In the video above, we see college students lined up to vote for Obama without a single freaking clue about some of the basic tenets of American government. When all you know is that we are a “democracy,” and majority rules, then you are more likely to support slick demagogues like Obama who promise free stuff, trample on private property rights, and act like vengeful dictators.

These millennials or whatever they hell they are aren’t ideologues; they’re just out-to-lunch. And there is a commonality of interests between the lazy, over-educated snobs who blow fortunes getting worthless educations at liberal colleges and the ignorant, under-educated folks who depend on them to loot the government on their behalf for goodies. Neither want to do any real work; and while those in the big screen-watching, X-box playing underclass take what they believe rightfully belongs to them, the upper class intelligentsia demonize the productive, the successful, the creators in the economy who make all those snazzy high-tech gadgets to begin with.

Sure, we’re supposed to believe that the sick bastards who drive the engine of the world’s biggest economy are “selfish” and “greedy” and every other epithet because they feel like paying half the country’s bill is enough. And as for the supposedly cruel market system, it is a basic fact that you can’t get rich without attending to the wants and needs of others. Go ahead, sit in your garage, poop out something into a bag, and charge a million bucks for it. Good luck making a fortune that way, kids.

But there is this primitive concept that if one is greedy and selfish, then he must be taking things that don’t belong to him. That’s wrong! It’s taking things that don’t belong to you with the force of government democracy that is morally wrong. In other words, for every one person Obama supposedly helps, he makes someone else a victim. There is no way around it, geniuses. The sh*t isn’t Obama’s. It doesn’t belong to him. He didn’t build that.

There is something Ayn Rand said in Return of the Primitive that has stuck with me, which is that the New Left rebels taking over were “Castroites”; and she pointed out that they were driven more by existentialist angst than by ideological fanaticism. She said that their literary tastes run more to Sartre and Camus than to Marx. Apparently, the literary tastes of today’s rebels run more along the lines of 50 Shades and the appropriately named Twilight.

Snide left-wing trolls will be taunting conservatives with their witless one-liners for the next four years; but let’s not fools ourselves, we’re not exactly dealing with mental giants, folks. These people don’t get their cues from stale Sunday show punditry or the New York Times as much as they do from bile-spewing gangsta rappers like Jay-Z and from post-moral Hollywood films like “Wreck-it-Ralph”

What we need now to be successful in imbuing our values into those who are anti-value and beating principles into the soft skulls of the moral relativists is a way to cut through the progressive think-smog of bullsh*t cultural innuendo and Alinsky-style character assassination. What is meaningful to Americans in their real everyday life experience? How do you make things stick emotionally as much as intellectually?

Odds are whatever it will be will be quirky, funny, and unexpected. You’ve got to go pre-cognitive; and stay tuned to CDN for an article from myself that will describe a new political paradigm of approaching American politics, instead of going by the same-old left-right dialectic. Regardless, selling the “conservative” soap is not gonna take home the knife set.

Some people may be tempted to mail it in, believing they’d rather preserve their dignity and talk to other prospective American voters like they’re, well… adults. Writing, blogging, trying to influence others in the new media environment is probably not gonna be for you. We’re all on a giant playground now, and sometimes you’ve got to use humor to take down the school bully, especially if the star quarterback who said has your back is making out with the tight end under the bleachers.

On the other side of the ‘change’ coin, it must be nice to live in the liberal netherworld of knowing how to vote each election based sheerly on who all the cool kids think should be the country’s top political celebrity for four years. Yep, despite all the conservative crowing about President Kardashian and Big Bird politics, the lefty culture trumped our smarts. Time to get over it.

We were all thinking Alinsky, when we should have been going Gramsci. In other words, a lot of bloggers were thinking ridicule hatchet-job on Obama’s character when we should have been thinking about the immense institutional and cultural resources working against us. Our constant sniping at Obama made those of us on the right come across to the young, dumb and proud of it as petty (maybe even… racist?) because our message wasn’t being reinforced through cultural media: movies, music, television, etc.

We were yelling into the cultural marxist ocean only to find that while our fellow fail whales could hear us, the giant group-think schools of lib-fish had tuned us out. We didn’t know how to change the color of the red tide except to pee in the currents.

Did you think this velvet revolution was planned yesterday? Hardly. As soon as radicals got their hands on Frankfurt School lit, they started taking over the schools, universities, news and entertainment media, and the courts. We were content to salute the flag, eat apple pie, and sing “I’m a Yankee Doodle Dandy” while the left was brainwashing our kids (and damn proud of it!).

Want to live in the black-and-white era of American politics, believing we can beat the other side with newspaper editorial-type posts filled with “facts” and “figures” and “logic”? You’re probably going to be sorely disappointed by the lack of results.

Want more evidence? Here you go.

Obama voters slam Mitt Romney, while supporting his policy proposals; and they hammer the policies of “Mitt Romney,” which actually belong to Obama.

Shock jock Howard Stern’s infamous videos of Obama voters before the election.

Bonus: epic Adam Corolla rant on participation trophy left. Caution: explicit language.

Campaign 2012:

Wikipedia Image

WASHINGTON, May 15, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – Education ranks behind only the economy and jobs as the most important consideration among likely Latino voters in five battleground states, according to a survey released today by the American Federation for Children (AFC) and the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options (HCREO).

The poll results revealed that improving K-12 education—and not issues related to immigration—is the second-most important issue in the minds of Latino respondents, and education ranks in a near-statistical tie as the second most important issue among all likely voters.

Voters in five states—Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Nevada—were surveyed by the Democratic-leaning polling firm Beck Research on a host of education and other issues that will prove critical to deciding the 2012 presidential election. A majority (58 percent) of Latinos surveyed expressed a desire to hear more from both presidential campaigns on how the candidates will improve education, and large proportions of respondents also voiced strong support for a host of private school choice initiatives, including vouchers, scholarship tax credit programs, education savings accounts, and special needs scholarship programs.

“The support for making education a fundamental part of the campaign discourse over the next six months is remarkably strong across demographic, geographic, and ideological lines,” said Kevin P. Chavous, a senior advisor to the American Federation for Children. “The message to the candidates is clear: expanding educational options for parents, and education reform generally, should be a priority in 2012.  It not only makes good political sense, but it’s the right thing to do, too.”

A total of 85 percent of voters and 91 percent of Latinos think vouchers and scholarship tax credit programs should be available in some form, while majorities of likely voters and Latinos also support specific school choice proposals as well. Support is especially high for special needs scholarship programs, which are favored by 74 percent of voters and an astounding 80 percent of Latino voters.

Latino respondents particularly supported arguments in favor of school choice because of the immediate help it provides to children from low-income families, and their positive effect on graduation rates, academic achievement, and parental satisfaction.

“No voting bloc is more important to this election than Latinos, and it’s clear that education is among the most important issues,” said Julio Fuentes, president and CEO of HCREO. “Latino families want their children to have a chance to prosper, and that opportunity best exists through access to a quality education.”

In a campaign season dominated by talk of the economy, more than half (53 percent) of Latino voters also cited education as central to improving our country’s economic situation.

The Beck Research survey interviewed a total of 1,050 likely November voters, including an oversample of 300 Latinos. The poll’s margin of error is +/- 3.6 percent.

James O’Keefe and Project Veritas’ latest video exposes non-citizens voting in North Carolina, ballots for dead voters being offered, and even an Election Judge “only upholding part of the Constitution”.

Now the question is… how many of theses people will make the same uneducated choice to vote for him to be re-elected?

Clearly, the voters want change; one need only look to the Obama campaign slogan of 2008 for evidence. But the kind of change the politicians continue to bring us isn’t at all what the voters have in mind. This is why Congressional approval ratings are so atrocious (ended 2011 with a record low 11% approval) and why this President hovers at 50% approval (coincidentally, 49.5% of people in this country are not paying taxes…hmmm). What we want is for the changes to make us a better country, to offer our citizens greater opportunities to grow wealth, to tax us fairly and less, to leave us to make decisions for ourselves, to protect our freedoms – not squash them – and to generally get out of our way.

When politicians are criticized for their inability to move this country forward in a positive direction, they complain that they are being blocked by their opposition, that it’s increasingly difficult to get bipartisan agreement on anything. But why is that? Don’t both political parties have the nation’s best interest at heart?

I know it’s an unpopular idea to consider, but do politicians really have a motivation for moving us forward? After all, if our nation’s people don’t have legitimate educational, health care, financial, retirement, and employment problems, they don’t need the government. If we don’t need the government to resolve these day-to-day challenges for us, then there isn’t as much at stake in the elections. Without a need for change, what would drive voters to the polls to vote in new candidates? It might sound outrageous to posit this, but we must consider that our politicians actually create problems instead of solve them just to ensure a future for themselves.

Our founding fathers would surely roll over in their graves if they considered this twisted idea, because they believed Americans should be self-reliant. They designed the framework of our country around the principles of limited government precisely because they didn’t want the masses to become dependent on government. They were wise enough to realize such dependence would lead to an over-powerful political body that would infringe on individual liberty. Each day, each election, we are moving farther and farther away from what our founding fathers envisioned for this country. We even have leaders who are so arrogant to claim that maybe the founding fathers didn’t have it right and maybe we need to “change with the times.”

But it is essential that we remember not all change is good change, and we need to question the motives behind our political figures’ inability to get this country moving forward. Beyond just questioning these motives, we need to demand that they start answering to the inefficiencies and total lack of meaningful action during their time in office.

Term limits are a great place to start. If politicians know there is a finite amount of time they can serve in public office, then maybe they will actually SERVE us instead of their own interests. Maybe a limit to their time in office will prompt only those who are genuinely interested in working toward positive change, progress, growth, and freedom to apply for the job. It sure would put an end to the distraction of campaigning while in office (and on the taxpayer’s dollar).

A resurgence of “citizen legislators” would bring the focus back to getting work done and making a positive difference while in office, and it would ensure that those who are making laws that impact the real world have actually worked in it.

Government should be limited, as should the power and influence of politicians. Our political leaders need a reality check and a real job. It’s high time we re-ignite this conversation on a national level. I wonder what the likelihood is that a career politician will get on board. Yep, that’s why the government will never change.