Absolutely brilliant

Your editor is not very supportive of welfare: to him, the enforced “charity” of taking money from people who work to give to people who won’t is simply wrong. However, private charity is a matter of the individual or group or corporation, of their own free will, voluntarily giving part of their money to help others they believe need help; I absolutely support people giving privately. However, Sister Toldjah has an example of how private charity just isn’t good enough for one of the do-gooders on the left:

Why does Mayor Bloomberg hate the homeless?

Posted by: ST on March 20, 2012 at 6:22 pm<
Good grief:

In a move that combines the mayor’s affinity for overbearing health regulations with his controversial stance on homeless shelters already under fire from advocacy groups and City Council members, a new rule barring food donations to shelters is raising even more concern.

CBS reports on the bizarre rule that turns away food, perhaps the most needed item for any shelter, because according to health officials, it’s impossible to gauge the items’ salt, fiber, and other nutritional stats.

When asked about the contradictory stipulation, Bloomberg huffed, “For the things that we run because of all sorts of safety reasons, we just have a policy it is my understanding of not taking donations.”

Unfortunately, news of the rule is just another day in Bloomberg’s “nanny-state.” The mayor has been repeatedly criticized for his health initiatives, with many believing his well-intentioned moves to improve New Yorkers’ health ultimately infringe upon basic rights.

Unfortunately, your editor’s inferior intelligence prevents him from seeing the obvious brilliance of making sure that the homeless don’t eat too much salt by depriving them of food, period. I’m certain that our much smarter friends on the left will be able to explain it.

More on Sis’ site.

12 Comments

  1. It’s all about control.

    Mayor Michael Bloomberg RULES New York and New Yorkers; he does not govern them. Obviously, Mayor Bloomberg has never been forced to go hungry in his life. Even more apparent is the utter disdain that he holds not only for the hungry people in the city over which he RULES, but also for the generosity of those who do not view their fellow New Yorkers–poor and homeless though they may be–with his contemptuous eyes.

    It is nothing more than a lust for control that has been the force behind Mayor Bloomberg’s latest edict. For him to use the excuse that hungry men, women and children will be better off left hungry (which will be the result of his edict) than for them to be potentially fed too much salt or too many calories in the food they are served by altruistic New Yorkers is a weak argument for what can only be described as his uncaring cruelty.

    There is a sign that hangs over the kitchen of a downtown church where hungry people are welcomed and fed seven days a week in my city. While the words were originally uttered by Simone Weil, a native of France, those words have universal meaning–even in Bloomberg’s uber-controlled city:

    “It is an eternal obligation toward the human being not to let him suffer from hunger when one has a chance of coming to his assistance.”

  2. “It is an eternal obligation toward the human being not to let him suffer from hunger when one has a chance of coming to his assistance.”

    The very essence of why my friends and I work to help feed shut-ins, the poor and their families and the indigent. The reason we hold food drives, free dinners and Meals on Wheels. But there’s more! Helping others helps ones soul. It’s the knowledge you’ve made a difference in their lives that actually makes a difference in your own.

    Bloomberg and people like him are not doing anything out of compassion or care for others. Their entire M.O. is control. They see political benefit from having people dependant on the state. They see competition from those of us who actually care about those less fortunate. We don’t see them as votes, but as people. I guess that’s the difference between the power of the state and the power of the human heart.

  3. Hoagie: We don’t see them as votes, but as people. I guess that’s the difference between the power of the state and the power of the human heart.

    Beautifully expressed and worth repeating!

  4. Since human beings require salt to maintain their lives, it’s imperative that Mayor Bloomburg’s blatant crimes against humanity be reported to the United Nations immediately.

    Surely, the public spirited citizens of NY city will not sit idle while this atrocity is carried out against the peripatetic needy who are homeless and without access to one of the key necessities of life itself due to no fault of their own, but are being ground under the heal of heartless socialist bureaucrats who not only refuse donate their fair share of salt to the poor and desperate, but who actively seek to prevent others from saving the lives of saltless citizens.

  5. I cannot explain Mayor Bloomberg’s restrictions, but I will say something about this from our Editor:

    “Your editor is not very supportive of welfare: to him, the enforced “charity” of taking money from people who work to give to people who won’t is simply wrong.”

    So here is some advice for our Editor:

    Luke 16:19-25 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.

    In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.”

  6. Wagonwheel, your total rejections of the Tenth Commandment, the Bible’s very clear declaration that Jesus is the Son of Providence, and is Providence, among other things makes it impossible for you to even begin to understand what the Bible says, as you push for a Socialist Jesus who never ever existed. It would be wise of you to not push Holy Scripture for your sinful desires, because it will indeed backfire on you. A far craftier person than you has tried that before, and failed miserably. Yes, Satan himself, the embodiment of evil, knows and believes the words of the Bible. And yet, he tried to use part of the Old Testament, quoting it verbatim, to tempt Jesus to sin.

    So your clumsy attempts to Alinsky the Editor using Satan’s methods (and Saul Alinsky, from whose songbook you are singing, dedicated that very songbook to Satan) will never prevail, in the least.

  7. And as Wagonwheel hypocritically quotes a scripture which he doesn’t even believe, I would point out to him that the wealthy man in Luke 16:19-25 had a choice, one which he freely took.

    And, unsurprisingly, Wagonwheel failed to quote the following sentence, the one which entirely destroys his argument:

    However, private charity is a matter of the individual or group or corporation, of their own free will, voluntarily giving part of their money to help others they believe need help; I absolutely support people giving privately.

    When someone like John contributes, of his own free will, more than I could ever afford, he is doing something good and noble, because it is something he wants to do. If it was something he didn’t want to do, well, it’s his money, so that would be, and should be, his choice.

  8. Ya know, Saul Alinsky had a much stronger belief in the Bible than do most of those who follow his playbook. Saul Alinsky himself said he didn’t want to go to Heaven, and he declared his reasons why, which boil down to he didn’t want to disavow himself of his evil ways. But he planned on organizing all those others who went to Hell before him. Sucks to be him. He’s now living an eternity in Hell, where every soul would love to commit suicide to escape, but cannot — for an eternity.

    And Wagonwheel, who is far less a believer in the Bible than the absolutely evil Saul Alinsky, is treading the same path with his devotion to Alinsky tactics and his absolute rejection of the Bible as it was actually written. The difference between Alinsky and Wagonwheel, other than Alinsky actually believed the Bible? Wagonwheel is still alive and still has the opportunity for redemption, while Alinsky is in Hell, suffering for his rejection of the ONLY WAY TO GET TO HEAVEN.

  9. I’m about to quote the entire chapter of John 3 and add my own commentary, both on my site and here, because two people who have absolutely rejected Providence have chosen to quote the very Holy Scripture they have already soundly rejected.

    2 Timothy 2:15
    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    Perhaps those two would rather accept their defeat than to be shown their current destiny according to John 3.

  10. “And, unsurprisingly, Wagonwheel failed to quote the following sentence, the one which entirely destroys his argument:

    However, private charity is a matter of the individual or group or corporation, of their own free will, voluntarily giving part of their money to help others they believe need help; I absolutely support people giving privately.

    Hardly does the missing sentence destroy my argument, it adds to it. The government is supposedly the representative of the people, therefore any act of helping others less fortunate is done in our name. When New Orleans was hit hard by hurricane Katrina, should we have left it up to them to pull up their own bootstraps? Of course not! And we should be willing to do the same for any American in distress, unable to recover on his/her own. Have you no compassion, Mr Editor.

    And on Hoagie and charity, I did not knock him for his good works, but I did knock him for feeling the need to brag about it, which he seems compelled to do, as he has done this before. But I do commend him for his good works. However, he seems to assume that others on here, especially the “libtards”, are not generous as well. That’s what you people do on here, assume something that you know nothing at all about. It’s duplicitous behavior, in my opinion!

  11. “And Wagonwheel, who is far less a believer in the Bible than the absolutely evil Saul Alinsky, is treading the same path with his devotion to Alinsky tactics and his absolute rejection of the Bible as it was actually written.”

    Isn’t it both interesting and telling that this great self-proclaimed Christian named one John Hitchcock rejects quotations from his own Holy Book, because he hates the person who produced the quote?

    Only a CINO would behave like this!

    Just to clarify my position on Christianity, yes I definitely reject the mythological claim of the deification of Christ. However, as I have said many times on here, I view Christ as one of the greatest man ever, it terms of the lasting wisdom he has bestowed upon us; therefore I will continue to use biblical quotes as appropriate on here, because I feel that you who do proclaim yourselves Christian conveniently ignore some of the most important teachings.

    So again, it is so telling that Mr Hitchcock chooses to reject a quotation on the basis that it is a non-believer who produces the quotation. This is truly irrational, indefensible, and outrageous!

  12. So again, it is so telling that Mr Hitchcock chooses to reject a quotation on the basis that it is a non-believer who produces the quotation. This is truly irrational, indefensible, and outrageous!

    So is that what Satan said to Jesus when Jesus schooled Satan after Satan quoted the Old Testament in his attempt to tempt Jesus to sin?

    No, Wagonwheel, you absolutely do not understand Holy Scripture, thus your attempts to use Holy Scripture in order to force others to wallow in your own sinful violations of the Tenth Commandment are absolutely worthless. In fact, those attempts only add more sins to your list of sins for which you will have to answer to the very One you continue to deny, on the Day of Reckoning.

    Even Satan believes every word of the Bible, as he continues to twist it and use it to draw more people away from Jesus and with him into Hell.

Comments are closed.