Clinton-appointed fed judge in LA rules that taxpayers must "give" the homeless homes

While everyone's attention was focused on race riots, a federal judge in California made a RULING that might interest you.

Of course you don't live in California, so why should you care?

Oh, dat's right:  Because this establishes legal precedent that will soon be forced on every state.

Oh.

Cali has a wonderful climate, and lots of drugs, so it's a magnet for druggies and drug pushers and people who prefer living in a tent in Los Angeles to living in a tent in, say, Minneapolis.  So it comes as a surprise to no one with a functioning brain that druggies and "the homeless" flock to LA.

As of January, LA county reportedly had 66,000 "homeless" people.  Of course rational people are distressed by this.  The difference is in what the two parties propose to reduce it.

Dems/ liberals/ socialists/ "progressives" and communists want to force "the city" or "the county" to build homes or apartments for them, and give those to the homeless.  What a great idea!  Except, of course, that the only source of money for "the city" and "the county" is...taxpayers.  So any measure that forces "the city" or "the county" to build homes for druggies and the mentally ill must be paid for by...wait for it...taxpayers.

Which is perfectly fine for the Dems/liberals/socialists.  It's part of their wondrous virtue.

SO...last March the "LA Alliance for Human Rights" sued the city and county, claiming they'd "failed to address the homelessness crisis."  The Alliance demanded that the city and county be ordered to build and give taxpayer-funded homes to druggies and the mentally ill--"the homeless." 

And to the surprise of no one, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter--a Bill Clinton appointee--agreed, ordering both the city and county to relocate anyone camped within 500 feet of a freeway into a shelter or "alternative housing."

Now Carter has "approved an agreement" between the LA Alliance for Human Rights and the county, ordering the latter to build 7,000 housing units for the homeless.

Oh wait...that was NOT an "order" by the far-left judge.  No no no no!  Instead he merely "approved an agreement," meaning the virtue-signalling Democrat pols happily caved to the demands of the Left to spend another gazillion bucks of taxpayer taxes to build "free" units for the "homeless."

The last time Los Angeles build "housing units" for the druggies, the "units" ended up costing taxpayers $500,000 per unit.  Seriously.  But of course that's perfectly reasonable, eh?  As Obama famously claimed, "Not a smidgen of corruption."  Uh-huh.

Of course once a federal judge rules that taxpayers must give druggies and the mentally ill a "free" home, what's next?  Well, as someone pointed out, it's really hard to get around LA on public transit, so you can expect the "homeless advocates" to sue the city/county to give the homeless a free car.

Cuz really, citizen, if you're willing to pay half a million bucks to give 'em a condo, the cost of a car is negligible, right?

Of course the law requires that everyone who owns a car must have auto liability insurance, right?  And since druggies spend any cash they have on drugs, it's both unreasonable and just cruel to expect them to pay for something as silly as auto insurance.  So you can expect a Dem judge will order taxpayers to pay for their auto insurance.

And of course, liberals claim that internet access and a cell phone are also basic human rights, so it's only a matter of time before judge Carter orders taxpayers to "give" the homeless those things too.

And of course we simply MUST give everyone health insurance, eh?  Cuz Democrats scream that health care is yet another "basic human right."

And then there's access to information.  That's a basic human right too, eh?  And you get that from the Mainstream Media, and for the stupid that means television.  So how long before Carter orders taxpayers to give the druggies a TV.  And it would be cruel to give 'em just ANY cheap, small TV, right?  So I'm thinking he'd order a minimum size...say 55-inch flat-screen.  And cable TV, of course.  You absolutely have to give 'em "free" cable, cuz...well, it's a "basic human right," right?

And of course internet service.  That too is a basic human right, right?

And then there's "guaranteed basic income."  Cuz the "progressives" tell us that, too, is a "basic human right."

Say, just out of curiosity: since a "guaranteed basic income" is a "basic human right," do communist regimes pay people who don't work?  Just asking for a friend.

The greatest threat to freedom is federal judges.