Sunday, August 31, 2008

Obama Synonymous with Ruthless

New Word Synonymous with Ruthless: Obama

I would like to add a new word to become synonymous with ruthless. The new word that will be forever associated with ruthless hence forward is Obama. Obama’s pure, unadulterated toxic ambition is equal only to Adolf Hitler. Obama makes Julius Caesar’s ambition look naïve. No matter how much silver plating his campaign puts on Obama, he still looks like a ruthless turd. Obama has no regard for whom or how many he will harm as long as he gets where he thinks he wants to be.

America has been unhappy with the Bush administration for several years. No secret! Millions of Americans were looking forward to this coming election. They were hoping for the first time in American history to elect a woman president. Hillary Clinton has all the qualifications and experience. She was not only believed to be the American choice for the first Woman president, it was fairly certain would have defeated any Republican choice.

Obama, the ruthless, crushed Hillary Clinton and America’s great hope. He ruthlessly seized his nomination with no regard to the huge price the Democratic party would have to pay for his ruthless greedy desire. Obama, the ruthless, literally stole the delegate votes from Hillary.

“Though voters in all 13 caucus states cast only 2.9% of the total 35.9 million votes those caucus votes control 14.6% of the pledged delegates and 15.5% of the Super delegates sent to the DNC Convention…

39 Primaries with 34.8 million voters gave Clinton a lead in both votes and delegates. Caucuses with 1.1 million voters gave Obama 300,000 more votes and 206 more delegates.
Alegre has more on the allocation of delegates, including this gem:
Hillary won the state of Nevada 51%-45%
…but by the time the contest reached the state convention, she ended up with 3 fewer delegates!
Hillary won the popular vote, according to ABC News. The information is no longer available on the ABC News website, but both No Quarter and Taylor Marsh documented it at the time:
POPULAR VOTE (all primaries and caucuses)
Hillary Clinton: 17,785,009
Barack Obama: 17,479,990
The popular vote count at Real Clear Politics shows Hillary in the lead when all the votes are counted, and even further in the lead when estimates are made for some of the caucus states.

Rather than being penalized for the tactical move of removing his name from the Michigan ballot, on May 31 Obama was rewarded instead, by the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the DNC. He was given delegates who didn’t vote for him, and was even given four of HILLARY’s delegates. There is no precedent for that kind of theft. Lambert explains at Corrente how the committee broke its own sunshine rules to decide on the delegate donation.
Had the RBC not halved the votes from Florida and Michigan and given to Obama . . “

Obama has neither the qualifications nor experience. That makes no difference to him. Now that Obama is the presidential candidate it is very uncertain who will win. It appears that McCain and Palin have a very good chance to defeat Obama, since Obama, the ruthless, is shrouded with controversy, mystery, and criminal associations. Obama, the ruthless turd, road rough shod all over America’s dream falsely claiming he was what American really wants and he is the answer. Obama, the ruthless, has a long track record of ruthless ambition at the price of harming others, indulging in criminal activities, and participating in any activity legal, illegal, or unethical to accomplish whatever he wanted in any way possible.

The Impeachment of Senator Barack Obama


Whereas: Senator Barack Obama is an admitted illegal drug user and is believed to have used illegal drugs as recently as November 1999 or more recently. Mr. Obama has maintained contact with other admitted illegal drug users.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has maintained regular contact
with known criminals such as Antoin (Tony) Rezko and other
criminal elements in Chicago and Illinois. Mr. Obama has
conducted business with these criminals and received campaign
donations from them. Mr. Obama was compelled to return an estimated $250,000 in donations related to Tony Rezko.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has consistently lied about his
contact with convicted criminal Tony Rezko. The Tony Rezko
corruption trial revealed that FBI mole John Thomas helped investigators “build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel Mahru’s Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005,” according to the February 10, 2008 Chicago Sun-Times.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has engaged in unscrupulous business practices, in particular with Mr. Robert Blackwell. Mr. Obama received an $ 8,000 per month “legal retainer” from Mr. Blackwell for a total of $112,000 and reported the income through his law firm in a manner not unlike money laundering. Obama, along with Obama campaign manager Dan Shomon, procured
$320,000 in state grants for Blackwell’s company Killerspin. Blackwell companies contributed over $ 32,000 to the Obama campaign in 2007.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama used the office of IL Senator to
facilitate the vote rigging in Chicago as chairman of the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee. Mr. Obama pushed legislation in Senate Bill 1332 to reduce the number of members of the Health Facilities Planning Board from 15 to 9. Mr. Obama did conspire with Stuart Levine, Tony Rezko and Rod Blogojevich to rig the committee and was rewarded with campaign
contributions. The new members appointed included 3 doctors who contributed to Mr. Obama. On April 21, 2004, Stuart Levine explicitly advised Dr. Robert Weinstein, who is now indicted, of Tony Rezko’s role in manipulating the Planning Board’s vote.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has engaged in lies and deception about his past. Mr. Obama lied about his contact level with convicted criminal Tony Rezko, the amounts and sources of
campaign contributions and encounters with the law. A complaint
has been filed with the Bar Association of Illinois alleging
that Mr. Obama did not answer truthfully all questions on the
application to the bar.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has invoked the FOIA in Illinois
when it was politically expedient and ignored or violated the
FOIA at other times. In the Illinois Senate proceedings of
Mr. Obama, in Senate Bill 1416, pleads the importance of businesses bidding on state contracts having improved access to FOIA data. When later questioned about his records during his term in the IL Senate, Mr. Obama gave evasive answers or refused to supply records.

Whereas: The First Amendment provides a right for the people “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Precedents exist for impeachment and expulsion of a US Senator. Senator William Blount was impeached by the House on July 7, 1797 and expelled by the Senate the next day.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the People, Undersigned, being citizens of the United States and residents in the Cities and States so indicated, HEREBY Demand that the Congress of the United States begin immediate impeachment and/or expulsion proceedings against Senator Barack Obama.

Addendum: Petition to Impeach Senator Obama

We were urged to add the following information about Senator Obama. This comes under the topic of lies and deception but also falls under more serious charges of abuse of power and possible violation of the Logan Act. Those signing the petition prior to this addendum will be identified. August 4, 2008

Whereas: As a US Senator, Barack Obama violated the stated intention of his 2006 Official Government Visa to Africa by publicly propagandizing for his cousin, Railla Odinga against the US democratic ally of Kenya. Whereas the stated “mission” of Senator Obama’s Official Visa, according to the Kenya Office of Public Communications, was to “nurture relations
between the Continent and the United States” he, instead, made public protest before Kenya citizens to rally against their leadership, invoking a need for “Change!” and accusing this US allied nation of “corruption.” In Official Protest of Mr. Obama’s passport abuse and misconduct, Kenya’s government cited his “extremely disturbing statements on issues which it is clear, he was very poorly informed, and on which he chose to lecture the Government and the people of Kenya on how to manage our country.”
Whereas, furthermore, there is no public record of any sanctions or reprimand by the US Congress of Senator Obama’s passport violation or campaigning on foreign soil against a US ally, history has since recorded the broad spread destruction of Kenya’s economy and large scale loss of life as a result of the violence instigated by Odinga’s ODM campaign there.

Obama, the ruthless, began his career at the expense of one of his
Benefactor’s, Alice Palmer.
“. . . She is the former Illinois state senator who, in 1995, deciding to run for an open congressional seat, anointed Obama as her successor. It was from that relatively lowly position that Obama launched his incredible political career.
Palmer lost in a special congressional election in November 1995 -- the seat was open because its occupant, Mel Reynolds, was convicted on sex charges -- to the victor, Jesse Jackson, Jr., and to the runnerup, Emil Jones Jr., who became state senate president and Obama's mentor in his unlikely road to the nomination for the White House.
When she was humiliated with a third-place finish, Alice Palmer mistakenly assumed that Obama, more than 20 years her junior, would gallantly step aside so she could run for her old seat in the legislature. But Obama, who had already begun to organize his troops, said nothing doing, and, when Palmer decided to jump back into the state senate primary anyway, he successfully challenged her petitions, as well as the petitions of three other candidates for the democratic nomination. Obmama ended up running unopposed in the March 1996 primary in the district that encompasses Hyde Park, the home of the University of Chicago where Obama lived, South Shore, where Palmer lived, and Englewood, where residents are largely poor. Chicago Tribune reporters David Jackson and Ray Long wrote a first-rate account of this episode in April 2007 when Hillary Clinton was still "the inevitable." . . .”

He got in up to his eyeballs with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant, bomber of the capital. Together they got 49.2 million in grants for a project to improve education—which conveniently failed. (where did all that money go?) Later, Obama, the ruthless, bald faced lied trying to minimize his relationship with Ayers.
“a major education reform project, proposed by Ayers, which was underwritten by a $49.2 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation, complemented by another $100 million in private and public funding. The project ran for about five years, beginning in 1995.” Stanly Kurtz
“Barack Obama made it appear in public statements that he barely knew Ayers. Here is what he said at the Philadelphia debate in April about his relationship with the terrorist:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.

And here's what the Annenberg docs show so far:

The UIC records show that Obama and Ayers attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program got under way. The two continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program, records show.

"Not someone I exchange ideas with on a regular basis?" Assuming he had private meetings with Ayers in addition to the public ones, one could easily conclude that Obama did indeed "exchange ideas with Ayers on a regular basis."
I'd like to know when the last time he talked to Ayers, the last time he saw him. Does he have a role - even an unofficial one - in the campaign?” Michele Malkin

When it became no longer beneficial to associate with Reverend Wright, he publicly disowned him. . . .

What about Obama’s kindly benefactor Alice Palmer?
“. . . . She is the former Illinois state senator who, in 1995, deciding to run for an open congressional seat, anointed Obama as her successor. It was from that relatively lowly position that Obama launched his incredible political career.
Palmer lost in a special congressional election in November 1995 -- the seat was open because its occupant, Mel Reynolds, was convicted on sex charges -- to the victor, Jesse Jackson, Jr., and to the runnerup, Emil Jones Jr., who became state senate president and Obama's mentor in his unlikely road to the nomination for the White House.
When she was humiliated with a third-place finish, Alice Palmer mistakenly assumed that Obama, more than 20 years her junior, would gallantly step aside so she could run for her old seat in the legislature. But Obama, who had already begun to organize his troops, said nothing doing, and, when Palmer decided to jump back into the state senate primary anyway, he successfully challenged her petitions, as well as the petitions of three other candidates for the democratic nomination. Obmama ended up running unopposed in the March 1996 primary in the district that encompasses Hyde Park, the home of the University of Chicago where Obama lived, South Shore, where Palmer lived, and Englewood, where residents are largely poor. Chicago Tribune reporters David Jackson and Ray Long wrote a first-rate account of this episode in April 2007 when Hillary Clinton was still "the inevitable."

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Con Obama is not Pro McCain

Point and counter point--if a negative is posted about Obama the person is immediately assassinated by being called a racist, redneck, or pro McCain. True, there have been far too many extremely ignorant racists, conservative, non conservative, hate for the sake of hate remarks made by those on either side of the fence. McCain claims Obama is playing the race card. Obama claims McCain is focused on race and not on the issues. So the slings and arrows fly in both directions.

Is it possible that people who are not pro McCain, not racist, and even quite liberal can disapprove of Obama because of what they see in Obama? It isn’t Obama’s funny name or the color of his skin (which I personally think is a beautiful color) that is frightening rational people. It is the man himself with all his contradictions, his anti-American actions, his loyalties to suspicious characters around the world, his consistently getting caught in his own exaggerations, outright lies, his extremely controversial family and the unknown or unsubstantiated details of his birth and even if he is really African black or Arab? Is he actually legally able to be president? Obama unwittingly reveals his ignorance about all the major political issues every time he publicly speaks. I will not tally all the details in the blunders, contradictions, lies, and exaggerations, mistakes in his statement as there are literally thousands of highly intellectual writers who are doing so and publishing them. I am merely stating that Obama’s golden voice only spews astral puke. He doesn’t have one original idea or thought the world hasn’t already heard and knows doesn’t work. This is what is disturbing rational voters.

Obama claims he will bring CHANGE to America. So will McCain bring change? No matter how many people want to call McCain --McBush, it will not turn McCain into George Bush. They are two different men with two different backgrounds in the same way Obama and McCain are also two different men. Change is here. If McCain knows one fact, he knows very well that the last thing people want is another four years of a Bush type administration. It isn’t going to happen if McCain is elected. Change will come regardless who is elected. The big question is what kind of change?

Everyone knows that no one man or president can solve all the world’s problems in one or two terms. The world is realistic enough for that. Voters are simply worried that the man they do put in office won’t make matters any worse than they are.

When I was a little girl attending a Catholic school, the nuns had a slogan; “Give me a child until he is 12 years old and he will be mine forever.” The years passed I married and had a little girl. I deliberately refused to raise her under the guidance of any religion. I chose instead, to instill human decency in her. Years later she grew up, and became a Catholic and had a Catholic wedding. I could think of the lines of Zero Mostel from the movie The Producers; “I did everything wrong. Where did I go right?” So asked my daughter who told me very clearly she became a Catholic because I raised her a Catholic. I proceeded to deny that claiming she was never introduced to catechism, sent to church, partook of the sacraments, or sent to a Catholic school, and so on and so forth. She agreed that was so. Then she informed me even though I didn’t do those things, my entire point of view and philosophy was catholic, and thus I instilled in her the basic catholic fundamentals of thought and purpose. I gasped. She was absolutely right. I raised my daughter a catholic even I had not intended so. This is why it is so important to know a candidates educational background as a young evolving child. Chances are these influences will guide the person unconsciously the rest of his life.

Basically all people are the same. All people have basically the same needs for survival. What separates one person from another or one group of people from another is the sum total of their thoughts which govern their dogma, philosophy, and ultimately their actions. That is why nothing can be more important to understand than the religious dogma, educational background, and basic philosophy of any person applying for any position of great power. Just as important is to understand the attitudes and belief systems of the person’s mate. Not only is it every voter’s right to look into such issues
of a presidential candidate, it is the duty to do so. How else can an objective voting decision be made?

This is why people who chose to place themselves in the position of the most important job in the country have to be squeaky clean in everything that pertains to their family background, religious beliefs, philosophy, loyalty to the country they are going to serve, and birth. The person applying for the job must have a proven track record of a successful past performance and not glittering rhetoric of nothing. These are the basic issues that voters need to see before they can expect the man to solve the issues of the country of the world.

Never in the history of American politics has there been a more controversial character than Obama. Obama is a Muslim who wants everyone to believe he is Christian. He denies is Muslim background. Then –for political reasons only—he disenfranchises himself from Reverend Wright’s Church. He literally insults both religions.

Some people say Obama is disliked because America is not ready for a black president. Not true. America was more than willing to accept Colin Powel if he ran. Others even thought Condoleezza Rice would have been great. Others objected she was too close to Bush—not that she is a woman or is black. I will never vote for Obama because he lacks good character and integrity. Obama’s core philosophy is Muslim. Thought I like Muslim people, I cannot agree with their ideas based upon the Koran. That doesn’t mean I am pro McCain. I may vote for an independent.

America has come a long way, baby. If it is to continue to grow, it must take a hard look at Obama and ask if he is really in the highest and best interest of American?

Open letter to Tom Thurman, SCCA President

Open letter to Mr. Tom Thurman, President of SCCA

This is my response to the post by Tom Thurman on Menifee24/7 a bout how SCCA became 55+:
“Therese Daniels' statements, as quoted, on June 13,2008 are untrue.”
My statements are quite true. If you can prove other wise, I will then an only then take back my words and apologize.
“She is accusing a deceased former SCCA board member of chicanery involved in the recording of the Sun City Civic Association's First Amended & Consolidated Declaration of Restrictions. She even accused her of doing something illegal.

If Ms. Daniels would do a little research she would see that Mrs. Roberge did not sign any recorded documents in 1997.”
May Jean Roberge rest in peace. (Lou Textera) It still doesn’t alter the fact she headed up a project approved by the SCCA Board called “Project 55” for the purpose of obtaining 250 signatures on a petition to get the CC&R’s amended from age 18+ to 55+. According to the SCCA bylaws of that time the petition was required to get the amendment put on a ballot so members could vote approval or not. (everything has been convoluted so many times by the board and its attorneys since then, who knows what they say now) Where is that ballot? Where if there was a ballot is the voting results of the ballot? How come you are not aware of “Project 55”? Why was “project 55” ever begun if SCCA already had a 55+ only status?
What you do not know, Mr. Thurman, is that I saw a document filed with the county recorder signed by Jean Roberge with only her signature on it. My only mistake was to fail to get a copy of that document when I had the chance. If you research the minutes and other documents during the years of 1997 through 2001, you may find abundant information that will substantiate my claim. However, I think you would prefer to make me bad and wrong than admit the mistakes of the SCCA Board.

“The documents were in fact signed by Glen L. Roark President of the SCCA on 03/07/1997 and filed and recorded in Riverside County on 03/11/1997. As the separate tracts in the core approved the amendment requirements they were consolidated under the Consolidated Declaration. The process took a couple of years. The last annexation was dated and signed by Glenn L. Roark 2/1/1999 filed and recorded in Riverside County 2/22/1999. Most of the tracts required an approval vote of 2/3 of the total lot owners.”
Now here is where this mess gets tricky. Where is there a copy of the ballot asking for the approval vote? It may have been sent, but I don’t remember it. The 1997 consolidation to which is Mr. Thurman referring was created by very clever attorneys for SCCA Board Members at the behest of the SCCA Board members. The attorneys were paid with SCCA membership money. Do you really think the membership was consulted about the content of this consolidation document? Who approved it? The majority of the SCCA Board? Or did the 2/3 of the membership approve it-- which is what is required when CC&R’s are being amended? The SCCA Board simply adopted the age 55+ restriction and included it in the consolidation and passed it off on the membership without a ballot and without membership full knowledge and understanding of consolidated declarations of 1997 tracts allegedly signed. Again, I ask where is the ballot asking for an amendment for an age restriction that the membership was to vote upon? Show us that ballot? Show us the ballot that gave SCCA Board then authority to hire Epsten & Grinnel to rewrite the whole enchilada!

“Jean Roberge, President and Betty Jo Adney Secretary of the SCCA signed an amendment to the First Amended & Consolidated Declaration on 08/23/2001.. . . It was filed and recorded on 9/17/2001 in Riverside County.”
Once the Epsten and Grinnel brought SCCA Board legally along that far and this very questionable document recorded, it was all over for the membership to ever hope to fight a legal battle as to what and how they did this. Though at the time, I am certain no one ever thought to fight the Board or the document. Most members just fell into place like sheep.
“. . . The signing of this amendment was authorized by a majority vote of the Board of Directors of the SCCA at a meeting on 08/16/2001.”
Check it out. Mr. Thurman admits the Board-- I repeat the -- SCCA Board of just seven members signed this document. At this stage you can argue that it is the Board’s duty to sign on behalf of the membership. That I would agree. However, at what point did the Board get permission from the membership to do so? I was around then. I don’t remember being asked. Show me where 2/3 of the membership voted approval for and signed an amendment to the age restriction!
“ . . .This amendment was required to maintain compliance with the current requirements of State and Federal law applicable to housing for senior citizens.”
It is interesting that SCCA Board failed to comply with its legal obligations after Jean Roberge obtained her 250 signed petition, to place this amendment on the ballot to obtain a 2/3 membership vote; but SCCA is so concerned about maintaining compliance regarding senior housing. Could it be there is something wrong with this picture?

“It is my opinion that Ms. Daniels has self-interest in her desire to open the core to all ages as she is a real estate person, and her primary concern is her pocket book and not the welfare of the homeowners in the core.”
Isn’t this a standard response when people don’t know what else to say. She is a real estate agent and has self interest and wants to make a lot of money. I normally ignore such stupidity but I am going to answer it this time in hopes it enlightens people to reality. The majority of the years I practiced real estate was in Los Angeles where the big money is. A realtor isn’t confined to one little tiny area like Sun City Core where the property values are among the lowest in California and the deals are the most difficult to close. The real money properties are built all around and right to the borders of Sun City. They sell for more money, less aggravation, and none of the added problem of age restrictions. Any realtor can make a great living without ever having to sell one 45+ year old property in the core when the market is just a little better than the one we are in.

“Stupid is what stupid does.” Forrest Gump
So Mr. Thurman, take your head out of the sand and look around. After that, take a Fleets enema, to clear your head. Sun City is obsolete with its 40+ year old properties, perma rock landscaping, and oleander bushes cut to only six feet. I have no personal agenda to get rich on the poorest, most difficult properties in the state of California.
Yes, it is true. You bet I would like to see the core opened to all ages. So would a whole lot of other SCCA members. This would be in the highest and best interest of every property owner and member in the core. It will also bring fresh and new energy to this tired old core. It will help us transform into the new Menifee City and the 21 first century. In case you haven’t noticed, Mr. Thurman, times, life styles, attitudes, and needs have changed since 1964. It is time SCCA awaken, step out of its time capsule and change. Come into the 21 first century. If you want to accuse me of ulterior motives, Let me go one better. I would like to see entire SCCA dissolved. It is no longer needed and except for the 300 to 500 people who still use the facilities you so affectionately call “the Campus”, no one cares about the activities. This is a different world. People are into computers and gyms. SCCA is nothing but a money pit. It offers no services of any value to me and over 4,000 of the rest of the members. Yet we are forced to pay for the rest of the dinosaurs who are still living in prehistoric times.
Housing is the economic backbone of America. When the housing market gets in trouble, the entire economic balance of the country tumbles down with it. Home ownership is the great American dream. It is family shelter and its investment. For most people it is the greatest investment of their life time. People are entitled to get the highest and best value from their properties. This is not only good investment, and the American way, but it is moral, ethical, and right. Any one will agree with these thoughts except for the SCCA Board and a handful of recalcitrant members.
SCCA is the perfect example why deed restricted titles are inferior to all other titles. People cannot control their investments because the investments are in the control of Boards of Directors who think they know-- but don’t know the first thing about property value.-- The SCCA’s board
minimized, depreciated, and devalued
the real estate of its own members when it imposed the 55+ restriction. Isn’t it disgusting, Mr. Thurman, that the people who bought into this community with their life savings trusted the SCCA Board of Directors to safeguard their investment only to see it fail? Isn’t it pitiful, Mr. Thurman, that people bought into Sun City Core hoping it would be a good plan for their old age only to lose it in foreclosure because of a minimum market created by age restriction? Isn’t this, Mr. Thurman, the ultimate betrayal of the SCCA Board to its members? Where is your concern for the welfare of the members. Money is a very real need. Without it, people soon become homeless. You know what happens to the homeless. Where have all the members gone who used to live in these abandoned homes?
The sad reality is SCCA members have been harmed by the 55+ restrictions in many, many ways. There are families whose older children who have fallen upon hard times these past few years who can not help their children by sharing their home because of the age restriction. There are others who were counting on the sale of their property to take them into another life style who couldn’t sell their homes and lost them in foreclosure. There are several abandoned homes because it is easier to just let them rot than to attempt to sell or rent because of the age restrictions. The people in the core cannot refinance because values are so low. The families with gorgeous homes at the borders of the core cannot refinance either because the core neighborhood depreciates the value of their property. These are just a few reasons why age restricted communities are not in the highest and best interest of titleholders. The horror stories go on and on and on. What about the welfare of these good, innocent and somewhat naïve families, Mr. Thurman? Don’t you care about them? I do.

“We are allowed to discriminate based on age as a Senior Community in fact, it is encouraged by State and Federal laws.”

That statement is a crock of manure. This is a classic example of how facts are twisted and convoluted to suit any one’s purpose. No wonder it is so difficult to get accurate information about anything. The state and federal laws neither encourage nor discourage age discrimination. It is merely a permission given by state and federal for those seniors who choose to create a senior community. If you really understood anti discrimination laws, you would know age discrimination is forbidden unless a community has met the standards to be an age restricted community. Sun City Core failed to meet the required standards to qualify for a senior only community. However because Sun City was built prior to the Unruh Act, the standards were waived!
“There are no laws that would allow us to lower the age limit to 18, 25, or 45. This would be illegal discrimination and we would be in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1988.”

Tom Thurman

SCCA Member
You are quite correct when you say there are no laws that would allow SCCA to return to the original adult only age 18+ status when Sun City was first developed. The Unruh act erased that. However, there is nothing stopping Sun City From removing the 55+ restriction and start to restore property values so members could enjoy some equity.