Next Gen. Does War Loom On The Horizon? Do Israeli's Care? The Two Debates Invite a Democrat Candidate And You Might Be The Turkey Being Stuffed.

I spent the week at Tybee sort of under the weather waiting for a diagnosis of something that is now into its 5th week.  As a result,I was unable to attend my mentee's program entitled "Next Gen."  I arranged for Minster Jim Giddens, Ralph Ferrone and Meg Heap to speak at a small gathering of inner city students who, hopefully, have high aspirations and goals and might become the next community leaders.  It had been my own goal to attend, to personally thank Jim, Ralph and Meg for responding favorably to my request they participate and to support Antwone in his effort. But alas;" The best laid plans..." (See above and  4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 https://www.c-spanorg/video/? c4351026/c

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If there is  to be a coming war, as I fear will happen, Andrew Kliegman offers his thoughts. (See 1 below.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stands to reason we are being infiltrated from below. But then, Democrats would rather have more voters at the expense of  national security. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Strassel and Hennnger sound off. (See 3 and 3a  below.)

So what did I do while at Tybee? I got to spend some time with Blake, Dagny, Stella and Max and other family members.  Family-wise all seems well. Max, at age 6 weeks, is a trooper.

I responded to e mails, went to the beach two days , went for some tests etc. and stayed very close to any available restroom. UGH! The weather was very accommodating.

I did listen, for a while, to the two Democrat Debates (DD has taken on a new meaning of dumb and dumber.) I found them both  a sad indication of national leadership  being offered from the Democrat Side. Nothing of substance by way of policies that would address our serious problems/challenges..  It was just a bunch of old and young candidates snapping at each other, pandering to an audience trapped in a cavernous hall, listening to  responses to inane questions crafted from "gotcha" mass media types.

Meanwhile,

 The Anti- Trump hate crowd continue to chastise him because he has not overcome  those who lead our three primary antagonists and who lie, cheat, steal and  refuse to buckle.

In the case of China, I have no doubt they will stall as long they can in the hope that Trump will lose and they can then deal with one of The Democrat Candidates who will prove no match for Xi'x guile etc. It would also buttress China's ability to invade Taiwan.

North Korea's Kim will benefit mightily from a Trump defeat because he will be able to continue control over his people, launch missiles while starving them. He also must hope Trump will lose so South Korea will fall into his arms by default.

As for Putin, he continues to be a leader of a financially bankrupt nation that would rather build new weapons' system, sell them to renegade nations and increase the wealth of those oligarchs who keep him in power.

And:

Erick Erickson reminds us. (See 5 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Fed did as I thought they would.  The markets responded as I thought they would because what occurred had already been baked in and discounted.

Europe continues to tank and may not be able to craft an effective strategy that will allow them to protect their ships passing through the Strait's of Hormuz.. Trump is telling them to protect their own.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
While Radical Progressive Democrats seek to rid the White House of Trump, Israeli  Liberals are seeking to rid Israel of BIBI.  In many ways Bibbi has done for Israel what Trump is trying to accomplish here. His personal relationship accomplishments are being ignored at a very crucial time in Israel's fledgling history so Liberal Israelis are about to shoot themselves in the foot when the nation could be engaged in another war.Lamentably, Jews have a history and an insane tendency of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.

The article below is from my friend, Isi, and who also is a memo reader. (See 6 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As we approach Thanksgiving,I am thinking about inviting one of the Democrat Candidates for dinner because they certainly know how to stuff things.

My hesitation is due my guest Democrat may try to stuff me and not the bird. I would then become the turkey and that is what concerns me were I to vote the Democrat Ticket .(See 7 below.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) The Coming Middle Eastern Storm
By Aaron Kliegman

The next war between Israel and Hezbollah will be a region-wide fight, with Iraq playing a key role

Since 2013, Israel has attacked Iranian targets in Syria hundreds of times, killing soldiers and decimating equipment and facilities. Israel's aerial campaign led Iran, which seeks to establish another military front against the Jewish state, to move the bulk of its assets away from the Syrian-Israeli border to Iraq earlier this year. Since then, Iran has entrenched itself militarily in Iraq, where, according to Israel's intelligence assessment for 2019, "the domestic and international situation … created better opportunities for [Tehran] to prepare its regional plans" to dominate the Middle East. Specifically, Iran deployed more members of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Lebanese Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization, to bolster the two cornerstones of Iran's military entrenchment in Iraq: missile systems and Shiite militias that obey Tehran.

Media outlets previously reported that Iran set up missile launchers in Iraq and gave ballistic missiles to its Iraqi proxies, while developing the capacity to build more missiles there with the ranges to threaten both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Now Tehran is, according to Israeli intelligence, actually providing the militias with accurate missiles capable of striking anywhere in Israel. Such intelligence appears to be why, just this week, the media reported Israeli airstrikes in Iraq for the first time since 1981, when Jerusalem destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor. This ongoing expansion of the conflict between Iran and Israel foreshadows a coming storm in the Middle East, one that could engulf the entire region.

Israel struck Iranian targets in Iraq twice in the last two weeks, according to Asharq al-Awsat, an Arabic newspaper based in London. Citing Western diplomatic sources, the publication reported Tuesday that the first attack occurred on July 19, when an Israeli F-35 fighter jet hit a base in the Saladin province, north of Baghdad. Arab media outlets reported separately that members of the IRGC and Hezbollah were killed, and that, shortly before the attack, Iranian ballistic missiles arrived covertly at the base. A state-run Iranian news agency appeared to corroborate these reports, announcing the death of a senior IRGC commander in an "Israeli-American" attack in Iraq on the same date.

Asharq al-Awsat also reported that Israel attacked another base in Iraq on Sunday, this one northeast of Baghdad and about 80 kilometers from the Iranian border, targeting Iranian advisers and a shipment of ballistic missiles from Iran.

The alleged strikes came after Israeli security officials warned that Iran was building storage sites in Iraq for missiles to be deployed to Syria or Lebanon to attack Israel. And just three days after the first strike, Israel's ruling Likud party reposted a clip of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promising to strike Iran anywhere to thwart its ambitions, including in Iraq.

If these reports are true, then Israel, which has neither confirmed nor denied the strikes, is signaling it is prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from achieving its goals in Iraq, as in Syria. Furthermore, the reported strikes are the latest indication that the Israeli-Iranian conflict is far from over, with Iraq emerging as a crucial battleground. But Israel faces complications carrying out strikes in Iraq that it does not face in Syria. First, many of the Iranian-backed militias are part of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMUs), an umbrella organization that the Iraqi government is integrating with its security forces. So striking militias risks escalating tensions with Baghdad. Second, while the Trump administration supports Israel’s anti-Iranian efforts in Syria, it may be more hesitant to back Israeli strikes in Iraq. American forces deployed in Iraq work with the Iraqi security forces, and Israeli strikes could lead Shiite militias to retaliate by attacking those forces. Fear of such retaliation should under no circumstances dictate Washington's behavior, but it may nonetheless. President Trump, moreover, wants Iraq to become stable as soon as possible, especially after the collapse of the Islamic State's caliphate. Israeli military action could lead to escalation and spook foreign investors who want to rebuild Iraq.

But the greatest danger is that the Israeli-Iranian conflict spills into Lebanon, triggering another war between Israel and Hezbollah. This outcome is quite possible for several reasons. Iran's imperial expansion should generally be understood as part of its strategy to build a "land bridge" from its borders to the Mediterranean Sea (with Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon in between), a continuous corridor of political and military control from which to exert influence across the Middle East, weaken America's role in the region, and, of course, destroy Israel. Because securing routes between Iraq and Syria is a crucial part of this effort, ongoing Iranian construction on a new border crossing, which may open in the next couple of months, is troubling. Among other purposes, Iran wants to use such crossings and the larger land bridge to traffic weapons to Hezbollah. In fact, ensuring a survivable pathway to Hezbollah is one of Iran's chief reasons for intervening in Syria—an objective that Israel is determined to thwart. Hezbollah also has thousands of fighters deployed in Iraq and Syria to support Iran's expansionism. In this strategic environment, it is all too easy to imagine Lebanon, which Hezbollah dominates both politically and militarily, becoming more directly involved in the fight.

A war between Israel and Hezbollah would be catastrophic, embroiling much of the Middle East and causing unimaginable destruction. Hezbollah has an estimated 130,000 rockets ready to fire at Israel, and because Israel is such a small country with few key strategic targets, Jerusalem would need to act immediately in a conflict with overwhelming force. The Israelis have learned from the last war in 2006, which was not the overwhelming success that Israel usually enjoys against Arab armies—they will not hold back this time. (Gabi Ashkenazi, the former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, said that in the next war it will be forbidden to ask who won. Presumably the answer will be beyond any doubt.) Furthermore, the Lebanese military closely collaborates with Hezbollah. The two are effective allies, making it likely that Israel would need to regard the state's armed forces as hostile in a war.

Critically, such a war would not just include Hezbollah and its Iranian masters. For years, there have been growing signs that Iraq would be involved. Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has said that a future war with Israel could draw thousands of fighters from Iraq. A commander of Iraq's PMUs warned earlier this year that the militias are ready to respond to Israeli acts of "hostility." Last year, the head of a powerful Iraqi Shiite militiapledged to stand alongside Hezbollah if a war breaks out with Israel, saying his group will fight with its Lebanese ally "in a single row, on a single front, just as we stood with them on a single front in Iraq or Syria." One key question is whether and to what extent the Iraqi government would get involved, as many of the Iranian-backed militias are part of Iraq's security apparatus. Regardless of Baghdad's role, however, Iran's recent military emphasis on Iraq, and the Israeli responses that it triggers, only makes it more likely that Iraq will be belligerent in a future conflict.

Beyond Iraq, Iran would bring in Shiite fighters from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly Yemen (not to mention Iran itself) to fight Israel in the event of a third Lebanon war. And Iran could possibly coordinate with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two Palestinian terrorist organizations it supports, to barrage Israel with rockets from Gaza and the West Bank as the Jewish state is focused to the north, where it borders Syria and Lebanon. The regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would also support the Iranian-led axis.

War between Israel and Hezbollah would be a perfect storm, and Israel's reported strikes in Iraq are a reminder of how far-reaching that conflict would be. Israel's clear willingness to use any and all means, including its immense military power, to counter Iran's goals has deterred Tehran, forcing the regime to alter its calculations. And a mutual understanding of how terrible a new war would be has prevented full-scale conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. But Israeli deterrence, while essential and potent, is no panacea. Here is where America can help.

If the United States wants to prevent a devastating war in the Middle East and support a critical strategic ally against their mutual enemies, then Washington needs to establish a level of credible military deterrence in Iraq and Syria, working with Israel to signal to the Iranian-led axis that acts of aggression will carry heavy—and perhaps deadly—costs. In other words, the United States needs to strike Iranian targets if necessary. Those who argue such actions are reckless and would trigger a war with Iran should be asked to explain how Israel has been striking these targets for years. The American military would only enhance Israel's deterrence.

There are many additional steps to be taken. One is to continue to impose sanctions on Iran and Hezbollah. Perhaps most important, however, the United States must provide Israel steadfast political and diplomatic support in the event of war and do everything in its power to push Western governments to do so as well. Hezbollah knows it cannot defeat Israel on the battlefield, so it embeds its forces and weapons throughout civilian areas to force Israel to kill innocents. The terrorist group used human shields in 2006 and, according to reports, plans to do so in a future fight. Israel does all it can to avoid killing civilians, but, in the fog of war, it is impossible to ensure zero civilian casualties. Nonetheless, Europe and the United Nations condemn Israel and effectively take the side of Israel's enemies, emboldening Hezbollah to be aggressive. The United States should not only support Israel's right to counter Iran and Hezbollah by any means necessary during a war, but also before one. Only through concerted, consistent action today is it possible to avoid catastrophe tomorrow.

Aaron Kliegman is the news editor of the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Free Beacon, Aaron worked as a research associate at the Center for Security Policy, a national security think tank, and as the deputy field director on Micah Edmond's campaign for U.S. Congress. In December 2016, he received his master's degree from Johns Hopkins University’s Global Security Studies Program in Washington, D.C., with a concentration in strategic studies. He graduated from Washington and Lee University in 2014 and lives in Leesburg, Virginia. His Twitter handle is @Aaron_Kliegman. He can be reached atkliegman@freebeacon.com.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2) Middle Eastern Terrorism Coming to the US through Its Mexican Border

           by Raymond Ibrahim

A captured Islamic State fighter recently related how, in an effort to terrorize America on its own soil, the Islamic terror group is committed to exploiting the porous US-Mexico border, including through the aid of ISIS-sympathizers living in the United States.

"Whatever one thinks of President Donald Trump's heightened rhetoric about the US-Mexico border and his many claims that it is vulnerable to terrorists, ISIS apparently also thought so," according to the Government Technology and Services Coalition.

In May, Abu Henricki, a Canadian citizen of Trinidadian origin, told researchers with the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism that ISIS sought to recruit him and others to penetrate the US-Mexican border through routes originating in various Central American locations.

"The plan came from someone from the New Jersey state of America," Henricki confessed.

"I was going to take the boat from Puerto Rico into Mexico. He [N.J. resident] was going to smuggle me in.... They [ISIS] wanted to use these people [sympathizers living in the U.S.] because they were from these areas."

Other Trinidadians, he said, were also approached to "do the same thing."

"Our intent was not to support any political agenda," the nonpartisan International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism said.

"We don't want this to be used for fearmongering... That said, it would be erroneous — and detrimental to our safety and security — to outright downplay the potential terrorist threats emanating from our borders, similar to the Bush administration casting aside initial warnings about al-Qaeda plots with the result of American citizens eventually suffering the 9/11 attacks."

More importantly, the notion that Islamic terrorists might infiltrate by way of the U.S. southern border is not a hypothetical. It has already happened. In 2017, for instance,
Abdulahi Hasan Sharif, originally from Somalia, launched what police in Edmonton, Canada labeled a terrorist attack. Sharif stabbed a police officer and then intentionally, it seemed, rammed his vehicle into four pedestrians. Sharif had an ISIS flag in his vehicle; he entered the United States by illegally crossing the US-Mexican border.

Furthermore, according to a November, 2018, report from the Center for Immigration Studies:

• "From only public realm reporting, 15 suspected terrorists have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, or en route, since 2001.
• The 15 terrorism-associated migrants who traveled to the U.S. southern border likely represent a significant under-count since most information reflecting such border-crossers resides in classified or protected government archives and intelligence databases.
• Affiliations included al-Shabaab, al-Ittihad al-Islamiya, Hezbollah, the Pakistani Taliban, ISIS, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami Bangladesh, and the Tamil Tigers.
• At least five of the 15 were prosecuted for crimes in North American courts. One migrant is currently under Canadian prosecution for multiple attempted murder counts. Of the four in the United States, one was prosecuted for lying to the FBI about terrorism involvement, one for asylum fraud, one for providing material support to a terrorist organization, and one for illegal entry, false statements, and passport mutilation."

Europe offers a similar account. As the 2018 National Strategy for Counterterrorism of the United States of America report states:

"ISIS has been innovative and determined in its pursuit of attacks in the West. The group has exploited weaknesses in European border security to great effect by capitalizing on the migrant crisis to seed attack operatives into the region. For instance, two of the perpetrators of the 2015 ISIS attacks in Paris, France, [which killed over 130 people] infiltrated the country by posing as migrants."

The US-Mexico border is so alluring that long before ISIS came onto the scene, other Islamic terrorists were eying it—including as a potential gateway to smuggle anthrax into America in order to kill 330,000 Americans—and operating in it.

Examples are many. In 2011, federal officials announced that FBI and DEA agents disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States," tied to Iran with roots in Mexico. Months earlier a jihadi cell in Mexico was found to have a weapons cache of 100 M-16 assault rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 hand grenades, C4 explosives and antitank munitions. The weapons, it turned out, had been smuggled by Muslims from Iraq. According to the report, "obvious concerns have arisen concerning Hezbollah's presence in Mexico and possible ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTO's) operating along the U.S.-Mexico border."

Such "concerns" might have been expected, considering that a year earlier it was reported that,

"Mexican authorities have rolled up a Hezbollah network being built in Tijuana, right across the border from Texas and closer to American homes than the terrorist hideouts in the Bekaa Valley are to Israel. Its goal, according to a Kuwaiti newspaper that reported on the investigation: to strike targets in Israel and the West. Over the years, Hezbollah—rich with Iranian oil money and narcocash—has generated revenue by cozying up with Mexican cartels to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S."

As far back as 2006, "Mexican authorities investigated the activities of the Murabitun [a Muslim missionary organization named after a historic jihadi group that terrorized Spain in the eleventh century] due to reports of alleged immigration and visa abuses involving the group's European members and possible radicals, including al-Qaeda."

The idea that Islamic terror groups are operating in Mexico and eyeing—and exploiting—the porous US-Mexico border is not a hypothetical; unfortunately, it appears to be a fact. At least 15—though likely many more—suspected terrorists have already been apprehended crossing the border since 2001. One suspected terrorist who crossed the border, an ISIS supporter, already launched a terrorist attack in Canada that nearly killed five people.

The only question left is how much more evidence, and how many more attacks—and with what greater severity—are needed before this problem is addressed?

Raymond Ibrahim, author of the new book, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3) The Left vs. the Crazy Left

If you’re looking for a moderate president, you won’t find one in the Democratic field.By Kimberley Strsassel

Mr. Obama avoided campaigning in 2008 on a public option, and the White House willingly jettisoned that demand in the final ObamaCare negotiations. He knew that at best it would muster 43 Senate votes, while senators like Joe Lieberman had vowed to filibuster a government “takeover” of health insurance that would balloon the national debt. House Blue Dogs similarly rejected it. Yet all 20 of the candidates on this week’s debate stage backed Medicare for any American, if not all of them.

Mr. Obama touted natural gas as a bridge fuel to a future lower-carbon environment. He kept his economy afloat by winking at the state-led fracking revolution, and since retirement he’s even (misleadingly) bragged that he was responsible for record new U.S. oil production. Yet what was the radical-left position of a few years ago—“keep it in the ground”—is now mainstream. On Wednesday even Joe Biden said no when a moderator asked if there would be “any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking,” in his administration. Hawaiians will never visit the mainland again.

Mr. Biden’s rivals—including Sen. Cory Booker, Julián Castro (an Obama cabinet secretary) and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio—scored him for not using his clout as vice president to stop Mr. Obama’s “deportations.” Activist audience members egged this attack on, chanting “three million deportations!” Mr. Biden made a stab at defending the Obama immigration policy, but he promised the Obama deportation rates would “absolutely not” resume were he president. The entire field is on record for easing asylum rules, and some want to decriminalize unauthorized border crossings.

On the topic of law and order, not a single candidate spoke in defense of hundreds of thousands of police officers who daily risk their lives for public safety. They instead nodded along with descriptions of police systems as “criminal,” “corrupt” and “broken.” Mr. Obama spoke at a 2016 memorial for five murdered Dallas cops. Would any Democratic candidate dare show up at such an event today?

The debates have highlighted important policy distinctions. But in the context of this overall leftward shift, they are rightly measured on a sliding scale from “lefty” to “absolutely nuts.” And it’s only the presence of the real radicals that allows commentators to get away with suggesting any of these policies are remotely “centrist” or “moderate.”

The crazies want to tax everyone and everything—financial transactions, carbon, bank liabilities, sales, wealth, income, families. Mr. Sanders has outright said he will raise taxes on the middle class, while Ms. Warren has all but admitted as much. The ordinary lefties merely want to raise taxes on capital, estates, businesses, payrolls and higher incomes.

The crazies would take over or kill entire sectors of the economy. Some Medicare for All proponents would immediately outlaw private insurance; others would do it over time. Fossil-fuel jobs would be abolished, while disfavored corporate executives would face “jail.” The lefties would merely regulate the hell out of the economy, dictating what types of health plans, financial products, energy, and drugs we can have, and at what price.

The crazies would pack the Supreme Court (Ms. Warren), prosecute Mr. Trump (Kamala Harris) and spend billions on slavery reparations (Marianne Williamson). The lefties would merely require two years of mandatory national service (John Delaney), ban union and nonprofit political speech (Michael Bennet) and impose sweeping new gun control (John Hickenlooper).

The Democratic Party seems to be banking that voters dislike Mr. Trump so much that they’ll accept any alternative. That’s an enormously risky bet. All that’s missing in this race is any evidence that a country that elected Mr. Trump is four years later willing to leapfrog beyond Obama policies into liberal nirvana. The polls continue to show (as they long have) that the U.S. is a center-right country. Ms. Warren wondered on Tuesday why anyone would bother running for president if they weren’t running as a full-blown radical. Because elections are supposed to be about winning

3a ) The Trump-Cummings Brawl

Decades after the Civil Rights Act, racism is passing into political abstraction.

By Daniel Henninger

Last weekend, when Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York proposed a Canyon of Heroes parade honoring 9/11 first responders, it struck me as grandstanding. Then the thought occurred: Why not? That awful day was 18 years ago, and it’s already drifting into the fog of history. Some people visit Civil War battlefields or World War I cemeteries in France and Belgium to revive a palpable sense of that incredible carnage.

So one has to wonder: What is it with the constant claims and charges of racism these days? Is it to remind us of the real and violent racism that existed before Martin Luther King Jr. led the civil-rights movement in the 1960s?

Or would it be truer to say that 55 years after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, racism is being pushed into the realm of abstraction, reduced mainly to use as a weapon of political rhetoric?

If one happened to be alive at the time, the reality of the urban riots in the 1960s sits forever in the mind’s eye as one of America’s most unforgettable traumas. Merely mention “the Watts riot” or “the Hough riots,” and there’s hardly a person living then who doesn’t know you’re talking about the burning, rage and destruction that engulfed African-American neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Cleveland, Newark, Detroit and many other cities.

After King’s assassination in 1968, horrific inner-city riots broke out in New York, Washington, Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Kansas City and Trenton, N.J. For much of the U.S. population born since then, those events have about as much immediacy as a World War II documentary.

Still, political control of virtually all these cities has remained in the hands of the Democratic Party. Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and St. Louis have had nothing but Democratic mayors since then.

New York has had several Republican mayors, though the chances of another ever winning election are about zero. As elsewhere, the city’s politics is so noncompetitive that most of New York’s Democrats don’t even bother to vote. When Bill de Blasio was first elected in 2013, turnout was 26% of registered voters, a record low.

That suits the keepers of America’s sterile status quo in its most rundown neighborhoods just fine. Urban Democrats are now in a destructive co-dependent relationship with public-sector unions. Inner-city residents have become an afterthought.

Walking past a public-housing complex in lower Manhattan recently, I noticed the date on the cornerstone: 1963. That is about when these projects were erected all over the U.S. They, like so much urban infrastructure, are falling apart through neglect because city budgets are consumed by labor costs.

Public schools in every city mentioned in this column are failing to educate black American children adequately because the teachers unions won’t permit reform.

According to recent FBI data, the most violent cities in the U.S. include—still—St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Cleveland and Oakland, Calif.

A 16-year-old gangbanger in Chicago today was born in 2002 or 2003, after 9/11. Stories like his, passing from innocence to ruin before reaching adulthood, have repeated themselves every 20 years in all these Democratic-controlled cities. If that’s not racism caused by political failure, the word has no meaning. Yet the press, or part of it, has been consumed the past week with Trump vs. Cummings and such irrelevant stories as “Cummings has long frustrated the president.”

During the Clinton presidency, a brief period of “moderate” reform surfaced on welfare, schools and, yes, crime, but progressives have repudiated all that, as the liberal traditionalist Joe Biden has learned.

And so we return to seeking explanations for the profligate use of the word “racism” today. Here’s one: Liberals and the liberal media have internalized this embarrassing and disgraceful urban failure. They’ve moved past it. They’ve given up.

After 55 years of wheel-spinning, it’s all getting abstracted into “racism.” The gentry liberals who drove up housing prices for the poor and middle class walk past the human and physical debris like 18th-century Parisian aristocrats holding perfumed handkerchiefs to their noses. In Queens, they sent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress to keep them entertained on Instagram.

Messrs. Cummings and Trump are footnotes in this unhappy saga. The important difference is that the Baltimore congressman no longer has much to add, but Mr. Trump is president. Mr. Trump brought up the subject of Baltimore. Now he should put it and these other cities on his campaign agenda. Let the left scream racism. Everyone else in American knows the reality is deeper than that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)

Hi Mr. Berkowitz,

Please, see the following link which contains the article entitled, "Kudos to youth leadership advocate."

:https://www.savannahnow.com/opinion/20190802/letters-to-editor-saturday-big-strides-made-in-early-childhood-ed

Mr. Ferrone was phenomenal! He gave the students information on preparing for interviews, dressing for interviews,

 and conducting oneself during the interview. Students took great notes and were able to verbalize what they 

learned. I thoroughly enjoyed his presentation!

District Attorney Heap was amazing! Students were engaged and said that her presentation was the best. She

 made herself relatable to them, sharing Dr. Seuss stories and her personal story. Her graduation speech motivated

 students to discover their aspirations, pursue excellence, and enjoy every step of actualizing dreams. She helped 

make connections to stimulate professional immersion.

Next GEN Leaders' schedule is attached along with pictures from this week.

Thank you for helping make this week successful!

Your mentee,

Antwone Smoak

(912) 441-7729

How did Ferrone and Heap do?  Me
 On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:10 AM Antwone Smoak <antwonea154@gmail.com&wrote:
 Dear Minister Gidden,

I am absolutely humbled by your kind words written in the Savannah Morning News. I would like to express my
sincerest appreciation for your support, wisdom, and generosity.

You helped change lives!

Yours respectfully,
Antwone Smoak

Dear Antwone,

Thank you for your most gracious note and beautiful picture.   You made my day.   May God bless you for

what you are doing.    Jim

From: Antwone Smoak [mailto:antwonea154@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:36 PM
To: Jim Giddens <Giddens@bellsouth.net>
Cc: richard berkowitz <berkobroker@gmail.com>
Subject: Thank You!

Hi Minister Jim,

We thoroughly enjoyed your presentation this morning! Students talked about your advice later during other 

sessions. You really helped them embrace their story, find their voice, take on new thought processes and become 

better people. They were impacted by your wisdom on the "Power of Thank You!" They now know to write thank you notes, accept constructive criticism, and work patiently toward success.

Thanks for an amazing morning! A picture is attached to show our gratitude!

Best regards,

Antwone Smoak

(912) 441-7729
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) Barack Obama Was Pretty Damned Divisive
By Erick Erickson

It was not Donald Trump who told supporters to take guns to knife fights.
It was not Donald Trump who told Hispanic voters that Republicans were 
their enemies.It was not Donald Trump who encouraged people to report 
their neighbors for lying about him and his healthcare plan.It was not 
Donald Trump who built an app to show you if your neighbor was a 
Republican.It was not Donald Trump who derisively referred to some as 
clinging to their guns and religion.That was all Barack Obama.It was Barack
 Obama who divided the nation between us and them. It was Barack 
Obama who targeted Christians for ridicule and sought to punish nuns and
Christian small businesses. It was Barack Obama who targeted Catholic 
charities. It was Barack Obama who used a strategy of "othering" and 
division to win the election. It was Barack Obama who tried to shame gun 
owners and target the Koch Foundation and the NRA.The Obama 
Administration did this all with ruthlessness that included using the 
Internal Revenue Service to harass conservatives.

It was not Donald Trump who told supporters to take guns to knife fights.

It was not Donald Trump who told Hispanic voters that Republicans were 

their enemies.

It was not Donald Trump who encouraged people to report their neighbors 

for lying about him and his healthcare plan.

It was not Donald Trump who built an app to show you if your neighbor 

was a Republican.

It was not Donald Trump who derisively referred to some as clinging to
their guns and religion.

That was all Barack Obama.

It was Barack Obama who divided the nation between us and them. It was 

Barack Obama who targeted Christians for ridicule and sought to punish 

nuns and Christian small businesses. It was Barack Obama who targeted 

Catholic charities. It was Barack Obama who used a strategy of “othering” 

and division to win the election. It was Barack Obama who tried to shame 

gun owners and target the Koch Foundation and the NRA.

The Obama Administration did this all with ruthlessness that included using 

the Internal Revenue Service to harass conservatives.

To the extent Donald Trump’s administration is doing anything divisive, they

 learned well from Barack Obama.

It is fully ridiculous to hear news analysts, reporters, and Democrats talk 

about Donald Trump using the politics of division to win.

That is exactly what Barack Obama did and do not forget it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

6)Is this Netanyahu’s last hurrah?

By Isi Liebler

Although Benjamin Netanyahu has now become Israel’s longest-serving 

prime minister, projections suggest that MK and former defense minister 

Lieberman will achieve his objective and bring about Netanyahu’s political 

demise. If, as appears almost certain, Lieberman’s strident anti-haredi 

positions will gain him additional seats, he will continue to hold the 

balance of power. His role is strengthened with polls predicting another 

with neither Netanyahu nor Blue and White head Benny Gantz able to 

cobble together sufficient seats to form a government.

On top of that, should Netanyahu be indicted, it is likely that Likud would 

be divided as to whether he can retain his position as party leader.

Paradoxically, Netanyahu is currently at the peak of his achievements. He

courageously overcame the stormy, confrontational era of former US 

Barack Obama with subsequent events totally vindicating him. He has 

managed to expand the alliance with the United States to an all-time high, 

while simultaneously developing an unprecedented positive relationship 

with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin (despite his support of Syria). He 

has advanced relations with India and deftly penetrated barriers and 

created relationships in South America, Africa and Asia including China. 

He has also broken through what seemed an insurmountable barrier and 

developed covert and even not so covert associations with the Saudis and 

moderate Sunni states. Israel today, largely due to Netanyahu’s diplomacy, 

has better relations with the international community than at any time 

since its inception.

In addition, he can take much of the credit for Israel’s booming economy 

and for the country being ranked as one of the world’s most successful 

high-tech innovators. Under his leadership, the IDF has achieved new 

and is capable of defeating any threat from Israel’s adversaries.

But after Netanyahu’s 13 years in office – extraordinary longevity for any 

elected leader – many Israelis seek a change. This attitude is exacerbated 

by a media that has unceasingly demonized him personally as well as 

politically in a manner unprecedented in any democratic country. His 

hedonistic lifestyle, which the court is unlikely to deem a crime, has 

intensified public opposition.

His constant kowtowing to extremist haredi demands, particularly 

outraging Israelis with his concessions on draft exemptions, has created a

backlash and, according to the polls, diverted many voters to Lieberman’s

party since he is perceived as the only one standing up to haredi extortion. 

Unless the merger with the New Right led by Ayelet Shaked can change the 

environment, a Netanyahu government including haredim will ensure that 

religious extremism will intensify, even beyond their efforts to enforce total

gender separation and imposing obstacles to conversion. Even more 

critical has been the exclusion of all secular elements from their core 

educational agenda, making most graduates unfit for anything other than 

the most menial work. Their ever-expanding population will lead to dire 

consequences when the state is economically unable to finance the increased 

demand for social services for those unable or unwilling to engage in 

productive labor.

To make matters worse, the formerly moderate religious Zionism has now 

become largely dominated by “national haredim” – hardal – who, while 

fully supportive of national goals, ally themselves with the extremist 

haredim on questions of religious observance.

Netanyahu has also been accused of eliminating those with the potential to

 displace him as head of the party. Getting close to the prime minister is

likened to a moth attracted to a flame and leads to destruction. A striking 

example of his petty-mindedness was his decision to sack Shaked and 

Naftali Bennet from their cabinet positions and his frenzied efforts to 

destroy them.

Under current circumstances, even if Likud gains more seats than Blue 

and White and Netanyahu overcomes his legal problems, if none of the 

opposition parties or enough individual MKs can be seduced into joining 

him, we could face an ongoing deadlock. Neither side may be able to obtain

 a majority. Lieberman’s Yisrael Beytenu party could double its previous 

electoral strength because of the attractions of its anti-haredi stance and 

will continue to hold the balance of power.

The only solution is for Likud to propose a national unity government, 

offer Gantz a rotating premiership with Netanyahu retiring at the end of 

his term. But this will fail if Blue and White remains true to its pledge not 

to consider serving under Netanyahu under any circumstances.

If that happens, the president could step in and invite Gantz to form a 

government. Likud would then have no alternative but to oblige Netanyahu

 to step down. And once he does, Likud under a new leader would 

negotiate a unity government with Blue and White – with or without the 

inclusion of Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid. This should pose no obstacles because 

Gantz shares the same basic policies as the current government in relation

 to security and defense.

Most Israelis would be relieved by such an outcome, which would help 

unite the nation and bring an end to haredi extortion. Such a merger would

 also destroy the current distorted perception that Israel is governed by an

 “extreme” right-wing government but enjoys the overwhelming support of

 the Israeli people.

There remains one problem with such a solution: Does Gantz possess the 

qualities to lead the country? Could he, like Netanyahu, successfully walk 

the diplomatic tightrope between Trump and Putin? Gantz displays neither

 charisma nor a strong leadership image. A big question mark hangs over

 his ability to effectively lead the country over the next 12 months, when 

decisions will need to be made.

And if not Gantz, who in either party does have the qualifications to lead? 

The brutal truth is nobody!

This is why, despite the fact Netanyahu does not endear himself to most

 Israelis, at the same time polls show that even today many consider him 

only competent candidate for prime minister. Indeed, there are many who 

detest him but would still opt for him to retain the reins of leadership over

 the coming crucial year.

So, while many are predicting that this is Netanyahu’s last hurrah, they

 could be wrong. Today the odds are against him but on previous occasions

 he used his extraordinary political skills and overcame what seemed to be 

hopeless situations. Don’t write him off yet!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

7) Free Stuff! By John Stossel

By Ruth King

Never before have presidential candidates offered voters so much “free” stuff.

Kamala Harris wants you to “collect up to $500 a month.”

Elizabeth Warren says, “We need to go tenfold in our research and development in green 

energy.”

No one has tracked the cost of all of the promises. So my video team did!

Who will spend the most?

Here are the new spending proposals from the five most popular (according to 

ElectionBettingOdds.com) candidates.

In my latest video, we break it down by category, education spending first:

Joe Biden wants to “triple the amount of money we spend for Title I schools” ($32 
billion) create “universal pre-K” ($26 billion), provide “free community college” ($6 
billion per year) and double the number of psychologists and social workers in schools
 ($14 billion) — $78 billion total. That’s a lot, but much less than what Kamala Harris 
would spend.

She too wants to “make community college free” ($6 billion), but she’d add debt-free

 “four-year public college” ($80.1 billion), “increase government’s investment in child 
care” dramatically ($60 billion) and “give the average public school teacher a $13,000 
raise” ($31.5 billion) for a total of $177 billion.

Pete Buttigieg rarely says what his proposals would cost, but he at least seems to
 want to spend less than Harris.

He touts “free college for low- and middle-income students” and would give teachers 
more money. 

Assuming his plan is like Harris’, that brings his education total to $87 billion.

Elizabeth Warren would spend much more.

“You’ll be debt-free!” she tells students. Taxpayers, unfortunately, will be deeper in 
debt, since she would “forgive” most existing student debt and make public college 
tuition free ($125 billion).

She also wants a “Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act” ($70 billion).

These big-ticket items put her in first place so far. But wait! Bernie Sanders would 
spend even more.

He’d completely “eliminate student debt,” “make public colleges and universities tuition
-free”  and provide universal day care and pre-K. That totals $280 billion, so Sanders
 “wins” in education spending.

I assumed the self-described socialist would be the biggest spender, but he’s got lots 
of competition! Let’s look at health care spending.

Harris, Sanders and Warren all propose “Medicare for All,” including for people here
illegally. Sanders goes further, saying, “Under our plan, people go to any doctor they 
want.” He admits it will cost between $3 trillion and $4 trillion per year, about what the 
government now spends on (SET ITAL)everything(END ITAL). How will he pay for 
that? Well, somehow the rich will. Or Martians. Somebody.

Sanders, Harris and Warren all said they’d ban private health insurance — although 
Harris now  says she’d let private companies sell “Medicare plans” that “adhere to 
strict Medicare requirements on costs and benefits.” She also claims her “Medicare for
 All” will be cheaper than Sanders’ version, but as of now there is no independently 
calculated cost.

When it comes to the environment, all Democratic candidates but Biden say they
support the  Green New Deal, which Republicans say would cost $93 trillion. For our
ranking, I went with  the lowest estimate we could find: An economist who likes the 
idea says it will cost around $500 billion a year.

Welfare? Harris would increase benefits and have the government pay your rent if it’s 
over 30%  of your income ($94 billion), and Friday she offered $75 billion to black 
colleges and minority  entrepreneurs. Warren wants to spend more ($50 billion) on 
housing.

Sanders would increase food stamps for kids ($10.8 billion), boost Social Security
benefits ($19  billion) and guarantee everyone a government job ($158 billion), for a 
total of $187.8 billion.

President Donald Trump, who says America will never be a socialist country, hasn’t 
been a  responsible spender either.

Since he took office, spending increased about $500 billion per year. Trump did 
propose some cuts, but when Congress ignored his cuts and increased spending, he 
signed the bills anyway. Now he says he’d spend even more: $200 billion a year for 
infrastructure, $8.6 billion for the  wall construction, $1.6 billion for more NASA funding
and on and on, for a total of $267 billion.

We can’t afford it! The federal government is already $22 trillion in debt — $150,000 
per taxpayer. While Trump’s $267 billion is bad, the Democrats’ plans are worse. We 
counted $297  billion proposed by Biden, $690 billion from Buttigieg, $3.8 trillion from 
Warren, $4 trillion from Sanders and $4.3 trillion from Harris. That would double what 
the entire federal  government spends now.

Senator Harris “wins” the free stuff contest. Taxpayers lose.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++