Get the homeless off our streets.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s recent executive order to sweep the streets of homeless people has stirred a hornets’ nest among homeless advocates and politicians who accuse him of heartlessness and not understanding the multiple issues of those most in need. “Put simply,” said Mary Brosnahan, president of the Coalition for the Homeless in New York “being homeless is not a crime,” reported Associated Press on January 5.

Actually, Brosnahan, like many other “advocates” for the homeless is part of a bigger problem that plagues so many of our city streets and parks. They are good-hearted but misguided and grossly misinformed. They suffer, as Michael Savage might say, from a mental disorder called liberalism – a self-destructive psychosis that numbs one’s common sense, then quickly eats away at society as effectively as cancer eats away at a human organ.

Incredibly, many advocates for the homeless don’t really have a clue who the people they are advocating for are, or what they really need. For example, in the same AP story a homeless man — let’s call him someone who knows — was quoted as saying that he avoided shelters because many of those in shelters need mental help, while others are drug addicts. “It’s not a safe haven,” the man was quoted as saying. So, it’s also dangerous. Hmm: mentally ill, drug addicts, dangerous people. And that’s just a short list.

So what, then, do homeless advocates recommend? What is needed, said Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, is more services and housing. Terrific! Like so many other homeless advocates she has it almost half right. But if you did a little deeper, you find they don’t really mean or even understand what they are proposing.

Think it through. What would she have society do? Construct developments for homeless to house the mentally ill, drug addicts, dangerous psychotic persons? And who would care for them? And where would we locate this housing? In her neighborhood? In a three or four family home in a city or perhaps in a nice suburban neighborhood? And what about those individuals who, exercising their best judgment, would rather sleep in freezing cold conditions in the middle of winter under a cardboard box, than voluntarily enter a shelter for a warm bed — and maybe even a shower?

Getting back to the utter hypocrisy and empty-headedness of homeless advocates, they say they want to provide services and shelter to the homeless (mentally ill, drug addicts, dangerous people, vagrants, anti-social teens, illegal immigrants etc. ) just don’t force the homeless to avail themselves of the services and shelter that is offered.  If they want to sleep in a doorway, on a street, or on a park bench, let them.

In New York city alone, they count about 62,000 homeless in different categories. Remember the picture of one of those individuals urinating in public right in a Times Square street toilet? I mean gutter. Yes, sir, we have a nice apartment for you right next to the Foscarinis family, or maybe even the Brosnahan residence.

Here’s proof that homeless advocates are not serious: the very structures that could be built to house and treat homeless individuals were improperly closed by the courts years ago — and with this judicial usurpation of executive power the doors to the seriously mentally ill, many of whom were and are dangerous to themselves and others, were flung open. And the courts did this with the blessing of homeless advocates who heralded the judicial action.

Question: have you ever seen a happy homeless person freezing under a cardboard box? Have you ever met a single mentally unstable homeless person who is capable of even understanding the damage they are doing to themselves, and as for the more violent prone, caring about those who may be unfortunate enough to encounter them?

Here’s what homeless advocates don’t care about: the police officer, doctor, nurse or EMT called to assist someone we call homeless. It’s a fair bet that advocates for the homeless would be absolutely appalled if they had to bring their son or daughter into an emergency room cubicle just vacated by a street person whose body odor just won’t leave the area. And as for the poor nurses who have to cut into layers of offensive, absolutely revolting filthy, urine and feces stained clothing . . . well, let’s not ask how many times nurses have had to excuse themselves to vomit after that experience.

Do homeless advocates really believe they are helping people living on the streets and on park benches by ignoring them? By leaving them there?

Like it or not, the rights and just expectation of a far too tolerant society have been too long neglected. Citizens have a right to expect that their streets and parks don’t become urinals or outhouses; they have a right to expect that the homeless do not sleep in doorways, on sidewalks or park benches during daylight hours; they have a right to expect that if people can’t or won’t take care of themselves that their indifference or incompetency won’t be a burden on those who do care; they have a right not to have to walk around someone’s urine drenched clothing on a hot summer’s day or avoid drug addicts and alcoholics in a children’s playground.

Homeless advocates say they want to treat these individuals, well here’s a helping suggestion: take them to a facility voluntarily or otherwise and separate those who are needy from those who are not well and treat them, give them clothing, a shower, some medical attention and a safe bed. And keep them under care until such time as they are able to care for themselves.

Oh, but that would be cruel, homeless advocates say. That would violate their constitutional rights. They have a right to be free, just as you and I. And therein lies the problem. Homeless advocates just don’t get it. These people are not just like you and me: they need help and are incapable of helping themselves. Given a choice to self-destruct, far too many will take that route and do just that.

This is something homeless advocates just don’t get. They’re in it for the money.