from: https://www.fff.org/2026/10/19/much-ado-about-russia/

by Jacob G. Hornberger — October 19, 2026

Right-wing and left-wing interventionists and interventionist mainstream-press commentators are up in arms over President Trump’s decision to ease economic sanctions against Russia in connection with the Russian government’s agreement to supply diesel fuel to the United States. The notion is that nothing — not even the midterms — must be permitted to interfere with the Cold War II racket that holds that Russia is an aggressor nation that is hell-bent on conquering the world and, therefore, that it is necessary to target the Russian populace with severe impoverishment and even death by starvation or illness with ever-more economic sanctions.

Center to this racket, of course, is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The notion was that Russia was on the march. As soon as it conquered Ukraine, U.S. officials maintained, it would re-conquer Eastern Europe, and then Western Europe and England, and then make its way to South America, Central America, Mexico, and finally the United States, all of which Russia would reconstitute into a new Soviet Union of the world. In other words, the Russia is coming to get us again.

The Cold War I racket was used to justify the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state, a type of governmental structure that came with omnipotent powers, including the power of orchestrating and committing state-sponsored assassinations. The racket enabled the national-security branch of the government to quickly become the most powerful branch of the federal government, one to which the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court decided to defer to.

The Cold War I racket was also used to justify an anti-communist crusade, during which the U.S. national-security establishment targeted suspected communists, both here and in foreign countries, with destruction of reputation or even with assassination.

Beginning in 1989, the Cold War racket came to a sudden and unexpected end. The Berlin Wall was torn down, Germany was reunified, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, the Soviet Union disintegrated, and Russian troops withdrew from Eastern Europe.

Officials in the U.S. national-security branch — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — naturally were extremely concerned. Suddenly, they had lost the justification for their existence and for the racket that they were certain would go on forever. People were talking about a “peace dividend,” which would involve a deep reduction in national-security-state spending and maybe even a restoration of America’s founding governmental system of a limited-government republic.

To replace the old racket with a new racket, new official enemies were developed, such as “the terrorists,” “the Muslims,” “the drug dealers,” and “the illegals.” They were all coming to get us, or so they said. Everyone remained deathly afraid.

But the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were not about to let go of their old Cold War racket so easily. After providing Soviet officials with assurances during the negotiations over German reunification that NATO would not expand eastward, U.S. officials proceeded to do precisely that. NATO began marching eastward, absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact and moving inexorably toward Russia’s borders, knowing full well what Russia’s reaction would be.

That was what the threat to absorb Ukraine into NATO ultimately accomplished — provoking Russia into invading Ukraine in an effort to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. U.S. officials had been warned for years that NATO expansion, especially into Ukraine, could produce precisely such a confrontation. Yet they proceeded anyway.

Voila! The national-security branch had its old Cold War racket back, albeit in a revised format. The Russians are coming to get us … again (along with the terrorists, the Muslims, the drug dealers, and the illegals). The big fly in the ointment, however, is that Russia has been unable to conquer Ukraine. That’s, of course, a problem. If Russia can’t even conquer Ukraine, how is it going to be able to conquer Eastern Europe, Western Europe, England, South America, Central America, Mexico, and then the United States? Whoops!

Never mind that inconvenient problem. In the eyes of national-security statists, it is imperative that we continue hewing to the official narrative. Russia is coming to get us, just like before. We need ever-increasing budgets for the national-security establishment and its ever-growing army of voracious fat-cat “defense” contractors. Who cares if the United States goes bankrupt in the process? We need to again be kept “safe” from the Reds — I mean, the Russians (and from the terrorists, Muslims, drug dealers, and illegals.)

Oh, and don’t forget the Cuban Reds! They are coming to get us too. No doubt the right-wing and left-wing interventionists and the interventionist mainstream press, all of whom remain steadfast acolytes of the national-security establishment, are scared to death that President Trump might lift the old Cold War embargo and the new Cold War blockade against the Cuban people as well. Of course, fat chance of that happening given Trump’s own interventionist mindset.

The Tapestry of Natural Order — Chapter 1

Companion to Chapter 1

The Tapestry of Natural Order — Chapter 2

Companion to Chapter 2

The Negligence of War and Peace

Bryan Caplan

Sep 21, 2026

I was still in college the year of the Gulf War. At the time, I opposed the war; and in hindsight, I still do. But I freely admit that the U.S. planned its war carefully. They assembled over half a million troops, got buy-in from almost all their allies, and after four days of ground combat, the U.S. was totally victorious.

After victory, however, conflict with Saddam Hussein persisted for 12 more years. Why? Because although the U.S. had a careful plan for the war, they decided to wing the peace. There was a confused combination of sanctions, no-fly zones, demands for WMD inspections, and periodic bombing. If not for the totally unrelated 9/11 attack, Saddam Hussein might still be in power today. If the U.S. had any plan for peace after the Gulf War, it wasn’t much of a plan.

Poor peacetime planning led to another war — and an even more impressive military master plan. In 2003, using only 250,000 troops, the U.S. achieved full regime change in less than a month. While their list of active allies was much shorter than in 1991, they clearly weren’t necessary.

The shock-and-awe military performance of the U.S. was matched only by its truly harebrained plan for peace. Guerrilla warfare and sectarian violence began almost immediately and lasted for many years. Instead of installing a reliably pro-Western government, the U.S. quickly handed power over to the Shiite Islamist Nouri al-Maliki. He proved to be uncooperative, incompetent, and power-hungry. While he desperately needed U.S. military support, he went out of his way to antagonize his benefactors.

In the same vein, the U.S. had little trouble engineering the military overthrow of the Taliban or Gaddafi. But their plans for post-war Afghanistan and Libya were little more than wishful thinking. And to belabor the obvious, it showed.

You could consider “Since 1990, the U.S. has carefully planned its wars, yet poorly planned for the aftermath” a mixed compliment. But when the lives of millions hang in the balance, it’s a harsh condemnation. Actual war means killing a lot of innocent people — and that cannot be justified unless you have high confidence that the long-run effects are very good. Truly, with great power comes great responsibility.

That has long been my view, and I haven’t changed my mind. But Trump’s Iran War really does put all of the wars of my adult lifetime in a new perspective. Why? Because for the first time in decades, the U.S. has failed even to competently plan for the war! Before February 28, at least Iran wasn’t attacking its Arab neighbors. Oil freely flowed through the Strait of Hormuz. Now, over six months after killing much of the Iranian leadership, the U.S. has no idea how to even get back to square one. Alternating between sour grapes and empty threats may confuse the new Iranian leadership, but that’s about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if this conflict runs into 2028. Nor would I be surprised if the U.S. simply withdraws and hopes that its allies can somehow make peace on their own.

But even if the war ends today with a durable restoration of the pre-war status quo, the U.S. government has reached a new level of negligence. It used to demonstrate selective care: When we fight, we win — and win quickly and decisively; we just don’t know what to do after we win. Now it can’t be negligent after victory, because there will be no victory. Instead of learning from past failures, it has become a model of failure for future leaders to study. If they’re the kind of leaders who bother.

Drew Bachrach produced and edited this video.

jump to Classical Archive Home Page

from: https://www.bibberfuneral.com/memorials/susan-elwood/5747620/

Susan Elizabeth (Doherty) Elwood, 79, passed away peacefully on September 17, 2026, after a brief illness.

Born in Worcester, Massachusetts, on August 24, 1947, Sue was the daughter of the late Richard Doherty and Dorothy (Donahue) Doherty Savage. Following her father’s early passing, her mother married William Savage, who proved to be a wonderful and caring father throughout her life.

On June 7, 1969, Sue married the love of her life, Robert Elwood. Together, they built a home filled with love and warmth until his passing in 2006. In 1980, the couple built a beloved cottage in Moody Beach, Maine-a place that held a special spot in her heart. Sue fulfilled a long-time dream in 2021 when she moved to Maine full-time to be closer to her children and grandchildren.

Sue dedicated her life to caring for others as a Registered Nurse. She began her career at Worcester City Hospital and went on to make a lasting impact working for Elder Home Care, and as a Certified Case Manager for Cigna and Fairlawn Rehabilitation Hospital. Just a day before her passing, Susan was deeply honored to be recognized by the Southern Maine Nurse Honor Guard for her decades of compassionate service.

Beyond her professional life, Susan was a woman of quick wit, warm conversation, and vibrant passions. She could strike up a chat with anyone, anywhere, and was famous among family and friends for her notorious “Irish whisper,” which inevitably made its presence known at the most inopportune times. An avid reader who loved sunny days at the beach, she was a dedicated fan of the Red Sox, Jeopardy!, crosswords, and daily Wordle games. Susan also had a great love for comedy; she faithfully recorded the late-night monologues every evening-never missing Stephen Colbert-and checked off a major bucket list item in the summer of 2025 when she saw John Mulaney live in Portland, Maine.

Susan is survived by her three devoted daughters, Erin Elwood, Shannon DeLello, and Meghan Hubacz and her husband, John. She leaves her six cherished grandchildren, Madison and Alexander Bernard, Sean and Elizabeth DeLello, and Rachel and Andrew Hubacz. Sue was lovingly surrounded by her brothers, sisters, and their spouses through the end of her life.

A private celebration of Susan’s life will be held in the near future. The family is grateful for the loving care that she received at Pinnacle Health and Rehab-Sanford and Compassus Hospice Services. In lieu of flowers, memorial donations may be made in her honor to Abby’s House in Worcester, Massachusetts.Read Less

Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on Foreign Policy (July 4, 1821)
John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State

AND NOW, FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and
Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of
nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….

America’s glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

The following is copied from: https://www.fff.org/2026/08/20/conservatives-are-wrong-about-morality-responsibility-and-freedom/

Conservatives Are Wrong About Morality, Responsibility, and Freedom

by Jacob G. Hornberger

August 20, 2026

One of the fundamental differences between libertarians and conservatives pertains to the concepts of morality, responsibility, and freedom. Conservatives are wrong and libertarians are right on this issue.

Conservatives hold that before people can be permitted to be free, they have to be moral and responsible. Thus, the reason that many conservatives oppose freedom for the American people is because, conservatives say, the American people are not sufficiently moral and responsible. As soon as they become sufficiently moral and responsible, conservatives say, they will have earned the right to be free.

Thus, we need a drug war, conservatives say, because too many Americans consume illicit drugs. They even break criminal laws to do it. That shows that they are simply too immoral and irresponsible to live in a free society—that is, one that has no drug laws. As soon as Americans become moral and responsible by ceasing to consume illicit drugs, they’ll be permitted to live without drug laws.

Or consider the welfare state. Americans, conservatives tell us, are not sufficiently moral and responsible to decide for themselves whether to help out others who need help. We can’t, for example, repeal Social Security because children are not yet sufficiently moral or responsible to help out their parents or grandparents. They simply cannot be trusted to handle this on their own. That’s why we need Social Security, conservatives tell us. It’s also why conservatives tell us we need welfare programs for the poor. Since Americans are not sufficiently moral or responsible, we need a federal “safety net.”

There is, of course, one big problem with this conservative position: It lasts indefinitely. The lack of freedom becomes permanent. That’s because it is virtually impossible for people to become sufficiently moral or responsible when they are denied the freedom to choose. Without freedom of choice, people remain mired in immorality and irresponsibility.

Libertarianism holds that people have the right to be free regardless of whether they are sufficiently moral or responsible. Freedom is a natural, God-given right. It doesn’t depend on whether people are already moral or responsible. In other words, even if people are totally immoral and irresponsible, they nonetheless have the right to be free.

But here’s the catch: It is only through freedom that people can become moral or responsible. The conscience is like a muscle—it must be constantly exercised to be strengthened. When people are faced with such questions as “Should I help my ailing parents or grandparents in need?” or “Should I help that poor person in need?” or “Should I donate to my church?” they are necessarily exercising their conscience. That process is what elevates not only the sense of morality and responsibility within the individual but also society generally.

The best thing Americans could ever do is reject conservatism (as well as progressivism, which forces people to be good, caring, and compassionate). The best thing Americans could ever do is embrace libertarianism and the freedom, morality, and responsibility that come with it.

The book by Ben Bachrach, “Analysis of Audio Transducers using Bond Graphs” has been published on line at: https://aat.benbachrach.com/wp/