Bacon, Guns & Whiskey

…with a side of Freedom and Liberty. Common-ish sense in uncommon times.

Recent posts

  • Not so anti-war, are we?

    For being the person who promised “[w]hen I’m back in the White House, we will expel the warmongers, the profiteers … and we will restore world peace”, Trump sure is dropping a lot of bombs, shooting a lot of guns, and people in and out of Congress are making A TON of money.

    We’re sending bombs to one of the richest countries in the world (Israel) — depleting our own stockpile, by the way — while we’re hanging a poorer one out to dry (Ukraine) so a Russian autocrat can bring back the days of Stalin.

    And at the same time we’re bombing Iran and claiming total victory — a country that most experts agree does not have nuclear weapons and might actually lack the intellectual capability to produce them — we’re ignoring North Korea, who does have nuclear weapons (since at least 2018)*, and a megalomaniac in command of them.

    So we’re not anti-war as promised and, when we do blow stuff up, we’re giving bombs to people who don’t need them, attacking people who aren’t a threat, and ignoring the ones who are.

    WTF? Actually, though, what the f**k!?

    Oh, and with the fresh, new invasion of Venezuela — which we’re apparently going to occupy (or at least “run”) for the foreseeable future — we still don’t have all the Epstein files.

    And there may be more new wars coming soon. I’ll bet the majority of people will forget about the Epstein files again when those invasions kick off, too.

    * Here’s a really good, comprehensive analysis of DPRK’s program from Stanford, also in 2018: https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/content/cisac-north-korea

  • It’s time to talk about what “America” was built on

    Spoiler alert: it was built as a libertarian republic.

    I’m going to venture a guess that it’s been a long time since you read (or even read about) the Federalist Papers from way-back-when (1787-1788), but it’s probably worth revisiting. So, over the next several however-long-it-takes, I’ll plug some of my thoughts on what the Founders conceptualized versus where we’re at today. Some things might be rather shocking.

    For reference sake, I’ve been reading Mary Webster’s The Federalist Papers in Modern Language because I am not smart enough to translate 18th Century to English — or at least not at a speed that would facilitate opining on their applicability to today’s America. If you can, then I highly encourage you to read the originals — no one talks about America with that kind of pure passion anymore, and it’s wonderful to behold.

    To start things off, Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist #1 (via Webster’s translation) that “[p]oliticians will present some of the most formidable obstacles to the new Constitution” because the Constitution “might diminish [their] power and benefits”. And the best part was his prophetic statement that “[t]he perverted ambition of others will see potential self-aggrandizement with a country in disarray”.

    It’s safe to say that politicians on both sides of the political spectrum fit that bill. And the fact that Hamilton wrote those words more than 230 years ago is a testament to his wisdom and understanding of the human mind and heart.

    But wait, there’s more! Further on, he writes (and I’m going to call this one out using the fancy quote box thingy):

    Nothing is more repugnant than the intolerant spirit that has, at all times, characterized political parties. In political, as in religion, it’s absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

    Incredible, right? Republicans say that democrats are taking us to socialism and anarchy through globalism and open borders. Democrats say that republicans are theocrats who want to enslave everyone and go backwards in time. And if you’re a member of the _ party, then you’re evil and not even worth talking to. It sounds crazy, right? But it’s something that you have heard someone close to you say — I guarantee it.

    And perhaps the most important of them all:

    [D]angerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people…

    History teaches us that of the men who have overturned the liberties of republics, most began their career by proclaiming their devotion to the people. They gain[ed] position by arousing people’s prejudices and end[ed] as tyrants. [Emphasis mine.]

    That’s it. Federalist #1 ends with a discussion that the alternative to adopting the (then) new Constitution was “dismemberment of the Union.”

    Republicans and democrats have each “arous[ed] people’s prejudices” — to the point that half of the country hates the other half, and the elected government is actively working to suppress half the country and any given moment. This is utterly insane and, if we don’t start electing people with a true passion for liberty and an efficient (aka small!) government, then we will be doomed to the same fate at the Greeks and Romans. But we’ll get to Federalist #18 in due course. 🙂

  • Speaking of socialism

    Atlanta is trying a socialist fix for a capitalist problem. The free market can solve problems — and has solved the biggest ones — better than any other force out there, short of (perhaps) creating the space program. But even there, the private sector has stepped in and now you have reusable spacecraft and extraordinary advances in technology in a very short amount of time.

    So Atlanta has paid in millions of dollars for a taxpayer-funded business because they (the city) failed to incentivize the private sector sufficiently enough and, in so doing, have set a precedent that if you let a problem fester enough then you’ll get a free business from the government. That’s a dangerous perception to create.

    Now, before someone throws a melodrama grenade, I’m not saying that underprivileged neighborhoods going without access to fresh food is okay — quite the opposite — what I am saying is that there is a way to incentivize the private sector to solve problems in a better way.

  • “The [killer] came from inside the house!”

    Silly horror movie references notwithstanding, after Reagan’s history-making speech to Gorbachev in 1987, it is utterly inconceivable that Republicans in America — in 2025 — would be supporting another Russian dictator and Stalin-worshipper. But yet, here we are. To make matters worse, a confident and senior advisor to the President of the United States is actively working with the Russians to manipulate POTUS into helping the Russian president solidify gains in an unprovoked war of aggression — through what can only be described as a de facto surrender by Ukraine.

    After spending the majority of my life criticizing Democrats for being socialists and communists (they still are, in my personal opinion, btw), now we have Republicans doing the same thing. Holy f#$%ing sh%#!

    What does that mean for the future of our republic? For America’s reputation and legitimacy as the leader of the “free” world?

  • It’s shutdown time again. Congress gets paid, everyone else gets screwed.

    That’s pretty much it. Folks in Congress will get their checks, their staffs won’t, and neither will their security details. The same is true for most government employees — and most of these folks are legally required to keep working — even when they run out of money because they aren’t receiving wages anymore.

  • Can’t have “guns” in the name and not talk about it, right?

    Remember when I talked about that thing that would help solve our problems? This is probably THE single most common “gotcha” people try and hit me with. Do you really think the people who wrote the Constitution wanted people to have machine guns and bazookas? Well they didn’t have those things back in the 1700s, so no, but you know what people could own? Cannons. Actual f**king military artillery. So today, based on that historic example, yes, they would be okay with people owning machine guns and bazookas.

    That being said, I’ll stipulate that mental illness is a ‘thing’ now (and getting worse, it seems) where it either wasn’t in the 1700-1800s or it wasn’t so prevalent that the Founders should have worried about ‘Bob’s bazooka’ (er, ‘cannon’).

    The problem with that is, without a law degree but with a decent set of circumstances, I could probably convince the Supreme Court that a fully automatic “assault” rifle (we’ll come back to that in a different discussion) is not only my right, but is a necessity. So how do we solve it once and for all? Define “well regulated” and “shall not be infringed” to start with.

    Think about recent active assailants — a lot of dead bodies when you put them all together, and kids being among them makes it even more heart-wrenching. Here’s what you don’t ever hear about: the number of mass killings that are stopped before they ever start… by armed bystanders. That doesn’t happen very often, you say? What about Indiana, Colorado Springs, West Virginia, and even research that demonstrates the fact (and there’s a lot of research). And there’s even a decent list.

    So I’m obviously a ‘gun guy’ — which you probably already figured out — and between the military and recreational shooting with friends and fellow vets, I’m a decent shot for an old guy. So if someone ever tries to perpetrate a mass killing in front of me, it’s all over for them, right? Well, it depends. In my state, if a business displays a ’no weapons’ sign then it’s a crime if you carry a firearm there. So every doctor’s office and hospital, some restaurants, and many private businesses are ‘gun-free zones.’ The problem with that is that criminals and psychos don’t give a damn about the hospital, restaurant, or theater’s no-weapon policy.

    Does that mean we need to give everyone a gun and turn ‘em loose? Not a chance. Here’s my take on the Second Amendment: I’d change it to say “[a] well trained Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” [emphasis mine]. Notice that the difference is training. Regulation, sure, but remember that if it’s not specified in the Constitution then you’re treading on very thin ice.

    Maybe we change “militia” to “citizenry”? There are several options, right? It all goes back to clarifying those points in the Constitution that people are using to advance their own view of what the Second Amendment means.

  • Finally! A post about whiskey.

    Met up with a buddy of mine a couple of weeks ago and sampled a stack of whiskeys I’d not had before, including a couple of big time winners, like the EH Taylor.

    Now I won’t get into the flavor profiles and all of that, because there are a million other people out there doing that stuff and they are a lot better than I will ever be. Suffice it to say that this one is worth the price, and was better in the Glencairn glass (my version of fancy) than it was in a sipping glass with an ice sphere. I know a lot of guys cringe seeing anything about the stainless steel ‘balls’, but here we are. Take it or leave it.

  • A conservative’s take on “American Exceptionalism” — and how to save it

    There was quite the kerfuffle when The Newsroom’s now-infamous monologue came out, and there were multiple fact-checks on the stats (like this one) that showed the numbers were true.

    Nowadays, “American Exceptionalism” is largely a financial moniker. With the likes of China and Russia treating the US as a de facto non-entity, countries like India — in the face of US pressure — are, for the first time in modern history, turning away from the US and towards its enemies.

    Even the conservative news outlet The Hill has written about it, so what’s the deal? In WW2, the US reluctantly entered a world war and emerged as the symbol of freedom and fight against oppression. But wars against communists in Korea and Vietnam (not wrong, per se, but not fights against the extermination of an entire group of people), Iraq, and proxy wars against a whole stack of others, have taken a nation that “fought wars for moral reasons” to a nation that fights to shape the destiny of others based on the views of the political leader at that moment.

    The Founders created a system of checks and balances, including the Commander in Chief of the armed forces being separated from the ability to declare war, but Congress’ passage of the War Powers Act changed all of that. Congress, for all intents and purposes, ceded its power to the Executive — with a token requirement to be ‘consulted’ by the President within 90 days of starting a war.

    But hey, maybe the US being the world’s policeman is the right way to do things — it’s not, in my personal opinion — but why are we doing it alone? Well, we shouldn’t be — and NATO stepping up its spending is a positive sign.

    But what about education? As the Fordham Institute puts it, “it’s a mess”. More spending doesn’t mean more success. The Bartlett Center for Public Policy has a really good write-up about how money is not the answer.

    So I’ve said a lot of words, and highlighted military power and education, specifically, but what does it all mean? It means that we need to focus on America First (judge me if you want to) but not America Only — as The Newsroom put it, “[w]e sacrificed [for others], we cared about our neighbors … and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world’s greatest artists and the world’s greatest economy … [w]e aspired to intelligence; we didn’t belittle it … [a]nd we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed.”

    So get informed. America can — and should be the example for all others; the “shining city upon a hill” originally coined by Winthrop and quoted by Reagan. We can be the greatest country in the world without acting like we are — or worse, imposing our will on others and sending in our military when they don’t do what we want. How many rich people do you see walking around talking about how rich they are? The stupid, arrogant, ridiculous ones, I’m betting was your answer. Same concept here.

    American Exceptionalism isn’t dead, but is waning and, without our intervention now, will soon be.

  • No politics, bacon, guns, or whiskey today — a reminder about the ‘micro’ and its importance

    It’s been a while since I wrote anything, in part because I had a good friend who became seriously ill recently. It was a reminder that, no matter what the ‘macro’ looks like, you have to take care of yourself. Politics, guns, good whiskey, and (most importantly) bacon are super important but — all joking aside — looking after your health is what gives you the time to concentrate on all that other stuff. Dying in the defense of liberty and the destruction of tyranny is about as noble as it gets, but dying because you’re not looking after your health is silly.

    Don’t be silly.

  • If politicians are the problem, then how do we get rid of the ‘problem?’

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-term-limits-for-congress-face-a-challenging-constitutional-path

    You’ll only see one criticism of the Constitution from me (2 if you count the reason for the first one): the Founders rejected the suggestion to institute term limits for Congress — they exist for everyone but Congress. The second one (if you want to separate it from the first, is that the Founders assumed that those who followed in their footsteps would be good, honorable people.)

    Why? Federalist 53, quoted by ThoughtCo, states, in part, “[some] members of Congress will … become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them” (emphasis mine).

    James Madison, like most of the Founders, assumed that future generations would be just as virtuous as they were, and would answer the call to service out of patriotism and a desire to further the cause of liberty. Madison states elsewhere in Fed. 53 that legislators should have “upright intention and a sound judgment” to serve. Boy did they assume way too much of future generations! Instead, we now have career politicians that “serve” only to enrich themselves and we have become the pawns in their pursuit of self-enrichment instead of those to whom their service to nation is obligated.