By John Ruberry

“As I watch a great number of my fellow Americans and virtually all of the mainstream media descend further and further into irrational and immoral hysteria — regularly calling the president of the United States and all of his supporters Nazis, white supremacists and the like; harassing Republicans where they eat, shop and live; ending family ties and lifelong friendships with people who support the president; declaring their opposition to Trump and the Republican Party the “Resistance,” as if they were American reincarnations of the French who fought real Nazis in World War II; and so on — I ask myself: What is going on? How does one explain them?”
Dennis Prager, Explaining American Leftists: Part I.

John Edwards, the disgraced presidential candidate and the 2004 Democratic nominee, complained that that there were “two Americas.” Essentially a rich American and a poor one.

Now we have a liberal America and a conservative one. Prager, as I often do, prefers to use “leftist” to describe the former, a word that angers many, well, leftists. That is because liberal, in the classical sense, once meant open-minded. Leftists can’t tolerate opposing viewpoints, whether that issue is health care, illegal immigration (oops, I’m sorry, undocumented workers), taxes, or climate change.

Liberals are right, people like myself are always wrong.

As for global warning, (oops again, I mean climate change), environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is disappointed that there are no laws to punish climate change deniers. Ah yes, deniers, as in holocaust deniers. What is more illogical than a denier? And what happens to people, like myself, who could be jailed for being a climate change skeptic? Will I be committed to the psychiatric ward and pumped with drugs, a torture some Soviet dissidents endured, because of some blog posts of mine or because of some Facebook comments I made? If someone can be locked up for a scientific  belief, all options could be on the table.

Oh yeah, Facebook. While sifting through some old photographs at my late mother’s home, I found some class photos, which I posted on Facebook, and I tagged some of those ancient–yes, I mean ancient–classmates on the social networking site. Only I discovered many of them weren’t FB friends anymore, they unfriended me. Every single one of those unfriends is a liberal. Outside of pornbots (I’m more selective in the friend selection process now) and pyramid schemers, I’ve never unfriended anyone on Facebook. I have the maturity and liberalness (in the classical sense, of course) to look past political differences, musical tastes, and sports team loyalties to find other ways of bonding. Others clearly do not, at least in regards to politics.

As for the unfriending by leftists, don’t take it from me. The Washington Post, reporting on a Pew Research study, said “liberals are more likely to block or unfriend someone online because they disagree with something they have posted.”

Looking past my own little and of course twisted right-wing world, I have reams of evidence, not real paper reams, the production of which contributes to the melting of the polar ice caps and of course the end of planet.

Here we go:

Just last week Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife were hounded out of a restaurantt by screaming leftists over the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination while they tried to dine at a Washington restaurant. Three months ago Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen endured similar treatment while she was having dinner, and a few days later White house Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family were denied service at a Virginia restaurant because she works for President Donald Trump.

Here’s a story about a Washington woman who ran a Craig’s List ad for a roommate. “Alcohol, pets and meat products are not allowed in the house,” she wrote. Okay, so far so good. “Neither are Trump supporters,” she added. There have been similar ads elsewhere.

In California a woman selling her house stipulated that she would not entertain offers from supporters of the president. She later slashed the offering price by $100,000.

On the rare occasions a conservative speaker is invited to a college campus, the result is usually an angry and often violent protest that sometimes leads to a cancellation by panicked administrators.

Free speech, anyone?

Now, assuming they’ve read this far, I have a question for my dwindling roster of liberal friends. Where are the incidents where the reverse happened, that is, conservatives harassing or refusing to provide service to liberals? Which liberal pundits have been forced off a university campus? List these occurrences in the comments section. Go ahead, do it. I can take a punch.

Back to Washington: Here’s a story about Trump and GOP staffers having difficulty finding people to date there. Wow, even Shrek found love and settled down in the Swamp.

To the left conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re evil That’s a dangerous totalitarian mindset that could lead to violence.

Wait, that already happened. US Rep Steve Scalise (R-LA), the House Majority Whip, and several others were shot at a practice of the Congressional Republican baseball team last year. The shooter was a longtime leftist activist who inquired just beforehand if the team was a Democratic or Republican one.

By no means has Michael Moore ever been a Trump supporter. After being wrong–in my opinion at least–for decades, he issued the grand slam of all political forecasts two years ago when he predicted Trump’s surprise victory. Of Trump supporters he said at the time, “They’re not racist or rednecks, they’re actually pretty decent people.”

And we are decent.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Elmer Eubanks Archabald candidate Fitchburg district
There was a lot going on at the Johnny Appleseed festival last week including some politics. After all what would a local festival be if candidates didn’t turn up. I had a chance to talk to two of them.

Geoff Diehl won the GOP primary and will be facing Elizabeth Warren in the fall.

Diehl was also co-chair of the Trump campaign and it will be interesting to see what going all in for Trump does in Massachusetts. He’s an unabashed conservative and isn’t shy about saying so. Moreover he remembers 2010 when he ran and won in the big red wave of 2010 (a year when Charlie Baker did not btw)

You can find out more about his campaign here.

Meanwhile in our local Fitchburg district we have a person new to politicts running for state rep Elmer Eubanks Archabald

Elmer is a hispanic immigrant from Central America and is an economics professor who actually lived under socialism and knows it for what it is. Therefore he is thee Democrat left’s worst nightmare.

his campaign site is here.

by baldilocks

During my recent Road Trip, I visited my parents in New Mexico twice — once on the way out and once on the way back to LA. ( Side note: many who follow me on social media are aghast that I returned to CA, but I specifically said that I would return, though I am pondering a permanent escape next year after we see how things go politically in this state.)

Subsequent to my visit, my dad and I have reverted to a practice we had for several years: calling each other up about once a week and comparing notes about God. The practice had fallen off because my phone number has changed about four times since 2014.

Dad called this morning and want to know what things the trip had taught me. As usual, my little twisted brain has agendas that even my parents don’t understand and we talked about those. I long ago accepted the fact that my folks think I’m crazy. They’re probably right.

But, here, I want to mention a “side” topic that came up in the conversation: fatherhood and how God often uses human beings to model His role as our Father — an adopted Father who loves His adopted children (Christians) just as much as He does the children of His “body.”

I pointed out that God has modeled this in my life: my great-uncle John, my first pastor, and Dad himself; he is technically my step-dad.

Conversely, it occurs to me that the “cultural” war against the patriarchy — against men — isn’t really cultural, but spiritual. It’s a war against God. How many times have we seen feminists demonize all things male and masculine? Heck this people wore representations of female genitalia on their heads!

Anyway, as you can tell, Dad and I are very close. I know a lot of people whose parents are no longer with us and I want to savor the blessing of still having mine in this world for as long as I can.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host

Or hit Juliette’s!

A rosary, from Flickr

Chinese Catholics are in a terrible situation. They can’t practice their faith openly, and they don’t have the support of the Vatican, who recently sold out and allowed the Chinese government to pull all the strings and appoint bishops. Even though the Vatican will ultimately have the last word, in reality, if you pick the panel of people you choose from, this authority is all but null.

If President Trump wanted an easy win, he could talk about how bad the deal was and offer to negotiate a better one 🙂

Chinese Catholics face an even greater danger. We’re watching the Chinese eliminate Muslims in their western provinces, through a pattern of “re-education,” out-breeding and selective assassination. There is no reason to think they will stop at the Uighurs. I see Catholics and other Christians, who answer to a higher authority outside of political parties, to be next in line.

We should be pushing our Church to be raising this issue. China’s model of making every citizen an obedient atheist to the Communist Party is downright scary.

I ask you, if you’ve read this far, to pray a Novena for China. It’ll take you 15 minutes each day. If you don’t have a rosary, download a free app for one, or go buy one (they are cheap on Amazon). Before you pray each day, do a quick google search for Chinese religious oppression. It’s easy to find, and should help you focus.

Pray that Chinese leaders will soften their hearts and allow people to hold their own beliefs. Pray that the Vatican and our Church leaders stop selling out and start meeting the spiritual needs of the Catholic community in china. Pray that our political leaders, many of whom are Catholic, will begin insisting that China not oppress religions.

And pray that this model of atheist obedience won’t make its way to our own shores.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

Please share this post. Chinese Catholics need all the prayers they can get.

Lucy and me EWTN studios Irondale Alabama 9-6-18 (camera date was off)

The Latest in my series of Interviews with Immigrants is the incredible story of Lucy from Vietnam which I conducted during my trip to EWTN studios in Alabama at the beginning of the month.

If you are a person who regularly watches the Daily mass on EWTN you have seen Lucy in her white alb as she has not missed a mass in ten years.  If you’ve ever wondered who she is and wanted to know her story, here is your chance to hear it.

I had planned to get this interview up earlier but the Kavanaugh stuff ate up all the oxygen on the net

The full Interviews with Immigrants playlist:

Philippe: Haiti

Hanna:  Iraq

Alvin:  El Salvador

Maria:  the Dominican Republic (translated by Christian from Puerto Rico)

Lucine: Cape verde Islands

Donald:  Cameroon

Margaret Mary, England.

Lucy, Vietnam

And the updated map

My pay for this comes from the voluntary contributions of readers.  If you think this work is worth your while and wish to support it and my writers please subscribe to the site below.

Choose a Subscription level

Of course one time tip jar hits are welcome as well

Or buying my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Either way it’s most appreciated.

I’ve been away from politics for several months while recovering from appendicitis, peritonitis and ileus, a horrible experience. I have grown bored of Latin America’s permanent, ongoing dumpster fires (Mexico, Venezuela, etc.) and loathe the current political atmosphere here in the USA. While I was recovering I simply could not be bothered to pay attention, much less write.

Recently, however, I started paying attention to the Kavanaugh hearings, which had promptly become a clown show. During my recovery I had been reading the Ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed

that a wandering and discontented Uterus was blamed for that dreaded female ailment of excessive emotion, hysteria

The Greeks would have looked at the screaming demonstrators as proof of that theory, vagina suits or not.

Little did I know that Diane Feinstein would pull out, at the last minute, allegations of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh, and that not only would there be excessive emotion, there would also be talk of fake penises.

And now I am ashamed of the entire political spectacle.

Mind you, I lived in New Jersey for nearly forty years. New Jersey, home of Senator Bob Menendez and the eye doctor, of Cory Booker and T-bone. New Jersey, birthplace of the Torricelli Maneuver. After forty years of such, it takes a special kind of aroma for any long-term NJ resident to feel shame when looking at a political process.

And the process is not the only punishment.

I am ashamed that the accusations are doing a disservice to real #MeToo victims. First there is Ford, who could not recall the year or the location even under cross-examination while all the people she mentioned as witnesses swear under penalty of felony they were never at the scene. In the case of Ramirez, we learn that

Richard Oh, an emergency-room doctor in California, recalled overhearing, soon after the party, a female student tearfully recounting to another student an incident at a party involving a gag with a fake penis,

Yet (emphasis added)

The New York Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate Ms. Ramirez’s story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

Not to be outdone, Creepy Porn Lawyer

Avenatti said he is “aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s, during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.”

The same people asking for an FBI investigation of the first two allegations readily believe that SIX – not one, not four, but six – FBI security clearances of Judge Kavanaugh over three decades did not come across any information at all involving Avenatti’s invented rape gang.

Then there’s the shameful spectacle of Senator Hirono telling men to shut up, as if it were up to her.

I am ashamed to hear the Senator imply that the presumption of innocence, that quaint idea of an accused being innocent until proven guilty on which our judicial system is based, flies out the window when it comes to not only one man, but to all men. Hirono is not alone; Senators Coons and Schumer sustain that there’s no presumption of innocence for Judge Kavanaugh. These so-called honorable members of the Senate would have felt right at home in the Venetian Doge’s palace with its mailbox for

Secret denunciations against anyone who will conceal favors and services or will collude to hide the true revenue from them

In yesterday’s hearing

The Democrats had nothing on him; their harping on his high school yearbook was pathetic, and Amy Klobuchar’s attempt to insinuate that Kavanaugh has a drinking problem was reprehensible.

I am ashamed that in yesterday’s hearing

A real rape had taken place but it wasn’t the one everyone was talking about. It was simultaneously a rape of Judge Kavanaugh, his family, and the American people themselves. The collateral damage was Dr. Ford, her friends, and her family. And the perpetrator was the Democratic Party, principally their Judiciary Committee members, their ranking member, and the minority leader.

The Democrats know that Denunciation is the deadliest activism

Denunciation is what happens when an accusation is saved or fabricated and timed in order to damage an individual and/or process and achieve a personal or political goal regardless of the truth or validity of the facts. Denunciations have been associated with the most infamous and cruel movements and regimes in human history.
. . . But the timing, negotiation tactics and invincible callousness of the Democrat Senators have not just attempted to destroy a fine man and his family. It has also projected two women, who, by their own admissions, are confused and unsure of what they are alleging, into a moral and legal crucible they did not understand at the outset.

I am ashamed that Judge Kavanaugh cannot go to church on Sundays because protesters block the entry. I am ashamed that his daughters need bodyguards to go to school, that his wife receives death threats, that his mother and father have to endure idiot comedians calling for their son’s castration.

I am ashamed that, as Judge Kavanaugh himself said yesterday, “This conformation process has become a national disgrace.”

I am ashamed to know that the left is not going to give up on Kavanaugh. Not now, not ever.

I am ashamed that this circus revolves around the fear that Justice Kavanaugh would overturn Roe v. Wade.

There have been sixty million abortions since Roe v. Wade.

People who celebrate the killing of sixty million lives will stop at nothing.

And that is the greatest shame of all.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin America at Fausta’s Blog.


The media and their fellow partisan activists have no idea what they’ve unleashed.

Mollie Hemingway

Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.

But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues, and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans.

When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say. You will be given at that moment what you are to say. For it will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Jesus Christ per Matthew 10:16-20

I had to work yesterday but I was able to watch most of Dr. Ford’s Testimony and after getting home from work I stayed up to watch Kavanaugh’s opening statement (I listened to 15 minutes of it during my 1st break at work) and watched DiFi’s and Durbin’s and Lindsey Graham before I hit the sack around 4 AM after writing this post.

This was a bad day for the left, let me take it in order.

A Ford not a Lincoln

After watching Dr Ford testify my impression of her is similar to the impression of this policeman after encountering Sheldon Cooper after a break-in

Policeman: Mr. Cooper, there’s nothing
Sheldon: Doctor Cooper.
Policeman: [looking at Leonard] Seriously?
Leonard: Not the kind with access to drugs.

The Big Bang Theory The Zarnecki Incursion 2011

The fact that Dr. Ford is DR Ford amazes me. She came across as one of the most clueless people I’ve ever seen. That being said she seems to completely believe what she is saying but also seems to have a very selective memory, or as she would say a selective Hippocampus, she is absolutely positively positive that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her but seems to be unsure of a lot of basic facts from just a few weeks ago concerning her contact with the Senate on this issue
I thought that the sight of Democrats grandstanding while Mitchel asking the questions for the GOP was trying to ascertain facts would be noticed and at least one leftist media person noticed it:

NBC’s Chuck Todd said that Republicans’ representative at the Senate Judiciary hearing Rachel Mitchell had “done a great exposing Democrats playing games,” and that “Dr. [Christine Blasey] Ford was a victim of the Democrats playing politics,” on Thursday after the committee took its second break.

“She’s done a great job of exposing the Democrats of playing games,” Todd said of Mitchell. “I think that she’s made a better case explaining how Democrats sat on this.”

Ford is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about her allegations that Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her in the 1980s.

“It’s almost as if Dr. Ford was a victim of the Democrats playing politics,” Todd added.

It’s amazing that she seemed not to know that the committee offered to take her testimony in California, it’s almost as if she was kept in the dark by her own team for political reasons.

To me the two really devastating things in her testimony was the bit about flying, which suggested falsehoods from her camp that she was either part and parcel to or kept completely in the dark, to me even worse is her incredible explanation for her friend’s refusal to corroborate her statement. she claims it’s due to illness.


If this was a fact based process she would have been laughed out of the place but because optics are a big part of it that’s not the case. While the image of her often going to her lawyers looks bad to viewers because she seems innocent and clueless she might still play well with some. A lot of networks thought she was hitting it out of the park and predicted trouble for the GOP. Byron York, one of the best in the business said this

He might have been right, the left was all emotion and the GOP all Dukakis like facts. It could have been a problem in terms of optics…

…And then Brett Kavanaugh took the stand, he wasn’t Mike Dukakis at the debates in 88.

Kavanaugh was pissed and he didn’t hold it back, his opening statement was one of the most incredible things I’d ever seen and I guarantee you that after Ford’s testimony a whole lot of America was watching to see what he would say. No amount of script is adequate to describe it You have to see it to get the full force or it.

In my opinion that opening statement alone won him the American people, won him the nomination and might also have won the GOP the 2018 midterms.

He followed that up by demolishing Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin. I’ve yet to watch his exchannges with Hirono, Booker or Harris but if they were anything like the Feinstein or Durbin stuff it was bad news for Democrats all around. It was so bad they even managed to get Lindsey Graham angry.

What’s really amusing is the sudden contrast in how the media both professional and social dealt with his refusal to play the role they envisioned for him I think Byron York put it very well.

But Donald Trump put it best

Kavanaugh won the day and won it strong and based on reporting I’ve seen his performance and the disgraceful of the Democrats (which as I said yesterday only Clarie McCaskill seemed to have anticipated) is not only going to fire up the base for 2018 and beyond it’s going to give pause to any person with a mother, brother or father when it comes to giving these people power for a very long time.

Not counting the witnesses the person who came out looking the best was the lawyer hired by the GOP. Ms. Mitchell was professional , polite and full of substance in her work. I think the Senate would do well to permanently hire her for this function in the future and leave the grandstanding for the campaign trail.

The biggest loser is Dianne Feinstein. Her decision to sit on this letter burned the Democrats and cost them credibility in their call for an investigation, but most importantly for her it might have cost her re-election because in an election where there are two Democrats on the ballot for Senator GOP voter who might have pragmatically voted for her as the lesser of two evils are much more likely to vote for her opponent out of spite.

Finally I want to leave you with this thought that I’ve said before. The entire Democrat/media/leftist playbook here was predicated on the anticipation that either the president would withdraw the nomination in the face of these accusation or the nominee would ask to have his name withdrawn in the face of them and with any other GOP president and with any other nominee I suspect this strategy would have succeeded.

Without Judge Kavanaugh’s courage to stand and fight and without President Trump’s willingness to back him up, the short term result of the votes tomorrow and Saturday and the long term results that will come of it on election day doesn’t happen. AS I put it on twitter

I can’t wait for election day and as for Kavanaugh on the bench…

Had he received a normal confirmation, I suspect Kavanaugh would have been a bit of an establishment squish. I rather doubt that he’ll be that now.

Closing thought: After this what do dems do if/when Ginsburg retires or dies while Trump is in office?

Update:  added biblical quote

My pay for this comes from the voluntary contributions of readers.  If you think this work is worth your while and wish to support it and my writers please subscribe to the site below.

Choose a Subscription level

Of course one time tip jar hits are welcome as well

Or buying my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Either way it’s most appreciated.

And be careful of what you do ’cause the lie becomes the truth.

– Michael Jackson, “Billie Jean”

If Judge Kavanaugh’s last name were a single syllable, I have no doubt that the sleazy tactics being deployed against him would become their own term, a la “Borking” from Ted Kennedy and others slandering judge Robert Bork when he was nominated in 1987 by Ronald Reagan (“Kavanaughing” just doesn’t have the same ring to it). But I can’t help wondering if the crime the judge is alleged – without any corroborating evidence – to have committed 36 years ago fits too easily into today’s #MeToo narrative.

The left is desperate to have Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination fail, so when they were unable to derail him during the regular Judiciary Committee hearings, they had to go nuclear. So, given the #MeToo climate, they naturally found a way to accuse him of sexual assault. The fact that he has already passed 6 FBI background checks proves that he in no way has done anything even remotely fitting the #MeToo mold as an adult, so their only choice was to go as far back as possible to accuse him of an undisprovable crime at an unspecified time and place when he was 17. And they already have the built-in “believe all women” trope provided by #MeToo.

Am I the only one who thinks that, if this were all happening in 2014 during the peak of the Black Lives Matter movement, that Dr. Ford would have accused Judge Kavanaugh of having uttered “the ‘N’ word” at a party 36 years ago? That would have been the accusation guaranteed to generate the most outrageous outrage on the left at the time, and would have been just as undisprovable as the sexual assault accusation is now.

When even the left-leaning American Bar Association gives Judge Kavanaugh it’s highest rating of “well qualified,” citing his character and integrity, the opposition has to go low. The definition of “low” always depends on the current SJW fad-of-the-moment, so no one should have been surprised that this scurrilous charge surfaced at the last minute. Let’s see to what new low the left will sink when it’s time for President Trump to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg (approved 97-3). It will depend on whatever has replaced #MeToo by then.

Don’t forget to hit DaTipJar! Or better yet, subscribe!

After very much deliberation I could not decide between the two that stand out the most in my mind so it is a tie.  The first is a veritable heavyweight based on name recognition and percentage of those on the political right that have read at least one of her books.  The other is much less known unless you are a devotee of science fiction.  The first I chose is the one that probably came first to your mind when you read the title of this article, Ayn Rand.  The other is Robert Heinlein.  You might be wondering why I scored them so high as authors who espouse libertarian philosophy in their books.  I’ll let you decide for yourself through quotes from their novels.

Atlas Shrugged is by far Ayn Rand’s most famous work. Here is a speech from the character Francisco d’Anconia which is directed to Bertram Scudder. It would make Milton Friedman and Adam Smith proud.

So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

Here is a quote from Dr. Floyd Ferris to Hank Rearden which has a strong Jeffersonian flavor to it, or perhaps reminiscent of Ludwig Von Mises.  That quote perfectly describe the odious way our government behaves now.

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.

Here is a speech from Hank Rearden to a panel of judges

Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that ‘the good’ was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they believe to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it—well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.

The Fountainhead, which was written before Atlas Shrugged, is also a wonderful novel that is packed with libertarian philosophy.  Here is a speech by Howard Roark, which is the climax of the novel.  It reminds me a lot of this video by Milton Friedman.

Man cannot survive except through the use of his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.

But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.

Robert Heinlein was the author most responsible for my transition from someone that leaned very much to the political left to a libertarian.  The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is ranked on a lot of websites as the most libertarian novel ever written.  Professor Bernardo de la Paz is the character I most closely identity with from any novel.  Here are four separate quotes through which he defines his philosophy:

A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as “state” and “society” and “government” have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals.

I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

Comrades, I beg of you — do not resort to compulsory taxation. There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.

You have put your finger on the dilemma of all government — and the reason I am an anarchist. The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it contains until it destroys. I was not joking when I told them to dig into their own pouches. It may not be possible to do away with government — sometimes I think that government is an inescapable disease of human beings. But it may be possible to keep it small and starved and inoffensive — and can you think of a better way than by requiring the governors themselves to pay the costs of their antisocial hobby?

Revolt in 2100 is another Heinlein novel that scores extremely high on the libertarian scale.  Here is my favorite quote

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything—you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

A few days ago Claire McCaskill one of those red State Democrats who is facing re-election came out publicly that she would vote against Brett Kavanaugh.

This was very early in the Christine Ford business, however she was adamant that her decision wasn’t based on Ford at all but on other issues.

At the time I thought it was a bad move telegraphing her vote early but the more I think about the situation the more I realize that the cleverest pol in the Democrat Caucus read this situation like a book.

The conventional wisdom was that Red State Democrats would wait until the day of the vote itself, if the GOP had the votes to confirm they would be allowed to go along as it wouldn’t make a difference to the outcome and that utilitarian decision could be easily sold to even the most fanatical leftists desperate to gain a majority.

But a woman who in 2010 was clever enough to realize that the Sarah Palin backed candidate in the primaries was a threat to her election and took steps to neutralize her in the GOP primary was also clever enough to see not only that the Ford letter was weak tea with a lot of “interesting” side issues but that this would develop into the most dangerous possible situation for a Red State Democrat.

The entire Democrat strategy was based on the idea of GOP/Kavanaugh/Trump caving. Once it became clear that Trump would not cave I suspect that Claire deduced that Kavanaugh was unlikely to cave meaning that Democrats would become more and more desperate and they have bringing out a series of suddenly discovered accusers whose charges have been less and less credible than the unsupported claims of Dr. Ford.

In fact the anger this has generated among Trump voters is only matched by the fanaticism that this has generated among the pussy hat brigades who see no inconsistency between the total lack of anything like this being alleged for decades or multiple FBI background checks failing to pick this stuff up, and Brett Kavanaugh being a serial rapist in highschool/college.

In fact the only thing less likely than Trump voters forgiving a red State Democrat’s NO on Kavanaugh is a fanatical leftist in a blue state forgiving a yes vote on Kavanaugh.

In other words it’s an impossible position, unless you’ve already come out against him based on issues totally unrelated to the accusations

That’s what McCaskill did. By voting with her base but not joining the lynch mob on these ridiculous accusation against Kavanaugh she manages to do the least amount of potential damage to her re-election campaign.

Of the red state Democrats only McCaskill figured this out and acted in the small window available for her. This woman is the smartest one they have when it comes to politics and reading red state voters.

The GOP is damn lucky that nobody seems to be mentioning her as a 2020 candidate.