the United States became increasingly widespread. This misinformation was fueled by President Woodrow Wilson’s famous 1916 appeal that our nation enter World War I “to make the world safe for democracy” — and by President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1940 exhortation that America “must be the great arsenal of democracy” by rushing to England’s aid during WWII.”

 

Troubling 20th Century Evolution in U.S. Army Training Manual

One indicator of the radical transformation that took place is the contrast between the War Department’s 1928 “Training Manual No. 2000-25,” which was intended for use in citizenship training, and what followed. The 1928 U.S. government document correctly defined democracy as:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct expression.” Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude of the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

This manual also accurately stated that the framers of the Constitution “made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy … and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had formed a republic.”

But by 1932, pressure against its use caused it to be withdrawn. In 1936, Senator Homer Truett Bone (D-WA) took to the floor of the Senate to call for the document’s complete repudiation. By then, even finding a copy of the manual had become almost impossible. Decades later, in an article appearing in the October 1973 issue of Military Review, Lieutenant Colonel Paul B. Parham explained that the Army ceased using the manual because of letters of protest “from private citizens.” Interestingly, Parham also noted that the word democracy “appears on one hand to be of key importance to, and holds some peculiar significance for, the Communists.”

By 1952 the U.S. Army was singing the praises of democracy, instead of warning against it, in Field Manual 21-13, entitled The Soldier’s Guide. This new manual incorrectly stated: “Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our Government will be organized and run….” (Emphasis in original.)”

 

Voices in and Beyond the U.S.A. Clarify Important Difference Between a Republic and a Democracy

Yet important voices continued to warn against the siren song for democracy. In 1931, England’s Duke of Northumberland issued a booklet entitled The History of World Revolution in which he stated: “The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise.”

In 1939, historians Charles and Mary Beard added their strong voices in favor of historical accuracy in their America in Midpassage: “At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it, except possibly the mention of ‘We, the People,’ in the preamble…. When the Constitution was framed no respectable person called himself or herself a democrat.”

During the 1950s, Clarence Manion, the dean of Notre Dame Law School, echoed and amplified what the Beards had so correctly stated. He summarized: “The honest and serious student of American history will recall that our Founding Fathers managed to write both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without using the term ‘democracy’ even once. No part of any of the existing state Constitutions contains any reference to the word. [The men] who were most influential in the institution and formulation of our government refer to ‘democracy’ only to distinguish it sharply from the republican form of our American Constitutional system.”

On September 17 (Constitution Day), 1961, John Birch Society founder Robert Welch delivered an important speech, entitled “Republics and Democracies,” in which he proclaimed: “This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let’s keep it that way!” The speech, which was later published and widely distributed in pamphlet form, amounted to a jolting wake-up call for many Americans. In his remarks, Welch not only presented the evidence to show that the Founding Fathers had established a republic and had condemned democracy, but he warned that the definitions had been distorted, and that powerful forces were at work to convert the American republic into a democracy, in order to bring about dictatorship”

 

Means to an End

Welch understood that democracy is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Eighteenth century historian Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, it is thought, argued that, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” And as British writer G.K. Chesterton put it in the 20th century: “You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.”

Communist revolutionary Karl Marx understood this principle all too well. Which is why, in The Communist Manifesto, this enemy of freedom stated that “the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.” For what purpose? To “abolish private property”; to “wrest, by degrees, capital from the bourgeoisie”; to “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State”; etc.

Another champion of democracy was Communist Mao Tse-tung, who proclaimed in 1939 (a decade before consolidating control on the Chinese mainland): “Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society.”

Still another champion of democracy is Mikhail Gorbachev, who stated in his 1987 book Perestroika that, “according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible…. The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy [emphasis in the original] and revives the Leninist concept…. We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy.”

This socialist revolution has been underway in America for generations. In January 1964, President Lyndon Johnson boasted in a White House address: “We are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the ‘haves’ and give it to the ‘have nots’ that need it so much.” What he advocated, of course, was a Marxist, not an American, precept. (The way Marx put it was: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”) But other presidents before and after have advanced the same goal. Of course, most who support this goal do not comprehend the totalitarian consequences of constantly transferring more power to Washington. But this lack of understanding is what makes revolution by the ballot box possible.

The push for democracy has only been possible because the Constitution is being ignored, violated, and circumvented. The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal government. Those powers, all of which are enumerated, do not include agricultural subsidy programs, housing programs, education assistance programs, food stamps, etc. Under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to pass any law it chooses; it is only authorized to pass laws that are constitutional. Anybody who doubts the intent of the Founders to restrict federal powers, and thereby protect the rights of the individual, should review the language in the Bill of Rights, including the opening phrase of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…”).

As Welch explained in his 1961 speech:

… man has certain unalienable rights which do not derive from government at all…. And those … rights cannot be abrogated by the vote of a majority any more than they can by the decree of a conqueror. The idea that the vote of a people, no matter how nearly unanimous, makes or creates or determines what is right or just becomes as absurd and unacceptable as the idea that right and justice are simply whatever a king says they are. Just as the early Greeks learned to try to have their rulers and themselves abide by the laws they had themselves established, so man has now been painfully learning that there are more permanent and lasting laws which cannot be changed by either sovereign kings or sovereign people, but which must be observed by both. And that government is merely a convenience, superimposed on Divine Commandments and on the natural laws that flow only from the Creator of man and man’s universe. … the full text of Welch’s essay is linked here. McManus, per the New American was the last president of the pro-constitutionally limited government John Birch Society (JBS).

The image below was not from his essay, but is a quotable quote, a blast from the past which supports McManus’ contention and the pithier version advocated by Kelley.

 

 

While there are obviously dissenters from these views by McManus or Kelley, there is plenty of support for it too. The quote above is a possible example of why a republic is a superior legal, economic, and political system than a democracy or socialism. To the point made by Bastiat, when one follows the money trail, the dissenters to support for sticking with a republic as our nation’s system are often linked to funding from those who want to move America in a more leftist or authoritarian direction. By contrast, those who already grasp the differences between a democracy and republic and who press the cause for fully adhering to the founding principles of a constitutional republic in all 50 states will likely quickly embrace the thoughts of McManus and Kelley.

Pragmatic evidence for the struggles in keeping the U.S.A. a republic are found in the reports that follow.

 

Warren Buffett-Democratic Connected ‘Dark Money’ Group Arabella Advisors ‘Scheme’ Hits Headlines-Hate Politics? Others Do Too, But Ignoring Reality Poor Option; plus MHVille REITs, Stocks Update

IPS GILDED GIVING 2022-‘Wealth Inequality Distorts Philanthropy Imperils Democracy’ Reports Finger Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, More Philanthro-Feudalism Linked Billionaires; plus MHVille REITs, Stocks Update

Civic Alliance – Amazon Jeff Bezos Facebook Mark Zuckerberg Buffett-Berkshire-Backed-Kraft-Arabella Advisors Bill Gates Microsoft Twitter Jack Dorsey CBS Disney-Inside Scoop- 1000 Corporate Nonprofits Plan to Oust President Trump Hiding in Plain Sight – plus Sunday Weekly Headline Recap

Warren Buffett Declared “Class Warfare,” Buffett Says Fellow Billionaires – “We’re Winning”

BlackRock Document Exposes Central Banks like Federal Reserve on Recession; Manufactured Home Producer Cavco Industries 2022 Year End Results (CVCOQ3.23) Facts+Analysis; plus MHVille Stocks Update

 

Part II Going Gonzo – More Information, Analysis and Commentary

“Gonzo journalism is a style of journalism…often including the reporter as part of the story using a first-person narrative,” per left-leaning Wikipedia. This writer was a multiple award winner in history in both high school and at the university level. For whatever reasons, as a teen, I was invited by a JBS member to attend some of their meetings. They were, to me, informative and interesting. But right or wrong, I eventually dropped out of the JBS. Why? Because while I thought that education on these issues they raised, like those by McManus above, as important as they are, it seemed to me that they must be the starting point. Education, to me, should lead to organized action. If JBS had, using AMAC.us as an analogy, both an information/education component that also combined with organized advocacy and benefits components, that would be powerful combination. But in my youth, there was no AMAC.

That disclaimer noted, applying Kelley’s pertinent insight for others in or beyond manufactured housing, prosperity is a key. If people of good will, regardless of their background, gender, religion, or other ‘identity’ groups, grasp the importance and the enduring value of operating as a system of laws that support individual liberty and prosperity, that’s one of the keys to unlocking a brighter future.

 

 

Why This Matters to Manufactured Housing Industry Pros, Investors, Consumers and Virtually All Americans Who Prefer Freedom, Prosperity, and Personal Rights

In the preface above the following was notions were noted.

Try to find someone who is opposed to being more prosperous. As long as someone understands the meaning of the words, how many employees turn down a raise that could make them more prosperous if a raise is offered? What manager says no to a bonus that makes them more prosperous? How many business owners who can improve their bottom line honestly and ethically ignore that opportunity for greater prosperity? Don’t investors and shareholders want a bigger, “more prosperous,” rate of return on investment (ROI)? Wouldn’t the vast majority of retirees, students, ethnic or religious group, or any most other Americans 0bviously want to be more prosperous? Thus, Kurt D. Kelley’s, J.D., in that headline remark – quoted in context below – answers the second question. More prosperity is routinely regarded by “We the People” as being good.

“Predictability in law is the key to a prosperous Republic.”

But then, one must not overlook these following lines from Kelley. The highlighting is added by MHProNews.

“Laws must be interpreted based on the language in them first and foremost. Only, when the language is unclear, should a judge seek evidence on related legislative discourse and legislative intent at the time the law was passed to help interpret it.  Otherwise, law risks becoming whatever a particular Judge or powerful person/group wants it to be.”

When someone considers what has gone wrong in manufactured housing in the 21^st century, based on evidence that will be linked, one valid way of looking at the issues could be framed as follows. In no particular order of importance are the following points.

• Public officials are arguably ignoring their duties under the law. That goes to the heart of the concern cited by Kelley: “otherwise, law risks becoming whatever a particular Judge or powerful person/group wants it to be.”
• For a specific example, consider this. If the Department of Energy (DOE) were following the letter of the law, would the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and the Texas Manufactured Housing Association (TMHA) need to sue to defend the industry’s rights and interests? The foundational premise of the MHI pleadings, perhaps particularly so in their TRO, is their claim in Case No. 23-CV-000174 is that the DOE has not followed the law. That is apparent in the first linked report below. It is also apparent in the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) response to that MHI-TMHA case, in the second linked report below.

MHI ‘Special Bulletin’ DOE MH Energy Regs Lawsuit ‘Effort to Ensure Consistent Industry Message,’ Will Manufactured Housing Institute Launch More Suits? Plus Sunday Weekly MHVille Headlines Recap

• A similar set of points should be made about the failure of HUD to properly enforce the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act (MHIA) of 2000, more specifically, its “enhanced preemption” provision. If HUD officials were not ignoring the law, then wouldn’t the affordable housing crisis be far less severe? Indeed, it is possible that if the MHIA and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008’s Duty to Serve (DTS) Manufactured Housing provisions were being vibrantly enforced, manufactured housing today would be a dramatically larger industry. That in turn would mean that potentially millions of more people would be homeowners than is currently the case.

• Then there is the question of the Congress in its oversight duties. There are similar questions about the White House and its management of the federal bureaucracy. Promises have been made by the Biden regime, and oddly, the opposite of what has been promised – per the data shown below – is occurring. Housing is becoming less affordable. Manufactured home sales have slowed instead of picking up steam. Each of these institutions, and the individuals in those institutions, are accountable. We don’t have kings or royalty in America, or at least we aren’t supposed to have a monarchial or feudalistic system in the U.S.A. That noted, evidence of the slowdowns in housing since the Biden White House plan for housing was released are found in the reports linked below.

Fears of Future – MILLIONS of Millennials Move Back in 2022 with Parents-Facts, Top Reasons, and Possible Silver Lining for Manufactured Housing Pros, Investors; plus MHVille REITs, Stocks Update

Those two reports above are evidence that merely saying something that may sound good, but is not followed by appropriate action or results, can be evidence of either a lack of competence or evidence for a bait and switch ploy.

Danny Ghorbani – Manufactured Housing’s ‘Elephant in the Room,’ per Prior Manufactured Housing Institute Chair, Exclusive Q&A on Key MHIndustry Issues, plus Sunday Weekly MHVille Headlines Recap

Official HUD Manufactured Housing Production Facts for Dec 2022 plus 2022 Year End Totals Explored by Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)-“Millions” Needed – Analysis

• But then there are the questions of businesses, nonprofits, or trade groups and the impact that they have on the manufactured housing industry. Anyone who thinks that Berkshire Hathaway’s (BRK) Warren Buffett and Laurence Douglas “Larry” Fink, CEO of BlackRock, couldn’t make a few phone calls – or issue some memos on their respective letterheads – and could thereby get positive movement on the MHIA/enhanced preemption, or DTS (to use just those two examples to make the point) are simply not aware of the dynamics of modern American life. Furthermore, one must keep in mind how Kevin Clayton bragged in a video about Buffett’s connections, and then bragged how he could get whatever financial support he wanted. “You can access plenty of capital” – Buffett to Clayton per Kevin and recorded on video as shown in the report linked below – are remarks that speak volumes.

 

Warren Buffett’s Pledge to Kevin Clayton – ‘You Can Access Plenty of Capital’ for Projects – Quotes, Facts, Video, Transcript, and Implications for Manufactured Housing Industry

 

Thus, without specifically naming any of those parties, Kelley’s succinct observation is demonstrably important: “Laws must be interpreted based on the language in them first and foremost.” And his concluding line in that paragraph, “Otherwise, law risks becoming whatever a particular Judge or powerful person/group wants it to be.”

Sadly, the evidence suggests that the last line is precisely what has gone wrong in MHVille in much of the 21^st century.

 

Namely: “law risks becoming whatever a particular Judge or powerful person/group wants it to be.”

• Because key bureaucrats aren’t properly doing the job that Congress empowered them to do, manufactured housing is suffering.
• Because thus far, other branches of government are not doing a sufficient job of oversight or challenging HUD, the FHFA, DOE, FHA, etc., millions of people are living in rental housing today that might otherwise be building equity as affordable manufactured housing homeowners.

MHLivingNews and MHProNews have for a decade-plus provided evidence that debunks common misconceptions about manufactured housing. Our twin platforms have more recently had the opportunity to show third-party research that documents how over 25 million renters – right now – could become manufactured homeowners. But millions more could become manufactured homeowners if:

• A) HUD properly enforced the MHIA of 2000’s enhanced preemption,
• B) if the FHFA were pushing the GSEs to fully and properly implement DTS in a robust fashion,
• C) and if the FHA were stepping up and doing their job with respect to Title I ‘home only’ loans, which have all but gone dormant.

Stating the obvious can bring clarity. As a trade publication, we can provide the facts and evidence. We can journalistically challenge problematic behaviors. We can give the expert insights that could cause the manufactured home industry to flourish for the benefit of millions of Americans. Few things are more important than home ownership when it comes to creating stability and wealth creating opportunities. Several studies and official statements have said as much.

In a systematic, step by step fashion, this report and related commentary have illustrated how important the rule of law is. The harms that follow when the rule of law is not enforced have been brought into a clear light. Kelley’s brief but obviously accurate summary is as or more relevant today than when he first sent it to MHProNews approaching 5 years ago. Powerful interests have ‘sabotaged’ manufactured housing, both from within and from outside. What would be the motivation for sabotaging one’s own industry? From the vantage point of several key MHI members, consolidation is easier to accomplish in a smaller industry that is stagnating than one that is robustly growing.

Now, consider the evidence and the array of credible sources.

a) MHARR has provided the evidence of purported MHI failures and apparent subterfuges on behalf of consolidators. These are industry insiders that see how the game has been, and is being played. MHARR members have a stake in fighting the apparent corruption of the rule of law.

b) James A. “Jim” Schmitz Jr. and his Minneapolis Federal Reserve research colleagues have documented the history of ‘sabotaging monopoly’ behavior and how oligopoly style of monopoly power has been exercised on behalf of builders, which he says has used the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) with cover and support essentially given them by HUD. Note that Schmitz et al have no known direct ties to manufactured housing. Their analysis is academic.  But in as much as they may personally care about the well being of millions of their fellow citizens, they have pressed their theme for years.

 

c) Samuel “Sam” Strommen with Knudson Law has studied the evidence and concluded that legally several in manufactured housing, specifically those involved using MHI as a tool for consolidation. Strommen flatly says there is evidence of “felony” antitrust and other violations, that may include RICO laws. Note that Strommen, perhaps like Schmitz et al, has no known direct ties to MHVille. His observations are also academic or clinical. But his writing style suggests a passion for defending the rights of others, which are currently being manipulated or thwarted, per his researched thesis.

d) HUD PD&R researchers ironically admitted in 2021 that politicians from both major parties have for 50 years known the causes and the cures for the affordable housing crisis. MHLivingNews examined that research in the link below. The report below is an amazingly revealing set of statements. They are logically almost an indictment of federal and state officials, including HUD. Note that a Google search reveals very little coverage of this relatively brief but insightful research, other than by MHProNews/MHLivingNews. Was this politically too hot a potato for others to handle? Why was this report widely ignored, when the claims are well supported?  See the report for insights on those questions.

 

 

Each of these four (a-d) sources above, and the other points noted herein, are examples of what Kelley aptly called ‘the risk of law becoming whatever a particular judge or powerful person/group wants it to be.’ Public officials and private interests are apparently working in what some might call the “iron triangle.”

Lesli Gooch, Ph.D. Schooled on Manufactured Housing Advocacy – Manufactured Housing Institute CEO’s “Meandering Missive” on Manufactured Home Financing “Lunacy or Betrayal” – Clinton Jones, FHFA – “Iron Triangle” Unpacked

None of that is per se new to regular, detail minded, and long-term MHProNews readers. However, it is potentially quite helpful to note that if the laws of our Republic were being properly enforced, these machinations would not be the thorny issue that they have for over two decades.  Proper law enforcement is the short answer to many or our nation’s and industry’s ills.

The very law that was supposed to support affordable housing, the MHIA – has instead of fostering an increase in homeownership and manufactured home sales has – because the rule of law has not been followed – witnessed instead a sharp drop. That’s the sad fruits of cronyism and the manipulation of the slyly rigged system.

MHProNews and MHLivingNews have in recent years increasingly hammered away at the evidence-based concerns that America is being de facto ruled by powerful interest groups that have ‘rigged the system’ in a manner that benefits a few at great cost to the many. To debunk any notion that this sounds conspiratorial, no less a figure than Warren Buffett has publicly said as much. If mainstream media hit this theme below as much as MHProNews has, would the issues our industry and nation faces be as bad as they are today?

 

 

To avoid the risk of simply being an educational/informational platform – ala one of the reasons this writer parted as a young man from JBS meetings – there must be advocacy groups that take principles and put them into action. MHProNews has editorially pressed for solutions, rather than just lament about reported problems.

 

The post above is a useful companion to this article.

That said, a few action steps to continue the pressure needed to get beyond the blockade apparently caused by what applying Kelley’s insights about how law can be diverted ‘powerful persons or interest groups.’

 

Some Recommendations for True Progress and a Move Back Toward the Rule of Law

 

i). There are only a few dozen manufacturers operating in manufactured housing today. Several independents could become MHARR members who are not already. They could thereby put more muscle behind the proven MHARR trade group. As a disclosure, MHProNews has advocated support for MHARR while we were still an MHI member, and years before MHARR became a sponsor. So, our position about MHARR has been broadly consistent for over a decade.

ii). There are supposedly some 70,000 plus full time equivalent (FTEs) people working in manufactured housing. Each of them could be a useful voice in pressing lawmakers and public officials to act. How so? For example. AMAC.us is a pro-constitutionally limited government organization that believes in the rule of law. While it focuses on issues for ‘seniors’ the organization has no age limits. Any adult that shares their values can join. Some 2.3 million people are members. They are a growing influence on the political landscape. Membership is cheap, and the benefits routinely yield more savings than the cost. Note that AMAC, unlike the JBS back in the day, has an advocacy arm that engages directly with lawmakers and public officials. That advocacy is by AMAC Action, which per their webpage, says: “AMAC Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit conservative advocacy organization, was created to support AMAC by advancing initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level through grassroots advocacy. Participation is a benefit of AMAC membership.” It goes on to say under their: “AMAC Action Mission Statement,” the following.

“AMAC Action serves to confront the myriad challenges to the United States Constitution, freedom, liberty, and the free market. Along with our Advocates, we will advance AMAC Action’s influence in Washington, D.C. in Congressional Districts, and state Legislatures across the country while acting as a recognized and valued resource for our members, Congress, state leaders, and seniors throughout America.”

iii. For business owners, beyond MHARR, MHProNews has periodically provided information on the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and the Job Creators Network (JCN). They too tend to support these values described in this report. NFIB and JCN are options worthy of exploring that can be resources to amplify a business’ voice. Reportedly, hundreds of others in MHVille are members.

iv. MHARR has long advocated for a new post-production trade group to do manufactured housing specific advocacy. MHProNews has demonstrably promoted that notion too. For a time, NAMHCO looked like it might be such a group, but then it took the odd turn of hiring an ex-MHI VP. Perhaps it was coincidental, but following that move, in time, the group has essentially gone dormant.  That said, there are lessons to be learned from that NAMHCO experience.

Giving Thanks for Manufactured Housing Independents, Applauding “MHIdea!”

If those five broad notions, i-v above, are put to work, the case can be made that potentially millions of new sales, hundreds of thousands more new manufactured homes per year could be sold, if a properly organized and sincerely motivated post-production group would form, work with MHARR, and together with others of good will, could result in the most-robust era of manufactured home sales ever.

Thanks in good measure to MHARR’s efforts in the late 20th and early 21st century the legal elements are in place for manufactured housing to proper as never before. but that will only happen if the rule of law is being properly and robustly enforced!

 

Summary and Conclusion

Americans must learn or relearn what is good about our republic’s founding principles. The nation long ago addressed the issue of the slavery issue, and it was done most notably by Republicans. While this writer is an independent politically, one in fairness must note that Republicans fought to end slavery, worked for voting rights for and achieved women and minorities.

As several of the linked articles above or here reflect, the threat to the nation comes from the deepest pockets that often lean left, meaning Democratic. But at times, those deep pockets don’t mind backing so-called “Establishment” or “RINO” Republicans.

Whatever a person’s profession or role, it is in her or his best interest to understand the historic and legal principles that made America the most prosperous nation on earth. It is the twisting of the ‘rule of law,’ as Kelley and McManus pointed out, that has brought our country into the troubled state that exists today.

Some of the information will be found here on MHProNews, in articles like this one. But there are organizations that specialize in such issues, including those named herein. There are plenty of reasons for professionals at all levels to learn these principles about our constitutional republic and apply them. President’s Day, or any other day, is a good time to dig into understanding the causes and cures for what’s happened in 21^st century America. Because “Predictability in law is the key to a prosperous Republic.” If the laws were being justly and robustly enforced, our industry would be several times its current size. Prosperity for millions of more Americans would follow.  ###

 

PS: See the related reports and the following to learn more.

‘The U.S. Can Solve Its Housing Crisis – It Just Needs To Start Building’ Bloomberg, Washington Post Want More Manufactured Housing in 2023! Plus 2022 Year in Review, Sunday MHVille Weekly Headlines Recap

 

Years of positive news on MHLivingNews about manufactured home living have since been followed by more third-parties presenting the ‘good news’ about manufactured housing.

This next linked report debunks a claim oddly made by MHI’s so-called research.  See what MHI’s ‘research’ said, quoted below. Then notice the dramatic contrast between what Freddie Mac’s research found and what MHI sadly produced.

Notice: the graphic below can be expanded to a larger size.
See instructions below graphic or click and follow the prompts.

Note 2: this MHI graphic below was uploaded by MHProNews on December 18, 2019.
It’s MHVille expert analysis has clearly stood the test of time. The call out boxes and arrows are
by MHProNews. Note that MHI claimed that 46 percent would consider a CrossMod^® .

MHI’s ‘research’ also said that only 9 percent of those they ‘surveyed’ said they would consider a mainstream (not a CrossMod) manufactured home. MHLivingNews has consistently supported the benefits of modern manufactured home living.  At the same time, our publication and MHProNews have not avoided pointing out by name the so-called ‘predatory’ behavior of several brands that happen to routinely be an MHI member, and/or a member of an MHI state affiliate. Perhaps that MHProNews/MHLivingNews reporting approach has born fruit? That is one possible takeaway from the Freddie Mac research. Another possible takeaway from Freddie Mac’s research is that MHI’s ‘research’ was fundamentally flawed to begin with and that Freddie Mac’s is more accurate. Those possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

 

Again, our thanks to free email subscribers and all readers like you, our tipsters/sources, sponsors and God for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for authentic “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) (See Related Reports, further below. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)

By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.

Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.

For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.

This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position, and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.

http://latonykovach.com

Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach

 

 

Related References:

The text/image boxes below are linked to other reports, which can be accessed by clicking on them.’

‘Everyone Needs Deadlines’ ‘First Things First’ and ‘7 Habits of Highly Successful People’ – Pre-Christmas Preview of Manufactured Housing Year in Review; plus Sunday Weekly MHVille Headlines Recap

 

Has the Manufactured Housing Industry Become a Target-Rich Environment for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys? Facts, News & Views; plus, Sunday Weekly Manufactured Home Industry (MHVille) Headlines Recap

‘In the Business World, the Rear-View Mirror is Always Clearer than the Windshield’–Warren Buffett MHVille Leader Showcases Efforts to Renew American Dream; plus Sunday Weekly Headlines Recap

Manufactured Housing’s Next BIG Regulatory Battle That MHARR’s Spotlighted and Which MHI Conveniently Ignored in Recent ‘Manufactured Housing Institute News;’ plus Sunday Weekly Headlines Recap

 

Flagship Communities – Hypocrisy, MHIndustry Corruption? ‘Fragmented Industry with High Barriers to Entry and Imbalanced Supply and Demand Dynamics;’ Plus Sunday MHVille Weekly Headlines Review

Russian Disinformation? CNN and WND Report on “World Government Summit,” Joe Biden Address to Business Roundtable on “the New World Order;” plus Sunday Weekly Headlines Review

https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/no-kings-in-america-john-sherman-speaks-to-manufactured-housing/