A HOMELESS Bill Of Rights?! Only In California. . .

I am not amazed in the least about this proposal from state Assemblyman  Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco, of course) to give the homeless people of the once Golden State a "bill of rights".
This Assemblyman Ammiano fellow was also pushing to legalize marijuana. You know, because it could be taxed to the hilt of course as a way to "solve" our perpetual budget fiasco.
But this, well this almost wants the pot to be legal because then I can use it to numb my mind to the dread that this state has become that this, more than likely, will get serious consideration in the legislature next year.
In general, the reality of homelessness is something that no society should be proud of. There are multiple layers of reasons why people are homeless. There are three major reasons why there are homeless people. One is mental illness. The overwhelming majority of homeless fall into this category. The two that follow, drug abuse and alcoholism, can be part of the mental illness. In that case, many homeless have the unfortunate trifecta. But some have one only of the three major factors.
So keep this in mind as I present the thrust of this bizarre legislation.
Here are the "highlights" of Assemblyman Ammiano's homeless "bill of rights":

-- Sleeping in public spaces such as sidewalks and parks
-- 24/7 access to bathrooms, showers, water and clean syringes.
-- Car camping on city streets without restrictions
-- "Life sustaining activities" such as urinating and collecting recycling trash
-- Welfare cash payments
-- Meditating or praying in public
-- Panhandling
-- Payment for possessions seized in a roust
-- Right to refuse the offer of a homeless shelter
-- Right to a lawyer in most encounters with the law

Oh goodness, where to start.
I guess I will go into the middle of the 10 "rights" this would start and that is welfare cash payments.
Nothing encourages homelessness more than allowing them to be on welfare of any kind and not in some kind of housing. Pray tell Assemblyman Ammiano, how is said homeless person to obtain welfare payments? Since most people who get public assistance are given a debit card, should we just start issuing John Doe or Jane Doe and guess how much to hand out to the homeless? And where will they be able to get one? Should they have a bank account? Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh this is a gasser. That the homeless can meditate and or pray in public. Hey, dude. When children are allowed to do the same in public schools, come back to me on that one.
I really, really love the "life sustaining activities" that include, I kid you not urinating and collecting recycling trash. I note that it stops at urinating and not number two, aka pooping, dumping and you know the rest.
I digress because this reminds me of something I saw a few years ago here in my fair, homeless-friendly burg.
In front of the local First Methodist Church along Colorado Blvd, the Rose Parade route, a cleanly homeless man whipped out his member in front of the church and proceeded to live life the way that Assemblyman Ammiano thinks the homeless should live. By taking a wiz right on some plants.
While the rest of us, you know, those that are not a special class by actually doing things right, would have been arrested for at the very least indecent exposure.
If this God-forsaken bill were to pass as is and signed by Gov. Moonbeam Brown, why it would create a two-class system.
One of my big issues is panhandling.
I hate it.
In the past, those that asked for a quarter or any change would be nice about it. Sheepish because they knew it was not a good thing to do. But now, now these people will ask for whole dollars. And not just a buck. Some have accosted me and asked for five bucks. Five frickin' bucks! Really?! It has happened. And many times, they do not take kindly to the no. They will follow and harass until people breakdown and give money. And let us not forget how some get a little inventive and think that if they have a squeegee and a bucket of water, that gives them a right to come up to your car, wash your windows and, yup, ask for money. Oh, and one is not always asked if they even want their car windows washed.
And here is another digression.
As a purveyor of public transit, let me share with you about the guy who just sits there and harasses people as they get on the bus for quarters. Yup, two Thursday's in a row, this dude who does not seem all that homeless is sitting there really bothering people that the bus driver has had to tell him to lay off.
But, in the old days, said dude would have been thrown off the bus. Not anymore. For those "on the margins" have extended rights us eeeeeevvvvviiiiilllll middle-class folks do not.
The "car camping" is not only wrong-headed but a clear threat to public safety to the homeless and the citizenry. What if a criminal should break into a car and end up killing a "car camper"? What would we say about that? And how about someone using car camping to stake-out places to rob? Ever think about that Assemblydude?!
But here is the kicker.
The "right" to refuse the offer of a homeless shelter.
The reason that there are homeless shelters is to give people a temporary place to stay rather than to be out on the streets, especially in inclement weather. These are places that help, not hurt, homeless people. The fact that most homeless are alcoholics, drug abusers, and mentally ill, a combo or all three is even more reason that they should be encouraged to get off the street.
This is what is wrong with modern liberalism.
They never want to address root causes of problems but they want to create unimaginable "rights" that no civil society can tolerate.
Giving the homeless "rights" to pee openly on the street, harass people for money, taking their lives and the lives of others to risk is not the way to go.
If Assemblyman Ammiano is serious about the homeless problem, he would seek ways towards getting the homeless OFF the streets, not encouraging more of them. What Assemblyman Ammiano should be doing is seeking ways to find common ground that will get as many homeless off the streets. If that means more state funding for mental health programs and hospitals and the like, we need to figure that out.
Treating the homeless like a different, yes privileged class, is not the solution. That means we need to write our legislators and tell them to vote no on this terrible proposed bill.
Because if not, then what would only be in California will spread across this nation. And that would not be a good thing.

Want Another Reason California Is So Screwed Up?

Well, probably not. But I have to offer you the latest installment of the never-ending series on why the once Golden State is ready to go off the cliff.
Thanks to my pal An Unmarried Man, I was treated to this story that is, well bizarre seems to be too tame.
So, this dude Robert Edward De Shields, a frequent guest of the county and state prison system, committed an act that is beyond unthinkable.
Yes, Mr. De Shields committed the act of bestiality. He had sex with a dog. Not any kind of dog, mind you. But a puny chihuahua.
But hey, I guess when you are tweaking on crystal meth, a chihuahua looks like any other kind of hottie, right?
Yep, Mr. De Shields was high on meth and raped a chihuahua.
Needless to say, it was not his dog. Thank God. But horrified homeowners came home to find the tweaker, Mr. De Shields, holding the terrified dog. And after being examined by a vet, it was determined that the dog had severe injuries to his rectum and internal organs.
Now insert a big, fat eeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuwwwwwwwwww!
But wait! There is more!
Rightfully, Mr. De Shields was convicted of a crime.
But not just any crime.
Mr. De Shields was convicted of sexual assault of an animal. And he must register as a sex offender. And because of that, Mr. De Shields will have to serve time in state prison.
Ten years is the sentence.
Now because of the budget crisis that has made county jails extensions of state prisons, supposed low-level criminals are being sent to the jails to make room for, well the likes of Mr. De Shields.
But here is the thing.
Is it not a more severe sentence than if he had committed a similar act against a human?
And is this not elevating the rape of a dog, gross as it is, over the rape of a human?
Bingo on both counts!
The question is why in the hell was Mr. De Shields allowed to roam among the citizenry? Should he have not been in jail and or a mental institution?
Of course he should have been in one or the other. The dude has been in and out of prison since 1992. What is more amazing is that Mr. De Shields is wheelchair bound and yet raped a puppy.
Leave it to the London Daily Mail to delve a little deeper into this tale. As the report pointed out, the basis for seeking such a sentence is Jessica's Law. And it is the first time it has been applied to the rape of an animal.
But since the dude was high on meth, did he really know what the hell he was doing?
No. Being convicted of animal abuse under the basis of Jessica's Law is going way too far.
Yes, Mr. De Shields should be somewhere away from civilized society. But this is not the way to do it.
This puts the puppy at an equal level as human. It is the extension of the animal "rights" movement writ large.
As I have written many times, I am an animal lover. I do not like to see animal abuse. I do believe in animal welfare. That animals, even those bred for food, should be treated well. But animals are not human. They have some human characteristics, but they do not have the cognitive use of reason we do. Thus they do not and can not have "rights".
It is why there are laws against having sex with animals. Because we, the human, even under the influence of meth, have the ability to reason that it is not right nor natural to do such a thing.
But treating it at the same level in a court of law, well this is wrong.
While many real criminals will serve minimal time because of state prison overcrowding, a sledge hammer was taken in this case because there seemed to be no other way to get this degenerate, De Shields, off the streets.
Two lessons should be learned here.
One, druggies like Mr. De Shields are not going to be helped. They need to be institutionalized. Yes, I want my tax dollars to go to building more to get people off the streets and the proper help that they need.
And second, animal abuse can not and should not be equalized in any way with human abuse. It debases the humans and elevates animals.
Now I wonder if California will learn any of these lessons? Or will we just continue out descent unabated?

HT: An Unmarried Man, aka David Quintero