Patterico's Pontifications

6/16/2013

NIMFY: Politicians Advocate for Rights of Homeless to Sleep on Sidewalks in Front of Homes . . . Just Not Theirs

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:43 pm



Standard leftist hypocrisy, exposed by James O’Keefe and Christian Hartsock:

Via Charles C. Johnson at the Daily Caller.

78 Responses to “NIMFY: Politicians Advocate for Rights of Homeless to Sleep on Sidewalks in Front of Homes . . . Just Not Theirs”

  1. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

    nk (875f57)

  2. Our security state will never target Americans!

    Patricia (be0117)

  3. Mi casa es su casa mi casa—now, get away, you scumbag homeless creeps, before I call the cops !

    Elephant Stone (da6dfd)

  4. I love how Democrats always put their money mouth where their mouth is.

    Elephant Stone (da6dfd)

  5. That cop sure was a rocket surgeon with his mad reasoning skillz. They truly are some of the dumbest people you will ever meet; by design sadly.

    Gazzer (598baf)

  6. Yup, the higher your measured IQ above 104 the lower your place on the admissions list to the police academy.

    nk (875f57)

  7. Well, it seems John Edwards was right. There really are TWO Americas. The governing elites and then the rest of us…

    I don’t know if it arrogance or stupidity that so many police demonstrate on web videos but it is totally unbearable when they try to violate the constitutional rights of citizens whenever it suits their mood.

    WarEagle82 (2b7355)

  8. But overall the cops in both incidents did the right thing. There was articulable suspicion, maybe even probable cause. I’d want those bums rousted if they were hanging around my house. It’s the hypocrisy of the politicos who want it only for themselves and not anybody else which is the issue.

    nk (875f57)

  9. nk, you say there was “articulable suspicion ” but the whole point of the exercise was that they had just passed a law stating that homeless people could do just that. Whenever they wanted…

    Gazzer (598baf)

  10. I am almost positive that Mahalia Cab is off indignantly cruising the left-leaning blog sites, earnestly pointing out the liberal “hypocrisy” documented by this video.

    elissa (594c4d)

  11. NK,

    It looks like the “homeless” people were actually abiding by the new law.

    Elephant Stone (da6dfd)

  12. cops are stupid they’re like public school teachers except they get to retire sooner

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  13. elissa,

    You’re probably right, because Mahalia Cab is such a left wing hack principled person who only wants food stamps fairness, and law & disorder order.
    Although it is Sunday, so maybe she’s visiting ‘whomever in prison’ who Patterico successfully prosecuted—I happen to think that’s the real impetus for Mahalia’s anger toward our website’s administrator.

    Elephant Stone (da6dfd)

  14. Does the “F” in NIMFY stand for “Front” or does it stand for an obscene participle? I think it works best if it is the latter.

    JVW (23867e)

  15. It’s been proposed, it hasn’t passed, and it doesn’t matter. It still doesn’t allow criminals, disguised as homeless people, to case premises for victims.

    nk (875f57)

  16. NK,

    These people are “criminals” disguised as homeless people ?

    Just curious, what exactly did they do that was “criminal” before they arrived at the house ?

    Elephant Stone (da6dfd)

  17. Congress should act by calling all homeless people soldiers, so the 3rd Amendment would apply.

    Chuck Bartowski (ad7249)

  18. I don’t know, Elephant Stone. The police don’t know either. But they’re allowed to investigate if they have articulable suspicion.

    Is there anybody here who cannot recognize a truly homeless person as opposed to somebody just pretending to be one? The first cop was kind of a dummy in that regard, but the TSA agent wasn’t fooled.

    nk (875f57)

  19. Not to be too unkind to the first cop. My suburb in my former life was like that and the cops behave very differently towards citizens than big city cops do.

    nk (875f57)

  20. O’Keefe confused the issue with his whining about his civil rights being violated. Hey, Jamie, make up your mind. The homeless have the same rights. You have a good point about the double standard. Leave it at that.

    nk (875f57)

  21. NK,

    I have Have you ever considered that you sometimes take your own views way too seriously ? Or something.

    I know that your town of Chicago has pretty much turned into Syria with all of the violence in recent years hours, but in California, we think this is a great video to expose the hypocrisy of left wing policies by the actual policy-maker. That was the objective of O’Keefe, and he succeeded.
    Sometimes you have to break some laws eggs to make show the world an omelette.

    :)

    Elephant Stone (da6dfd)

  22. I already said all that, Elephant Stone.

    nk (875f57)

  23. That cop sure was a rocket surgeon with his mad reasoning skillz. They truly are some of the dumbest people you will ever meet; by design sadly.

    This.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  24. Maybe we should make all homeless people doctors, and that would solve the upcoming shortage plus the homeless lifestyle problems.

    Patricia (be0117)

  25. All those who are surprised please raise their hands.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  26. One of the MANY problems with this law is that it now gives cover to people casing a home or business. According to the law, anybody can be anywhere at any time and the police really no longer have a legal reason to ask them to “move on.”

    This law basically undermines the entire concept of loitering which gives the police the authority to boot vagrants and suspicious looking folks from a location. It darn near eliminates “probably cause” for people casing a joint and should be renamed the “crime enabling act.”

    Of course, politicians don’t really care because they know they can call the police and have them roust anybody they want regardless of the law…

    WarEagle82 (2b7355)

  27. Gangs and dope dealers. Municipalities keep enacting anti-vagrancy and anti-loitering laws and the courts keep striking them down. It’s been going on since the early ’70s.

    Most prominently in the news lately, New York. Bloomberg doesn’t give a s**t, he has $28 billion. He ordered the NYPD to do stop and frisk at will. Got the wookiesuiters, the liberals, the ACLU and Eric Holder all in a tizzy. It’s in court right now with the Justice Department petitioning to have the NYPD placed under federal monitoring, a very good idea just on general principles and not because of this policy.

    nk (875f57)

  28. Gangs and dope dealers *too*.

    nk (875f57)

  29. The epitome of “limousine liberalism,” or “latte liberalism.”

    This video also illustrates the deranged nature of modern-day liberalism vis a vie NSA-type security and IRS machinations, etc.

    Maybe we as a society deserved to be Nidal-Hasan-ized.

    Mark (fcba4f)

  30. Is there anybody here who cannot recognize a truly homeless person as opposed to somebody just pretending to be one? The first cop was kind of a dummy in that regard, but the TSA agent wasn’t fooled.

    Not sure what you’re angling for. Are you saying that it’s okay to be a major nuisance, making a big smelly mess of a public area, if one is truly a homeless and dysfunctional soul? And that a TSA agent can be a big harasser and major PITA just as long as he’s dealing with a person who isn’t truly homeless and dysfunctional?

    I’ve long mused about how nice it would be to bus the homeless and dysfunctional to the front yards of those judges — living in their comfy, lovely homes, nestled in wonderful “latte liberal” communities — who’ve happily ruled in favor of ACLU-type injunctions that stop anti-loitering enforcement and have made cities, particularly downtown LA (near where Patterico plys his trade) such disasters over the past several decades.

    Mark (fcba4f)

  31. No, Mark, I’m saying three healthy, white, twenty-something males, with $100.00 haircuts, waxed eyebrows, and manicures, dressed in the best the grunge clothing store can offer, pretending to be homeless, is articulable suspicion that they may be criminals casing the place they’re loitering in front of.

    Do you think O’Keefe went without a haircut, a bath or a change of clothes, and slept outdoors, for a year in preparation for this caper?

    nk (875f57)

  32. is articulable suspicion that they may be criminals casing the place they’re loitering in front of.

    Huh? If anything, if they were mangy-looking black dudes (who tend to dominate area like Skid Row in LA), I bet the cops (and neighbors—likely all of the left, just as the state legislator is) would have been far more wary, far more alarmed. But then the emotion of Nidal-Hasan-ization would have entered the picture and the cops and neighbors would have sheepishly, guiltily welcomed those strangers to have a free-for-all in the neighborhood.

    Mark (fcba4f)

  33. Ah, so – if you have a home ( are not “homeless”), then you CAN’T stand around and befoul the area.

    Gotcha. Sounds eminently fair.

    /sarc

    mojo (8096f2)

  34. You guys do know that First Blood (Rambo I) was a protest of unjust vagrancy laws, right?

    nk (875f57)

  35. nk, I thought Brian Dennehy played the hero in that film …

    SPQR (768505)

  36. A tragic hero, SPQR, doomed by his unswerving duty to archaic laws in the face of a New Age wherein the Vietnam War has become fashionable in Hollywood again and “baby killers” have been transformed into “PTSD sufferers”, but he must face his fate for the sake of the franchise, two sequels, and any number of knives with serrated backs.

    nk (875f57)

  37. @31
    NK, what is the articulable suspicion? Looks like they’re up to no good? Not our kind of people? Get out of town by sundown, hipster?

    phunctor (9ef2a5)

  38. Maybe they should have urinated in front of the bill’s sponsor’s home. After all, the free-pee provision was in the original bill.

    Patricia (be0117)

  39. They’ll have to pass the bill in order for us to find out what special exemptions for Democrats are in it !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  40. I love these tapes, but remain extremely skeptical of Mr. O’Keefe. Does he have a site where he releases raw footage?

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  41. There should be a law or whatever, to outlaw people from sleeping on the streets.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  42. Comment by phunctor (9ef2a5) — 6/17/2013 @ 10:38 am

    Sometimes the signs are obvious, phunctor.

    nk (875f57)

  43. “Does he have a site where he releases raw footage?”

    carlitos – Try Project Veritas, but it is very difficult to google and find.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  44. Patricia–An Occupooper would have known how to handle this.

    elissa (42e91d)

  45. “Patricia–An Occupooper would have known how to handle this.”

    elissa – Deuce on the hood.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  46. Try Project Veritas, but it is very difficult to google and find.

    Latest update was April 2. There is a post dated on May 29, but it looks like it could be auto-generated. I can’t find any raw video footage there, and every subject in the rotating banner takes me to the “donate” page. 😐

    Am I doing it wrong?

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  47. “Am I doing it wrong?”

    carlitos – It is a mystery.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  48. As an aside, Project Veritas is the first site where I’ve seen a $20,000 option for the donate page. Ballsy.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  49. carlitos – Maybe people stopped demanding the unedited footage when O”Keefe kept delivering the goods or when they realized it was hypocritical because they don’t make the same demands of the MSM or some high traffic lefty blogs which deceptively edit actual footage from the MSM without disclosure. What sense does it make to hold O’Keefe to a different standard?

    I have no idea where and if they are currently disclosing the raw footage. In his early work he did and would put it on his site or link to it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  50. Thanks JD. I was just wondering if he releases the raw footage for everything. I have seen it for a couple of things.

    The videos are damning, of course, but he focuses on low-level flunkies in nearly all of them. The Planned Parenthood staff, some guy at a phone shop, a local cop, etc. Should our fearless leaders realize that this is who ultimately implements their great ideas? Sure. Maybe they can watch these and learn; I don’t know.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  51. –damning …but he focuses on low level flunkies–

    Most of O’Keefe’s videos do focus on how policies are interpreted, implemented and enforced by empowered individuals within the local government offices and sprawling agency outposts. It is exactly these low level bureaucrats whose work has so much power over our daily lives who should be closely scrutinized, but often are not. Because, hey, they are just “nobodies” and “flunkies”.

    elissa (3efc9c)

  52. Understood. However, it’s unsurprising that these folks contain bad actors. You’d need to run statistics to see how many bad eggs there are, vs. the rest. And I highly doubt that O’Keefe releases footage that doesn’t fit his narrative. In other words, he releases the “raw footage” of the folks he features in his films, but who knows how many other folks he filmed, but didn’t include because they behaved appropriately? This isn’t rocket science; Michael Moore made a great living at it.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  53. ==You’d need to run statistics to see how many bad eggs there are, vs. the rest. ==

    Carlitos, I am currently dealing with a problem with my Sec. of State’s ofc. concerning a “lost” check. I do not know yet if it is a bad actor or just incompetence, but at this moment I do not really care if the percentage of public servants and employees who behave appropriately is 99.5%. Because the government bureaucrat I drew in the lottery and the one who is making decisions and affecting my bank account is failing me miserably.

    elissa (3efc9c)

  54. Carlitos, I don’t think you grasp what O’Keefe is doing.

    He’s not just going down to the DMV to film government employees at work. “Look, there’s Mr. Smith getting a drink from the water cooler. And now Mr. Smith is smiling as he helps Mr. Gonzalez fill out his driver license information—what a helpful government employee he is—life is good !”

    Rather, O’Keefe is doing ‘quality control.’ He’s being a mystery shopper.
    Most private retailers actually hire ‘mystery shoppers’ to go to their stores as a means of testing the efficiency and helpfulness of store employees.

    And here’s something else to consider. When one receives rude or inefficient service at a private retail store or restaurant, one can always choose to take their business to a competing retailer in the future. But we can’t do that with the DMV, or the I.R.S.
    Government agencies have the power of force behind them. Therefore, I applaud someone who is the mystery shopper shining a light upon the malfeasance of government.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  55. carlitos #53 – since I suspect that Mr O’Keefe’s aims are to try to help get problems fixed, by *identifying* the problems, there is a greater chance of them being fixed …

    I, for one, do not complain when *someone* practise’s responsible journalism … it is refreshing …

    Alastor (e7cb73)

  56. You’d need to run statistics to see how many bad eggs there are, vs. the rest.

    Isn’t it just terrible how 98% of lawyers give the other 2% a bad name.(Heh!)

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  57. Carlitos,

    I think this is the YouTube page for Project Veritas.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  58. Also, Carlitos, the people you characterize as “low-level flunkies” are the people whose actions have grave impact on helpless citizens.
    You may think that someone at the front counter at the local DMV is just some flunkie, but they have the power to affect your driver’s license and auto registration. That’s a big deal to average Americans.

    I don’t know what would satisfy you—a video of the United States Attorney General Eric Holder admitting to X, Y, or Z ?
    In case you haven’t followed the news lately, all sorts of high-level government employees (Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Lois Lerner, et al) have actually testified they didn’t know, they don’t know, they can’t recall, they don’t remember what, who, when, why, or how…so perhaps it is the “low level flunkies” who are the ones who actually know what is going on in the government.

    Additionally, you should check out O’Keefe’s recent video when he walks into the office of New Hampshire Deputy Attorney General Richard Head—that’s hardly a “low-level flunkie.”

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  59. Thanks DRJ. You are a gentlewoman and a scholar.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  60. Also, Carlitos, the people you characterize as “low-level flunkies” are the people whose actions have grave impact on helpless citizens.

    No shit, sherlock. I think I made that point here:

    Should our fearless leaders realize that this is who ultimately implements their great ideas? Sure. Maybe they can watch these and learn; I don’t know.

    Whether our fearless leaders pass laws that you agree or disagree with, the fact is that those laws are implemented by the flunkies at the local library, election board, or DMV. I get that. You could make cherry-picked videos showing all kinds of malfeasance, and that’s all what O’Keefe does. Don’t get me wrong; he’s good at it. I just don’t see how it’s productive, other than as a Republican fund-raising tool.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  61. Any gov’t employee (flunkie) who has access to a data-entry point, can change your life in ways you do not wish to contemplate.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  62. A smart guy once told me:

    There are people with money, and there are people with power.
    People with money try to stay under the radar of people with power.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  63. I like Carlitos and I imagine he is feeling ganged up on about now. Sorry, Carlitos. But it’s this “meh, it’s only a few outliers” defense that is so toxic to many of us because it’s used time and time again to excuse or minimize intimidation on building code and other “requirements”, voter fraud, or someone who facilitates food stamp fraud and medicaid fraud, and so on. As long as people keep thinking it’s only a tiny percentage of government employees, there is no motivation to fix the problem by making examples of the bad apples, so they are left in the barrel to contaminate others.

    elissa (3efc9c)

  64. –damning …but he focuses on low level flunkies–

    Minimization and Rationalization

    It does a body good.

    We need statistical analysis – Sure, tell me how that’s going to work.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  65. I am glad that the top film and journalism schools are churning out wave after wave of enterprising investigative reporters, if ever there was a time to have proof of widespread incompetence and malfeasance it is now.

    ?? Oh, never mind.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  66. I like Carlitos and I imagine he is feeling ganged up on about now.

    No worries.

    As long as people keep thinking it’s only a tiny percentage of government employees,

    You do realize that most of his subjects don’t work for the government, right? Phone store workers and Planned Parenthood employees aren’t the government. That’s why I’m not shocked that they might seem incompetent and amoral. They make $7 an hour to do whatever, so they probably are indifferent. That’s the problem with Big Government; it never takes into account the unintended consequences of policy. It’s a fair point that O’Keefe makes, but it doesn’t really surprise me. I could walk around Chicago with a camera and capture the same stuff. Heck, if I would have filmed my experience as an election judge, I could have won a Palme d’Or at Cannes.

    We need statistical analysis – Sure, tell me how that’s going to work.

    It really wouldn’t be that hard. He would just have to show that his malfeasance rate is greater than chance when applied to liberal programs.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  67. This reminds me of Peter Coyoye, who never misses an opportunity to promote statism, advocating for the homeless’ right to urinate in public in SF then running home to Mill Valley where the same is not allowed.

    And the Woodridge subdivision is not exactly “tony”. It has some very nice older homes but it’s an island in the middle of the crime jungle that is NE downtown Sac. I worked there and you never kept your cellphone in open view, you’d be targeted.

    harkin (3f2fdb)

  68. Nice try, Carlitos.

    Your reaction appears to be that lots of corruption is going on, so let’s not bother with any of it ! That’s hardly an impressive reaction.
    Planned Parenthood and ACORN take lots of taxpayer money to fund their illegal activities, as well as their “legal” ones.
    O’Keefe is a watchdog of both the government, and left wing organizations that take taxpayer money. His job is particularly important since the media won’t do it.
    You may not be aware, but organizations that receive taxpayer money must walk a highwire tightrope act in order to make sure they are in compliance with zillions of federal requirements. Of course, the media do not bother to shine a light on left wing organizations to see if they are in compliance, so O’Keefe is.

    Think of him as a “mystery shopper.”
    Also, while the I.R.S. and the NSA are doing surveillance on American citizens (and organizations), think of what O’Keefe is doing as “surveillance on the government and on left wing organizations.”

    To crib a line from an old Elvis Costello tune, he’s watching the detectives.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  69. Yes government shoves so much money to conservative causes.

    Gus (694db4)

  70. “It really wouldn’t be that hard. He would just have to show that his malfeasance rate is greater than chance when applied to liberal programs.”

    carlitos – The first challenge would be to define “liberal programs” as opposed to “conservative programs.” Good luck with that.

    The second challenge would be to conduct statistically significant random stings on enough employees in enough locations to generate a statistically significant conclusion that employees are not properly performing their jobs.

    Even that completely ignores the difficulty of the sting design and whether a conclusion of bias can be attributed to the results.

    It’s a great exercise for a government agency audit team to go through to improve operations, but seems pretty unnecessary when you have employee misconduct staring you in the face on tape except that it’s so hard to fire civil servants.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  71. “You do realize that most of his subjects don’t work for the government, right?”

    carlitos – Did you watch his videos of medicaid fraud at government offices in different states or voter registration fraud in the offices of voter registrars by any chance?

    Why even suggest statistical analysis if you don’t believe it is applicable?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  72. Carlitos says he was an election judge.
    Perhaps the fact that O’Keefe has done a lot of invesitgating into voter fraud is an issue that is just a little too close to home ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  73. ES – I have broken bread with carlitos and he is an honorable man even with a 1970s porn stache. I have no doubt he performed his duties as an election judge in compliance with both the law and the supremacy clause of the Chicago Way.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  74. Ha, ha.
    He may well have the coolest ‘stache since Rollie Fingers, but I would expect that a former election judge opposed to voter fraud should have more of an “Attaboy, O’Keefe !” attitude.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  75. I don’t get the hostility towards carlitos.

    JD (f98ce4)

  76. JD – I have no hostility toward carlitos.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  77. JD,

    There’s no hostility—it’s a debate.

    O’Keefe is a great guy, and he’s doing a fantastic job. Some people don’t like that he upsets apple carts.
    Carlitos is entitled to that point of view.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4750 secs.