The connecting article was there but you had to scroll down a lot.
===
A police officer called the station on his radio.
"I need some back up here. An old lady shot her
"I need some back up here. An old lady shot her
husband for stepping on the floor she just mopped."
"Have you arrested the woman?"
"Not yet. The floor's still wet."
"Have you arrested the woman?"
"Not yet. The floor's still wet."
A priest was called away on an emergency. Not wanting to leave the confessional booth unattended, he called his rabbi friend from across the street and asked him to cover for him.
===The rabbi told him he wouldn't know what to say, but the priest told him to come on over and he'd stay with him for a little bit and show him what to do.
The rabbi came over and he and the priest sat in the confessional booth together.In a few minutes a woman came in and said, "Father, forgive me for I have sinned."The priest asked, "What did you do?".The woman said, "I committed adultery."Priest: "How many times?"Woman: "Three times."Priest: "Say two Hail Mary's, put $5 in the box and go and sin no more."A few minutes later a man entered the confessional.He said, "Father, forgive me for I have sinned."Priest: "What did you do?"Man: "I committed adultery."Priest: "How many times?"Man: "Three times."Priest: "Say two Hail Mary's, put $5 in the box and go and sin no more."The rabbi told the priest that he thought that he got it, so the priest left.A few minutes later, another woman entered the confessional booth and said,
"Father, forgive me for I have sinned."Rabbi: "What did you do?"Woman: "I committed adultery"Rabbi: "How many times?"Woman: "Once."Rabbi: "Go do it two more times. We have a special this week, three for $5."
===
نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره
ما نقش سايهدگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت
نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايهدگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ررفت ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدانيست نقش ديوار و چشمخيره ماسايه
ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدانيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيرهماپيدا
نيست نقش
If I hear Anything Else, I'll Let You Know
A Saudi military commander finally talks turkey with Israel. (See 1 below.)
and
more commentary on Iran Deal (See 1a below.)
and
Finally, Former Prime Minister, Ehub Barak, creates a firestorm by revealing secret discussion of Israel's intentions. (See 1b below.)
===
As I noted when I introduced Rep. Buddy Carter Thursday, he is both dedicated and tireless. (See 2 below.)
===
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
The Saudis Reply to Iran’s Rising Danger
An influential Saudi former military commander on making common cause with Israel and warming toward Russia as the U.S. backs away.
ILLUSTRATION: ZINA SAUNDERS
President Obama knew how to soothe Arab nerves rankled by his nuclear diplomacy with Iran. In May he convened a Camp David summit with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The only problem: Of six GCC heads of state, only two showed up. The most powerful and influential, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, wasn’t among the attendees.
The snub was a rare public expression of the kingdom’s anger at Mr. Obama. Behind Riyadh’s ire is the sense that, in its pursuit of a nuclear accommodation with Tehran, America is tilting away from its traditional Middle East allies and toward Iran’s ayatollahs. For these Arab states, the new Washington dispensation means forging security arrangements that a few years ago would have seemed unthinkable. Perhaps the most astonishing of these developments is the nascent alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Anwar Eshki, a retired major general in the Saudi armed forces, has spearheaded Riyadh’s outreach to Jerusalem. He made history in June when he appeared on a panel in Washington, D.C., with Dore Gold, the newly appointed director-general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry. At that event, Gen. Eshki outlined a vision for the Middle East that included Arab-Israeli peace, regime change in Tehran, democracy in the Arab world and the creation of a Kurdish state. And while Gen. Eshki says his outreach to the Israelis is a purely private enterprise, it hasn’t been interpreted that way in the region, in large part because he is a prominent and well-connected figure in the Saudi security establishment.
I sat down for an interview with Gen. Eshki Wednesday evening at the Prague Marriott, where he was attending a security conference.
“I believe this is a good deal, but—” he says, referring to the nuclear deal with Iran, then veering into what sounds like a carefully neutral discussion of the debate over the agreement in the U.S. A military man with a subtle and disciplined mind, he never explicitly criticizes the nuclear talks or the White House, toeing his government’s public line of tepid, conditional support for the accord. He goes so far as to dissociate himself from the anti-deal views of his one-time boss, former intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, whom the general served as a national-security adviser when the prince was Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in the 1980s.
And yet the key is to unpack that “but.”
Throughout the talks, Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif “agreed on many things,” Gen. Eshki says. “That surprised Russia, and it surprised many others.” The general also was surprised by Mr. Kerry: “He supported the Iranians!” Mr. Kerry and his boss were willing to see things Iran’s way, Gen. Eshki says, because they believe that putative moderates like Mr. Zarif can outmaneuver hard-liners like Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his Revolutionary Guards.
Does Gen. Eshki share that view? “I believe Iran will not change its mind as long as that regime is in power in Tehran,” he says. “Iran does many things that are not good. They want to revive the Persian Empire. And also they want to dominate the Middle East through destabilization.” Saudi Arabia is as vulnerable as Israel to such designs, if not more so, and it was the common Iranian threat that brought the general and Mr. Gold into a yearlong strategic dialogue that culminated in the Washington meeting.Throughout the talks, Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif “agreed on many things,” Gen. Eshki says. “That surprised Russia, and it surprised many others.” The general also was surprised by Mr. Kerry: “He supported the Iranians!” Mr. Kerry and his boss were willing to see things Iran’s way, Gen. Eshki says, because they believe that putative moderates like Mr. Zarif can outmaneuver hard-liners like Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his Revolutionary Guards.
“The main project between me and Dore Gold is to bring peace between Arab countries and Israel,” he says. “This is personal, but my government knows about the project. My government isn’t against it, because we need peace. For that reason, I found Dore Gold. He likes his country. I like my country. We need to profit from each other.” Jerusalem and Riyadh, he says, are two powers that “don’t want trouble in the region.”
Initially, the focus was on the Palestinian question. “We didn’t talk much about Iran at first,” Gen. Eshki recalls, “but I found that our idea and their idea was close together against Iran. We don’t like Iran to destabilize the area. We don’t like for Iran to attack Israel and destroy Israel. And we also don’t like for Israel to attack Iran and destroy Iran. This is my idea. He has another idea. But we are together.”
For Israel, the immediate Iranian-caused headache is Hezbollah, the Lebanese-Shiite terror outfit that points tens of thousands of missiles at the Jewish state. Gen. Eshki recalls once asking Mr. Gold, “ ‘When you attack Hezbollah, does Iran interfere?’ He answered, ‘No.’ ” A follow-up: “If you attack Iran, will Hezbollah support Iran?” The Israeli answered: “Yes.” Gen. Eshki’s conclusion: “Israel is thinking first of all to destroy Hezbollah, to solve the problem with Hezbollah. After that they can attack Iran.”
For the Saudis, the Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen poses the immediate threat. Situated at the southwestern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen is a strategic gateway to Africa and a perennial target of Iranian meddling and al Qaeda terrorism. Gen. Eshki worked closely on Yemen issues during the 18 years he spent as a national-security adviser to the kingdom’s Council of Ministers following his stint in Washington. “I know exactly the Yemeni people, tribes and the situation,” he says. “Yemen is a central challenge for Saudi Arabia in the future.”
When the Houthis overran Yemen in the spring, Riyadh finally took action, launching a joint Arab campaign with short notice to Washington. Known as Decisive Storm, the campaign has, in fits and starts, punished and pushed back Tehran’s proxies on the kingdom’s doorstep. “Now the Storm in Yemen gave a lesson to Hezbollah and all the other [proxies] of Iran that Iran is a paper tiger,” Gen. Eshki says. “They couldn’t support the Houthis in Yemen. They couldn’t bring one plane to Yemen. For that reason, the Houthis now are talking bad against Iran on social media.”
The Islamic Republic’s imperial ambitions in the region will ultimately sound its own death knell, the general thinks. “I told the Iranians when I was there,” Gen. Eshki says. “I told [Deputy Foreign Minister Amir Hossein] Abdollahian: ‘Iran will destroy itself. If you try to revive empire, many other nationalities will ask for independence, like Azeris, like Arabs, like Turkmen, like the Baluch, like the Kurds.’ ” In other words, two can play at Tehran’s game of riling up ethnic and sectarian minorities.
Riyadh isn’t limiting itself to Jerusalem in courting potential new friends. He suggests that a thaw in the kingdom’s relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia is under way following the rupture caused by Moscow’s sharp support for its clients, Tehran and the Assad regime, in the Syrian civil war. Riyadh and the Kremlin may now work together to stabilize Syria.
“We have to concentrate to solve the problem” in Syria, the general says. “But we don’t like Assad to stay. Because the people in Syria don’t want him to stay.” He notes that Saudi King Abdullah, who died in January, “at the beginning of the revolution called on Assad six times to solve the problem quickly: ‘Don’t kill your people. Don’t ally yourself with Iran. We need Syria united and independent.’ At the end of that, President Assad said: ‘The situation is not under my control.’ That means: Iran has much influence over him.”
Now the Kremlin is gradually coming around to Riyadh’s view of the conflict. “Russia is a great country,” he says, “but they don’t like to change their promises” to allies—in contrast to you-know-who. “Russia supported by weapons Iran and Assad in the civil war in Syria. But now Russia believes, has been convinced, that they are not in the right path. Saudi Arabia needs Russia in the Middle East, not to destabilize countries but to be a friend.”
A political solution would preserve the Syrian state apparatus while replacing the regime sitting atop it. “We don’t like that regime,” Gen. Eshki says. “There’s difference between the system and the regime. When the United States came to Iraq, they destroyed the system, and the problems ensued. We have to maintain the system but remove the regime.” He believes stabilizing the region will require a “Marshall-style project to rebuild” Syria and Yemen, a cause he personally promotes.
Such a project is the only permanent antidote to the Islamist extremism of groups like Islamic State. Using the Arabic term for the group, Daesh, the general says that its terrorism wouldn’t be possible in a country “if that country is not destabilized, if it has equity. When Syria became destabilized, Daesh came to Syria. When the government in Iraq had so much corruption and pushed the Sunni out, Daesh came to Iraq quickly. If Iraq became stabilized and strong, Daesh wouldn’t be in Iraq or in Syria.”
And contrary to fashion, Gen. Eshki still talks about democratizing the Middle East. “We have in the Gulf many problems,” he says. “We need more reform. We need more democracy in that place,” albeit democracy inflected by Islamic law. “We can’t conquer the terrorists just with weapons and security acts, but also by justice inside of the country.” He even imagines a federal future for the Arab states of the Persian Gulf region inspired by the U.S. Constitution.
He adds: “I believe Daesh will like Pac Man eat all the terrorists until it becomes one big terrorist. Then we can destroy them.”
The U.S. doesn’t figure much in the moral and strategic map Gen. Eshki paints of the region. Yes, America and Saudi Arabia are still strong allies, he says, but “the United States is trying to move from the Middle East to the Far East and the Pacific Ocean. The United States doesn’t like anymore to be involved in the Middle East, but to support the Middle East.” That may be preferable to many American voters, but it comes at the price of a diminished capacity to shape events and outcomes. Little equity, little say.
So how would the birth of a nuclear-armed Iranian theocracy affect Saudi Arabia’s new strategic path? Gen. Eshki doesn’t seem worried, but others might be: “If Iran tries to make that atomic bomb, we would do that also.”
Mr. Ahmari is a Journal editorial writer based in London.
1a)THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
The upcoming congressional vote on the Iran nuclear agreement has been called the most important foreign policy vote since the Iraq War. As such, partisan politics has no place when it comes to the national security of the United States.
As a member of both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Middle East Subcommittee, I have participated in numerous hearings and attended classified briefings on this complex issue, including meeting with President Obama in the White House Situation Room. While I greatly admire the tireless work he has put into reaching an agreement, after much thought and consideration I have concluded I cannot support this agreement for three main reasons.
First, this agreement will inject at least $56 billion into the Iranian regime. This is a massive sum for a country with a gross domestic product of $400 billion.
What does Iran currently spend its money on? It is the single largest funder of terrorism in the region. It funds Hezbollah in Lebanon, supplying it with more than 80,000 rockets, all located just over the Israeli border. It funds Hamas in Gaza. Remember those thousands of rockets that rained down on Israel last year? They too were courtesy of Iran. And Iran also funds the murderous Assad regime in Syria. Even President Obama has conceded that at least some of the billions of dollars Iran will get will inevitably go toward terror.
The administration’s response on this point is to claim that money shouldn’t be an issue when analyzing the nuclear agreement. But it is part of this agreement. It would be impossible to analyze this deal without weighing the inevitable impact these billions will have on the further funding of terrorism.
Second, the agreement fails to include “anytime, anyplace” inspections. In fact, it gives Iran up to 24 days’ notice before inspections. The administration is correct when it points out that 24 days is not enough time for Iran to cover up a full-blown nuclear program. However, as a former top official at the Internatinal Atomic Energy Agency recently confirmed, 24 days is enough time for Iran to hide most weaponization activity. During a congressional hearing, I asked Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to dispute this fact. They did not.
Third, the agreement fails to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. It merely delays it. After 15 years, Iran will have the capability to develop not just one bomb, but an entire nuclear arsenal. The whole point of these protracted negotiations was to compel Iran to agree to give up its pursuit of a nuclear bomb. Our side settled for a temporary freeze.
When faced with objections to the agreement, proponents often ask: So what is the alternative? They argue that the deal, as flawed as it may be, is still preferable to no deal. But this is simply not so.
We would be better off with no deal, which would ensure that Iran does not get $56 billion it can use to funnel to Hamas and Hezbollah. While some of the international sanctions would fray if the deal were rejected (especially those from Russia and China), our sanctions would remain. I would much prefer the imperfect status quo over a post-agreement world in which Iran is flush with cash for its terror proxies and free to develop a full-fledged nuclear program in merely 15 years.
Finally, the argument that a vote against this deal is a vote for war is disingenuous. Actually, the opposite is true.
Releasing billions of dollars to Iran will result in more rockets in Lebanon and Gaza. These will be used against Israel, as similar weapons have been for the last seven years. With more cash for more rockets, these attacks will likely happen again, increasing the odds that Israel again will respond militarily. Only this time, the Israeli wars with Lebanon and Gaza will last longer, and there will be higher casualty numbers.
The nuclear agreement with Iran doesn’t make war less likely. It makes war more likely.
Two More D Congressmen Against Nuclear Iran Deal (And Nadler For)
By Lori Lowenthal Marcus
Cong. Brendan Boyle (D-PA-13)
Photo Credit: YouTube
This week, Democrat Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania's 13th congressional district announced he will both vote against the Nuclear Iran Deal and will also vote to override President Barack Obama's promised veto of the measure.
Boyle, a freshman in the U.S. House of Representatives, represents a district which includes northeast Philadelphia and extends north of Philly and west of Trenton, New Jersey.
A Notre Dame and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government graduate, Boyle previously served in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and was elected to the U.S. Congress in 2014.
Boyle serves on the House Committee on Foreign Services and its Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.
Boyle had been listed as an "undecided" on lists various media gathered.
An Irish Catholic, Boyle just returned from his second trip to Israel, where he and his congressional colleagues met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Rivlin and an Israeli general.
Rep. Donald Norcross (D-NJ-1)[/caption]
And last week, New Jersey's Rep. Donald Norcross who represents New Jersey's first congressional district, announced last week that he will not support the Nuclear Iran Deal.
Norcross is a freshman congressman who sits on the House Committee on Armed Services and its Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
The New Jersey Congressman stated in the announcement that he will vote against the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, that he wrote to President Obama before the finalized JCPOA was announced. What he told Obama was that he believed an acceptable deal would be "long-term and fully transparent, and would provide for the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program verified by intrusive inspections in exchange for phased sanctions relief. Unfortunately, the JCPOA falls short in each of these criteria."
With Congressmen Norcross and Boyle, there are currently 14 Democratic members of the House of Representatives who have committed to voting against the Nuclear Iran Deal.
The other 12 Democrats who have already committed to voting against the JCPOA are Grace Meng (NY), Juan Vargas (CA), Albio Sires (NJ), Ted Deutch (FL), Steve Israel (NY), Nita Lowey (NY), Kathleen Rice (NY), Elliot Engel (NY), David Scott (GA), Alcee Hastings (FL) and Brad Sherman (CA).
A New York Jewish Congressman, Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-10), announced he will support the Nuclear Iran Deal.
About the Author: Lori Lowenthal Marcus is the US correspondent for The Jewish Press. She is a recovered lawyer who previously practiced First Amendment law and taught in Philadelphia-area graduate and law schools. You can reach her by email: Lori@JewishPressOnline.com
1b)
| Barak recording on aborted Iran strikes sparks fury |
Channel 2 airs recording of former Defense Minister Ehud Barak saying potential Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were blocked three separate times in recent years • Barak's statements "crossed all red lines," senior government minister says.
Lilach Shoval, Mati Tuchfeld, Israel Hayom Staff and News Agencies
Former Defense Minister Ehud Barak
|
Photo credit: Dudi Vaaknin |
In a recording aired by Channel 2 on Friday, former Defense Minister Ehud Barak said potential Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were blocked three separate times in recent years, first by Israel's military chief, then by the opposition of two government ministers and finally by the presence of U.S. troops in Israel for a joint training exercise.
Channel 2 said Barak tried to prevent the airing of the recording, but Israel's military censor allowed it.
In the recording, Barak is heard telling the authors of his new biography that he, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had wanted to conduct military operations against Iran's nucl ear facilities in 2010, 2011 and 2012.
In 2010, then-IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said the military did not have the "operational capability" to carry out such a strike on Iran, according to Barak.
In 2011, two ministers in the Octet [the inner security cabinet at the time, similar to today's Diplomatic-Security Cabinet] -- then-Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon and then-Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz -- changed their minds and decided to oppose a strike on Iran, Barak said. With the loss of their support, Barak said, there was no longer a majority in the Octet supporting a strike, causing it to be put off.
"[Then-IDF Chief of Staff Benny] Gantz said that we have the ability [to strike Iran], we know all the limitations, all the risks," Barak said of the 2011 deliberations. "Bibi [Prime Minister Netanyahu], Lieberman and I supported the operation and planned to present it to the Octet. The Octet brought together all the people who had a deeper understanding of the matter, including two people who were opposed to a strike. Bibi held long talks with both of them, with [Ya'alon] and Steinitz. At a certain point during the consultations, Bibi said [Ya'alon and Steinitz] support [the operation], it's fine.
"And then we held a discussion in the Octet on this. We came there after Bibi told the two of us -- Lieberman and I -- that [Ya'alon] and Steinitz support [the operation]. The IDF chief of staff presented everything, all the difficulties, all the complexities, all the possible problems including the possibility of losses, and you could see [Ya'alon] and Steinitz melting in front of us. Either Bibi did not properly prepare them or he underestimated what a 'yes' response from them means.
"These are the same [Ya'alon] and Steinitz who today, if you ask the public, are the most militant when it comes to attacking Iran."
In 2012, the timing of a potential strike on Iran coincided with a joint military exercise with the United States. "We intended to carry it out," Barak said, but going ahead with a strike on Iran while U.S. forces were in Israel
conducting the exercise would have been bad timing.
"You're asking and demanding America to respect your sovereignty when making a decision to do it even if America objects and it's against her interests; you can't go in the opposite direction and force America in when they're here on a drill that was known ahead of time," Barak said.
Top government officials reacted with fury to the Channel 2 report. "This is an unparalleled scandal," one senior minister said, adding that Barak had "crossed all red lines" by revealing the details of secret Iran-related deliberations.
Government officials also expressed astonishment about the military censor's decision to allow the airing of the report.
Ya'alon, now defense minister, declined to comment of the details of the Channel 2 report. "We have no intention to comment on Octet discussions or cabinet discussions in general and on distorted and tendentious versions in particular."
Steinitz, now national infrastructure, energy and water minister, also declined to comment on Barak's allegations.
"Minister Steinitz views as very serious the disclosure of content from closed cabinet meetings, and wonders how things like this pass the censorship," a statement issued by his office said. "The minister keeps what he said in closed meetings to himself, and does not intend to confirm, deny or comment on the matter."
The Prime Minister's Office declined to comment on the Channel 2 report, as did Barak and the Israeli military censor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-
| DON’T LEAVE WORKING AMERICANS IN THE DARK ON RETIREMENT SAVINGS |
Having owned and operated community pharmacies for nearly thirty years, I take pride in having provided my employees with the tools they needed to achieve financial independence. One of the most important tools in this effort were retirement investment plans so they could save to retire comfortably.
Unfortunately the Obama administration is now taking steps threatening the ability for small businesses to provide their employees with this vital resource. If the administration gets its way, many more employees will not have a retirement plan at work and will have to save on their own by either paying unreasonable fees or getting their retirement advice online without one-on-one assistance. Experts estimate Americans stand to lose $80 billion in retirement savings annually due to the rule. The United States Department of Labor’s new regulation, known as the “fiduciary standard,” would leave many unable to save for retirement at all. It would prohibit any business with fewer than 100 employees from receiving investment information about its retirement plan options. In doing so, it would render small businesses like the pharmacies I owned unable to help their employees plan and save for retirement. Middle class families would be hit the hardest by this “fiduciary standard.” By treating local financial representatives as fiduciaries, the proposed more than 400-page regulation would expand the Department of Labor’s overly-burdensome and complex pension rules to cover Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) used by most middle class savers. The rule change ignores the fact that these accounts are already heavily regulated by existing securities laws. By far the scariest consequence of the DOL regulation is how it would curtail access to retirement education for middle class savers and potential savers who would benefit most from one-on-one advice. The regulation limits them to “managed accounts” where financial services firms charge a fee, usually around one percent, based on an account’s assets under management. Buy and hold or long-term savers would pay significantly more over the long run if charged an annual asset-based fee. Moreover, the minimum balance required for managed accounts at most firms is at least $25,000 if not much, much more. That would cut off as many as 20 million Americans whose accounts do not reach that threshold from receiving face-to-face retirement advice. This misguided change would severely restrict access to information and education about retirement options for those already struggling to save. Those with less than $25,000 to save and invest, would likely be forced to pay an hourly fee of $250-$500 for retirement advice, search blindly for advice on the Internet, or forgo saving at all. Anyone who thinks the average middle class saver – who has less than $250 per month to save for retirement – is going to shell out $250 an hour or more for someone to give them retirement advice is out of their minds. And if you think getting sound retirement advice online is easy, just Google it and see the many ads that overtake your screen. This is a classic case of federal government stepping in the way of a Main Street success story with a “Washington bureaucrats know best” mentality. Having had the privilege of helping my employees at the pharmacies save for their retirement, I know what cutting off this resource could mean for them and their families. Like many small business owners, I consider my employees part of my family. That’s why I am so committed to working with Chairman John Kline and the House Education and the Workforce Committee to block this rule change so they – and millions of working Americans like them – aren’t left in the dark when it comes to retirement savings. Click here to read more about the fiduciary standard in my op-ed recently published in The Hill. |
| FROM OUR NATION'S CAPITOL XXXI |
Monday, August 17, 2015: Although I’m still suffering some jetlag from my trip to Israel last week, I’m up and at it this morning as I have the privilege of delivering welcoming remarks to the Electric Membership Corps. (EMC)Directors Association of Georgia as they are holding their annual meeting in Savannah this week. EMC’s across our state play an important role in our economic development as they provide secure, reliable and affordable energy to millions of Georgians. Although she started last week, today is the first day that our new field representative, Reagan Gresham, is assisting me. In my first few months of this job I have realized that this is a team sport and recognize how important it is to surround one’s self with good people. Reagan is a great addition to our team, and I am confident she will do a fine job. Next, I have the opportunity to deliver welcoming remarks to the Georgia Highway Safety Conference being held in Savannah this week. While serving in the State
Tuesday, August 18, 2015: My trip to Israel last week is generating a number of media requests, and I start this morning with two radio interviews. The first is with Savannah’s Bill Edwards with WTKS 1290, as we discuss my experiences in Israel as well as the pending vote on the Iran Nuclear deal followed by an interview with Steve McCoy and Cheryl White with 106.7, an all-news radio station in Atlanta. Afterwards, I have a call with Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx regarding a TIGER grant for which the Georgia Ports Authority has applied. Next, I head down to St. Simons Island and Brunswick for a roundtable discussion with area members of the Georgia Restaurant Association (GRA). Whether it is upscale restaurants on Sea Island or fast food chains, these job-producing companies share their concerns and frustrations about minimum wage, ObamaCare, overtime rules by DOL, Immigrant Work Visa and other issues. Following a meeting with a local constituent, I head
Wednesday, August 19, 2015: My day begins with another radio interview, this time with Scott James with Talk 92.1 in Valdosta who is broadcasting from Adel in Cook County this morning where my wife Amy was born. My first stop this morning is at Martin Marietta Materials in Savannah for a tour of their transfer facility. Martin Marietta transfers rock via rail from their quarries in North Georgia to this facility then distributes it out for infrastructure projects. Next, I head to WTOC where I am a guest on Mid-Morning Live where we discuss the upcoming forums I am hosting this week on the Iran Nuclear deal and Transportation Safety. Next, I head to Jesup to give a legislative update to a joint meeting of the Brunswick and Statesboro regional Timber Industry Association. The timber industry is an important part of our economy in the 1st Congressional District and in the state. Next, I
Thursday, August 20, 2015: There’s no better way to start a day than to pay a visit to the Air Dominance Center of the Georgia Air National Guard located at Travis Field in Savannah. Today is very special as I get to witness fighter exercises between F-15’s
Friday, August 21, 2015: One of the best things about being at home on Friday mornings is to be able to attend the Band of Brothers bible study. This morning we hear an inspiring message from Anthony Edwards, who always does an outstanding job. My final radio interview of the week is this morning with Chris Beckham with WVGA in Valdosta. Later in the morning, I head to Pooler Parkway to meet with the Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA) for a tour and roundtable discussion. After meeting with the dedicated workers at the Double Tree by Hilton, I meet with the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
No comments:
Post a Comment