Home » Posts tagged 'foreign policy' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: foreign policy

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

This Was Mises’s Main Case for Peace

This Was Mises’s Main Case for Peace

War only destroys. Peace, on the other hand, creates.

War is absolutely devastating. There is no dancing around that fact. Not only is it responsible for the loss of countless human lives, it also leaves an immeasurable amount of physical and emotional destruction in its wake.

The market has taught us that incentives work. 

Opponents of war may decry war until they are blue in the face, begging those in power to consider its human costs. But these cries almost always fall upon deaf ears, as history has tragically demonstrated.

When it comes to politicians and war, the ends always justify the means, even when those means are human lives. And while human life is sacred, this truth alone has never been enough to convince global leaders to seek an agenda of peace rather than one of destruction.

But the market has taught us that incentives work. So instead of relying on a method that has not done much to deter war over the centuries, why not try an argument that plays to the interests of those in power?

As Mises explains in Liberalism, the most impactful argument against war comes in the form of a basic economic principle from which we each benefit: the division of labor.

He writes:

How harmful war is to the development of human civilization becomes clearly apparent once one understands the advantages derived from the division of labor. The division of labor turns the self-sufficient individual into the ζῷον πολιτικόν (social animal) dependent on his fellow men, the social animal of which Aristotle spoke.”

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Mike Pence’s Middle East Tour: Outright Pressure and Threats as Foreign Policy Tools

Mike Pence’s Middle East Tour: Outright Pressure and Threats as Foreign Policy Tools

Mike Pence’s Middle East Tour: Outright Pressure and Threats as Foreign Policy Tools

Jordan’s King Abdullah II wants Washington to “rebuild trust “after US President Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The king believes that East Jerusalem must be the capital of Palestine. According to him, from now on the US has a “major challenge to overcome”. “Friends occasionally have disagreements,” Mike Pence said ruefully in his comments on the outcome of the talks. The disagreement came into the open.

The vice president was making his Middle East trip (Jan.19-23) to include three states: Egypt, Jordan and Israel. The Palestinian Autonomy leaders refused to meet him. Egypt was the first country he arrived in to hear that Cairo does not support the US move.

Jordan and Egypt are a special case. They are the only Arab nations to have diplomatic ties and peace accords with Israel. Both are threatened by Islamist militants and would be potential key mediators if peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians were ever revived.

Despite the fact that Jordan is a key member of the US-led coalition formally created to fight the Islamic State (IS), the kingdom has strongly opposed the US administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel announced by President Trump on Dec. 6. Protests have been held in front of the US embassy in Amman ever since. King Abdullah has led intensive diplomatic efforts to build a stronger Arab front and rally international support behind it.

According to Debka, the vice president warned Egyptian and Jordanian leaders of painful times ahead if they don’t stop opposing the US policy. Washington can revise its plans to continue providing economic and military assistance. Besides, Vice President Pence asked them to convey a message to Palestinians that Washington “would block Palestinian Authority access to funding from Western and international institutions”.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

How to Sell Invasions to Americans

How to Sell Invasions to Americans

Here’s an automated email that I received on January 9th from the neoconservative Foreign Policymagazine’s publicity department, pumping the magazine’s five top stories of that day, all of which suggest that the same U.S. Establishment which had deceived Americans into supporting their country’s invading Iraq, Libya, and other countries that hadn’t ever threatened U.S. national security — that this same Establishment should be restored to power in America now, so as to finish the jobs that Barack Obama and George W. Bush began — to help the poor people who live in the benighted lands whose governments this generous U.S. Government wants to improve, like was done to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine and all other countries that the kindly U.S. Government has done so much to help (destroy):

——

Frpm: ————————

Subject: Foreign Policy’s Top 5 Reads Today

Date: January 9, 2018 at 9:41:21 AM GMT-5

To: —————————

Reply-To: —————————

Foreign Policy’s Top Reads

01/09/18

If You Thought 2017 Was Bad, Just Wait for 2018

Last year, Trump corroded U.S. foreign policy, but avoided disaster. This year, there are powerful reasons to think that matters will worsen.

BY HAL BRANDS | JANUARY 8, 2018, 2:10 PM

Dancing to Russia’s Tune in Syria

As the United States stands back, the Saudis and even the U.N. special envoy are now open to a greater Russian diplomatic role in shaping the future of Syria.

BY COLUM LYNCH | JANUARY 8, 2018, 10:28 AM

It’s Time to Bomb North Korea

Destroying Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal is still in America’s national interest.

BY EDWARD LUTTWAK | JANUARY 8, 2018, 12:48 PM

How to Break Up Europe’s Axis of Illiberalism

If the EU really wants to punish Poland, it should turn up the pressure on Hungary.

BY SLAWOMIR SIERAKOWSKI | JANUARY 8, 2018, 1:27 PM

China’s War on Poverty Could Hurt the Poor Most

The government is pushing people out of rural squalor — and into urban dependence.

BY EUGENE K. CHOW | JANUARY 8, 2018, 11:45 AM

BOOKERS & PRODUCERS

Contact  ————— with requests relating to today’s top reads.

Pictorial: American Animosity Ambling Amuck

Pictorial: American Animosity Ambling Amuck

This Russia Collusion thing has been going on for one year now. I’m not interested in debating whether or not Trump colluded. I am interested in examining the massive hypocrisy emanating from our government, and on display daily in living color from MSM  whores, prostitutes, traitors, teleprompter readers. Who among us Dirt People isn’t amazed that our politicians can feign their fake indignant shock that such a thing could happen …. for, surely, America would never do such a thing!

The fact is that we  treat the world like a giant outhouse, a place where we shit upon any nation we choose, at the time of our choosing, and then pretend outrage when they return the favor. Not that there’s anything wrong with this. Because, there isn’t, right? It’s how the world works.

But, the Whores&Pols act as if foreign entanglements should be a pure and noble endeavor when, if fact, it’s a dirty rotten business, played as such by powerful nations. Criticism of Russia, China, etc. has risen to a fever pitch. Meanwhile, they paint America as a friendly bringer of democracy,  whose motives are pure as the driven snow, building shining cities on the hill for other countries, and where unicorn farts smell like wildflowers.

Of course, this is all poppycock because making America great again comes at  a price.

—– Henry Kissinger said, — “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” (Probably stolen from British PM Benjamin Disreali, who likely stole it from Lord Palmersto)

—– Czar Alexander III said; —  “Russia only has two allies: the army and the navy.

—– De Gaulle  said — “a man can have a friend, a nation, never

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Trump’s Saudi Scheme Unravels

Trump’s Saudi Scheme Unravels

President Trump and his son-in-law bet that the young Saudi crown prince could execute a plan to reshape the Mideast, but the scheme quickly unraveled revealing a dangerous amateur hour, writes ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke.


Aaron Miller and Richard Sokolsky, writing in Foreign Policy, suggest “that Mohammed bin Salman’s most notable success abroad may well be the wooing and capture of President Donald Trump, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.” Indeed, it is possible that this “success” may prove to be MbS’ only success.

President Trump shakes the hand of Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammad bin Salman on May 20, 2017. (Screenshot from Whitehouse.gov)

“It didn’t take much convincing”, Miller and Sokolski wrote: “Above all, the new bromance reflected a timely coincidence of strategic imperatives.”

Trump, as ever, was eager to distance himself from President Obama and all his works; the Saudis, meanwhile, were determined to exploit Trump’s visceral antipathy for Iran – in order to reverse the string of recent defeats suffered by the kingdom.

So compelling seemed the prize (that MbS seemed to promise) of killing three birds with one stone (striking at Iran; “normalizing” Israel in the Arab world, and a Palestinian accord), that the U.S. President restricted the details to family channelsalone. He thus was delivering a deliberate slight to the U.S. foreign policy and defense establishments by leaving official channels in the dark, and guessing. Trump bet heavily on MbS, and on Jared Kushner as his intermediary. But MbS’ grand plan fell apart at its first hurdle: the attempt to instigate a provocation against Hezbollah in Lebanon, to which the latter would overreact and give Israel and the “Sunni Alliance” the expected pretext to act forcefully against Hezbollah and Iran.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

America: The Dictatress of the World

America: The Dictatress of the World

pentagon.jpg

On July 21, 1821, John Quincy Adams, who would go on to become the sixth president of the United States, warned that if America were ever to abandon its founding principle of non-interventionism in foreign affairs, she might well become the dictatress of the world.

Adams issued his warning in a speech he delivered to Congress, a speech that has gone down in history with the title “In Search of Monsters to Destroy.”

Adams was referring to the fact that the United States was founded as a constitutional republic, one whose military forces did not go around the world helping people who were suffering the horrors of dictators, despots, civil wars, revolutions, famines, oppression, or anything else. That’s not to say that America didn’t sympathize with people struggling to experience lives of freedom, peace, and prosperity. It was simply that the US government would not go abroad to slay such monsters.

Here is how Adams expressed it:

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 recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

Adams was summing up the founding foreign policy of the United States, a policy of non-interventionism in the affairs of other nations, specifically Europe and Asia.

And that’s the way the American people wanted it. If Americans had been told after the Constitutional Convention that the US government would be intervening around the world, there is no way that they would have ever approved the Constitution.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Why Decentralized Militias Matter

Why Decentralized Militias Mattermilitia.PNG

In 1852, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in Springfield, Illinois in which he talked about the attempts at required militia training. He described how much of a joke the citizens made of any attempt at mandatory militia training. “No man,” Lincoln said, citing the rules, “is to wear more than five pounds of cod-fish for epaulets, or more than thirty yards of bologna sausages for a sash; and no two men are to dress alike, and if any two should dress alike the one that dresses most alike is to be fined.” He also described the militia figure of “our friend Gordon Abrams” at a militia training, “on horse-back . . . with a pine wood sword, about nine feet long, and a paste-board cocked hat, from front to rear about the length of an ox yoke, and very much the shape of one turned bottom upwards.”1

Lincoln was attempting to ridicule the dismissive attitudes of his fellow Illinoisans toward compulsory militia training. The conventional wisdom in military theory is that, for effective defense, the military must be centralized and continually maintained in the form of a compulsory standing army. Even from supposed “small government” advocates, this notion is never contested. However, the evidence from the time suggests that had it not been for the decentralized and voluntary militia system, Lincoln himself may have had significantly more trouble at the beginning of the Civil War.

During the Jacksonian era, the militia system in the states shifted largely from a compulsory to a voluntary system. Because of this, the Mexican War was first war fought by the United States that did not require a draft (the Civil War drafts are often cited as the first cases of conscription in the United States, but this ignores conscription administered by the states that took place during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812). During the Mexican War, roughly 50,000 troops were raised, all of whom enlisted without any compulsory measures.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The American Empire and Economic Collapse

The American Empire and Economic Collapse

American Empire Collapse

Despite the widespread hope among libertarians, classical liberals, non-interventionists, progressive peaceniks, and all those opposed to the US Empire that it may have some of its murderous reins pulled in with the election of Donald Trump, it appears that such optimism has now been dashed.  While the hope for a less meddlesome US foreign policy is not completely extinguished and would never have existed had the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua been elected, a number of President Trump’s foreign policy actions, so far, have been little different than his recent predecessors.

President Trump’s biggest blunder was his acquiesce to the Deep State’s coup of General Michael Flynn, the most Russian friendly among Trump’s foreign policy entourage.  Since Flynn’s abrupt departure, there has been little talk of a rapprochement with Russia, but instead there has been continued saber rattling by the war mongers that Trump has, unfortunately, chosen to surround himself with.

The most recent Russian badgering has come from Secretary of Defense, James “Mad Dog” Mattis who wrongly accused it of “bad behavior:” “Russia’s violations of international law are now a matter of record from what happened with Crimea to other aspects of their behavior in mucking around other people’s elections and that sort of thing.”* Of course, the US has never tried to influence the outcomes of elections or “mucked around” in the affairs of sovereign countries, heaven forbid!

While candidate Trump correctly spoke of the Iraqi War as a disaster and US Middle Eastern policy as a failure, he has done little to alter course in the region, but continues to follow and has, in some instances, escalated tensions.  Some ominous examples:

Bombing raids of Mosul killing over 200 civilians

The deployment of another 1,000 ground troops to Syria

Additional US ground troops “expected” to be deployed to Afghanistan

Continuous threats to Iran – “put on notice”

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Stockman to Trump: It’s the Economy, Stupid

Stockman to Trump: It’s the Economy, Stupid

In a recent appearance on CNN, David Stockman suggested that Trump might best spend some time actually addressing economic issues instead of the administration’s travel ban for immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, which Stockman called “a giant misfire.”

Pointing out that Americans are far, far more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist, Stockman asserted that it was really Trump’s opposition to Obamacare and other government regulation that got him elected. Employing the 1992 Clinton Campaign motto of “it’s the economy, stupid,” Stockman noted “Trump was elected because flyover America is hurting economically. The voters of Racine, Wisconsin and Johnstown, Pennsylvania are imperiled not because of some refugees, they’re imperiled because their jobs have all been disappearing for decades. The problem is far more the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen, the bubbles they’re creating on Wall Street…”

Stockman went on suggest that the Trump Administration is showing decreased interest in “draining the swamp” employing a phrase Trump used when he claimed he would greatly cut federal power in Washington. Instead of doing that, Stockman contends, Trump is merely filling the swamp with ” “other creatures that will build up homeland security, border control, more money for defense, more money for spying and national security.”

Stockman might also have pointed out that the travel ban itself illustrates how the ban has nothing to do with national security given that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not on the list of blocked countries, even though Saudi Arabia and Egypt were the two countries most closely linked ot 9/11. Moreover, the perpetrators of the 2015 San Bernardino shootings had been radicalized in Saudi Arabia and traveled there before the killings. Indeed, Trump’s list seems to be more accurately described as a list of Saudi enemies, including Saudi Arabia’s most bitter enemies Iran and Syria. Also on the list is Yemen, which is currently subject to a vicious war and starvation campaign launched by Saudi Arabia’s dictators.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

It’s Time to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses!

It’s Time to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses!

And so it’s on…

James Traub, at Foreign Policy.com, has called for the “elites to rise up against the ignorant masses.”  In a spectacular display of the very ignorance against which he issues his call to arms, Traub shows how thoroughly infected the establishment is with their group-think.  God forbid the ‘fist shaking’ rabble would actually think for themselves and effect an “utter repudiation of the bankers and economists and Western heads of state who warned voters against the dangers of a split with the European Union.”  If there was a miscalculation on the part of David Cameron, it was “how utterly he misjudged his own people[‘s ability to think for themselves].”

Rise up against the ignorant masses? Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Traub… Your intellectual nakedness just might end up on full, public display.

The Foundational Issue: The Most Significant Unit of Society

Traub shows himself ignorant of both British and American history when he concludes: “[M]aybe we have become so inclined to celebrate the authenticity of all personal conviction that it is now elitist to believe in reason, expertise, and the lessons of history.”

Philosophically, ‘Scottish Common Sense Realism’ provides a framework for understanding how someone’s thinking would begin with ‘personal conviction’.  This framework lies at the heart of the thinking of authors like John Locke, on whom Thomas Jefferson depended heavily when writing the Declaration of Independence.

Locke’s philosophy of government and economics expresses this framework and stands in stark contrast to that of Thomas Hobbes. Between the two of them we can drive the difference down to a single question: What is the most significant unit of society?  The answer for those who would follow Hobbes is the State.  For those who would follow Locke it would be the individual.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Always Attack the Wrong Country

Always Attack the Wrong Country

Chor Boogie

There are numerous tactics available to those who aim to make problems worse while pretending to solve them, but misdirection is always a favorite. The reason to want to make problems worse is that problems are profitable—for someone. And the reason to pretend to be solving them is that causing problems, then making them worse, makes those who profit from them look bad.

In the international arena, this type of misdirection tends to take on a farcical aspect. The ones profiting from the world’s problems are the members of the US foreign policy and military establishments, the defense contractors and the politicians around the world, and especially in the EU, who have been bought off by them. Their tactic of misdirection is conditioned by a certain quirk of the American public, which is that it doesn’t concern itself too much with the rest of the world. The average member of the American public has no idea where various countries are, can’t tell Sweden from Switzerland, thinks that Iran is full of Arabs and can’t distinguish any of the countries that end in -stan. And so a handy trick has evolved, which amounts to the following dictum: “Always attack the wrong country.”

Need some examples? After 9/11, which, according to the official story (which is probably nonsense) was carried out by “suicide bombers” (some of them, amusingly, still alive today) who were mostly from Saudi Arabia, the US chose to retaliate by attacking Saudi ArabiaAfghanistan and Iraq.

When Arab Spring erupted (because a heat wave in Russia drove up wheat prices) the obvious place to concentrate efforts, to avoid a seriously bad outcome for the region, was Egypt—the most populous Arab country and an anchor for the entire region. And so the US and NATO decided to attack EgyptLibya.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

How Neocons Banished Realism

How Neocons Banished Realism


In a widely remarked upon article for the online version of Foreign Policy last week, Harvard’s Stephen Walt asked a very good question. Why, Walt asked, are elite outlets like the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times “allergic to realist views, given that realists have been (mostly) right about some very important issues, and the columnists they publish have often been wrong?”

Walt then went on to do something pundits are generally loath to do: he admitted that he’d didn’t really know the answer. This is not to say that I do, but I think Walt’s question is worth exploring.

Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)

Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)

Why indeed? My own hunch is that we realists are a source of discomfit for the Beltway armchair warrior class not so much because we have been right about every major U.S. foreign policy question since the invasion of Iraq, but because we dare to question the premise which undergirds the twin orthodoxies of neoconservatism and liberal interventionism.

The premise, shared by heroes of the Left and Right, is this: America, a “shining city on a hill” (John Winthrop, later vulgarized by Ronald Reagan) “remains the one indispensable nation” (Barack Obama) and deprived of America’s “benevolent global hegemony” (Robert Kagan) the world will surely collapse into anarchy.

This strain of messianic thinking has deep roots in the psyche of the American establishment and so, in a sense, neoconservatism, which is really little more than a latter-day Trotskyist sect, is as American as apple pie.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

PBS Joins the MSM’s Syria-Russia Bias

PBS Joins the MSM’s Syria-Russia Bias


PBS Newshour is considered high-quality journalism by many North Americans. But is it? A test case is their report on Nov. 24 when a Russian jet was shot down and one pilot killed as he descended by parachute. This was a significant international event and the situation is still dangerous. The conflict in Syria could get even worse. PBS Newshour presented a discussion/analysis of the event with two guests: Nicholas Burns and Angela Stent. The PBS Newshour host was Judy Woodruff.

This critique applies to that one PBS Newshour broadcast but the essential points are true for much of what you see on the program (and across the mainstream U.S. news media). Assumptions and bias regarding the Syrian conflict are pervasive and persistent. So, how can U.S. foreign policy change (or even show some nuance) if the public is continually fed biased and false information from one point of view? Here are specific points:

pbslogo

PBS Newshour selected two analysts with essentially the same viewpoint, representing the U.S. government and military/security establishment:

Nicholas Burns is a former U.S. Ambassador to NATO. In early 2003 he urged the “unity” of NATO as some NATO allies expressed doubts about the U.S. the invasion of Iraq. In 2006, he urged punishing sanctions on Iran. In 2011, Burn wrote, “President Obama was surely right to commit the United States, however reluctantly, to the NATO campaign [to overthrow Libyan President Gaddafi].” Burns has a track record supporting Western aggression against other countries. He evidently has learned nothing from the resulting chaos, devastation and death.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

We created Islamic extremism: Those blaming Islam for ISIS would have supported Osama bin Laden in the ’80s

We created Islamic extremism: Those blaming Islam for ISIS would have supported Osama bin Laden in the ’80s 

Jingoists conveniently forget the West’s Cold War strategy was to arm the Islamic extremists that became al-Qaida

We created Islamic extremism: Those blaming Islam for ISIS would have supported Osama bin Laden in the '80s(Credit: AP/Dennis Cook)

History takes no prisoners. It shows, with absolute lucidity, that the Islamic extremism ravaging the world today was borne out of the Western foreign policy of yesteryear.

Gore Vidal famously referred to the USA as the United States of Amnesia. The late Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai put it a little more delicately, quipping, “One of the delightful things about Americans is that they have absolutely no historical memory.”
In order to understand the rise of militant Salafi groups like ISIS and al-Qaida; in order to wrap our minds around their heinous, abominable attacks on civilians in the U.S., France, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Nigeria, Turkey, Yemen, Afghanistan and many, many more countries, we must rekindle this historical memory.

Where did violent Islamic extremism come from? In the wake of the horrific Paris attacks on Friday, November the 13, this is the question no one is asking — yet it is the most important one of all. If one doesn’t know why a problem emerged, if one cannot find its root, one will never be able to solve and uproot it.

Where did militant Salafi groups like ISIS and al-Qaida come from? The answer is not as complicated as many make it out to be — but, to understand, we must delve into the history of the Cold War, the historical period lied about in the West perhaps more than any other.

How the West cultivated Osama bin Laden

We needn’t reach back far into history, just a few decades.

A much-circulated photo of an article published in British newspaper the Independent in 1993 exemplifies the West’s twisted hypocrisy. Titled “Anti-Soviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace,” it features a large photo of Osama bin Laden, who, at the time, was a Western ally.

Osama bin Laden, reported on favorably in the U.K.'s The Independent in 1993 (Credit: Imgur)

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Harper’s Revolutionary Foreign Policy

Harper’s Revolutionary Foreign Policy

Bellicose words, pandering flip flops, just one aim: Win votes at home.

Shredded Canadian flag

Shredded by vote-driven strategy, Canada’s foreign policy has no real conservative agenda, no moral centre. Canadian flag image via Shutterstock.

No Canadian prime minister has put his personal stamp on foreign affairs more than Stephen Harper. And no prime minister has parted so radically from the national traditions of the past.

Canada used to play the role of a noble and sometimes self-serving Boy Scout abroad. The nation brokered peace deals, elevated the status of women, fought international poverty, championed arms control, and shared critical science.

It practiced real diplomacy and in the process, as former prime minister Joe Clark wrote in How We Lead, the nation became a “reliable, respected and responsible” global partner that built “concentric circles of influence on issues from defence, to development, to conciliation, to trade.”

There were blind spots, of course. The nation often ignored the abuses of Canada’s mining industry abroad and championed secret trade deals that have given unfettered power to corporations.

But the Boy Scout is long gone and a bully has taken its place. The Harper government practices “megaphone diplomacy” and flits from one outrageous rhetorical outburst to another.

One day Harper harangues Vladimir Putin as a common criminal, while the next day his Tory minions compare Iran to Nazi Germany. Canada has morphed from the reasoned voice of a middle power to a brittle fear monger that is now the first to close embassies, cut off dialogue and impose sanctions.

At the same time the Harper government can ignore the Syrian refugee crisis, because as Harper routinely suggests, many of these people might be terrorists or God forbid, homeless Muslims.

At first glance, much of this bombast (The Globe and Mail ridiculously calls it “muscular”) might seem totally incoherent and inconsistent, and you’d be right.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress