Writes Amy Howe, at SCOTUSblog.
Here's the 9th Circuit opinion: Johnson v. City of Grants Pass.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board quickly responded with "Is There a Constitutional Right to Vagrancy?":
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board quickly responded with "Is There a Constitutional Right to Vagrancy?":
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal challenging a judicial ruling that established a de facto constitutional right to vagrancy. Wouldn't it be rich if conservative Justices rescue progressive cities from themselves?...
Local governments in the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Phoenix, also urged Justices to hear the case. That includes California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who argued in a friend-of-court brief that "courts are not well-suited to micromanage such nuanced policy issues based on ill-defined rules."
We look forward to Mr. Newsom's constitutional communion with Justice Clarence Thomas.
Posts
67 comments:
Allowing people to sleep in the street is not compassion…
The Martha's Vineyard model and precedent of equity and inclusion would suit everyone if prosecuted consistently.
The housing-first model for getting druggie concrete campers off the concrete is a complete failure. Here in King County, the KC Executive has been paying premium prices for underutilized motels and is now complaining that the County has a budget problem. The DCCs move into the motels, trash them and contaminate them with meth/fentanyl fumes, and reject any kind of drug treatment.
Seattle/King County formed a regional homeless authority, and hired a nincompoop Mark Dones to run it. He resigned after little more than a year without out any improvement. Surprise, surprise! But the Homeless Industrial Complex is doing well on the ~$250MM/year budget. They aren't solving the problem because then who would need their services?
Housing is not a right. Someone has to pay. Why should the taxpayer pay to support illegal activity?
Not sure exactly how widespread it was, but during the mid 20th century, “poor farms” were a common amenity in rural counties.
When I was researching the 1940 census of Douglas county Missouri (where my mother was born and raised) it included names and data of those living on the poor farm. It was not intended as punishment, but rather a way to accommodate those less fortunate who had no means of support. If you could not support yourself the county stepped in, gave you a place to sleep, food, and work which matched your skill and abilities.
1) There is no chance the Supreme Court will agree with the 9th circuit that there is a constitutional right to vagrancy.
2) Politically, the interesting thing is Gov. Newsom’s decision to support the petitioners. He is a reliable weather vane and thus I conclude the winds are shifting and the Democrats no longer support the 9th Circuit’s decision.
I wish I had confidence that the SCOTUS will rule for commonsense, but Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are all wild cards in these kinds of cases.
"The court of appeals reasoned that, just as the city could not punish someone for their status – being homeless – it also could not punish them for conduct 'that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless.'"
Is camping on the sidewalk an unavoidable consequence of anything? If cities can establish and enforce zoning laws and building codes, why can't a city ban camping on the sidewalk? And if cities cannot ban public camping, can they ban pig farming in a designated commercial zone? Does this right-to-camp extend to non-homeless folks? Do I have a right to park my 45-foot Tffin Zephry RV on the sidewalk What about poverty? If camping is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless, isn't theft an unavoidable consequence of poverty?
Frankly, I can't think of any non-tautological unavoidable consequence. Maybe if we ask Schödinger's cat...
How many million more economic migrants can the US accommodate?
Sorry, that was xenophobic, it just slipped out. I will head down to the Ministry of Love for reprogramming voluntarily.
Breaking the law is very simple to identify. It does not matter if you are homeless or not. Being homeless does not give you added "rights" to break the law. This has gone on too long and is getting worse. I know many of them are severely mentally ill or addicted and there is no perfect solution, so until then, arrest them and force them into treatment facilities. Everyone in society is expected to abide by the rules and laws.
Doesn't our Living Constitution explicitly state: that All ants MUST support ALL grasshoppers?
Doesn't IT?
If you work and labor, and save and invest.. aren't You doing ALL that to support lazy grasshoppers?
Isn't THAT Why you are an ant?
OMG, pray. As soon as the winter shelter closes they are all over the place here, camping, sleeping in the rough, knocking on our door.
The Ninth really fucked things up.
The DCCs move into the motels, trash them and contaminate them with meth/fentanyl fumes, and reject any kind of drug treatment.
Again, our Living Constitution EXPLICITLY States, that:
NO ONE EVER HAS TO WORK
FOOD, SHELTER, MEDICAL CARE, RECREATIONAL DRUGS all must be provided FREE OF CHARGE
you worker ants NEED to realize, that you were Put on this earth, to support the lazy grasshoppers.
You should be (MUST BE) honored to serve.. It is YOU PLACE
Allowing people to sleep in the street is not compassion
A noble sentiment, but it doesn't even hint at a solution.
"Not sure exactly how widespread it was, but during the mid 20th century, “poor farms” were a common amenity in rural counties."
Yeah, I don't know why this problem is so hard. Build barracks.
"The court of appeals reasoned that, just as the city could not punish someone for their status – being homeless – it also could not punish them for conduct 'that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless.'"
What about punishing someone for their status - being employed - by making them financially responsible for supporting those who won't work? Does the court have any thoughts on that?
In a 2018 case, the 9th Circuit] held that punishing homeless people for public camping would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment if they did not have access to shelter elsewhere... That includes California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who argued in a friend-of-court brief...
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"
I wonder what the court meant by "punishment". San Francisco obviously moves bums out of Golden Gate Park and its downtown for the Xi visit. Is that what is meant by punishment? If a city can relocate bums to a part of the city where they menace fewer people, what is the problem?
The court of appeals reasoned that, just as the city could not punish someone for their status – being homeless – it also could not punish them for conduct 'that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless.'"
So if a guy is homeless he probably doesn't attract women and has less access to sex.
He is perfectly justified in grabbing your 6th grader on their way to school.
Leftism is madness.
"punishing homeless people for public camping would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment if they did not have access to shelter elsewhere."
Presumably, the Ninth Circuit would also find that punishing unmarried people for rape violates that Amendment. Presumably, the Ninth Circuit could find its own ass in the dark, given a flashlight and a guide dog. And someone to lift their stupid fucking black dresses for them. What a tendentious pack of brazen criminals.
I'm experiencing nausea reading about crack addicts and bums "experiencing homelessness."
You have to sleep somewhere, but it does not follow that you have to sleep on the sidewalk or in a park. The judges are being facile when they claim that sleeping in public spaces is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless. Is pooping in the street an unavoidable consequence of being bathroomless?
Under this logic, what can you ban a homeless person from doing?
Re: "poor farms"
They were also known as County Farms. There is a road in central Dupage County Illinois name "County Farm Road". There are many of these roads in California, Michigan, etc.
Is this how cities die -- slowly of their own volition?
Compassion is no longer in todays politics...
Can’t they go pick all those vegetables Jerry Nadler said need picking. They would get paid and sleep in a field house. Win win.
"Wouldn't it be rich if conservative Justices rescue progressive cities from themselves?..."
Or...wouldn't it be expected that conservative Justices rule based on the law rather than what would be politically advantageous.
You subsidize something, you get more of it. This is what the cities run by morons are finding out- they are subsidizing homelessness, so the homeless keep showing up there.
Levi Starks:
If you could not support yourself the county stepped in, gave you a place to sleep, food, and work which matched your skill and abilities.
And there, bolded, you have the problem with the current approach.
If each state that enacted the Model Residential Landlord Tenant Act, repealed the provision forbidding tenants from waiving any of their "rights" under the Act, homeless campers would be free to choose "unhabitable" housing over sleeping in parks and on sidewalks. Bad housing is better than no housing at all. The presumptiousness of our betters deciding for us that in all circumstances a leaky roof is worse than none, and a mouse in the house is worse than human preditors lurking in homeless camps is mind boggling. It's racist to boot, since it presumes that BIPOC folks, who make up a disproportionate number of the homeless, are too stupid to decide what's best for themselves in choosing a "slum" dwelling over a sidewalk.
If each state that enacted the Model Residential Landlord Tenant Act, repealed the provision forbidding tenants from waiving any of their "rights" under the Act, homeless campers would be free to choose "unhabitable" housing over sleeping in parks and on sidewalks. Bad housing is better than no housing at all. The presumptiousness of our betters deciding for us that in all circumstances a leaky roof is worse than none, and a mouse in the house is worse than human preditors lurking in homeless camps is mind boggling. It's racist to boot, since it presumes that BIPOC folks, who make up a disproportionate number of the homeless, are too stupid to decide what's best for themselves in choosing a "slum" dwelling over a sidewalk.
"San Francisco, which spent over $672 million during the last fiscal year"
That is $ 86,664.94 per homeless person. Hafta gross over a hundred thousand as a working person in order to net that kind of money. Seems mildly inefficient.
"Under the 2022 PIT Count, 7,754 people were experiencing homelessness in San Francisco. Of those people, 3,357 were staying in shelter. There was a 3.5% decrease in the total homeless population from 2019 – 2022. Of the total population of people experiencing homelessness, a larger proportion were in shelter."
https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population#:~:text=Under%20the%202022%20PIT%20Count%2C%207%2C754%20people%20were,experiencing%20homelessness%2C%20a%20larger%20proportion%20were%20in%20shelter.
The only way to tackle this issue is to fund and commit these people for treatment.
A noble sentiment, but it doesn't even hint at a solution
I appreciate this comment. There are polices and adjustments of priorities that will reduce the problem to near zero but unfortunately nobody on either side is interested in hearing about them and certainly not interested in implementing them…
That is $ 86,664.94 per homeless person.
I'd be happy to make a deal with San Francisco. If they send me $85k a year, I promise not to move to their city and camp on their sidewalks (or any other public space.) In fact, if they catch me when I'm in a good mood, I'll probably be willing to not do it for $80k.
Blogger DINKY DAU 45 said...
Compassion is no longer in todays politics...
Compassion would be to reopen the mental hospitals and start committing these people.
idiot.
I get the sense here that a lot of you don't know what sort of place we're talking about. Grants Pass is a smallish town in southern OR. It got hit rather badly between the timber collapse and the Northern Spotted Owl business. Were it not for the fact that it has a Tesla supercharger, I doubt that I'd ever have heard of it.
It is definitely not a hangout for stoners, other druggies, or the mentally ill.
There is therefore, I think, a reasonable presumption that some of the Grants Pass homeless are literally people who had lived there and now have lost their homes. It's not the sort of place that attracts nuisances; I am willing to bet that people "camping" there are doing so because they have run out of anything else to do.
Aggressively pursue the drug prole and you'll get rid of 90% of your homeless problem. Roght now we're paying white, progressive college graduates enormous saleries to insure that we have more homeless.
Rotwang's Cabana Boy writes, "A noble sentiment, but it doesn't even hint at a solution."
Freder continues to plumb uncharted depths of bullshit.
No one is morally, legally, or contractually obliged to cure what ails you, not even a physician, especially if you're a lazy, dissolute, and decadent social parasite. Last October I was approached by a beggar who hammered on my car window while I waited at an intersection. He didn't even have the decency to offer to wash and squeegee my windshield, just gimme da money! I noticed he had tattooed sleeves on both arms. Those aren't cheap. Feeling disinclined to finance his ink or his other habits, I showed him my CZ-75.
Freder might earn an atom of my respect if he can hint at a solution that doesn't demand coerced funding. Those who weep for the so-called "homeless" can jolly well finance them from their own pockets. Have you volunteered, Freder, or is your self-esteem satisfied with "noble sentiments"?
Thanks, Alu Tolua. I hadn't heard of that act. Very interesting, another example of unintended consequences of well-meaning laws.
I hope the Supreme Court notes the public health risks, particularly in regards to syringes at playgrounds.
Dude1394 writes, "The only way to tackle this issue is to fund and commit these people for treatment."
You have a grave imagination deficit, dude. Your knowledge of recent history is rather tattered and threadbare as well. Millions of well-meaning liberals wrote or endorsed the same or similar words in the pages of well-meaning publications like The New Republic and The Atlantic generations ago. Those people evidently believed druggies were afflicted with a treatable illness. This notion is at least 126 years old and is pseudoscience of the worst kind. On an intellectual scale, it rates somewhere between the Flat Earth and phrenology. Did you know that Heroin is a tradename belonging to Bayer AG? From 1898 to 1910 they marketed it as a treatment for drug addiction, just like fucking Methadone. They are both useless because there is no disease to treat.
So..
Do poor homeless people have to buy hunting and fishing licenses?
Do poor homeless people have to obey hunting and fishing regulations?
It costs me about $175/yr JUST for fishing licenses (in 3 states)..
If i was hungry enough to want to eat a mule deer, it's cost me Nearly $400 for a Wyoming tag..
ASSUMING that i could get one.
I AM POOR.. Since it's nearly 4:30, i'm HUNGRY! WHY CAN'T I SHOOT Deer?
Dude1394 said...
“The only way to tackle this issue is to fund and commit these people for treatment.”
I am assuming you’re talking about the 9th circuit justices, right?
I can't claim to be an expert on the homeless, but I lived/worked in the District of Columbia for the better part of four decades, i.e., I saw a LOT of homeless. It's obvious that a large portion of the homeless population are not Joe and Jane Doe who somehow ran out of money. They are mentally ill people, sometimes but not always on drugs. There was a well-known case in DC in which a well-to-do widow died and left her house to a homeless man who used to hang out near her house, and was always polite to her. He lived in the house for a few weeks, but then was back on the street. A "homeless" homeowner.
I've got strong libertarian leanings. I don't want to lock "homeless" people in asylums where they won't be cured. But the alternative is that mentally ill people will congregate in our public spaces, even when the local government provides shelter for them.
Judges don't have the skill-set to deal with this problem. I don't know who does.
I can't claim to be an expert on the homeless, but I lived/worked in the District of Columbia for the better part of four decades, i.e., I saw a LOT of homeless. It's obvious that a large portion of the homeless population are not Joe and Jane Doe who somehow ran out of money. They are mentally ill people, sometimes but not always on drugs. There was a well-known case in DC in which a well-to-do widow died and left her house to a homeless man who used to hang out near her house, and was always polite to her. He lived in the house for a few weeks, but then was back on the street. A "homeless" homeowner.
I've got strong libertarian leanings. I don't want to lock "homeless" people in asylums where they won't be cured. But the alternative is that mentally ill people will congregate in our public spaces, even when the local government provides shelter for them.
Judges don't have the skill-set to deal with this problem. I don't know who does.
"Those who weep for the so-called "homeless" can jolly well finance them from their own pockets."
Many moons ago on a message board far, far away, I asked the resident leftist what he was doing about the issue he was currently whining about- how much of his own money was he donating to alleviate the problem? He said "Nothing." When I asked why not, he said he wasn't willing to spend anything until everybody else was obligated to pay for the problem, too.
This, in a nutshell, demonstrates your typical leftist's compassion for his fellow man.
What is needed is vagrancy laws and work homes for the homeless.
Ha! I was just telling someone today that in my youth, if I left too many (unneeded) lights on in my parents' home, my dad would invariably say, "Turn off the lights when you leave a room -- you're going to put me in the Poor Farm!"
He was born in 1930 and I always envisioned such a place as a big dilapidated multi-story boarding house where one had to perform manual labor to gain a four-to-a-room bedroom with horsehair blankets and mush for breakfast.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
"Allowing people to sleep in the street is not compassion"
A noble sentiment, but it doesn't even hint at a solution.
Right, those are two separate things - the quoted portion is just the formulation of the problem. We start from the first and work toward the second.
So, what's your suggestion for a solution? Since it appears that you agree with the formulation of the problem, Freder?
With respect, Quaestor, of course there will be addicts who cannot ever get clean. But there are also those who can and do. There's not going to be a perfect solution here - but clean-and-sober requirements for housing do appear to help some people get clean, and isn't that better than declaring all current users unsalvageable? The big thing is that "housing first" absolutely does not work for virtually any homeless people - they're dealing with personal problems that made them homeless, and just plunking them into unrestricted shelter doesn't address those problems.
And as usual, DINKY DAU is responding to the bogeymen in xer mind.
Explain, Dinky, how confining a person struggling with mental illness and, very probably, addiction, in a hotel room without mental health services is compassionate.
21 states have adopted the Model Act. As Thomas Sowell would have predicted, they have the highest homeless rates, since every tenant “protection” increases the landlord’s costs and hence rents.
Grants Pass has been the epicenter of the Illinois and Rogue valley’s thriving marijuana scene for over 50 years. A special federal task force is involved. It may not be a big city, but it has a disproportionate number of unhoused, as a consequence.
21 states have adopted the Model Act. As Thomas Sowell would have predicted, they have the highest homeless rates, since every tenant “protection” increases the landlord’s costs and hence rents.
Grants Pass has been the epicenter of the Illinois and Rogue valley’s thriving marijuana scene for over 50 years. A special federal task force is involved. It may not be a big city, but it has a disproportionate number of unhoused, as a consequence.
Sorry, if I'm going to say "with respect" to Quaestor, I need to say the same to Freezer and Dinky. All are just expressing their opinion about the appropriate course of action for a difficult societal issue. So, "with respect" to both of yez.
When I asked why not, he said he wasn't willing to spend anything until everybody else was obligated to pay for the problem, too.
This, in a nutshell, demonstrates your typical leftist's compassion for his fellow man.
I was at a women's group meeting at my church today, and someone mentioned that an elderly member of the group, now homebound in assisted living, is lonely. Another member mentioned that some entity had just declared "loneliness" a public health issue, such that the government should and could get involved.
I'm just considering joining this group - I'm not a member yet. But though I had no status in the meeting, I found myself shaking my head - it was obvious to me that making loneliness a nationwide, societal problem was a recipe for no one doing anything because it "ought to be" dealt with by The Government.
Houston has been pretty successful in dealing with homelessness (compared with other major cities), and I have to conclude that their success has been at least in significant part due to the fact that non-profits have banded together to consolidate their approaches and services, and that the Houston community considers Houston homelessness its problem, not (for instance) a federal issue.
"There's not going to be a perfect solution here - but clean-and-sober requirements for housing do appear to help some people get clean, and isn't that better than declaring all current users unsalvageable?"
I have not declared all or any part of the user subculture unsalvageable. What I said, but perhaps with insufficient clarity, is the responsibility for that salvation rests entirely with the users. Shifting the responsibility to the taxpayer is both unjust and ineffective. Motivation works, occasionally, but it's not a treatment. In Trumpian terms, it's a deal, a choice offered between desirable and undesirable future conditions. Disease, however, is unamenable to the will. One can't negotiate with malaria; it requires treatment. Artemether-lumefantrine works. Take it regularly under medical supervision and one can live with the parasite. Addiction (I use that term for brevity, not because I believe it is real) is quite different. If you're an addict, you are the parasite, and society is your host. To recover from addiction one must reject the parasitic lifestyle.
As noted above, motivation can be efficacious, but not always. I suspect proper motivation rigorously applied may be miraculously effective. It depends on our ruthlessness, unfortunately. Prison with hard labor might be the solution. It has the advantage of not being tried and found wanting.
Boise, in the thrall of a Democrat mayor, dropped the ball on this issue.
"in September 2018, a three-judge panel issued Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018), holding “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” Id. at 1048."
There are three classes of homeless:
(1) The non-drug, sane homeless, who are just down on their luck. Money in the form of services can help these people recover.
(2) The drug addicted/mentally ill. These don't want services if it means obey rules and giving up drugs. They have to commit crimes to feed their habits. Arrest and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. They can choose to either get treatment or jail. Either way, they're off the street and not committing crimes.
(3) Criminals who use (2) as camouflage to protect their operations. Arrest and convictions would get these off the street.
The problem we have is the do-gooders don't want to put the poor dears of (2) in jail nor get treatment for them. They'd rather give money to the Homeless Industrial Complex and feel good about themselves. Of course, the HIC will never cure homelessness as that would end their usefulness and their gravy train.
“That is $ 86,664.94 per homeless person.“
That is enough to send them to Harvard, with a meal plan. I bet they would get a good personality rating in admissions.
The local state u just built a huge new dorm with a pool in about 11 months. How about building Compasion University in every state and build 10,000 bed college dorms for homeless. They could even have classes for them. But this was already tried at the Robert Taylor Homes by the Chicago housing authority.
They would sell all the doorknobs and copper pipe.
the responsibility for that salvation rests entirely with the users. Shifting the responsibility to the taxpayer is both unjust and ineffective.
Agree. I further agree that addiction is - at least - not the same as a traditional disease caused by an outside agent like a virus or bacterium.
But I'm not ready to say that addiction is not at least in part a physical condition, like schizophrenia, for instance - a malady not caused by an outside agent but by something intrinsic and physically awry. We have only scratched the surface of things like this.
I'm related to addicts who have gotten clean and work every day to stay that way. I saw, intimately, what they were like before their addictions began to ruin their lives. I saw - I share in - the seeds of addictive behavior in them and in their siblings, and it has always seemed to me, anecdotally at least, that any of us, their relatives, could have stepped off that cliff, based on all our behavior; it seems to me to be a matter of degree, among us.
My addict relatives take full responsibility for their addiction and for their recovery; no one could have made them sober, much less kept them so. But in their fight, they're lucky to have been surrounded by people who - despite the same upbringing, similar genetics, similar experiences, had for whatever reason not ended up in the same straits and could provide emotional and, in some cases, financial support.
They could have ended up homeless. My husband's father did; an alcoholic, he alienated everyone in his life and ended up living under a bridge for a while, and died, too young, in a state facility. What was the difference between him and my relatives who have regained their lives? Their will and determination and humility, certainly. Also, some luck, I can't help thinking.
WSJ: Wouldn't it be rich if conservative Justices rescue progressive cities from themselves?
What do we do when the Catholic Church organizes a busing service to provide food, shelter, and a free ride to move vagrants to Washington, DC? Governor Abbott and the Catholics servicing migrants in Mexico have already shown the way. Catholic Charities begins operations just 10 miles from the Guatemalan border and watches over them all the way to the U.S. border where not-so-independent Coyotes get them across the river. The Texas Governor takes it from there. Once vagrants disembark in D.C., the Feds are on the hook and that would put them on the taxpayers' dime.
It shouldn't be that hard to zone "campground" areas, a few miles out of town, where the homeless can enjoy the great outdoors. No need to allow camping on Main Street in the center of the city.
What should we do with people who have convinced us that, apart from a certain feral guile, they have much potential for harm, and nothing to contribute?
I don't have the answer.
Just go to Mexico, come in as an illegal, get shipped to whatever city you want, get put up in a nice hotel, with 3 hot meals a day, a phone and a free pass to fuck over Americans who are paying taxes to give the Progressives the invaders they want to fundamentally transform America into the Shithole Barack wanted it to become.
A blindfold is not a halo.
Tags: Painted oneself into a corner, Living between a rock and a hard place, Expectations versus reality
West-coast politics, as with Canadian politics, is as much about saying "We are not like mainstream simple-minded USA podunk cow town farmers" as about living a grand progressive ideology. The west coast has many people who were unhappy with their functional hometowns, and so they moved to Santa Monica-San Francisco-Portland-Seattle to find heaven-on-earth and get away. But they didn't find heaven and paid a lot more money to live a mediocre similar lifestyle. So, they entered denial and push ever more silly absolutist utopian visions.
The west coast has long attracted wannabe movie stars and rock stars. The homeless (and now shoplifters) are merely free riding on the failed ideas of those around them, so let the whole lot go down together.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/expectation-vs-reality
A typical response from fella that was suppose to be a doctor?Could you imagine the bedside manner(if real) with people he needs to call names.
Doctor I need an aspirin I have a terrible headache! response. Shut up you idiot :) What's the word curmudeon?
Michael K said...
Blogger DINKY DAU 45 said...
Compassion is no longer in todays politics...
Compassion would be to reopen the mental hospitals and start committing these people.
idiot.
Blogger Jamie said...
And as usual, DINKY DAU is responding to the bogeymen in xer mind.
Explain, Dinky, how confining a person struggling with mental illness and, very probably, addiction, in a hotel room without mental health services is compassionate.
you are presuming homeless people are all drug addicted and need mental help? What about the poor farms mentioned earlier in the days of the depression a helping program? . So you agree banning camping of homeless people that may be down on their luck with a general all are addicts need a mental institution? Are you a doctor,like the other guy here who has to call everything he disagrees with names? You will to spend the money to help the homeless? your people in congress wont
Post a Comment