www.theoxfordscientist.com
The Generosity of America
Eric LaMont Gregory
Reaffirmation of the Bill of Rights Rally
Security ultimately lies in defending the tenets of the American Republic,
not in their curtailment or destruction. Those who do not understand the strength of liberty, understand security even less.
Eric LaMont Gregory
Part of the transformative message of The Ultimate Vanishing Act is a reminder that within constitutional republics,
such as the United States and Canada, political adversaries (those with whom we disagree),
no matter how challenging and troublesome they are at times, are not our enemies.
Nor are they enemies of the state; they are simply our partners in a noble constitutional republican experience.
There is much talk in the current presidential debate about the difference in the foreign policy platforms of Clinton and Trump.
In fact, Hillary Clinton, stated that Trump's foreign policy ideas were 'dangerously incoherent', and naturally Trump
countered with equally weighty gibberish. Excuse the pun, but Clinton's statement that 'there's no risk to people losing
their lives if you blow up a golf course deal, but it doesn't work like that in world affairs.
The stakes in global statecraft are infinitely higher
and more complex than in the world of luxury hotels, Clinton concluded.
Of course, Clinton would have to ad a caveat to her remarks, stating that is unless you were a resident
at the luxurious Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on the nights of the 20th of September 2008, or more recently.
The problem with Clinton's assertion is that there is not now, and there has not been, in words or actions,
a semblance of a coherent US foreign policy, diplomatic or military, for many decades.
Reagan only briefly ventured into the arena of foreign policy formulation, as did his vice president and one-term presidential successor GHW Bush. Clinton bought into the idiomatic folly of 'Smart Diplomacy', GW Bush's presidency was sandwiched between two great insecurities, insurgency attacks and near economic demise, and Obama inherited the remnants
of the idiomatic folly foreign affairs management bureaucracy.
In short, there has been no coherent statement of US foreign policy, diplomatic or military doctrine, in words or actions,
since Kennedy formulated the strategic and tactical doctrine of Graduated Deterrence; Flexible Response.
Read 'The Ultimate Vanishing Act', ask Clinton and Trump pertinent questions, and then decide who has the best ideas about the nature and future course and direction of US foreign diplomatic and military policy.
The answer will surprise you.
Click on image below and order your copy now!
not in their curtailment or destruction. Those who do not understand the strength of liberty, understand security even less.
Eric LaMont Gregory
Part of the transformative message of The Ultimate Vanishing Act is a reminder that within constitutional republics,
such as the United States and Canada, political adversaries (those with whom we disagree),
no matter how challenging and troublesome they are at times, are not our enemies.
Nor are they enemies of the state; they are simply our partners in a noble constitutional republican experience.
There is much talk in the current presidential debate about the difference in the foreign policy platforms of Clinton and Trump.
In fact, Hillary Clinton, stated that Trump's foreign policy ideas were 'dangerously incoherent', and naturally Trump
countered with equally weighty gibberish. Excuse the pun, but Clinton's statement that 'there's no risk to people losing
their lives if you blow up a golf course deal, but it doesn't work like that in world affairs.
The stakes in global statecraft are infinitely higher
and more complex than in the world of luxury hotels, Clinton concluded.
Of course, Clinton would have to ad a caveat to her remarks, stating that is unless you were a resident
at the luxurious Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on the nights of the 20th of September 2008, or more recently.
The problem with Clinton's assertion is that there is not now, and there has not been, in words or actions,
a semblance of a coherent US foreign policy, diplomatic or military, for many decades.
Reagan only briefly ventured into the arena of foreign policy formulation, as did his vice president and one-term presidential successor GHW Bush. Clinton bought into the idiomatic folly of 'Smart Diplomacy', GW Bush's presidency was sandwiched between two great insecurities, insurgency attacks and near economic demise, and Obama inherited the remnants
of the idiomatic folly foreign affairs management bureaucracy.
In short, there has been no coherent statement of US foreign policy, diplomatic or military doctrine, in words or actions,
since Kennedy formulated the strategic and tactical doctrine of Graduated Deterrence; Flexible Response.
Read 'The Ultimate Vanishing Act', ask Clinton and Trump pertinent questions, and then decide who has the best ideas about the nature and future course and direction of US foreign diplomatic and military policy.
The answer will surprise you.
Click on image below and order your copy now!
The Ultimate Vanishing Act is not only a transformative experience for those who have read it—it is an urgent call for a major change in the course and direction of current political discourse. One might consider the sharp contrast between the inclusive and hopeful nature of the politics of Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama and the division-ridden politics of fear articulated by Donald Trump or Stephen Harper.
And yet, part of the transformative message of The Ultimate Vanishing Act is a reminder that within constitutional republics such as Canada and the United States, political adversaries (those with whom we disagree), no matter how challenging and troublesome they are at times, are not our enemies, nor are they enemies of the state; they are our partners in a noble constitutional republican experience.
And yet, part of the transformative message of The Ultimate Vanishing Act is a reminder that within constitutional republics such as Canada and the United States, political adversaries (those with whom we disagree), no matter how challenging and troublesome they are at times, are not our enemies, nor are they enemies of the state; they are our partners in a noble constitutional republican experience.
