FAKE Leadership The three bully boys are running out of options
Ryan's congressional district is the subject of Supreme Court Review as an example of extreme political gerrymandering, the FAKE president is about to be put on trial for his role in a massive family money laundering operation which they continued while in the White House, and McConnell cannot bully Trump (Bannon) agenda legislation through the senate
Many believe Ryan will become a rich lobbyist after leaving Congress, however groups are forming across the USA to organize boycotts against any company hiring or engaging Ryan's services.
Ryan will undoubtedly be investigated for his role in approving and encouraging the Nunes claim he had independent evidence concerning Russian meddling which cleared Trump, when in actuality Trump's White House was the source of that information.
Trey Gowdy, Mr Benghazi, will never hold another position of trust, ever. And, brown shirt, Jim Jordan will resign over his failure to pursue sexual assault allegations reported to him repeatedly, over his eight-year tenure as a Ohio State University assistant wrestling coach.
Trump will have to decide to resign or watch his children indicted and jailed. But like the Nixon saga that will not happen until the modern day Spiro Agnew, Pence, has been forced to resign, and Ryan agrees to decline his role has successor.
Devin Nunes would not sneeze unless Paul Ryan was holding a handkerchief up to his nose
When this article was first conceived the proposed title was 'US in peril of losing world leadership role'. However, after the disastrous first trip abroad by President Trump, and his *sophomoric interactions with Saudi Arabia and Sunni Muslim leaders, Israel, the Vatican, NATO and G7 leaders, the peril has become a reality. The torch of leadership has been passed.
US leadership of the free world stood steadfast because of what America symbolized to the rest of the world. And now, President Trump lectures our NATO allies on their contribution to freedom. Trump scorns our allies who have achieved universal health care and affordable university education, while he is poised to throw millions off of affordable health care coverage and the price of a university education is increasingly prohibitive, smacks of duplicity.
History will not be kind to Trump, Mcconnell or Ryan. Because at a time that called for great leaderhsip, their contribution will have been shown to be much less than was required, much less.
The loss of leadership always begins with the duplicitous behaviour of those in positions of authority and influence, and a corresponding acquiescence to the erosion and undoing of core values by the governed.
The process is often subtle, as in insidious. For Example Chris Hayes, a presenter on MSNBC, has a commercial running in which he states that the reason that we know about Watergate is because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions. And, he states that he will never stop asking questions to get at the truth.
And yet, when Hayes was interviewing a female reporter recently, who has researched and written about the rather unsavory real estate business practices of Jared Kushner, and she began recanting some of those practices, Hayes cut her off mid sentence, admonished her for speaking so frankly about what she had uncovered. Hayes then made some off handed comment that suggested that what Kushner was doing was somehow normal practice within the New York City real estate market. If that is in fact accurate, it is all the more important to let the truth come out.
Perhaps, the lesson here is that getting at the truth requires often, at least, extending the rights you maintain for yourself, to others.
What should happen, is that Hayes and the person or persons on the other end of his earpiece, to whom he is obviously responding, should come on air and be questioned by other reporters as to why it was necessary to cut off the female reporter while she was discussing Jared Kusher's real estate practices, and to admonish her on air.
But Hayes, who has the temerity to compare himself to Bernstein and Woodward, won't do that. And, thus in so not doing, his own journalistic integrity and that of MSNBC (the person or persons on the other end of his earpiece) stand tarnished.
And, that is news.
The undermining of the core values of a profession or a nation, always begin with the unchallenged duplicitous behaviour of those in positions of power and influence.
First, let's dispense with Speaker Paul Ryan and the Nunes/White House intelligence-sharing affair ... Well, on second thought no, let's begin with Jared Kushner and then return to Paul Ryan, Nunes and the White House intrigue.
The current scenario is that the American people can rest assured, now that a federal investigation has been initiated into the Trump campaign and Russian meddling in the presidential election of 2016. A federal investigation led by investigators whose reputations and integrity are above reproach. If, one accepts that premise, then the following litany of outwardly irreconcilable discrepancies in past federal investigations, or the lack thereof, of Donald Trump and his associates should be amenable to resolution by the application of some rather obvious explanations, to wit:
Before, his meeting with a Russian bank official, who represents a bank that is under sanction by the United States prohibiting such contact, Jared Kushner, with full knowledge that it is a crime for Americans to do business with companies that have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) -- companies who among other things have paid bribes to foreign companies or governments to secure business interests, engaged in millions of dollars of business activities with just such a company.
In regards to the meeting with the sanctioned Russian bank official in Trump Towers and perhaps elsewhere, there is evidence (not proof) from a Russian transcript of that meeting that Kushner wanted to discuss personal business, not the politics of US/Russian relations. Remembering that contact with the sanctioned bank and its officials are illegal.
We have evidence, not proof, but it begs the question how Jared Kushner got a security clearance when federal officials knew about the meeting between Kushner and a sanctioned Russian bank official and his business activities with a company in violation of the FCPA. Federal authorities knew about the corrupt practices because they had taped a conversation at the Miami airport when a bribe was offered by the company with whom Kushner subsequently did (is doing) business.
How long would it take for federal authorities to ask Kushner, whether or not he discussed business with the chief officer of the sanctioned Russian bank, and his awareness of the prohibition against doing business with corrupt companies?
In general, obstruction of justice includes any act which tends to impede or thwart the administration of justice. More specifically, obstruction charges can be laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, has lied to an investigating officer, or is known to have altered, destroyed, or concealed or denied the existence of physical evidence.
Obstruction can also include crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and other elected officials, in which case it may either be deemed an act of malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in the conduct of the duties of their respective offices.
Does our system of justice impose a statute of limitations, that is, an expiry date on cases of obstruction of justice? Or, are cases of obstruction of justice akin to acts of murder, and in such cases they remain open until they are solved, ultimately?
It is difficult to rest assured in the knowledge that men and women of high reputation and integrity are once again investigating Donald Trump and his associates for a litany of possible offences, when for decades, Donald Trump and his associates (signature Donald Trump) have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, including documents demanded under subpoena by those of high reputation and integrity within our investigative agencies and court system.
The framers of our constitution, a constitution which Trump and his associates have so often treated with contempt and reckless disregard, did not believe that a reliance on the reputation of men and women of integrity was the best safeguard of liberty, but that the best safeguard of liberty was the eternal vigilance of citizens.
And, once again, it is citizen vigilance that is called upon to save our Republic.
Paul Ryan, the person Devin Nunes ran to with the documents that had been passed to him by members of the Trump White House, suggested that Nunes take the White House sourced documents back to the White House, which as we now know was a charade orchestrated by Trump and Co. to justify his assertion that the previous administration had 'tapped' Trump Towers'. An honest Paul Ryan should have recused himself from any further involvement in helping Trump make truth out of a lie. But he did not, and he has not.
Devin Nunes, who is on record as rescuing himself from the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into all things Russian, and is under House Ethics Committee investigation, has issued a series of subpoenas, without consultation with any other member of the committee. Devin Nunes would not sneeze unless Paul Ryan was holding a handkerchief up to his nose.
It is Paul Ryan who is directing the false premise investigations being undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee. Ryan has been directing the House Intelligence Committee obfuscations from the beginning. And, given the coming impeachment debacle, Ryan is now kicking himself, knowing that his lies just cost him the only opportunity he would ever have to become president. He also knows that he will have to stand trial himself on obstruction of justice charges.
Ryan became Speaker in a panic, and will leave that office in a panic. And, that is one reason why the removable of Ryan at this time so profoundly important?
Ultimately, the preservation of the American Republic relies on there being mechanisms in place that are in a state of readiness to to be called upon at a moments notice (in the blinking of an eye) to defend our Republic against all foe foreign or domestic. And, the way we go about putting those mechanisms in place (which can be called upon in the blinking of an eye) is to have well planned, researched, practiced and rehearsed contingency plans for each and every conceivable eventuality in hand and at the ready before they are needed.
It is in the best interests of this Republic that we have a plan in place for a change in administration that does not include either Vice President Mike Pence or Speaker Paul Ryan.
Returning to the use of the term *sophomoric.
Sophomoric defines the actions of 'a person that is conceited and overconfident in the knowledge they have, but who is actually poorly informed and rather immature'. The term sophomoric is a combination of the Greek words sophos ('wise') and mōros ('foolish') — and describes a person that has a bit of wisdom, but not enough to keep them from being foolish.
Several weeks before the 2016 presidential election, in response to then candidate Trump’s statement that if elected, he would convene his top generals and give them 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for defeating ISIS, retired army general Mark Hertling called Trump's idea 'sophomoric'.
Recently, former CIA Director, John McLaughlin, referred scornfully to presidential adviser Steve Bannon's ideas about deconstructing the administrative state as 'sophomoric'. Free speech affords Bannon and his ilk the imalienble right to expouse such views, no matter how objectionable they are to others. What Bannon and his ilk fail to appreciate is that the framers sought to create a society (a well administered one) in which we prevent any citizen from harming another and otherwise leave them free to pursue their own aims. And that the boundary of free speech is invoked when one yells fire in a crowded theater. The recent killings in Portland and Maryland lie firmly at Steve Bannon's feet.
As mentioned above, and as one can witness now that the White House, and current and former White House and Trump campaign associates and officials have been subpoenaed, the signature Donald Trump reaction of delaying, threats and intimidation, confusing the issue, destroying documents and other evidentiary material is well in play.
However, in regards to the current demands from authorities for evidentiary material, the delayer-in-chief is about to discover that all the means of obstructing justice that he has engaged in, in the past, at least since 1973, will prove to be the acts of a person conceited and overconfident, who is actually poorly informed, in a word the reactions will prove sophomoric.
The failing Trump presidency now operates in a fish bowl under siege, and the White House is now in the troughs of an under siege mentality.
What did Donald J Trump actually do?
While the nation is in the middle of multiple investigations involving President Donald Trump, members of his White House, former campaign staff and associates, and Russian involvement in the presidential election of 2016, there are so many strands that it is difficult to see the forest for the trees, as it were. In other words, to tell the story of Trumpgate (Grizzly Steppe) sequentially and logically.
But, in a very few sentences, with the advantage of history and the passage of time, one can tell the Watergate story, and the demise of President Richard M Nixon, with facility, if not ease. It was the cover up that was Nixon's undoing, ultimately.
In a soon-to-be-released article, this author, tells the demise of Donald J Trump story from the perspective of looking backwards, as if sufficient time had passed between Trumpgate and now. The null hypothesis, it will be shown, is an enormously valuable investigative tool in a society where the presumption of innocence is the foundation of civil liberties, enormously valuable.
There are three important strands to the Trumpgate story.
The first is Donald J Trump. And to understand how Trump became involved in this whole shameful affair, we will have to delve into the concept of - signature - in criminal investigations. Yes, there are aspects of this case in which the signature of Donald J Trump is evident and clearly visible. And, once the unique signature aspects of Trump's involvement are unearthed and put on display; the means, opportunity and motive components of his involvement are also made clear.
The second strand concerns those who were drawn unwittingly into espionage and committing the crime of treason against the United States.
The IT experts in micro-targeting within the realm of social media are a case in fact. One may argue that there was nothing out of the ordinary in the initial contacts with the Trump campaign who sought to use their services, since social media campaigns have become an important part of electioneering. But the 'patriotic Russians' associated with the Trump campaign wanted proof that the American micro-targeting group could micro-target within the social media realm with the precision claimed by the Trump campaign. That proof was supplied and from that moment, through the contract with the Trump election campaign initially before a more direct line of communication was established between the American IT group and their 'patriotic Russian', the American micro-targeting group supplied their expertise on a continuous basis to hundreds of Russians working within the internet weaponizing group of the FSB. Espionage always requires local knowledge and expertise.
At first, the American IT experts enthusiastically worked because the money was just too good for them to be concerned how the information was being used by Trump campaign people who sought their services, even though they suspected that the Trump campaign did not have the expertise to use the information with the sophistication it was being used.
But there came a time when it was rather obvious to the Americans that they were providing the information that was allowing 'patriotic Russians' (in the words of Putin) to ply their trade to influence the US 2016 presidential election according to their desired outcome. But again, the money was just too good for the American IT experts to be concerned that they were assisting Russians to influence an American election, and in so doing were committing espionage against the United States, a sad but true state of affairs.
This aspect of the association between the Trump campaign and 'patriotic Russians' has not been the subject of any serious news coverage in the United States until this day. That, however, is all about to change, because the activities of the Trump campaign associate who brought the social media micro-targeting experts into the fold is now under intense scrutiny. There is a west coast and an east coast element to the Trump campaign collusion story.
The third strand concerns why Putin, the Russians, knowing that any and all large scale espionage efforts carry with them the possibility of very serious blow back, engaged in Grizzly Steppe, the attempt to manipulate the US presidential election of 2016. It should be realized that the concept of great risks often bring great rewards, is not a satisfactory answer here.
However, there is a single precipitating event that is so deeply and strongly held by Putin, by Russians, that Grizzly Steppe and Russian interference in many European elections has become a stable of Russian covert activity.
Unraveling the precipitating event also allows this author to discuss why Russians and Europeans in general have exhaustively dissected the PhD thesis of one Condoleezza Rice as well as a collaborative effort book, Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (Harvard University Press, 1995).
The association between German unification, the collapse of the Soviet Union, CIA covert operations, and the deep seated angst that Putin holds for the United States and Europe will come as a surprise to many Americans, but not to the CIA or to the GHW Bush administration.
Incredible Statement by the President of the United States
During the press conference with the President of Columbia, in response to a question by the press President Trump, made the following statement.
"I can - only/always - speak for myself and for Russia."
And, incredibly not one reporter, broadcast journalist or commentator has asked the president what he meant by that statement. Although the clip of President Trump making that statement has been and continues to be aired many many times.
On the tape (audio) of the president's comment, he begins to say always and mid word switches to only, but either way it is an incredible statement.
The president of the United States saying that he can only speak for himself and the Russians, or saying he can always speak for himself and the Russians, bears closer scrutiny, in light of the bizarre nature of the relationship between Trump and Russia.
We are a nation of laws, not men Dan Rather
President Trump's characterization of the former FBI Director in the Oval Office made before the Russian ambassador to the United States and the Russian counterpart to our Secretary of State, demonstrates ...
Well, let me approach this subject in another way.
Confucius, the sage of sages, and the first to extend education beyond the sphere of rights that only pertained to the nobility, believed that the ultimate goal of education was to cultivate persons of virtue, sound character and uplifted minds. People who were capable of shouldering important civic responsibilities and, those able to make contributions to the social order.
The sage of sages regarded lofty ideals, love of people and great virtue as the salient principles of the educated person, and of these features virtue was by far the most important.
By those criteria, both President Trump and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan fail miserably.
Witness, Speaker Ryan's off the record conversation with Representative McCarthy below, as an example of this fact:
McCarthy: The Russians hacked the DNC and got the opp research that they had on Trump.
Ryan: The Russian’s hacked the DNC…
McHenry: …to get oppo…
Ryan: …on Trump and like delivered it to…to who?
McCarthy: There’s…there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump… [laughter]
…swear to God.
Ryan: This is an off the record… [laughter] …NO LEAKS… [laughter] …alright?! [Laughter]
Ryan: This is how we know we’re a real family here.
Scalise: That’s how you know that we’re tight. [Laughter]
Ryan: What’s said in the family stays in the family
Comey's unwillingness to supplicate ends his tenure at FBI
E LaMont Gregory 2020
Light shines on Trump - Comey relationship
"All great change in America begins at the dinner table," Ronald Reagan suggested, while reminiscing about the table chatter he experienced during his own upbringing. And, it seems that that conventional wisdom continues to be true.
It has been suggested that President Trump sought supplication from then FBI director Comey, who accepted an invitation to dine with the president at the White House. It has also been corroborated that Director Comey expressed his reservations about the invitation to other members of the intelligence community before agreeing to dine with the president at the White House.
In his letter announcing his attention to fire Comey, the president states that on three occasions he had been informed by the former FBI Director that he, Trump, was neither the subject of an investigation by the FBI into Russian interference with the election of 2016, nor was he, Trump, the subject of any investigation by the FBI into collusion by members of his, Trump's, campaign team and the Russian interference.
Many who know Comey, deny that Comey would have done so. However, there may be evidence that will settle the matter one way or the other.
President Trump suggests that there are tape recordings of the conversations he had with Comey.
And, by law, if such recordings exist, those recordings are the property of the federal government, and can be subpoenaed by any number of official government bodies, the judiciary, or congressional committees.
Reagan's statement of the conventional wisdom that all great change in America begins at the dinner table, still rings true.
May 4, 2017
A Date Which Will Live in Infamy
E LaMont Gregory 2020
Today, the 4th of May, 2017, a date that will live in infamy. Because on this day, Republicans in the US House of Representatives, while boasting victory, condemned millions of Americans to pre-mature deaths, on a scale that may well warrant a charge of genocide.
Trump needed a victory, after a hundred days of trying to deconstruct the administrative state, a philosophy fed to him by an adviser whose view of an ethnically cleansed America, makes a mockery of the Constitution of the United States of America as well as his sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend it.
House Republicans, according to an analysis by Sarah Kliff, for purely political reasons, passed a bill to repeal and replace only several parts of The Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), a plan that reduces taxes (the real goal of the legislation), and puts millions of Americans at risk of losing their health insurance (insurance in the US establishes access to health care), including people with preexisting conditions, older Americans and, of course, the poor. A return to a system where, to all too many, the emergency room is their health care delivery system, their only one.
The idea that health care is being handed over to the states is a non-starter, because the reason we needed a federal civil rights act was that the states could not, and with some notable exceptions, cannot fairly, with a view to constitutional protections administer a program of such importance, without strong and continuous federal oversight. Under Kasich (k-sick), for example, Ohio is now the home of the childhood poverty capital of the United States, and it is the intention of the House bill to give state illiberals more authority over the health of women and their ethnic populations. No, thank you very much.
Thankfully, Sessions, will not be in office very long, but the damage that he has all ready done will take years to correct.
The vote on Thursday — 217 in favor of the bill and 213 against — split largely along party lines. Although, twenty (20) Republicans opposed the bill, and not one Democrat supported the genocidal legislation.
Republicans largely managed to get the bill through the House in two ways; first, by offering assurances (lies) that it would do things that health care experts say that fundamentally the bill will not do, such as, ensuring coverage for people with preexisting conditions, lowering premiums, and allowing people to maintain their existing coverage.
None of these things are true, none.
And, second by (signature Donald Trump) bullying their own members with threats of withholding party support for their re-elections, or campaigning against them.
The House plan changes key pieces of the Affordable Care Act, allowing states to opt out of provisions that require insurance companies to cover 'essential health benefits' and charge everyone the same regardless of their health history.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where a more sober and deliberate body will set aside many of the elements of the House bill that only serve the administrative deconstruction of federal involvement in health care, and if providence guides the upper chamber the bill will never see the light of day.
Some hardline (neo alt right) Republicans, the ones that will bend to Trump's will, believe the bill does not go far enough to punish minorities, women and the poor. And, there is a small group of moderates that are wary of putting so many voters at risk of losing coverage, and sending the pre-mature death rates in their states soaring.
The future of any concept of a caring America and Obamacare are uncertain, and it is now a matter for the US Senate.
God, save us.
Breaking News - 1 May 2017
Paul Ryan states that Obamacare has failed because 1/3 of US counties only have one health insurance carrier. This is yet another egregious example of the lack of care that Paul Ryan takes in presenting facts in a truthful manner.
President Trump falsely suggests that pre-existing conditions are covered in the latest version of the GOP health care bill, Trumpcare, they are not!
Although, that is a big lie, it is not the biggest one told by supporters of Trumpcare.
Supporters of Trumpcare use as one of their main arguments the fact that one-third (1/3) of US counties have only one insurance carrier under Obamacare, and this is a sign of the failure of the health care program.
When, in fact, the reason that one-third (1/3) of US counties have only one insurance carrier results from their being sparsely populated due to geography and other land use factors.
That is to say that one-third (1/3) of US counties are covered by mountains, rivers, lakes, forests, deserts, swamps and other wetlands, parks, reservations, military use, beaches and shorelines, or are mainly agricultural, that is, land used for crop farming and animals raised for profit.
Perhaps, Paul Ryan and the other supporters of repeal and replace are not aware of these facts.
And that is the most generous interpretation of their actions that this author can muster.
It has been stated many times, by a host of observers that President Donald Trump often fails to master the details of proposed legislation and other initiatives, including his own executive orders.
Unfortunately, for those whose access to health care is precarious at best, and especially those with pre-existing conditions, the president's assertion that pre-existing conditions are covered in the latest version of The American Health Care Act, Trumpcare, is utterly false.
Pre-existing conditions are not covered in the latest version of the Trumpcare bill, which congress will take up this week beginning, 1 May 2017.
As predicted by this author
Jim Jordan (Oh-4) Caves on Health Care:
... principles, it turns out, are less important to Jim Jordan than self preservation. One cannot blame those who thought the philosophy of the Freedom Caucus was more in line with, 'Give me liberty, or ...
Even though those without health care in Jordan's district (Oh-4) have fallen from 40% to 15% and the Trumpcare bill is still not finalized, Jim Jordan caved in to Trump's threats to label the Freedom Caucus a fifth column within the Republican Party and to campaign against him in his own district in 2018.
Now we know, who is afraid of the big bad wolf.
Friendly skies, Chicago & Georgia police, Speaker Paul Ryan, Senator Lindsey Graham & the likely prospect that the Grizzly Steppe candidate, Donald Trump, will be brought to trial
... it must be remembered that impeachment is not a conviction, it is a trial
Eric LaMont Gregory 2020
Trumpgate, a grizzly steppe affair
Paul Ryan must be compelled to immediately recuse himself from any further involvement in receiving intelligence in any way concerned with the ongoing investigation of untoward interference by the Russians in the 2016 election, and any part that Donald Trump or his associates may have played in that interference. He must step down as Speaker, which eliminates him a member of the gang of eight, and ends his access to highly sensitive intelligence information, the stewardship of which he violated, egregiously.
Humor, as often observed, has a curious way of revealing the truth. During an attempt at humor before a press club gathering, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered the following gem. "If you kill Ted Cruz (the most hated member of the US Senate) on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody could convict you."
Three strains of evidence lead to the inescapable conclusion that Paul Ryan should be investigated by the House Ethics Committee as well as the FBI.
First, one must consider the contents of an article in The Guardian newspaper of London, 13 April 2017, entitled: British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia, Exclusive: GCHQ is said to have alerted US agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015.
Second, under the 'gang of eight' system, the executive branch of the United States government discloses highly sensitive intelligence information to the following positions and individuals within the US congress:
United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
Mike Conaway ( R, TX-11): (Chair) (Devin Nunes (R, CA-22): (former Chair, now under House Ethics Committee investigation)
Kindly note, that both Devin Nunes and Paul Ryan are members of the 'gang of eight', with whom the executive branch of the United States government discloses highly sensitive intelligence information with members of the US congress.
The third thread of evidence involves that fact that the director of GCHQ (the British equivalent to the US National Security Agency (NSA)) had by the summer of 2016 collected information for more than a year concerning rather alarming contacts between Donald Trump and his campaign staff and highly active Russian intelligence operatives which the British and other European intelligence agencies monitor routinely.
It should also be understood that GCHQ was not carrying out a targeted operation against Trump or his team. But picked up alarming conversations between Trump and his associates engaged in conversations with Russian intelligence operatives about sensitive US elections affairs and rather specific matters concerning US sanctions on Russia, by chance. European intelligence agencies recorded Trump and his associates because they were in discussions with Russian intelligence operatives of interest to British and other European intelligence services during routine surveillance of the Russian intelligence agents involved.
It was the existence of this body of intelligence intercepts, which President Donald Trump accused former President Obama, of using the British to monitor conversations taking place between Trump and his associates in Trump Towers. A claim which he knew to be false when he made it, in part, due to conversations he had had with Ryan and Nunes. And, one wonders why Ryan was so keen to keep Nunes in place after the scandal broke.
It is the prisoner's dilemma game: if both remain silent, they both go free; if either one talks, they both go to jail.
And, this is the unfortunate reality of the untoward humor of Senator Graham; if you commit a crime in the congress, and if the trial is in the congress, nobody could convict you.
In September 2016, the director of GCHQ, citing the lack of an adequate response from US intelligence agencies to the material concerning conversations between Donald Trump and his associates and Russian intelligence operatives which GCHQ had sent to US intelligence services for nearly a year, undertook the extraordinary step of flying to the US to present the material to the director of the CIA directly. These UK director to US director contacts between spy chiefs are extremely rare events.
Given the importance of the information received from the GCHQ director, the director of the CIA then duly informed members of the gang of eight in congress of the extent of Russian intelligence involvement in the US electoral process, hacking sensitive US government computers, and the fact that the same malware used to affect the US presidential election was found on a hack of a Burlington Vermont municipal utility company.
One might want to ask Bernie Sanders why he thinks that a Burlington Vermont utility company was chosen by the Russians?
What is clear is that Nunes and Ryan were fully aware of the Russian election interference operation and the many contacts between Trump and his associates and Russian intelligence, at a minimum since September 2016.
The entire Trump accusation against Obama, and the fact that Nunes and Ryan knew it was false, begs the question what Nunes and Ryan were up to when they engaged in the highly publicized intrigue between Nunes and Ryan, and Nunes, President Trump and at least three other members of the White House House inner circle.
The answer to that question is Michael Flynn, and the impending testimony by Sally Yates before the House Intelligence Committee. Where she would testify to the existence of the smoking gun that ties Putin to Trump, and the collusion of the Trump campaign with a Russian intelligence operation to swing the US election in Trump's favor, which will constitute the basis of the impeachment (trial) of Donald J Trump, and a host of felony charges against, all the president's men and women.
After those mysterious encounters, President Trump stated that he felt "partially vindicated." about his wholly fallacious accusations of illegal surveillance logged against Obama and the British intelligence services.
And, it is curious, given what Nunes knew, why he joined the Trump transition team, when he was aware fully that there were members of the transition team who were in contact with Russians who were the subject of constant and continuous surveillance by the NSA and the FBI as part of operation, Grizzly Steppe.
The House Ethics Committee, if they ask the right questions, may very well shed light on the role Ryan and Nunes played as informants for the White House.
The separation of powers, the hallmark of the American Republic's system of checks and balances, was violated when Ryan and Nunes discussed the intelligence information with the White House (the executive branch) whose activities are the subject of highly sensitive intelligence information provided to them so that they could carry out their congressional oversight and investigatory responsibilities.
The disclosure of such information is a violation of the law, and therefore not only must Ryan immediately recuse himself from any further involvement in receiving intelligence in any way concerned with the ongoing investigation of untoward interference by the Russians in the 2016 election, but he must step down as Speaker, which eliminates him a member of the gang of eight, and ends his access to highly sensitive intelligence information, the stewardship of which he so egregiously violated.
As in the case of Devin Nunes, it takes just one Republican member of congress to join the chorus of those on the opposite side of the aisle to trigger an ethics committee investigation of Speaker Paul Ryan.
Nothing less than the integrity of congressional oversight of intelligence matters is a stake.
Retaliatory Cruise Missile Strike Reduces Syrian Air Base to Rubble
Pathetically weak Congress sidelined as Trump climbs second rung of the ladder of escalation
Eric LaMont Gregory 2020
Employing a contingency plan developed during the Obama Administration in 2013, President Trump ordered the destruction of the Shayrat Air Base, which is believed to be the air base from which a recent chemical weapons attack was launched by the Syrian Air Force.
Whereas, the Assad regime has been under investigation for previous attacks in which chemical weapons have been used. it is worth noting that ISIS also stands accused of employing chemical weapons in Mosul. There is no connection between the Assad regime and ISIS, but there is a connection between ISIS in Iraq and ISIS in Syria.
If, the Trump ordered attack on the Shayrat Air Base was to send a message to the Assad regime, there are any number of justifications for doing so. At the same time, if the attack on the air base was for the specific purpose of responding to the chemical weapons use, a violation of International Humanitarian Law, then the specific forensic evidence linking the Assad regime to the recent attack must be forthcoming.
Forceful pronouncements before the UN Security Council, is not evidence with which to make the charge of Crimes Against Humanity. Unfortunately, past forceful pronouncements before the Security Council in relation to the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, proved to be less than sufficient evidence.
Trump's first step up the ladder of escalation in the Syrian civil war, was the introduction of US ground troops to bolster anti-ISIS forces operating in the urban areas in the northwest region of Syria. The authorization for such actions, according to White House national security officials is the 2001 anti-Al Qaeda provisions approved by Congress. The second step up the ladder of escalation involved some 60 Cruise Missiles, inappropriately, in today's increasingly ethnically sensitive world named Tomahawk (but unfortunately there are few in the Trump Administration or the entire US military that would know anything about that).
The retaliatory strike in Syria, will in the opinion of some, send a strong message to the Chinese leader with whom Trump is involved in a two-day meeting concerning that other pending crisis, North Korea.
After a series of humiliating reversals of various Trump initiatives, there is the tendency to equate the Syrian strike as a success, especially by his supporters. Each and every threat and the response to it stands on its own merits, and the affect that any one response has cannot be reduced to operational realities, but must be measured in terms of goals and intended outcome, physics cannot be reduced to chemistry.
What has been brought into focus however, is the breath and width of Trump's highly selective moral compass.
Trump saw the same images in 2013 and earlier this year, and yet opposed US intervention, as did an obstructionist US Congress.
With a white supremacist adviser, Bannon, in the White House; with an Attorney General, Sessions, turning back consent orders meant to correct some of the most obscene cases of discrimination and official murder by various police forces across the US; with a US Congress replete with overt illiberals like King of Iowa, Cotton of Arkansas (Cotton will come to regret his characterization of Rice), and McConnell of Kentucky, the reality of a sudden pang of conscience prompting President Trump to come to appreciate the need for appropriate action in Syria, four years and hundred's of thousands of deaths later, is rather remarkable.
And, in military terms, whether the strike will prove beneficial will only be known by what happens next, and how far it goes towards a settlement that will prompt a resolution to the conflict.
Devin Nunes, an albatross around Speaker Ryan's neck
Nunes, who is now the subject of a Congressional Ethics Committee probe, is stepping aside from, at least, the Russian meddling and possible conclusion of the Trump campaign with the Russians to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election investigations by the House Intelligence Committee.
It must be remembered that the first person Nunes went to after his first visit to White House grounds, the night before he return to the White House the next day, was Paul Ryan. The way Ryan tells the story, the meeting with Nunes was just for a few seconds. He came to me and said he had just seen some surveillance that was important and asked Ryan what he should do with it, Ryan said take it to the White House. And, Nunes left without sharing with Ryan the nature of the material he had seen. To share that information with Ryan would be a violation of federal law. Ryan will have to explain to the ethics committee, the true nature of his discussions with Nunes that night and subsequently. The FBI will also want to know what Nunes shared and did not share with Ryan.
Those who know how Ryan works, understand that Ryan would have consulted with others before making any decision, especially suggesting that Nunes return to the White and meet with President Trump.
Who were the individuals with which Ryan consulted?
One thing is clear, Ryan was not wholly truthful, when he insinuated that his late night and early morning discussions with Nunes were inconsequential and of short duration. All contacts between the two branches of government are subject to scrutiny, and in this case Ryan has a lot to explain. Phone logs and the visitors schedule to the Speaker's office, and some highly revealing security video footage, are important.
Ryan had to abandon Nunes in an attempt to save Ryan. But as always, the mighty fall not so much because of the violation of the law, but because of the attempt to cover-up their wrongdoings.
Congress must prepare for a new Speaker, Paul Ryan's days are numbered.
Surprising that the rhetoric that revolves around mass shooters is that they aren't representative of gun owners as a whole, but when a minority or immigrant commits a crime it's representative of all of them. Dirk D
The sitting eight members of the Supreme Court, while Gorsuch is engaged in a charm offensive before the Senate, reviewed a major disability decision, Endrew F v Douglas County School District, and found Gorsuch's ruling in that case to be wrong. Citing that Gorsuch's approach, deminimus, would affectly strip disabled students of their right to an education.
With Trump in the White House, Sessions as Attorney General, DeVos as Secretary of Education pushing a voucher system for school attendance (this author used the term attendance and not choice purposely), and Banning's goal of undoing the administrative state (among other priorities), when one reviews the list of names (Banning) from which Trump picked Gorsuch, it becomes crystal clear that Gorsuch was the one name on that list that would most likely review Brown v Board of Education.
And, that is why Neil Gorsuch should never become a member of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Release Date: June 2017 when book is released, click on banner above to order
Why Did Nunes & Ryan betray Us?
Oh What a Web They Weave, When They First Practice to Deceive
Eric LaMont Gregory 2020
If, either Ryan or Nunes possessed an ounce of decency, they would spare the country the trauma of the fate that is about to befall them, and resign now
Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, inexplicably after receiving intelligence reports of transcripts of legally obtained conversations between Trump campaign and transition team members and individuals who were the legitimate subject of surveillance by the NSA, called a hastily arranged press conference to reveal what he claimed to be new information.
New information which he received in the wee hours after receiving a phone call while travelling across the district with aides in a car, which he promptly exited, leaving bewildered and apprehensive colleagues to wonder about his safety until he reappeared the next morning.
Nunes shared that new intelligence information with Speaker Paul Ryan (he serves as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee as long as Ryan allows him to), called a press conference and then goes to the White House to share the intelligence with President Trump, whose activities are the subject of a series of House Intelligence Committee investigations.
Before sharing the intelligence with Speaker Ryan and President Trump, the subject of the Intelligence Committee investigations, Nunes had not informed any other member of his own Intelligence Committee including its ranking member that he had received the transcripts of conversations between Trump, Trump campaign and transition team members and individuals who were the legitimate subjects of US Government surveillance.
The question is, why did Nunes and Ryan do it?
Nunes did it, in part, because his own conversations when he worked on the Trump transition team, in which he discusses a host of different subjects and personalities were incidentally captured in those transcripts. And the things he is recorded saying, and things said about him, suggesting what he was willing to do for the Trump administration, will lead to his rather speedy demise. In addition, Nunes is a Trump loyalist, and that reality stands above his sworn responsibilities to the Constitution as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
But, we must not forget that Nunes went to share the information with President Trump after being instructed to do so by Speaker Paul Ryan.
Nunes, should have recused himself (sound familiar) from any and all aspects of the investigation into the Trump transition team, because he served on the Trump transition team, but has not. Not to mention the ties between certain Russian businessmen and personal business interests Nunes has in his native California.
The question for Ryan becomes what did he know and when did he know it.
It is no longer so baffling as to why an individual with no intelligence or military experience was appointed by Speaker Ryan to serve as chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
It must also be noted that Flynn also served on that same transition team, while he was being paid by the Turkish Government to help get a Turkish national, living in Philadelphia, back to Turkey to stand trial for his alledged part in the recent coup attempt in that country.
What is clear, and will become increasingly evident as we get closer and closer to the beginning of the impeachment process, is that Trump surrounded himself with individuals like him, who would do anything for money.
This sad story, the Trump phenomenon, was never about showcasing the greatness of America, that is, by deeds demonstrating that there were no intractable problems in this nation that the will of the people could not overcome. For Donald Trump and his colleagues it was all about the accrual power and money.
Representatives Steve King (R-Iowa) & Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
While Iowa voters contemplate whether they will be branded 'white supremacists', if they do nothing, or recall Representative Steve King, Ohio voters brace themselves for the inevitable moment when Representative Jim Jones caves in to the relentless pressure being exerted upon him by the White House and establishment Republicans like Speaker Paul Ryan.
Silence may be golden at times, but at other times, its just plain yellow.
The American Health Care Act will give upper income earners a 600 billion dollar tax cut, to be paid for by a 600 billion dollar cut in health services to low income earners and seniors.
In his flip chart presentation to sell the American Health Care Act (Trumpcare), Speaker Paul Ryan used a pie chart illustrating that the mandated insurance purchased by the young (the big piece of the pie) who were, in his words, relatively healthy, under the Affordable Care Act, was to a large extent used to provide the funds (the smaller piece of the pie) for the care of seniors Paul Ryan found this to be inherently unfair. And, under Trumpcare, the young can choose not to buy insurance.
What is shocking, but not surprising, is that Ryan shows such a fundamental lack of appreciation for how insurance functions. Safe drivers with no accidents (the big piece of the pie) provide the funds to pay for the accidents of others (the smaller piece of the pie) who do have accidents, but the reason everyone needs insurance (mandated insurance) is that anyone can have an accident at any time.
Of course, no one (save Ryan and Trump) would suggest that those who have not had an accident should be permitted to drive without insurance, and no one who lives should be without health insurance, because yesterday's health is no guarantee of tomorrow's health.
These are indeed desperate times for the failing Speaker, Paul Ryan.
The shooters in Quebec City, Quebec and, Charleston, South Carolina are not self-radicalized lone wolves. They are the products of rather intensive breeding.
a false or self-conscious smile is an involuntary (not under the control of the individual) reaction that indicates the truthfulness or otherwise of what the individual is saying, and is as obvious and observable as Pinnocchio's nose, and the liar's paradox
Paul Ryan, neurobiologically speaking, has uttered so many false statements when he is before the cameras, that now he exhibits a self-conscious smile whenever he is in front of the cameras. A self-conscious smile is not under the control of the individual, but is an unintentional involuntary reflect reaction that links the brain directly to the facial muscles. Ryan with the assistance of either a professional neurobiologist with counselling credentials, a psychiatrist or field operative with anti-interrogation training, can learn to call upon a higher order reaction than the involuntary reflex that triggers the self-conscious (false) smile, to obscure it, but in the meantime his self-conscious smile offers the public a clear, indisputable indication of when Paul Ryan is being truthful or otherwise.
A neurobiologist colleague asked if I had noticed that both Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz, whenever they are on camera, both have a silly self-conscious smile or smirk planted on their faces. Neurobiologically speaking, a self-conscious smile is an indication of inner smugness or scorn and is not an expression of pleasure.
And, being neurobiological in origin (direct connection between brain and facial muscles), the self-conscious smile, is not under the conscious control of either Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz.
It has been an interesting time for those with clinical graduate, or post-graduate training in neurobiology, to watch Ryan and Cruz, since with other involuntary reflexes such as whether their eyes go up and to the right or left when they are speaking (their right is camera left and vice versa) indicates when they are telling the truth, and when they are not telling the truth.
Both Ryan and Cruz have uttered so many falsehoods when before the cameras for so long, that whenever they are before the cameras, the involuntary reflex kicks in and the self-conscious smile presents. Note Cruz asking questions at a recent Senate hearing.
Eyes up and to the right indicate clever avoidance and untruthfulness in neurobiological reaction classification terminology.
To date, Donald Trump has shown a well-developed understanding of the exercise of overt power.
Now that he has taken the oath of office as President of the United States, and sits behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office, his success or otherwise will depend largely on his ability and understanding of the nuances of the use of subtle power.
Not all presidents have been able to grasp the nature of the use of subtle power, and they have all been one-term presidents.
The Ultimate Vanishing Act ~ ISBN: 978-1-62857-662-7 ~ order your copy now!
About the author:
Eric LaMont Gregory is an Oxford-educated scientist, diplomat and author, who for more than four decades operated in the highly secretive corridors of the upper chambers of international power and intrigue.
The Ultimate Vanishing Act, is a guided tour into current world events and in particular provides critical background into contemporary Muslim affairs, from the perspective of one who has been an eye-witness to the relentless ascent of radical Islam as the major voice within the Islamic community worldwide. Without a basic understanding of the driving force behind the use of violence to draw attention to Muslim concerns, it is near impossible to understand why violence was chosen by radical Muslims as the principal means of getting the rest of the world's attention.
Well, they have our attention now, and still few outside the Islamic world can understand why it was necessary to use such extreme measures to get us, the non-Muslim world, to listen.
And yet, how we respond, now that the Muslim world has our attention, will largely determine world security for the foreseeable future.
Eric LaMont Gregory is also the author of two other soon to be released books, The Hour of Maximum Danger (2nd Edition) and Uncommon Ground:Understanding Radical Islam, made easy.
The Hour of Maximum Danger is an update of an executive summary on the containment of radical Islamic violence written for the Bush Administration at the beginning of GW's second term in 2005.
The Hour of Maximum Danger has proved to be nothing less than prophetic.
The executive summary began with this dire warning, "It is perhaps evident since the events of 11 September 2001, that there are few more pressing problems facing the American people and our allies than the war being waged against us by individuals and groups under the banner of Islam. Unless this problem is addressed properly it will be a constant menace to our society well into the foreseeable future. This series is put forward as a guide and an attempt to analyse the campaign of global terror. A well informed citizenry is our best defense against terror."
Naturally, the author continued to communicate with the Obama Administration, in particular suggesting that US and allied forces would have to be in situ, that is, our forces would have to be stationed in the most troublesome areas of Islamic militancy to quell its forward progress. Unfortunately, that understanding of the facts on the ground was largely ignored.
Interestingly, the assessment of that information was undertaken by the very intelligence and security experts who now head those services.
The ultimate goal of re-releasing and updating the executive summary is to inform the new Trump Administration.
This author can but hope that the recent raid on the headquarters of Al Qaeda in Yemen, in which one US soldier died, and subsequent airstrikes are not indicative of how President Trump intends to achieve his stated goal -- to eradicate completely radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the Earth.
The salient feature of the communications with the Obama Administration concerned the unavoidable fact that in order to contain radical Islamic terrorism our forces will be required be in place for an indeterminate period of time in several key locations. This author suggested to the Bush Administration that they should be prepared, in several key locations, to have troops in place for decades.
Whereas, the national security and intelligence apparatus at that time, both in the US and the UK, appreciated this authors suggestion, however at the same time they jointly and severally concluded that having troops in place for decades, when given the inordinate resources that were being brought to bear against radical Islam, terrorism from that source could not continue to be a threat for another decade, no less for multiple decades. And, therefore a multiple decade strategy albeit compelling, was simply not warranted.
That was twelve years ago. The second Bush Administration employed the tactical strike approach. Two terms of the Obama presidency, in which drones where possible replaced troops on the ground, in essence was a continuation of the tactical strike approach.
And now, President Trump begins his war on terror with a tactical strikes against Al Qaeda in Yemen.
When will they ever learn?
The Hour of Maximum Danger is undeniably informative, and a must read for anyone who has the authority to place Americans in harms way in the fight to contain radical Islam.
And, it is also necessary reading for anyone who has a family member serving in our armed forces, for in final analysis part of the brilliance of our system of government involves the wisdom that placed our military forces, our army, under civilian control. And, we can actually call upon our military leaders to tell us what successes they have had in this fight, and where there strategies and tactics have not helped to achieve the stated aim.
We the people can call upon our leaders to justify the morbidity and the mortality that has been part and parcel of the trillions of dollars effort to contain radical Islam expended so far.
And now, another president, another commander in chief tells us that he are going to do, what five administrations, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama, over a period of thirty-six years could not accomplish.
The Ultimate Vanishing Act, is a right riveting read, and in a style that is as unique as it is insightful, reveals how different the Middle East, Central, South and South East Asia, North Africa, Europe as well as the Americas would be today, had it not been for some rather monumental errors emanating not only from Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and other European capitals, but also from Moscow, Beijing as well as Tokyo and New Delhi.
The three books, The Hour of Maximum Danger, The Ultimate Vanishing Act and Understanding Radical Islam, are must read books for anyone who wants to understand current world events, and the onset and the assiduous ascent of radical Islamic terrorism and insurgency on a global scale.
Eric LaMont Gregory is one of the most influential commentators of the 21st century, and his books are undeniably informative and most timely contributions to world security ...
St Albert, Alberta, 10 February 2016 (Newswire) -
The Ultimate Vanishing Act is a rare piece of literature, it is also a timely contribution to world security.
How different the world might be today had the British realized that they did not need to propel the ultra-fundamentalist Sunni Islam sect, the Wahhabi, to power, in order to establish the Saudi kingdom. Or, when Eisenhower was inform of the first international Jihad conference in Cairo in 1957, and of that assembly's declaration of war against the United States, the activities of SayyidQutb, and the Muslim Brotherhood, he had not dismissed it as the ramblings of a few fanatics.
Perhaps, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, might reconsider his 1998 remarks when he was asked … do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski's answer is revealing:
What is most important to the history of the world? TheTalibanand some stirred-up Muslims or the collapse of the Soviet empire? (Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 1998).
Unfortunately, as the author makes one painfully aware, to this day all too many world leaders still harbor the opinion that we are dealing with no more than some stirred-up Muslims. However, as this book attempts to make evident, the advent of the Taliban and radical Islam is at least as important to world history as the collapse of the Soviet Union. And, the challenge to world security that indiscriminate attacks on civilians present is no less formidable.
Gregory's book is an important contribution to an understanding of current world events. Kobobooks.com has made the first chapter of the book available to read for free. The reader will be compelled to read further.
The Ultimate Vanishing Act does not just provide one of the most probing insights into the shortcomings of past policies towards the Arab and Muslim world, but it also lays out a rational plan to counter radical Islamic terrorism.
A plan structured so brilliantly that its adoption is inevitable as soon as those on the receiving end of terror come out of the darkness of tit-for-tat reactions, and needless curtailments of the rights of their own citizens in the name of security, and realize that we will not conquer radical Islamic terrorism by exerting the same measure of force alone as does the adherents and proponents of global Isamic terrorism.
We, the United States, must fight the scourge of global terrorism accoding to the values and ethics that define us uniquely as a nation created on the basis of the rule of law. Acts of terrorism, systematic planned indiscriminate attacks on civilians constitute crimes against humanity. That is, violations of the few rules whichalthough not universally acknowledged, the vast majority of nations have adopted to provide a modicum of protection for civilians from the ravages of war and other conflicts.
The basic understanding is that combatants, those actively participating in armed conflict, may not attack civilians (non-combatants) or hide among civilians to carry out their military campaigns.
Not every government and society has miscalculated the breadth and depth of the challenge that Islamic terrorism poses, and as this book points out, those who have approached this problem with the knowledge required are achieving success, but those governments are too few and too far between. China, although there are still some rather outwardly intractable problems with their approach, stood alone as one of the major powers in having adopted a working strategy to coexist with Islamic culture, and with the election of Trudeau in Canada, there are now two nations that are having success that has the wherewithal to stand the test of time.
It is difficult, without hyperbole, to state just how important a contribution The Ultimate Vanishing Act makes to world security. That judgment the reader ultimately will have to make for themselves.
About the author:
Eric LaMont Gregory is aworld-classscientist as well as anacknowledged international diplomat.
Eric LaMont Gregory, MSc Oxon, received his master's degree from the prestigious Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine, Green College,OxfordUniversity. He iscredited with unravelingthe intricacies of blood flow in the subcutaneous fatty tissue ofcritically-illpreterm newborn babies. A life-saving discovery.
Part of his work in international health care led to his development ofaninnumerate thermometer. This thermometer reads the temperature of a person by using a color code in addition tonumbers.Gregory realized that there are many people on this planet that do not understand numbers and that the use of traditional thermometers to monitor a newborn baby's temperature,which is crucial to their well-being,was hamperingtheability to teach life-saving interventions.
The innumerate thermometer helped address thatlong-standing problem. The core body of knowledge behind Gregory's expertise, the maintenance of homeostasis in new newborn babies, especially those that present critically ill, is energy exchange. To maintain a baby, or any living being in a state balance with its environment, is a factor of both the endogenous heat production of the baby and its overall energy exchange with its immediate environment.
That knowledge led the author into other areas of life saving scientific inquiry such as the development of energy-absorbing (phase change) body armour, and work on the control of fire at the nano-technological level that will change our understanding such endeavors as firefighting. This brief introduction helps to explain this medical scientist's research work in particle and nuclear physics.
Gregory has been the subject of numerous documentaries concerning his research work at Oxford Universityinmedicine, emerging technologiesas well as his foraysinto post-war and post-disaster reconstruction initiatives.
The BritishBroadcasting Corporation (BBC)programmeHorizon - Exodus- documented his effort to spearhead needed assistance to the millions whofled Rwandaandin the aftermath ofthegenocide crisis.
Gregoryserved four American administrations in addition to otherheads of state. His international career began in the Middle East in the 1960's. And, over the next 40-plus years,hetraveledtoover 100countries. Gregory often took partindiscussions in the Presidential Palace, while working in association with the Political Section of the American Embassy in London, England.
In the late 1990's,Prime Minister Tony Blair gaveGregoryan opportunity, over an Easter holiday break, to put on his fax machine at 10 Downing Street a plan to end the hostilities in The Sudan. That plan called for the partition of The Sudan into a north and a south. Itwould however, takenearly 14 yearsandthe untold suffering of millions before the partition plan wasimplemented, properly.
In the 1980 and 1990s Gregorywas in Bosnia before, during and after the Yugoslav Wars and, during this same periodheconductedresearch with Dr. Li, of the University of Beijing, Department ofPaediatrics, whileservingas a consultant to the Maternal and Newborn Care Unit of the World Health Organization (WHO) based in Geneva, Switzerland.
This scientist, author and diplomat was inHonduras after Hurricane Mitch as well as Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua during the Contra death squad era. Gregorywitnessed two famines in Ethiopia, conflicts in North, East, South and West Africa, as well as in the Middle East, the Americas, and Central, South, and East Asia.
Shortly after 9/11,he went onmission to Afghanistan; Gregoryintervened in the Kurdish uprising just before thesunset onthe20th century and madegreateffortsto bring the 35-year-oldwar in Angola to a peaceful and successful end atthe dawn of the 21st century.
EricLaMontGregory has seen itall.
As a citizen of the world, Gregory is unswerving in his assessment of the way America (the West) carries out emergency humanitarian relief operations. He suggeststhat while the goodwill of the American people, which is so often a symbol of the largess of rich nations, plays out on the world stage, all too often, we are making enemies, not friends.
Toaddressthe problems he haswitnessed over his distinguishedcareer, Gregory plans to be a candidate for president of the United States in 2020,running on a platform which suggests that there is nothing we cannot discuss to build an America that is secure, with workable relations, if not at peace within our borders as well as with its worldwide neighbors, and in which economicsecurity is a reality for all.
Hisbook,The Ultimate Vanishing Act,is an authoritative account of recent world history, contemporary diplomacy as well as cutting-edge science.For example, the author delves into the work that China, Indiaand others have undertaken in the game-changing balance of power world of weaponized nanotechnology.
The book provides an eye-opening look into American domestic as well as foreign policy and how past decisions are today's realities, and how the decisions made today influence the forces that will propel America, and by implication the world community, intoa very very uncertainfuture.
The Ultimate Vanishing Act is undeniably informative. And, it is suggested that since this book will affect how people vote in the presidential election of 2016. This election will be determined largely by those who have and have not read it.