Beck: The Left Uses 'Political System X' to Co-Opt the Homeless

Scroll down for the video.

It seems unthinkable: a state government rejecting, even penalizing, Good Samaritans who seek to provide warm, homemade meals for the homeless based on Orwellian regulations that deem perfectly good food "unfit" by Big Brother's standards.

"The regulations are so out of control, now you have to think twice before giving a hungry person something to eat." 

As Glenn Beck continues to dissect the components of "Political System X," certain elements of the system have already manifested themselves in day-to-day life. During his Thursday evening program, Beck panned the country, reviewing a mind-boggling list of progressive regulations that appear to be engineered to hurt, not help those most in-need.

The mission, according to this theory, seems clear: by barring citizens from helping one another, a negative stereotype of "the greedy, selfish rich" is thus enforced. It is this negative stereotype Political System X feeds upon in order to rally and "organize" those most vulnerable -- in this instance, the homeless -- to their side.

"You regulate in Phase I and you squeeze in Phase II," Beck said of System X.  If the homeless' situation were allowed to improve -- or they continued to receive goodwill from individual citizens rather than the state -- it would not be as easy for the left to co-opt them. But, Beck explained, through regulations and absurd edicts, the left can keep the underprivileged suspended in their current state indefinitely, and hence, "organize" them.

As if taken directly from the pages of a Marxist playbook, Beck warned what progressives will likely say to the homeless man or woman once their leftist regulations have snuffed out all trace or possibility of goodwill: "Do you want to know why you don't have any food? It's all those rich people -- they won't help you. They've stopped coming, haven't they? ... But don't worry, 'we [government] are here to help you.'"

It is at this point the homeless or underprivileged person will be told that in return for the "abundance" the federal government will provide them, they must in turn promise "to vote." The candidates up for election in this scenario, undoubtedly, are the ones pushing the very leftist policies that will keep the underprivileged in a perpetual state of dependency.

Beck slammed this underhanded tactic and reminded viewers that the homeless are too occupied with the pressing matter of their very survival to understand that it was regulation, rather than greed, that stood in the way of their next meal. He also noted that it is highly unlikely those living on the streets are thinking about Cass Sunstein -- the Obama administration's "regulatory czar" responsible for this unrestrained increase in regulation over the last three years.

The country is "regulated to death" with 10,215 new regulations alone during the president's first

three years in office. While this number is not far-off from the number of regulations passed under the Bush administration during its first three years, as The Heritage Foundation notes in an extensive analysis, the number of "major" regulations enacted under the Obama administration far outweigh in both numbers and total dollars, that of the Bush administration.

Obama has enacted 106 major regulations to Bush's 28 in the first three years, marking a disparity of a staggering $38 Billion.

Yet Sunstein, in his recent op-ed for The Chicago Tribune, is going to tell American's Why regulations are good -- again." Oddly, he even defends the cost-benefit ratio of his regulations, writing: "Since the Reagan administration, the central focus has been placed on 'maximizing net benefits' — on ensuring that for every rule, agencies select the approach that has the highest net benefits (meaning benefits minus costs)."

As Beck said, "Woe to those who close their eyes to the regulations of the federal government."

Below is a review of just some of these stunning blockades against Good Samaritans and the acts of goodwill and brotherly love this society was built upon:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's High-Fiber, Low-Sodium Mandate...for the Homeless?

As assaults on food donations to city-run homeless shelters are mounting, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's new edict may take the "cake."

According to health officials, it is impossible to gauge the items' "salt, fiber, and other nutritional stats," therefore the regulation is crucial.

Now, the once regular surplus-food deliveries from Ohav Zedek Synagogue in New York's Upper West Side to homeless shelters around the city have been banished based on the food's suspected lack of "complete" nutritional value -- even though much of the food was in fact said to be "nutrient-rich."

Perhaps, some of the items (most coming from high-end catered events) in the delivery may have included desserts or other verboten indulgences.

“Jews have been eating cholent [stew] and kugel for a long time, and somehow we’ve managed to live long and healthy lives. All we want to do is to continue sharing these bounties with our neighbors,” Rabbi Allen Schwartz of Ohav Zedek said.

"I'd take a box of donuts if I was hungry. Wouldn't you?" Beck asked viewers. Reliving an extended period of hardship when he had nothing more to eat than a baked potato for lunch and a 23-cent box of macaroni and cheese for dinner each day, Beck said a "donut would have been a treat to me" and asked why the homeless -- people already struggling -- must be punished even further by not even being allowed to receive the small joy that comes from a taste of comfort food.

"When you are truly homeless and struggling, are you telling me donuts aren't good for their soul? We need to punish them with all vegetables? Are they not deserving of comfort food?"

The irony of New York's ban on food for the homeless was perhaps made most evident recently, when Occupy Wall Street was said to be receiving its food shipments out of a van used to haul containers-full of human excrement -- ones Occupiers had collected with the sole intention of defiling bank lobbies across the city.

Philadelphia Seeks Ban on "Feeding Large Numbers of the Homeless"

At the end of the day, Beck asked if any of the elites who issue and enforce these regulations have ever truly gone hungry. He reckons the vast majority never have.

"Who are you to say that my food isn't good enough for people who are hungry?"

"When will people stand up and say they are not going to comply?"

He reminded viewers of Paulina, one of the righteous gentiles of the Holocaust who saved nearly 500 Jews. She said it all started when she offered up just "one bowl of soup."

One wonders if Bloomberg or any of the powers that be would have needed to "inspect" Paulina's soup to determine its nutritional content before allowing it to be consumed.

Phase II of Political System X: Enforcing Reckless Behavior and Negative Stereotypes

Yet, to Beck, none of these restrictions occurred by accident or without purpose. Rather, he posits it

is a calculated part of Political System X's Phase II. By not feeding and helping the hungry, reckless habits and negative stereotypes are fostered.

He also noted that the problem is insidious, because, like much of Phase II, its operations are carried out from within the "shadows."

With regard to bans on feeding the homeless, Beck said these sorts of restrictions are difficult to fight as most are not being leveled by an elected lawmaker who can be ousted from office. It is an intangible -- a regulation. "And if you don't know who Cass Sunstein is, you don't know who's doing it."

Below Beck discuss how the left is co-opting the homeless and hungry across America via the channels of Political System X: 

Below, Beck talks more about out of control regulations: