Live from New York – It’s The Hunger Games! [Reader Post]


Sometimes even a 24/7 news cycle can get so heavily dominated by a handful of stories that everything else seems to disappear. Just as we started to wind down from the tale of a future 1 percenter complaining that a religious-affiliated school should pay for her birth control, we’ve jumped into the Trevon Martin case becoming the focal point of the left’s "Keep Hate Alive" campaign for 2012, along with leftist leadership starting to launch pre-emptive attacks against the Supreme Court for potentially committing that horrific act of judicial activism known as striking down an unconstitutional law. In this hurricane one story sadly got buried in the mix.

Thanks to the boys at Trifecta (sorry, subscription required) I learned that both Mayor Bloomberg of New York recently informed government-run area homeless shelters that his task force on healthy eating would begin enforcing an old law stating that said shelters could not accept food donations from private citizens because their nutritional content (salt, fat, calories) could not be verified. Meanwhile, keeping the Garden State Turnpike rivalry alive (Although I prefer when it’s Eagles vs. Giants as opposed to Dumb vs. Dumber), Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia decided that food could no longer be distributed to homeless people in parks. Yes, you read that correctly. These compassionate leftists would rather see people starve to death than to see their edicts over how their subjects are fed be violated.

One question that is sadly missed by both mayors is "Shouldn’t the homeless be allowed to choose between going hungry and getting a meal that might violate the Mayor’s preference as to what is consumed and how it is received?" Even more bewildering is the fact that we keep hearing about how governments at every level are struggling financially – why on earth would a government not be grateful and encouraging something as simple as this that helps with a problem while helping their own budget?

This sidebar that is sadly falling under the radar is a perfect embodiment of what I always say about leftist philosophy – it’s not about helping people; it’s about controlling them. Obamacare? It’s a perfect way to turn an entire population into wards of the state. Never mind that there are many who would prefer to choose a system that won’t assure spiraling costs, far longer wait times to see a doctor and rationing of service. Global Warming Climate Change and green energy? Questionable scientific methodology allows leftists to dictate how the unwashed masses are to live their lives, since the higher costs incurred won’t have that much of an impact on their energy-guzzling palaces and jet-set lifestyles. Of course, said actions would have minimal impact on the environment, but that’s not the objective of green policies. As I’ve noted before, leftists love to call themselves Pro-Choice, provided that choice involves inserting something into your body for pleasure. The pro-choice stance stops when it involves accepting responsibility for said actions – making choices over your own health care, funding your retirement, being able to defend yourself, or choosing where your children are educated.

This food argument is nothing different. Leftists love to sneer at conservatives for their lack of compassion, but this episode also sums up where both sides stand in who is responsible for helping others. Conservatives favor individuals and charity, while the left feels that this must be achieved through the government. Look at the stats – conservatives are more generous than leftists in terms of charitable giving in terms of both time and money. Or the philosophy can be summed up as a general philosophy of "Who is responsible?" The conservative view will be themselves, while leftists prefer to point to someone else. If you don’t believe me look no further than the man who embodies the saying, "Am I my brother’s keeper?"

I have no problem with state-run soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. But when the state starts discouraging the private citizen from participating in the process, we have a much bigger problem as a society than leaving a few people hungry waiting for their fair trade vegan soup made only from free range bean sprouts.

Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Just as homes in old England used to have a place where a priest could live in hiding, so, too, nowadays, under Obama, charities have to carry out their good works in secret.
(Or risk being shut.)
We have a whole group of restaurants and churches that take turns feeding about 2 million meals a year to the homeless at just ONE public park here in Long Beach.
Our Salvation Army and our Catholic churches have already addressed the issue of having to move this feeding place.
They can do so in a day.
They already see the stupidity of the food police as it impacts the poorest here.

I have no problem with state-run soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. But when the state starts discouraging the private citizen from participating in the process, we have a much bigger problem as a society than leaving a few people hungry waiting for their fair trade vegan soup made only from free range bean sprouts.

Agreed. The state has NO business telling me I can’t help out those down on their luck.

The actions by the left should surprise nobody! It’s the signs of the times -what’s good is bad, what’s right is wrong, what’s true is a lie etc..everything gets turned upside down. We are on overload, intenionally designed by those who do not have our best interest at heart!

History buff that I am, I cannot conjure in my mind a prior case where any government has forbidden its own citizens to provide basic sustenance to their fellow citizens. Do we need any more evidence that compassion is the last thing on the minds of the Worlds’ Most Compassionate People ?

This is the result of liberal/progressive ideology. The state has sole proprietorship over a person’s health and well-being, and won’t allow competition. That they, the state, cannot provide a person the health and well-being that private individuals, or groups, can, doesn’t matter. The state wants control over all of it, and all of you.

The liberal/progressive left rails against the conservatives for “wanting to control people’s lives” while their own ideology does exactly that. Places control over people’s lives in the hands of the state. And naive fools like Rich and Greg swallow their tripe and ask for seconds.

Did you ever think that the reason to allow only registered vendors to make free food available in a specific are was to prevent the malicious poisoning of the homeless—especially in light of the random attacks on indigent people lately (some resulting in deaths)?

@Nan: It’s amazing how quickly private citizens can react and respond to bureaucratic stupidity.

@John Galt: C’mon, bro – at least wait for Greg and Ivan to show up and say something stupid before you start taking shots at them! =8^) Look no further than the comment that followed yours…

@lib: Welcome back, my favorite lefty troll! So by your rationale if someone poisoned the food at a government kitchen that would be cause for the government to get out of the business of feeding the homeless?

do you think they do that so to get them out of their spot, they want them out,
and cover it with that excuse,

yes well said again on the head of the nail,
and I can add to it, they probably had complaint from the vendors
and want the charitable people to buy from them instead of giving their own food, that would bring more money to vendors , BLOOMBERG IS PROTECTING THE MUSLIMS THERE, AS HE DID ALLOW THEM TO BUILT THEIR MOSQUE, NOT TO LONG AGO, CLOSE TO THE 9/11 KILLING OF THE 3000 PEOPLE WORKING IN THE TOWERS TRADE CENTER,