Political Correctness is the arch-enemy of truth, justice, and rationality.

Congratulations! You’ve found the Third Rail blog.

Censorship is alive and well. The vast majority of it comes from the left, from so-called “progressives.” An unexpected legacy of my generation’s ‘Free Speech’ movement, perhaps? As they say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Support this blog site, stand up for real free speech, not just politically correct free speech. Become a follower and contribute to the discussions. Thank you.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Mitt Romney: Soul-less clone or Cylon ‘skin-job’?

While listening to the Howie Carr talk-radio show yesterday I had a minor revelation. An exasperated caller was asking why Republicans were resisting getting behind the one candidate who “clearly is in the best position to wrest the presidency from Obama,” (Mitt Romney). It occurred to me that this question deserves a simple, honest answer—and it just so happens that one is readily available.

The caller rattled off Romney’s positions on economic issues that most Republicans agree are appropriate detours from present policies; required if we are to get the economy on the right track.

But here’s the rub. Having observed Romney for many years, I cannot honestly say that I know what his real opinion is, on ... anything! His infamous flip-flops on two of the most profound personal issues of the day: abortion and gay marriage, clearly underscore the degree of Romney’s opportunistic hypocrisy. But even more than that, listening to what he says on the campaign trail, does he ever—ever!—respond to a question with an answer that appears to be other than a calculated, focus-group vetted, scripted answer? The man speaks in bullet points.  I detect no sincerity or authenticity in the man whatsoever. He truly behaves like an automaton. A reporter recently observed that when Romney signs his name, he carefully writes out each and every letter. Hmmm...

His spokespeople consistently—and unabashedly—tell us: “Don’t judge Romney by what he says while campaigning, judge him by his record when he governs.” So, aside from the fact that we are being explicitly told not to believe anything he says to us now, when he is running for office, it begs a deeper question. If Romney is elected president, at what point does he become candidate Romney running for his second term?  Year four? Year three? Year two?

It isn’t difficult to imagine a scenario where at some point in a first term his handlers determine he needs to veer to the left. What if a Supreme Court seat becomes vacant at this time? What do we know about Romney that would give us confidence that he wouldn’t make an appointment calculated to improve his approval ratings with some liberal segment of the electorate?

So the short and sweet answer to why no voter in his right mind should ever vote for Mitt Romney is this:  How can you vote for someone when you have no basis for knowing who they really are and what they really believe? 

In contrast, ask yourself: Do you know what Ron Paul believes?  Do you think that Rick Santorum is hiding his real beliefs from the voters?

Romney made his Faustian bargain with Deceit a long time ago. The record is clear. Go to the videotape. Caveat emptor. Vote for this political whore at your own peril.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Why Rick Santorum is about to become “the most hated man in America”

The reason for the quotations around the phrase in the title is because Rick Santorum is not likely to really become the most hated man in America, but we are about to witness a media campaign intended to convince us the Rick Santorum is, indeed, the most hated man in America. Santorum will be on the receiving end of this hate campaign because he is about to emerge in a very strong position, perhaps even first, in the Iowa Caucuses on Tuesday.

The Christian/social conservative segment of the Republican party has danced at one time or another with all of the candidates that legitimately tout their consistency on conservative social positions: Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now Rick Santorum. The campaigns of Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich have been found wanting; failing to maintain the traction that they possessed at various times in the campaign.  It should be clear that the surge that Santorum is now experiencing should not be surprising. He is a bona fide social conservative -- not a fair-weather one -- and his views on other issues are well within the mainstream of the party. It is only logical that Santorum should now be the recipient of the conservative vote that has been dissatisfied, at one time or another, with Herman Cain as well as Newt Gingrich, Bachmann and Perry. But why is Rick Santorum the last choice for these voters, instead of, perhaps, the first?

At a time when the precarious state of the national economy, not to mention the global economy, is the most important issue of our time, Rick Santorum has never failed to inject social issues at every opportunity, even when debate moderators seemed to deliberately steer clear of it. Santorum passionately asserts that the biological nuclear family is the cornerstone of a healthy society, and that virtually all of our ills can in some way, shape, or form be traced back to the fact that the nuclear family in the U.S. is under attack from what I am going to call the NYT (New York Times) new morality. This could just as easily be called the “progressive morality,” “Hollywood morality,” “educational industrial complex morality,” or a million other names. It’s the belief that the nuclear biological family--the patriarchy, if you will--must be toppled from its position as the primary pillar of society, and in fact, of civilization itself. Instead, it should be regarded as just one of several social arrangements, no better or no worse, than new, enlightened alternatives.

This belief is so profound among its adherents that it takes on the character of religious zealotry.  Those, like Santorum, who resist it, are branded apostates of the new cultural norm. Though most Americans do not subscribe to this radical revolution in thought, it is being imposed in virtually all segments of society by its advocates: the educational-industrial complex, the news media, the entertainment industry, and the legal academy.

The media’s response to Rick Santorum’s candidacy has been textbook liberal playbook. Just like the response to the Tea Party, the strategy to nullify follows three phases. First, neutralize by dismissing and ignoring. Initially, the media simply wouldn’t cover Tea Party news events.  Similarly, Santorum couldn’t scrape together two consecutive column inches in the newspaper.  The next phase, when the Tea Party and now Santorum didn’t simply go away, is mockery.  Specific events are chosen to show the Tea Party and Rick Santorum in a ridiculous light. Recently, a Saturday Night Live skit lampooned the now doubtful debate to have been moderated by Donald Trump in which only Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum agreed to participate. The sole “joke” involving the Santorum character occurred when he attempted to speak and was immediately cut off by ‘Trump’ yelling: “Shut up! You’re a loser!”

Cue the guffaws from the “hip” SNL audience.

When that doesn’t work, we finally get to phase three, where the news media is forced to give real coverage to the object of scorn, and its disgust in being forced to do so is clearly manifest in the transparent biased coverage.

We are now in phase two w/r to Santorum, transitioning to phase three after Tuesday.  The media elites are now beside themselves in rage over the apparent success of the “Neanderthal” Santorum. It’s going to get ugly now.