Just when you thought things couldn’t get any whackier in New York City:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s food police have struck again!

Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.

Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels — fresh nutritious bagels — to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg’s food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters.

It’s the “no bagels for you” edict.

“I can’t give you something that’s a supplement to the food you already have? Sorry that’s wrong,” Richter said.

Richter has been collecting food from places like the Ohav Zedek synagogue and bringing it to homeless shelters for more than 20 years, but recently his donation, including a “cholent” or carrot stew, was turned away because the Bloomberg administration wants to monitor the salt, fat and fiber eaten by the homeless.

Richter said he was stunned. He said his family has eaten the same food forever and flourished.

“My father lived to 97; my grandfather lived to 97, and they all enjoyed it and somehow we’re being told that this is no good and I think there is a degree of management that becomes micromanagement and when you cross that line simply what you’re doing is wrong,” Richter said.

But Mayor Bloomberg, a salt-aholic himself, was unapologetic.

“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,” Bloomberg said.

Told that his administration recently enacted the policy, the mayor was Grinch-like.

“If they did in the past they shouldn’t have done it and we shouldn’t have accepted it,” Bloomberg said.

Richter said that over the years he’s delivered more than two tons of food to the homeless. He said Mayor Bloomberg is eating away at his ability to do good.

The ban on food donations was made by an inter-agency task force that includes the departments of Health and Homeless Services.

Isn’t it curious that Mayor Bloomberg is unaware of his own policies and edicts? Furthermore, how hypocritical of the “salt-aholic” to see no problem with city officials monitoring the salt and fat content of food donations to the homeless. Hypocritical, yes, but also predictable. After all, liberals live by many hoity-toity credos; a famous one being: “Do as I say, not as I do”.

When the residents of New York and New Jersey are in genuine need and reeling from the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, leave it to government to get in the way of recovery and general progress. Just as asinine as the FEMA offices being closed in Staten Island because of bad weather, the fact that good Samaritans are unable to aid those in need is an abomination to the civil society.

What’s more alarming: the fact that Bloomberg and his minions enact such dunderheaded policies or the fact that the citizenry quietly allows it to happen and then live under said policies?

What does $1,605,000,000 get you in American politics? Little more than a continuation of the status quo and maybe, if you’re lucky, the ability to roll joints in the Southern Rockies. In an election where the potential for major shakeups was highly probable, most of us woke up Wednesday, rubbed our eyes and realized that Barack Obama won the electoral slug fest, the Democrats retained control of the Senate, and John Boehner will continue to be the butt of late night jokes.

According to the New York Times, it cost El Duce nearly $1,000,000,000 to remain in the Oval Office. Seems it would’ve been a lot more cost effective had he just publicly declared his closet dictatorship before the election process ever began. On the flip side Mitt Romney spent over $750,000,000, had the advantage in Super PAC spending and still saw his bid for the White House fall short of an electoral college victory.

Clearly, a cash influx was never the problem for either candidate. It would appear that messaging was the bigger problem. The electorate was presented with lofty soaring rhetoric about shared prosperity and they swooned..again. Mitt Romney lobbied for a return to traditional America and a majority of Americans decided they would rather closet the Norman Rockwell America in favor of an America that Vladimir Lenin would salivate over.

For all the media fuss over Super PACs and specifically the influence of “right wing” PACs on the election, the panic was misplaced. The media’s candidate of choice won re-election and now the honeymoon continues.

Just think of all the free condoms $1,605,000,000 could have bought.

If last night’s election results are indicative of an electoral tipping point in this country, then we are staring at a bad omen. Last night’s unfolding of events gives credence to the notion that this republic now has a voting majority that is willing to opt out with regard to individual sovereignty and opt in for the care-taking collective. Last night represented an opportunity for the people to turn away from big bloated government. Instead, they gave it a big slobbering kiss.

High unemployment, a scandalous government cover-up in Benghazi, year after year of trillion dollar deficits, a four year increase of the food stamp rolls, and increased participation within the general welfare state; none of it mattered. Governor Romney’s focus on the economy and jobs was a selling point that was unable to win the day. Otherwise, Barack Obama would have lost this election in a landslide. It would appear that voters are, now more than ever, focused on their own well-being when entering the ballot box; not the well-being of the country. Condoms, birth control pills, Obama Phones, food stamps, and social security checks. Are government freebies now what drive the selfish mindset of the American voter – young and old? Does an honest day’s work now bow out to the creature comforts of government?

If the answer is yes (and all indicators point down the Road to Serfdom), than how do we reverse course – especially after four more years under the watch of Franklin Delano Obama? The welfare state and the federal government are only going to increase in size. More people will be on the dole after this president leaves office. So, to paint this as a setback would be a gross understatement. If a plurality of the voting public can be convinced that this is the way “forward” (no pun intended), then we have bigger problems on our hands than just determining who the Republican nominee will be in 2016.

We know that Obama had the support of his liberal base as well as the hard left, but those individuals do not represent a majority of thinking; at least that was the conventional wisdom prior to last night. After all, we supposedly live in a center-right country. Left-wing ideologues did not win this election for Obama. That did not seal the re-election of the president nor has it ever been a major factor. The bigger problem is the ballooning girth of the welfare state and a growing population that now seeks comfort in the bosom of government.

The Democratic Party continues to swell it’s voting bloc with the 18-25 crowd a long with whatever minority base it can successfully propagandize and pander to. Meanwhile, the Republicans are trying to sell a bag of goods that appears to have fewer and fewer takers. Individualism and success based off of hard work appear to be silly antiquated ideas of the past.

Nanny Obama is ushering in the new “New Deal” where everybody gets a “fair shake” and everybody pays their “fair share”, but the only light at the end of his tunnel is the growing light of a freight train in the form of economic collapse. At some point, we will run out of other people’s money. Obama’s “rich” i.e. the middle class can only be shaken down so much for so long. There will not be enough people creating wealth and paying taxes to sustain the panacea that Obama is attempting to facilitate.

If work ethic and individual responsibility are now hallmarks of yesteryear, then there’s no guarantee that well-articulated conservatism can once again win the day. There’s no guarantee that even Ronald Reagan could win an election in Obama’s America of 2012. Can any message (conservative or otherwise) communicated with passion and conviction stand up to the Giver, Barack Obama? For freedom lovers, this is now our plight. The road ahead is fraught with foreseen and unforeseen roadblocks. With the future of the republic in question, this is a fight we must undertake.

We can still win the war of ideas. The main problem we have is getting enough people to listen.

S Pinellas 912 Patriots

It’s time to hand Barack Obama his walking papers.

Benghazi-gate continues to blow up in Obama’s face.

What does Barack Obama actually mean when he talks about moving us “Forward”?

A interviewer with Revealing Politics descended upon Ohio University where President Obama spoke on Wednesday. These are the hapless drones who were in attendance: