After the Rodney King case, white truck driver Reginald Denny was savagely beaten by angry blacks. During the ensuing riots, black and Hispanic looters were given a pass under the rubric of "justified social rage."

In the winter of 1993, Colin Ferguson exercised his racial animosity against whites by shooting passengers on a commuter train from Manhattan. Upon investigation, it was found that he had a vendetta against whites.

The aforementioned material comes from Dinesh D'Souza's 1995 book entitled The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society. Now, twenty years later, we see how this "violent expression" is expanding, all the while being promoted by the first black president of the United States.

Currently, we see out-of-control black teenagers attacking people at malls and swimming pools, yet the coverage in the media is, for the most part, nonexistent. Colin Flaherty leads the charge in exposing the brutality and racist motivation, but he is a lone voice in the wilderness.

At another level, we have a Democrat-controlled city of Baltimore with a black female mayor espousing the need for "space to destroy." Repeatedly, we see the same vicious cycle of black rage, which only destroys their own urban communities, makes white people cringe in fear, and ultimately hurts decent law-abiding black people caught in the crossfire. Nonetheless, Obama encourages the lawlessness.

Consequently, the words of Derrick Bell, uttered in 1994, now reflect a mainstream approach as Obama continues his ultimate transformation of America.

The new crop of leaders are going to be a lot more dangerous and radical, and the next phase will probably be led by charismatic individuals, maybe even teenagers, who urge that instead of killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.

Derrick Bell and Jewelle Taylor Gibbs have maintained that African-American rage will eventually find "violent expression in the suburbs."

And, lo and behold, it will be coming very soon to your neighborhood, in the form of a fair housing rule promulgated by Obama. This rule, known as the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (AFFH), has been shrouded in secrecy.

Obama, the ultimate leftist, continues with his false utopian dreams. Repeatedly, Obama openly supports the notion that wealthy people have no right to their wealth. And, furthermore, it is the principled right of poor people – or the government serving their so-called interests – to rob the affluent of their hard-earned wealth. In traditional Obama fashion, the AFFH will actually promote racial division, racial rage, and social engineering, all the while maintaining an intention to undo racism.

What a clever way to insinuate certain people into a community who do not appreciate the culture of hard work yet thrive by maintaining a culture of entitlement mixed in with a rage that knows no bounds.

In essence, the AFFH "gives the federal government a lever to re-engineer nearly every American neighborhood – imposing a preferred racial and ethnic composition, densifying housing, transportation, and business development in suburb and city alike, and weakening or casting aside the authority of local governments over core responsibilities, from zoning to transportation to education."

A blueprint for this suburban integration plan was previously tried from 1994 to 2008, when HUD resettled urban poor in the suburbs via Clinton's "Moving to Opportunity Initiative." It failed dismally as "more people went on food stamps and their children did not do better in their new schools."

Besides reducing safety as well as property values, the AFFH rule signals what I have dubbed Payback Time White America (PTWA), which Obama engages at every opportunity. The fact that well-to-do black Americans may fall victim is just a friendly fire event for Obama.

Rest assured that it will help promote racial animus and resentment, which, in turn, will result in more "threats of anarchy and racial apocalypse." Thus, repressed rage will find its outlet in class and racial warfare. Exactly as Obama dreams.

Every day, we hear the Obama tirade about people not being responsible for their actions; after all, "you didn't build that," or, in the reverse, you are not responsible for the destruction of your own neighborhoods. Each utterance describes a moral compass that either diminishes hard work or elevates destruction. It deliberately inflames and pits one group against another.

And if racism has nothing to do with the conditions of blacks, then just concoct a scenario and scream racism – that alone will suffice. As Rush Limbaugh has stated, it's not the nature of the evidence that matters in Obamaland; it's the seriousness of the charge.

Stanley Kurtz has pointed out that the AFFH is being kept under wraps because, as Brookings Fellow Richard Reeves has stated, "[p]erhaps it's important to keep [the AFFH rule] sounding obscure in order to get it through." As Kurtz explains, "[i]n other words, to get the AFFH rule enacted before public opposition and congressional Republicans can block it, [the administration has] to keep its existence and importance quiet[.]" Thus, according to Reeves, "[s]ometimes obscurity is the best political strategy, particularly in this area."

One hears echoes of how Obamacare was rammed through, under this incredibly non-transparent administration. We have learned far too often that this president is a perfect example of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, or untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. Every time Obama claims something, we have come to learn that it is a far cry from the truth.

According to the Office of the Secretary at HUD:

The Fair Housing Act not only prohibits discrimination but, in conjunction with other statutes, directs HUD's program participants to take significant actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly balanced and integrated living patterns, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination. The approach to affirmatively furthering fair housing carried out by HUD program participants prior to this rule, which involved an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice and a certification that the program participant will affirmatively further fair housing, has not been as effective as originally envisioned.

Certainly we can envision low-income buildings in the middle of the suburbs. Will poor black families be able to demand houses that white executives own? Will the wealthy have to subsidize the poor in order to enable them to live in the neighborhood? How exactly does one seed a community with people in order to make it "free from discrimination"? What will be the racial proportions of the community under AFFH? If economics is not the guiding principle, what is? Will people who claim to be black – e.g., Rachel Dolezal – receive preferential treatment? Will illegals get an opportunity to experience the American dream though their income is insufficient? Will the government use taxpayer money and just buy up land and settle people?

In light of Obama's racial trajectory, what will eventually happen is the destruction of neighborhoods, and the ramping up of racial animosity. Black flash mobs will get the go-ahead to destroy even when they may have obtained a better geographical space. White and black homeowners will fear for their safety as the entitlement mentality morphs throughout their community. After all, according to Obama, racism is in America's genes, and when a disease is discovered, the vector clearly needs to be destroyed. Obama's ultimate dream to transform America will have occurred, and we will live in a third-world paradise, with the government distributing whatever crumbs it so deigns as long as the misery will be shared by all.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.