kscarbel2

Georgia baby’s parents charged with murder The Atlanta Journal-Constitution / August 9, 2016 Alcovy Judicial Circuit District Attorney Layla Zon has filed murder charges against the parents who brutally beat their infant daughter. The baby girl was taken off life support Monday, three months after she was hospitalized with injuries she suffered when her father beat the then 2-month-old infant. Murder warrants were secured today for both parents, Jamie Cason Whited and Justin Lee Whited, both age 23, for the death of 5-month-old Dinah Paige Whited. Both parent have said they did not abuse their child. Dinah had been on life support for three months because her father would not agree to have her taken off the machines keeping her alive. But in an emotional hearing before a juvenile court judge in Walton County on Wednesday and after speaking with his wife, Justin Whited agreed to let the child go. Dinah was admitted to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta at Egleston with bleeding on the brain, two broken collar bones and breaks in all but three of her ribs. Dinah was pronounced dead at 3:31 p.m. Monday. Her father, 23-year-old Justin Lee Whited, of 311 Mobley Circle, was arrested April 24 at the hospital and charged with aggravated battery and cruelty to children. Her mother, 23-year-old Jamie Cason Whited, of 723 Masters Drive, was arrested April 30 at the hospital and charged with cruelty to children. .

When you contacted Watts Mack (provider of the BMT website) on the availability of a Mack part no. 9QT516R left (drivers) side F/CF windshield, what did they say? 1-888-304-6225 http://www.wattsmack.com/parts-department/

BBC / August 9, 2016 An open letter signed by 50 Republican national security experts has warned that nominee Donald Trump "would be the most reckless president" in US history. The group, which includes the former CIA director Michael Hayden, said Trump "lacks the character, values and experience" to be president. Many of the signatories had declined to sign a similar note in March. In response, Trump said they were part of a "failed Washington elite" looking to hold on to power. The open letter comes after a number of high-profile Republicans stepped forward to disown the property tycoon. "He weakens US moral authority as the leader of the free world," the letter read. "He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the US Constitution, US laws, and US institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary." "None of us will vote for Donald Trump," the letter states. Trump said the names on the letter were "the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess". "We thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place," he continued. "They are nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold on to their power and it's time they are held accountable for their actions." Also among those who signed the letter were: John Negroponte (a British-born American diplomat of Greek descent), the first director of the NSA and later deputy secretary of state; Robert Zoellick, who was also a former deputy secretary of state and former president of the World Bank; Two former secretaries of homeland security, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff. The letter echoed similar sentiment shared by some Republican national security officials in March, but the new additions came after Trump encouraged Russia to hack Clinton's email server. Missing from the letter were former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. The letter was drafted by John Bellinger, a former State Department legal adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with edits from Bob Blackwill, a former George H.W. Bush White House adviser, and Eliot Cohen, also a former adviser to Rice. Some of the latest letter's signatories plan to vote for Mr Trump's Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton while others will refuse to vote, but "all agree Trump is not qualified and would be dangerous," said Bellinger.

Trump: TPP Will Be Bigger, Worse Disaster Than NAFTA Bloomberg / August 9, 2016 Trump speaks about his economic plan. He speaks at the Detroit Economic Club Video - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-08-08/trump-tpp-will-be-bigger-worse-disaster-than-nafta

Trade Trucks AU / August 9, 2016 Evolution in buckles plus curtain tension solution seeks time savings per drop Fewer, better buckles coupled with an existing curtainside technology developments are the headline features of Freighter’s new T-Liner II trailer. Unveiled in Melbourne’s Truganina, the new model aims to save drop times and limit the risk of repetitive strain injury by reducing the original T-Liner buckles from 22 to six. "Less buckles results in less time spent opening and closing curtains," Freighter general manager Mario Colosimo says. "Operators can save up to 10 minutes per drop, which is a significant productivity gain without the need for an additional investment into automation." "Decreasing the number of buckles to just six on a traditional T-Liner means the risk of repetitive strain injuries is greatly reduced, improving work health and safety." The T-Liner Mark II borrows ideas from a number of Freighter innovations coupled with a new ‘high force’ buckle. "Previously it hasn’t been possible to reduce the number of buckles on a curtain without loss of vertical tension, which is vital to ensuring the curtains stay safely closed and don’t flap in the breeze when in transit," Colosimo says. "The use of Freighter’s proven ‘curtain arc technology’ spreads the vertical tension out evenly over the width of the curtain, making what was previously impossible, possible," he said. Freighter’s ‘curtain arc technology’ uses a high-strength nylon rope running through a series of arcs at the bottom of the curtain to create vertical tension quickly, simply and reliably. Higher tightening forces are achieved via a new buckle mechanism specifically designed for the T-Liner Mark II, while the unique strap fastening point on the tie-rail also gives the buckle extra leverage. A further advancement in the buckle is the inclusion of a non-slip clamp which ensures the high forces that the buckle produces are held in place while in transit. Freighter plans to upgrade its standard buckle design across its entire range to include it. "The non-slip feature is included on the Liner Mark II buckle, effective immediately," Colosimo says. "It will be added to existing T-Liner, Insuliner, Load Hold and AutoHold models by the end of 2016." The T-Liner Mark II incorporates a number of patented and patent pending features. It is a culmination of a series of rolling upgrades to the Freighter range over the past 18 months which have included a two-piece roof rail, easy-glide curtain rollers and two new load restraint gate options. "Freighter is committed to taking the next step in furthering safety and productivity within its trailer designs and the T-Liner Mark II typifies that mantra," Colosimo says. .

Can Big Trucks be Hacked? Heavy Duty Trucking / August 8, 2016 If you have read any of the headline stories about the trio of researchers from the University of Michigan who successfully hacked into the J1939 databus of a 2006-model-year truck, you might now believe that it's discouragingly easy. While the researchers did manage to seize control of the truck's throttle and engine brake controls, they used a laptop computer connected directly to the truck's dataport (OBD port) to pull off their experiment. A YouTube video accompanied several of the online reports about the hacking attempt showing the vehicle lurching along a test track, the would-be hacker in the back seat of the club-cab truck with his laptop, while the driver and a passenger (presumably the trio or researchers) comment on the performance of the truck. It's one thing to hack into the J1939 databus from onboard the vehicle. But the question the U of M researchers were keen to delve into is the likelihood of carrying out the same type of hack, or perhaps a more serious disruption of the vehicle controls, remotely via the telematics links now emerging as a popular maintenance management option. The research paper is titled "Truck Hacking: An Experimental Analysis of the SAE J1939 Standard," published by Yelizaveta Burakova, Bill Hass, Leif Millar, and Andre Weimerskirch of the The University of Michigan. The paper was presented Monday in Austin, Texas at 10th Usenix Workshop on Offensive Technologies. It's available to download here. It focuses on what an adversary could accomplish while physically connected to the truck's internal network, and analyzes the impact of insecure electronic control units in heavy vehicles by exploiting the inherent openness of the J1939 architecture -- which is something common to all heavy trucks in North America and a great deal more diesel-powered equipment as well. According to the report, the motivation for J1939 stems primarily from a desire to electronically control drivetrain components of a vehicle. Because so many different organizations are involved in the building of heavy vehicles, a standard was needed to minimize engineering effort and the complications of integrating systems. While standardizing these communications has proven crucial in allowing various suppliers and manufacturers to work together and cut costs, it also means that all heavy vehicles currently on the road from tractor-trailers to garbage trucks and cement mixers to buses, utilize the same communication protocol on their internal networks. By contrast, the authors say communications networks on consumer vehicles tend to be proprietary to the OEM that designed that particular vehicle and kept secret. For that reason, the authors note, "deciphering consumer vehicle network traffic involves the tedious process of reverse engineering any messages observed on the bus to determine their function." Not so with J1939, and that's part of the vulnerability at least partially exposed by the report. The SAE J1939 standard used across all U.S. heavy vehicle industries gives easy access for safety-critical attacks and these attacks aren't limited to one specific make, model, or industry," the authors point out. The report also provides example of the sort of attack they were able to accomplish: INSTRUMENT CLUSTER: By spoofing the status messages that originate in various ECUs of the truck, researchers were able to control all gauges on the instrument cluster, including oil temperature, oil pressure, coolant temperature, engine RPM, speed, fuel level, battery voltage, and air pressure. Researchers indicated that it would be "possible" to spoof the air pressure indicator to read a normal operating pressure when in fact the pressure could be physically reduced initiating a spring parking-brake application while traveling at highway speed. POWERTRAIN: Researchers were able to override the driver's input to the accelerator pedal and simultaneously cause either direct acceleration or remove the ability to provide torque to the wheels while the truck was in motion. ENGINE BRAKE: Certain message could be configured to disable the truck's ability to use engine braking at speeds below 30 mph. Researchers acknowledged that the driver retained control of the service brakes, but noted that if they had been able to control the engine brake above 30 mph, it would could have implications for trucks operating on long downhill grades. The story appeared on several technology publication websites whose authors are more familiar with pure technology that the current state of the trucking industry. They envisioned the potential for autonomously controlled trucks running pell-mell across the country leaving trails of destruction in their wake. Insiders, on the other hand, would recognize the "attacks" described by the authors of the study as potentially risky, but generally not life threatening in every circumstance. But we should not be lulled into a false sense of security because this particular exercise didn't come up with a crash 'n burn scenario. Foremost on the authors' minds was the potential for remote access to the vehicle's internal electronic controls via some telematic interface wi-fi, cellular or satellite connectivity. The paper makes for some interesting reading, as do a couple of other stories that appeared online following its release -- if you can forgive the doomsday scenarios. Forbes.com: There's A Windows PC Helping Control Fleet Trucks -- Any Idiot Can Start Hacking It In 30 Seconds Wired.com: Hackers Hijack a Big Rig Truck’s Accelerator and Brakes Salon.com: As era of autonomous trucking arrives, Michigan researchers prove how easy it is to hack trucks

Clearly, the folks at Peterbilt (i.e. Paccar) would like customers to gravitate to the 567 Heritage, which uses the new cheaper-for-Paccar-to-build cab shared with Kenworth, so that the truckmaker can discontinue the traditionally built (more costly for Paccar) Model 367 tractor. If you want a traditionally-constructed high quality truck, buy a 367 before Paccar stops accepting orders. You don’t have much time.

Driving the Peterbilt 567 Heritage Truck News / August 8, 2016 Old meets new with classic-styled throwback The Peterbilt truck brand was born to meet the needs of northwestern US loggers, so it was only fitting that my opportunity to drive the 567 Heritage came to fruition at the Paccar Technical Center in Mount Vernon, Wash. The 567 Heritage resurrects the classic styling drivers and owner-operators fondly remember, in a package that’s also decked out with modern features that make the truck comfortable and efficient to operate compared to the good ol’ days. It’s the best of both worlds, really, and if drivers don’t mind sacrificing a little bit of on-highway fuel economy compared to the ultra-aero 579, it’s a truck that’s fit to do a wide variety of jobs, while looking good doing it. “Peterbilt’s Model 567 Heritage elevates the classic styling of Peterbilt with a package of unique features that will command attention on highways and jobsites,” said Darrin Siver, Peterbilt general manager, when the truck was introduced this June. This is a custom truck for those who want to leave the customizations to professional designers and order style in one convenient package. It’s a set-forward front axle (SFFA), which Peterbilt claims makes it the industry’s most modern SFFA truck. Modern and classic are terms that can both be used freely when describing the 567 Heritage. The truck can be ordered as a day cab or with a 72- or 80-inch sleeper. My 567 Heritage (for the day, I can only wish it was permanent) had a spacious, well-appointed 80-inch sleeper. There was no mistaking this was no ordinary truck. Everything from the wood paneling on the dash was upgraded in this model. The high-end leather seats served as a constant reminder that I was operating a luxury vehicle. Accent stitching could be found on the steering wheel and seats while the Heritage logo was embroidered into the headrests and back of the bunk. Door pads with wood brown trim rounded out the interior design. The exterior was painted in Peterbilt’s newest color: Legendary Red. This color has a certain glimmer-effect that other reds just don’t match. It was achieved by mixing tiny glass particles into the paint, giving it a bass boat-type shimmer. It really sparkled under the bright sun. The exterior of the 567 Heritage is sure to turn heads. It features subtle Heritage badging (the first 567 will be numbered) and not so subtle splashes of chrome, including the air intake bezel and metal hood latches. A bright bumper, grille bars, exhaust stacks, mirrors and sun visor add to the truck’s distinctive exterior. Every bit of this truck’s exterior shined. It also featured pod-style headlights, which allow for easy bulb replacement and give the truck a bold face. As for how the truck drove, no question there, handling fell into the modern category. We sought out some of the roughest country roads near the Tech Center and the Peterbilt front air leaf suspension evened out the bumps as well as could be expected. We were pulling a loaded 48-ft. van trailer. On the highway, the truck offered a smooth, quiet ride. Power came from the Paccar [DAF] MX-13 engine rated at 500 hp and 1,850 lb.-ft. of torque but Cummins engines are also offered. Disc brakes on the front and rear axles provided exceptional stopping ability but the brakes were rarely needed on this drive thanks to the excellent engine braking capabilities of the MX. The transmission was an Eaton Fuller MXP-series UltraShift Plus, designed for heavy-duty performance. This transmission can handle anything you throw at it, and has no published maximum GVWR. The dash-mounted shifter opened up plenty of room between the seats for a cooler or unimpeded access to the sleeper. The bunk is another area where modern trumps classic, with a flat panel TV mount and 1.8 cubic foot refrigerator. Visibility out of the expansive one-piece curved windshield left no room for complaint. The brightness of the digital gauges – everything from engine oil temperature to air suspension pressure – on the SmartNav display popped out. But the driver can also use SmartNav for navigation or infotainment purposes. Peterbilt expects this truck to be popular in vocational applications where the majority of time is spent on-highway. Think tanker, flatdeck or oilpatch. You’ll surely see a few of these in Alberta when commodity prices recover. It’s also an attractive reward truck that image-conscious fleets could hand over to their top-performing drivers. It’s hard to imagine a frowning face behind the wheel of the 567 Heritage. Peterbilt is now taking orders for the new truck, with full-scale production set to begin in September. Photo gallery - http://www.trucknews.com/transportation/riving-peterbilt-567-heritage/1003073396/

.

Car & Driver / August 8, 2016 After more than two years, thousands of warranty claims, and hundreds of owner complaints, German transmission supplier ZF is finally issuing a recall to fix its 9-speed automatic. The transmission can unexpectedly shift into neutral while driving due to an improper crimp on a wiring harness attached to the sensor cluster, which controls the “shift pattern and quality,” according to ZF. The manufacturing defect results in high electrical resistance that causes the transmission to shift into neutral. So far, ZF says this problem affects 505,000 cars in the United States, the majority of them sold by Fiat Chrysler. A software update will either prevent the random shift to neutral or give the driver “adequate warning” before the transmission does so anyway. ZF is not recommending automakers make any physical repairs to the affected cars despite making a crimping change to its production line starting in July 2014. Reviewing the database on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s website, we found at least 895 owners complaining not just of sudden shifts to neutral but acceleration surges, rough shifts, hesitation to downshift, and even vehicles that rolled away in neutral or engaged drive after the owners claimed they had selected park. At least 10 related injuries have been reported to NHTSA, three of which involved drivers who claimed they were run over as they got out of their cars after selecting park. When asked if it would fix these other reported problems, ZF deferred to the automakers. “In this instance, ZF provided the necessary documentation to NHTSA to address a specific issue,” company spokesman Bryan Johnson said. “All other concerns and filings need to be addressed by our customers. It is ZF’s policy to refrain from speaking on their behalf.” Current vehicles equipped with the ZF 9HP transmission include: 2014–2016 Jeep Cherokee 2015–2016 Jeep Renegade, Chrysler 200, and Ram ProMaster City 2016 Fiat 500X 2014–2017 Range Rover Evoque 2015–2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport Upper trims of the 2015–2016 Honda Pilot Six-cylinder versions of the 2015–2017 Acura TLX. Other than FCA, no other automakers have issued a recall, and FCA is not recalling the 2016 models, at least not yet. Problems with the ZF transmission surfaced first on the redesigned Jeep Cherokee in May 2014, months after FCA delayed the new vehicle’s launch by several weeks to recalibrate the transmission software. At that time, a dozen owners reported vehicles shifting into neutral and poor shift quality. By February 2015—when FCA recalled nearly 78,000 Chrysler 200 sedans for apparently unrelated electrical problems that caused the same transmission to shift into neutral—more than 120 transmission complaints were registered with NHTSA on the 2014 Cherokee. A second recall involving the Chrysler 200 this past May cited faulty parking pawls and rods within the transmission for causing rollaways. Nearly 4000 warranty claims have been submitted to FCA through June 30 of this year, according to the automaker. To date, there are at least 661 complaints regarding the Cherokee’s transmission problems and more than 130 complaints on the Chrysler 200. Of the 10 total injuries reported to NHTSA related to this transmission, nine injuries have occurred in FCA models. FCA dealers—as well as Honda and Land Rover dealers—have continued to update the transmission software and replace entire transmissions to no avail, according to complaints. FCA is only recalling models up to the 2015 model year (412,855 in total), despite at least 16 more owner complaints on 2016 models. Another 10 complaints on 2016 Honda Pilot and Acura TLX models have also been logged. ZF and FCA are also under fire—including a NHTSA investigation into the death of actor Anton Yelchin—for the design of an eight-speed automatic shifter on several late-model Jeep, Chrysler, and Dodge models. FCA has begun to recall the 811,000 cars to apply a software update to those models.

Hillary Clinton? Never. The National Interest / August 8, 2016 When Bill and Hillary Clinton arrived in Washington as president and first lady in 1993, the Wall Street Journal editorial page went on the attack, suggesting they brought with them from Arkansas a brand of politics that was inherently corrupt, with personal gain routinely and consistently factored into official decision making. The paper took a lot of heat for this line of editorial criticism in the absence of definitive proof of mendacity on the part of the new president and his wife. Then came the cattle-futures scandal, in which Hillary hauled down a $98,540 profit in cattle futures in less than a year of trading on a $1,000 investment, without maintaining the normally required fund reserve to diminish the risk of leverage. Further, she was advised on the matter by an outside lawyer for Tyson Foods, a giant Arkansas company with big interests before the state government, where Bill Clinton served as attorney general and then governor. Thus began a pattern that has led us to Hillary Clinton now as the Democratic presidential nominee even as multiple polls indicate that fully two thirds of Americans consider her dishonest and untrustworthy. During the Clinton White House years, following the cattle-futures scandal, came "travelgate," "filegate," and the Whitewater land investment scandal, in which a box of missing papers, under subpoena for two years, miraculously appeared in the White House living quarters—but only in copy form; the originals were never recovered. It seemed that the Clintons were constantly mired in scandal or hints of scandal, always struggling to stay ahead of nettlesome little revelations that raised persistent questions about their ethical rectitude. There can be no doubt that these episodes from the distant past, combined with Hillary Clinton’s more recent ethical lapses related to her doing public business on a private email server, have contributed to her reputation as a person who can’t be trusted to tell the truth or conduct herself strictly on the up and up. Does it matter? That’s for the voters to decide. But every voting booth decision requires a multidimensional analysis that includes an assessment of the favorable and unfavorable attributes of each candidate. Herewith an assessment of Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable attributes, constituting a case against her. This isn’t designed to be definitive for any voting decision but rather a warning that all candidates have downsides, and Clinton’s are significant. One could argue, in fact, that the Democratic Party was reckless in granting her the nomination, given her past embroilment in scandal and prospects that new revelations could catch up with her during the campaign or through her presidency. Although FBI Director James Comey didn’t recommend an indictment against her related to her email server, he said she was "extremely careless" in her handling of "very sensitive, highly classified information." Thus, he declined to take actions to destroy her candidacy and left it to voters to assess the magnitude of her lapses. But the recklessness of her behavior is reflected in questions now being raised about whether damaging new revelations about her could be forthcoming from hackers, foreign or domestic, who gained knowledge of her activity via her unprotected server. Security experts have suggested there is a strong likelihood that China, Russia and other hackers gained access to all 63,000 emails on Clinton’s private, unprotected server—including the 33,000 she destroyed under the contention that they were merely personal and had nothing to do with her official actions and decisions. But if those emails contain evidence of questionable actions, as the Wall Street Journal’s L. Gordon Crovitz has argued, Russian President Vladimir Putin "will have the capacity to blackmail her at will" should she become president. What kind of evidence of questionable actions could be found there? We don’t know, but it would be imprudent to dismiss the possibility that it could be related to the Clinton Foundation, that international good-works institution created by Bill Clinton that doubles as a repository of political/financial power for the Clintons. It has served as a lucrative way station for Clinton cronies waiting for Hillary Clinton’s next campaign. It has positioned Bill Clinton to collect huge speaking fees from major overseas and American corporations and from foreign governments—some $105 million for 542 speeches between the time he left the White House and the time Hillary left her job as secretary of state, according to the Washington Post. It has rewarded Clinton friends and political allies within a Clinton network that constitutes a potent political force. The foundation, we learn (through not from the Clintons), continued to receive money from foreign governments even during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state, although she had promised that no such money would be accepted during her public service. The money flowed in from such countries as Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Swiss bank UBS contributed some $500,000 after Secretary Clinton helped settle an IRS problem dogging the bank. The Associated Press reported that Hillary Clinton excised from her official State Department calendar some seventy-five meetings she held with "longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors, and corporate and other outside interests." Was there actual corruption going on here in the form of quid pro quos, or merely the appearance of corruption? We don’t know, though those 33,000 emails may hold the key to that question. But, in any event, we see a pattern that first came to light with the cattle futures scandal—big sums of money flowing to the Clintons as they conducted official business to the benefit of the individuals and organizations providing the money. Leaving aside the corruption question, the Clinton Foundation represents a giant stride toward American oligarchy—the flow of power from the people at large to clever and connected elites who know how to game the system to their political and financial advantage. It is noteworthy that, in this year of seething political anger directed against the country’s elites, Hillary Clinton is emerging as the likely next president even as she projects herself as the embodiment of what is stirring all that national anger. Which brings us to another major element in the case against Hillary Clinton. She will give us, as many have suggested, Barack Obama’s third term. The country is deeply divided on the Obama presidency, and it’s appropriate that Americans should debate his legacy as his departure nears after White House eight years. But, whatever one may say about him, it can’t be denied that he failed to solve the country’s crisis of deadlock. When the country needed a new paradigm of governmental thinking to break the deadlock and move the country in a new direction, he doubled down on the stale old politics perpetuating the political stalemate of our time. There is no reason to believe Hillary Clinton would break the deadlock. She represents the politics of old when the country desperately seeks something fresh, capable of scrambling up the old political fault lines and forging new political coalitions that can give propulsion to a struggling America. Hence, under her leadership, we likely will see the continuation of the current deadlock crisis for another four years. That’s a long time for that kind of crisis to fester, generating ever greater anger, frustration and civic tension.

For Kaine, war powers issue shows a break with Clinton — and a push that fell short The Washington Post / August 8, 2016 Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia is holding fast to his long-held belief that the current military operation against Islamic State forces has not been properly approved by Congress — a position that puts him at odds not only with President Obama but also with his running mate, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Kaine placed the blame squarely on Congress for its inability to tackle the issue. “I don’t think the current legal authorities are sufficient to wage this war against ISIS,” Kaine said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. As Obama’s first secretary of state, Clinton supported the president’s position that he had all the authority he needed to wage military action in Syria, Iraq and other trouble spots without first seeking congressional approval. While she has supported Kaine’s push for more congressional action, Clinton has also been clear that she will continue to act under the same authority Obama has, even when Capitol Hill doesn’t weigh in. Kaine’s ongoing, unsuccessful effort to draft and win approval for a new war resolution serves as a window into how Kaine views the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. It has also shown the limitations of his ability to coax allies across the finish line, even on his hallmark issue — suggesting that his courtship approach might not work in today’s hyper-partisan era. Finally, how Kaine handles this issue going forward will offer telling evidence of his influence within the next administration, should the Democrats win. The first clue came when he delivered his 30-minute acceptance speech for the vice-presidential nomination in Philadelphia last month — without mentioning the war powers issue. Nowhere did Kaine describe how much he has tried to compel Congress to define the parameters of an increasingly hot war. After winning election in 2012, Kaine led the effort to draw up a new war resolution to replace those written more than a decade ago to take on Osama bin Laden and then Saddam Hussein. Almost single-handedly, he turned what congressional leaders in both parties had considered a nuisance into a defining cause about congressional duty and the constitutional boundaries a president faces. “The unwillingness of this Congress to authorize the war not only shows a lack of resolve, it sets a dangerous precedent,” Kaine said in early June, introducing amendments to try to force a debate on the issue. “It’s not hard to imagine a future president using this inaction to justify the hasty and unpredictable initiation of military action.” But Kaine, 58, and a small band of younger allies in the Senate failed. They never even got full consideration in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which he serves. Even Kaine’s close friends recognize that he now must adhere to whatever posture Clinton takes on this issue. “Tim knows he’s applying for a job that is very different,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a close ally who sits next to Kaine on the Foreign Relations Committee. However, Kaine’s generation of lawmakers hope that in choosing her running mate, Clinton demonstrated that she wants to engage Congress on a new authorization for the use of military force, as war resolutions are technically known. Given the past two years of gridlock on the issue, Kaine faces long odds of being any more successful on crafting and passing a war resolution as Clinton’s vice president. It had been an area of concern for several years, but in the summer of 2014 — as the Islamic State took over more land in Syria and Iraq while committing high-profile murders of Western hostages — Obama ramped up a bombing campaign and sent more U.S. troops into those hostile territories to help advise Iraqi military leaders. At issue is the president’s authority to take the country to war without first seeking congressional approval. Obama has claimed that congressional authorizations passed in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, permit him to order any actions combating terrorism. And he has bluntly said that he has no timeline for how long the forces would be deployed. Kaine has said that the post-Sept. 11 authorizations were too “open-ended,” arguing that actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria all required separate congressional approval. One of those resolutions was meant to target bin Laden, who was killed in 2011; the other dealt with Hussein, who was captured, tried and killed by the new Iraqi government in 2006. In an early 2015 interview, after Republicans took the Senate, Kaine said that he would judge Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stewardship of the chamber on a single issue, whether he allowed a full war debate on the Senate floor. One of the ironies in the fact that it never happened is that Republicans were fully willing to approve a broad, sweeping authorization giving Obama, and any future president, almost unlimited power to go after ISIS. It was the Democrats, including Kaine, who wanted to place limits on both time and deployment of ground troops on any future authorizations. “There’s no reason for us to give him less authority than what he has today, which is what he’s asking for,” John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), the House speaker at the time, told reporters after a 2015 trip the Middle East. Key Republicans, including Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), agreed with the president’s view that the 2001 war declaration gave the administration all the authority it needed. Kaine can sound like a tough military hawk calling for a war debate, but his own position is squarely on the liberal side of the argument. He wants a strict timeline — one proposal called for a three-year war against Islamic State forces, after which the next president would have to withdraw or get new authority to act. He wanted limits on ground forces in those territories, which most Republicans consider a non-starter. Murphy called Kaine a “strong defender” of Obama’s use of forces so far. “His bone of contention has been that the strategy has been unauthorized,” Murphy said. Kaine also could never win over his own leadership. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader in 2014 and now minority leader, essentially told Kaine to drop the matter, Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) and other Democrats said. “This is an issue that’s easy to brush aside,” Coons said. Reid preferred letting Obama act on his own. Irritated by Reid’s inaction, Kaine used direct channels into the West Wing, emailing senior advisers to try to get them to push Reid. But Kaine could never persuade Obama to push Congress to act. Obama periodically raised the issue and said Congress should pass a new resolution, but he never gave it top priority and was content continuing to make his war decisions with no congressional input. Ultimately, Kaine even lost the support of his longtime allies on the issue. Both Murphy and Coons said that as the Republican presidential primary unfolded, they lost interest in the war resolution bid. The Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, and the second-place finisher, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex., both advocated a forceful use of the military. Democrats simply decided they couldn’t risk compromising with Republicans and giving more power than they were comfortable with, if Trump ended up winning. “It’s a different animal today,” Murphy said. .

British Special Forces in Syria Images published by BBC depict SAS soldiers securing the perimeter of a rebel army base following an attack by ISIS. Originally founded in 1941, the Special Air Service (SAS) is a special forces unit of the British Army. The pictures were taken in June and were first published on Monday by the BBC. The images depict British special forces sitting atop Thalab long range patrol vehicles* as they move around the perimeter of a rebel base close to the Syria-Iraq border. The BBC reported the soldiers were working at the base in a defensive role and a spokesman for the New Syrian Army acknowledged that British special forces had provided training, weapons and other equipment. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has refused to comment on the pictures. On Monday, the MOD released information about British air strikes against Isis in Iraq and Syria. * The Al-Thalab is a 4x4, high-mobility long-range patrol vehicle (LRPV) based on the legendary Toyota LandCruiser 79-Series (http://www3.toyota.com.au/landcruiser-70). The Al-Thalab was developed by Jordan Light Vehicle Manufacturing, which was formed in 2003 as a collaborative joint venture between King Abdullah II Design & Development Bureau (KADDB) of Jordan and Jankel Armouring of the UK. The Al-Thalab LRPV was first produced in June 2005. The vehicle can accommodate four crew members and comes with an option for two stretchers in the rear for medical evacuation. It is designed for surveillance, reconnaissance, internal security and border patrol forces. The Al-Thalab is also available in medium range and commando variants. Al-Thalab Brochure - http://www.jankel.com/media/images/ThalabBrochureemail_177.pdf .

Trump's economic plan: no 'death tax', less business tax, and fewer regulations The Guardian / August 8, 2016 In an attempt to reset a campaign recently flogged by a series of controversies, Donald Trump outlined an economic vision for the US, including dramatically slashing taxes, and took sharp aim at Hillary Clinton. In a nearly hour-long speech, unusually reading from a teleprompter, the Republican presidential nominee suggested Detroit itself was an example of “the living, breathing example of my opponent’s failed economic agenda”. “The unemployment rate [in Detroit] is more than twice the national average,” Trump said. “Half of all Detroit residents do not work. Detroit tops the list of the most dangerous cities in terms of violent crime. These are the silenced victims whose stories are never told by Hillary Clinton.” Trump said his economic plan would reverse a lagging recovery in jobs from the 2008 recession, in part by reducing income tax brackets from seven levels to three – of 12%, 25%, and 33% – and entirely eliminating income taxes for individuals who earn less than $25,000 annually, or $50,000 for a married couple. That’s a change from September 2015, when he initially proposed four brackets that would pay zero, 10%, 20% and 25%. He said it would mark the “biggest tax revolution since the Reagan tax reform”. “We will make America grow again,” Trump said. Trump said he would lower corporate tax rates from 40% to 15% – a rate he said punished “companies for making products in America”. “This, ladies and gentleman, is backwards – it’s backwards,” he said. “All of our policies should be geared towards keeping jobs and wealth inside the United States. “No American company will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes,” he continued. Clinton’s economic vision entailed “onerous regulations”, which would put small companies “totally out of business, and you won’t be able to start – you could never, ever start – a small business under the tremendous regulatory burden that you have today in our country.” Trump said he would eliminate the estate (death) tax, which currently applies to estates larger than $5.45m for individuals, or $10.9m for married couples. “No family will have to pay the death tax,” he said. Trump spoke at Cobo Hall in downtown Detroit before 1,500 members and guests of the prestigious Detroit Economic Club, a business and professional organization that routinely serves as a stop for presidential candidates. Trump’s economic plan appeared to mimic proposals offered last fall by his campaign and later highlighted on his campaign’s website. In March, the group Citizens for Tax Justice said his plan would cost more than $12tn. Trump also reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his plan to ask TransCanada to renew the permit for the Keystone pipeline. The newest proposals included a temporary moratorium on regulations from federal agencies. Trump also pitched a plan to allow families to “fully deduct” all childcare expenses from their taxes, which he said would “reduce cost in childcare, offering much needed relief to American families”. .

Assiciated Press / August 8, 2016 When drivers are too slow or honk obnoxiously as they pass by, it's custom to look at their license plate to see what state they are from. Now, financial tech firm SmartAsset has compiled driving data to determine which states in the US have the worst driving habits. The study reveals that you should steer clear of those bearing a pair of oranges on their license plate, because Floridians top the list. SmartAssest gathered data in four areas in order to compile their list: DUI per thousand drivers, deaths per thousand drivers, Google trends on driving tickets and percentage of drivers in the state with insurance. Study author Derek Miller said: ‘We then indexed each factor for every state giving equal weighting and then finding the average score per state to create the final index. 'Maybe it’s the heat causing road rage, but four out of the top ten states in our study are located in the southeast.' And the firm deemed Florida the worst out of all 50 states, which they say is ‘often plagued with a reputation for bad drivers’. The Sunshine State was found to not only have the second lowest number of insured drivers in the nation, but ‘speeding tickets’ and ‘traffic tickets’ were Googled more than another other state. It seems that many of the bad drivers reside in southern states, as Mississippi (second), Alabama (sixth), Tennessee (eighth) and Texas (ninth) all made the top 10 list. Mississippi, which placed second, ranked fifth in the most deaths from automobile accidents and 12th for DUI arrests per thousand drivers. And third place went to Oklahoma, as only 74 percent of the drivers in the mid-west state are insured and they have one of the 15 worst scores for DUIs. Some may be wondering where New Jersey ranks on the list, as it’s believed to have some of the worst drivers in the country. But according to SmartAsset’s study the Garden State comes in fourth with its poor rankings fueled mostly by number of deaths with 0.62, which is a distant third-place from Mississippi’s 0.29. Another state with a reputation for bad drivers, has found redemption with this new study. Massachusetts was listed as 48 on the list, because motorists there lead the nation in insured rates. Delaware (fifth) and Vermont (seventh) joined New Jersey from the east coast. And even though Delaware as the lowest DUI rates per driver than the Garden State, it has the most deaths - 40% of deaths occurred when the driver was above the legal limit for drinking. Whereas Vermont was found the leader in the nation for DUIs per driver with 50 per thousand drivers. Only 20 percent of the drivers in Tennessee are insured, making it one of the leased insured states in the US, however they are in the better half of the country for DUI per thousand drivers at 5.7. The Lone Star state makes the top 10 list as well, coming in at ninth place, with the highest percentage of deaths coming from drunk drivers at 40% and yet it is in the better half of states for DUI arrests. And last on the list is Nevada, which was found to be the third worst state for traffic and speeding tickets and the 17th worst for DUIs – but 88 percent of Nevada drivers are insured. The 10 states with the worst drivers 1. Florida: The Sunshine State was found to not only have the second lowest number of insured drivers in the nation, but ‘speeding tickets’ and ‘traffic tickets’ were Googled more than another other state. 2. Mississippi: This southern state had the 5th highest deaths resulting from vehicular incidents and 12th highest rate of DUI arrests per driver in the country. They also ranked 3rd worst in that category with only 77% insured. 3. Oklahoma: Only 74% of drivers and they have one of the 15 worst scores in DUIs per thousand drivers (7.74), number of people killed per thousand drivers in vehicular incidents (.21) and rate of googling parking and traffic tickets (52.13). 4. New Jersey: The Garden State has the second most deaths per driver at .61, almost 90% of the drivers are insured. 5. Delaware: This state is unfortunately the only one with more deaths per driver than New Jersey. It has the lowest DUI rate per driver, only 40% of deaths occurred when the driver was above the legal limit for drinking, which is the 4th highest rate in the country. 6. Alabama: This southern state also has bad scores, with 33 percent of deaths resulting from a driver over the legal alcohol limit. 7. Vermont: Vermont leads the nation in DUIs per driver with 50 per thousand drivers, but they have the lowest percentage of deaths resulting from drunk driving - 20%. 8. Tennessee: The Volunteer State is one of the least insured states with just 20 percent and it has the 18th highest number of deaths per thousand drivers. 9. Texas: Tragically for Texas it has the highest percentage of deaths coming from drunk drivers at 40% and yet it is in the better half of states for DUI arrests. 10. Nevada: This is the 3rd worst state for traffic and speeding tickets as well as being the 17th worst state for DUIs. .

Woman raped, murdered and set on fire while jogging in Massachusetts Associated Press / August 8, 2016 A Google employee from New York City who disappeared on an afternoon jog while visiting her mother in Massachusetts has been found murdered in the woods. Worcester District Attorney Joseph Early Jr. said Monday that 27-year-old Vanessa Marcotte was reported missing after failing to return from a run between 1pm and 4pm in Princeton. Her body was discovered at around 8.20pm Sunday by a state police K9 unit near Brooks Station Road, about a half-mile from her mother's home. Investigators are examining the possibility that Marcotte was sexually assaulted and set on fire, with burns to her hands, head and feet. Authorities say her death is a homicide. 'We have a horrible set of facts, horrible circumstance,' said Early. He added that it was unclear whether Marcotte's killing was a random act of violence and urged local residents to remain vigilant and exercise caution. 'People should be concerned,' Early said. Five days before Marcotte's death, 30-year-old New York City resident Karina Vetrano was murdered while on an evening jog in the city’s borough of Queens. No arrests have been made in Vetrano's death. .

Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam .

'Clock boy' Ahmed Mohamed’s family to try milking his former Texas school Associated Press / August 8, 2016 The family of a Muslim boy who was arrested after bringing a homemade clock [that looked like a briefcase bomb] to school have sued Texas school officials, saying they violated the 14-year-old boy's civil rights. The lawsuit was filed Monday on behalf of Ahmed Mohamed. The teen was arrested at his suburban Dallas high school in September and charged with having a hoax bomb. He says he brought the homemade clock to school to show his teacher. The charge was later dropped, but he was still suspended. The lawsuit names Irving Independent School District, the city of Irving and the school's principal. A district spokeswoman says the district would release a statement later Monday. The family has since moved to Qatar, citing threats and a scholarship offered to Ahmed in the Persian Gulf country. Ahmed spent this summer back in Texas, after spending eight months studying in Qatar. During the school year, he says he visited the Islamic holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia with his family. He will return to Qatar next month to start 10th grade at Qatar Academy, a private school in Doha. Ahmed showed off the clock on Monday during a news conference with his parents and attorneys. 'For the safety of my family, I have to go back to Qatar, because right now it's not very safe for my family or for anyone who's a minority,' Ahmed said during Monday's news conference. While in Texas, Ahmed said, he has to wear a hat, sunglasses and a hoodie. 'I can't walk out of the house without being covered up because I might get shot because that happens here,' he said. 'I really love the States. It's my home. But I couldn't stay. I get death threats.' He added: 'I have lost a lot of things. I lost my home, I lost my creativity because before I used to love building things but now I can't. I lost my security.' The teen's parents, Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed and Muna Ibrahim, have not found work yet in Qatar, so the family of eight is living in government housing and on food vouchers, Mohamed said on Monday. Ahmed previously said he missed the diversity in America, and hoped his story could serve as a positive talking point about the challenges Muslims face. 'I want to help change Texas for a better state, and I hope that not just for Texas, but the entire world,' he said. 'People sometimes don't want to admit their mistakes, and sometimes the best thing to do is to help them change.' The teenager received an outpouring of support on social media following his arrest, and President Barack Obama even invited him to the White House. Ahmed said he built the clock in his bedroom in about 20 minutes using a circuit board, a digital display and several wires. Ahmed said he first showed his invention to his engineering teacher, who gave him some advice. 'He was like, "That's really nice. I would advise you not to show that to other teachers."' He kept the clock in his bag, but it started to beep later in the day during an English class. He showed his clock to the teacher who said it looked like a bomb. He said he made the clock using a circuit board, a digital display and put it into a metal 'pencil box' [pencil box ???]. The teenager said he did not lock the box as he 'did not want it to look suspicious'. Instead he secured it with a cable. Ahmed said the principal claimed his clock looked like a 'movie bomb' [uh......because it “did” look like a ‘movie bomb’]. . . .

Why ISIS Fears Israel The National Interest / August 8, 2016 IN THE wake of the Orlando and Istanbul attacks, President Obama reiterated his determination to “destroy” ISIS by executing a strategy that combines air strikes, American special-operations units and support for local ground forces. Both of the candidates campaigning to succeed him insist that the United States must do more: Donald Trump advocates that Washington “bomb the hell out of” the group, while Hillary Clinton promises to “smash the would-be caliphate.” All three, however, are in violent agreement on one point: the overriding objective must be to destroy ISIS. The insistence on the “destruction” of ISIS has become such a reflexive linchpin of America’s counterterrorism project that few pause to consider its strategic merit. But the nation with arguably the most experience and success combatting terrorism has considered it—and found it wanting. Israelis live much closer to ISIS than do Americans. ISIS has pledged to conquer the Jewish state and incorporate it into its core caliphate. Yet surprisingly, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has rejected the option of taking the fight directly to ISIS. Instead, faced with an operational threat that could mean the death of hundreds of Israelis at any moment, it has embraced a strategy that has not even been on the U.S. policy menu. Adopting a page from the playbook the United States used to defeat revolutionary Soviet-led communism in the Cold War, Israel is preventing ISIS attacks through a strategy of patient, vigilant deterrence. Obviously, the United States cannot simply adopt the Israeli approach whole cloth. It operates in a different security environment than the Jewish state, which faces a multiplicity of terrorist threats on its borders. But there are important lessons that America can learn to enhance its national security. Israel’s approach to ISIS is straightforward. Israel seeks to persuade ISIS not to attack it by credibly threatening to retaliate. If you attack us, the thinking goes, we will respond in ways that will impose pain that exceeds any gain you can hope to achieve. As Cold War strategists learned, making this work in practice is demanding. To be effective, deterrence requires three Cs: clarity, capability and credibility. Specifically, this means clarity about the red line that cannot be crossed, communicated in language the adversary understands; capability to impose costs that greatly exceed the benefits; and credibility about the willingness to do so. Failures occur when the deterrer falls short on any one of the three Cs. So, if I draw a red line, you cross it, and I respond with words rather than the decisive punishment threatened, I fail the third C. Whatever excuse I give for not executing my threat, and however earnest my claim that next time will be different, the blunt fact is that adversaries will find my threats less credible. If that were not enough, as the great nuclear strategist Thomas Schelling taught us, successful deterrence requires more than just a threat. The flip side of the deterrence coin is an equivalent promise: if you refrain from the prohibited action, I will withhold the threatened punishment. If, for whatever reason, I decide to administer the specified punishment even though you have complied with my demands, I spend that coin—and can no longer use that threat to deter you. As the saying goes, if you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t—you might as well do. The suggestion that terrorists as vicious as ISIS could be deterred is routinely dismissed by most members of the U.S. policy community as silly or dangerously naïve. Some assert that terrorists just want to kill. Others argue that they are irrational and that, when facing adversaries who are prepared to die for their cause, threatening to kill them will have no effect. American strategists have also been traumatized by Al Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Imagine a responsible government knew that it was facing hostile terrorists who had the capability to conduct an attack that could kill hundreds. If it chose to counter that threat by attempting to deter, rather than preemptively attack, the adversary, how would that government justify itself to its citizens in the aftermath of another Paris-scale assault? ISRAELI STRATEGISTS ask all of these questions—and struggle with uncomfortable solutions. They have concluded that, however imperfect, deterrence is the best option. Indeed, the IDF believes that it is successfully deterring adversaries along all azimuths: states (Iran, Lebanon and Syria), substates (Hezbollah and Hamas) and even terrorist organizations (ISIS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda–linked groups). Israeli strategists reject the consensus view in Washington that ISIS is an ominous threat to “the entire civilized world.” In contrast to President Obama’s argument that ISIS should be the “top priority” for the IDF, it is just one more terrorist group—one that does not even make the top half of Israel’s threat matrix. As former chief of military intelligence Amos Yadlin provocatively put it, “At the end of the day, we are talking about several thousand unrestrained terrorists riding pickup trucks and firing with Kalashnikovs and machine guns.” The American counterterrorism debate has largely ignored Israeli calculus. Washington is generally averse to learning from others, and Israel’s security establishment, until recently, was reticent about revealing its thinking. That changed last August when, for the first time in the IDF’s history, Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot published an unclassified version of the IDF defense doctrine. But because the document appeared only in Hebrew, it has remained largely unknown in the American strategic community. To make it accessible, Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs recently posted an English translation of the document. The “IDF Strategy” document discusses in detail how to deter terrorist groups, specifically Hezbollah and Hamas. In the U.S. policy lexicon, Hezbollah and Hamas are labeled “terrorists.” The IDF calls them “substate organizations.” Substate actors have headquarters, hold territory and govern populations. Thus they present targets of value, making them vulnerable, like states, to a combination of “general deterrence” and “specific deterrence.” General deterrence is achieved by maintaining overwhelming military superiority and earning a reputation like that of the Godfather. The Godfather “takes everything personal.” As his consigliere observed, “If a bolt of lightning hit a friend of his the old man would take it personal. . . . Accidents don’t happen to people who take accidents as a personal insult.” In Eizenkot’s words, Israel must be seen as “an unpredictable enemy that can react in a very severe way.” Specific deterrence is tailored to each enemy and focuses on particular actions. It requires “an ongoing analysis of the enemy’s characteristics, considerations, capabilities, identity, and decision making processes.” Israel seeks to influence the “calculations” of its enemies directly by persuading them of “the futility of continuing to fight” and reminding them of the “outcome of previous confrontations.” The IDF constantly worries about whether its deterrent is sufficiently strong. It works daily to ensure that it meets each and every condition required for success. Red lines are clearly, publicly and repeatedly announced by top Israeli officials not only in Hebrew, but also in Arabic. Israel’s capability to enforce these red lines is demonstrated by “building a force that is partially visible to the enemy.” Credibility is enhanced by taking “limited offensive actions to signal that the ‘rules of the game’ have been broken.” And it is careful to withhold punishment otherwise. (Indeed, Israeli policymakers have occasionally chosen not only to avoid punishment but to reward good behavior, for example, in supporting the reconstruction of Gaza even though Hamas uses some of the material Israel supplies to build tunnels and rockets.) Israel sees Hezbollah as the “most severe threat.” A proxy of Iran, it has assembled an arsenal of more than one hundred thousand missiles and rockets aimed at Israel—many of them precision-guided with the ability to hit strategic targets, including the equivalent of the Pentagon in Tel Aviv. Hamas, whose charter pledges to “raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine” occupied by “warmongering Jews,” stands second among substates whose attacks must be deterred. It has fought three wars against Israel in the past decade. During the Second Intifada, Hamas perfected the suicide bomb and used it to kill hundreds of Israeli civilians. Today, the group has thousands of rockets and is burrowing tunnels into Israeli territory for future attacks. (Israel has discovered a number of tunnels in recent months, each buried one hundred feet underground.) How does the IDF meet threats posed by these groups? Not by direct attacks to degrade them; not by all-out war to destroy them. Instead, it attempts to deter them. As Yadlin explained, “Vis-a-vis Hamas and Hezbollah, we haven’t destroyed their capabilities, but we were able to establish deterrence. And this is basically because we hit them hard, and because the terrorists became . . . half-state entities. . . . The terrorists have discovered that when they are responsible for their economy, for education, for the life of their people, suddenly they are not that daring to use terror all day.” Of course, deterrence is not the only strand in Israel’s strategy to counter its enemies. Full-spectrum prevention of terrorist attacks includes detection (deep penetration to identify threats), defense (such as the Iron Dome missile-defense system and secure walls or fences on all borders) and decisive defeat (when, despite best efforts, attackers succeed). While many states, including the United States, invest heavily in similar efforts, Israel is unique in its placing deterrence at the core of its counterterrorism strategy. The IDF accepts the fact that this strategy sometimes fails. When it does, Israeli citizens die. But Israel’s national-security community still considers deterrence better than any feasible alternative for meeting threats posed by its substate adversaries. And after each conflict, the IDF has redoubled efforts to establish a new level of deterrence. Israeli security professionals readily admit that they cannot successfully deter all terrorists. In particular, lone wolves who conduct terrorist attacks with little preparation remain a persistent, unsolved problem. Only days before the Orlando attack, Israel experienced its own lone-wolf attack in which two Palestinian cousins using homemade guns killed four civilians at an upscale shopping mall in Tel Aviv. Israel’s security establishment has tried to deter future lone-wolf terrorists by demolishing the attackers’ homes and taking other punitive actions against their families and communities. Nonetheless, Eizenkot noted recently, “I have to stress the fact that there is virtually no way to stop every terrorist planning a stabbing attack.” TO MEET the threat of ISIS today, the IDF is following essentially the same script. Officials have been reticent about discussing details of the strategy in public, but its outlines are clear in the IDF doctrine, and senior Israeli military officials confirmed this reading of the strategy in recent off-the-record meetings. In stark contrast with the United States, Israel sees ISIS as just one more armed group fighting in Syria alongside Al Qaeda and other terrorist affiliates. For each of these adversaries, as well as for state actors including Iran and Assad, Israel has conveyed three “red lines”: no attacks on Israel; no transfer of advanced conventional weapons (namely precision-guided missiles and rockets) to terrorist groups that threaten Israel; and no transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups. The “dozens” of Israeli airstrikes in Syria that Prime Minister Netanyahu recently acknowledged are calculated components of a strategy that reminds all adversaries of the cost of even minor violations of its rules. It was no accident that Israel reportedly killed a prominent Iranian general last year on the Syrian Golan Heights as he surveilled the Israeli border, planning strikes on Israel. Nor was it coincidental that Israel reportedly killed Hezbollah operations officer Samir Kuntar in December—after Israel discovered him plotting attacks on Israelis. On its immediate border, Israel faces two ISIS affiliates: Wilayat Sinai (Sinai Province) on the Egyptian peninsula, and the Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights. While both are small, their proximity and firepower concern Israeli military leaders. Despite their capability to attack at a moment’s notice, both have exercised restraint. Since declaring allegiance to ISIS in November 2014, Wilayat Sinai has focused primarily on fighting the Egyptian security forces, not Israel. Its most noteworthy success was the downing of a Russian airliner in the Sinai in October 2015, which did not kill or injure any Israelis. On the Golan, the Yarmouk Brigade controls a ten-square-kilometer area where some forty thousand civilians live. Despite the fact that the group stands, as one Israeli newspaper put it, “several hundred meters away from reaching Israeli school buses,” it has not conducted a single attack against Israel. Israeli strategists emphasize relevant similarities between ISIS, Hamas and Hezbollah: each controls territory, attempts to govern a population and, therefore, has something to lose. Even though ISIS propaganda recently declared in flawless Hebrew that “soon there will not be one Jew left in Jerusalem,” the groups have largely refrained from attacking Israel. The reason, according to Eizenkot’s predecessor, Benny Gantz, is that “they would lose,” and in doing so risk their population and assets. ISIS leaders appear to have heard this message. As a German journalist who was embedded with ISIS in 2014 explained, “The only country ISIS fears is Israel. They told me they know the Israeli army is too strong for them.” Could the United States deter ISIS? At least one of President Obama’s speechwriters thought so. At the National Counterterrorism Center in December, the president directed his remarks to ISIS leaders: “We’re sending a message: If you target Americans, you will have no safe haven.” If I were teaching Strategy 101 next semester, this statement would lead my weekly quiz. The assignment would simply reproduce the quote and say: “Assess.” Any student unable to explain why the president’s threat fails to satisfy the elementary requirements for successful deterrence would not receive a passing grade. Obama made this threat just days after ISIS’s attack in Paris, which killed 130 people. His objective was to dissuade ISIS leaders from ordering a similar attack on the United States. If you attack us, the president warned, America will respond by attacking you. Students of deterrence would remind Obama that he is already conducting a campaign of air strikes and special-operations raids that he says aims to kill ISIS’s leaders and destroy the organization—before they attack the homeland. Moreover, he has argued at length why, he believes, the current campaign includes everything the United States can productively do to destroy ISIS. Thus, his attempt to deter ISIS by threatening more rings hollow. A few months from now, a newly elected president will be thinking about how he—or she—will deal with ISIS. One can be sure that the president-elect will ask her/his national-security team to conduct a fundamental reassessment of the war against ISIS, Al Qaeda and the dozen related strains of Islamic jihadi terrorism. A serious review would begin with recognition of a brute fact: a decade and a half beyond the 9/11 attacks and President Bush’s declaration of a “War on Terrorism,” the United States undoubtedly faces more terrorists determined to do harm than when this effort began. In anticipation of that review, the analytic community should be studying Israel’s playbook now. The United States is not Israel. Deterrence is not the only strand in Israel’s defense strategy. Not every strategy that works for Israel is appropriate for America. At this point in the fight against ISIS, it is hard to imagine a path back to a posture of containment and deterrence. But as America confronts the next ISIS, or indeed, the next dozen strains or mutations of this cancer, the United States is unlikely to have the resources and will to send even American drones and special-operations forces to every ungoverned space or valley ruled by a hostile terrorist group. Standing as they do on the front line confronting deadly threats 24/7, Israel offers what Eizenkot has called a “laboratory” of security. It is not too late to begin a debate about how lessons learned by Israel’s security community can enrich America’s conceptual arsenal for countering terrorism in what promises to be a very long war.

How Bush's Bad Idea that Turkey Could Join the EU Bombed The National Interest / August 8, 2016 It was 2004, and the geopolitical chess pieces were positioned very differently from how they are today. Back then, Turkey wanted to join the European Union, Great Britain thought that that was a magnificent idea and France was skeptical. Oddest of all, the most vocal advocacy for Turkish accession and democratic reform came from an unlikely alliance of then-president George W. Bush and then-prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. An Associated Press photo from 2002 shows the two of them sitting together, grinning for the camera, with the former’s hair and the latter’s mustache having yet to gray. Bush’s support for Turkey had precedent. American presidents have historically backed EU enlargements, viewing a stronger Europe as strategically preferable. Clinton-era diplomats had also been receptive to Ankara’s ambitions, helping Turkey secure status as a candidate for membership at the Helsinki Summit in 1999. But the forcefulness of Bush’s advocacy was surprising: “We join you side-by-side in your desire to become a member of the European Union,” he declared while sitting next to Erdogan in 2002. Two years later, he was even more explicit, asserting in Istanbul that “as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union,” and comparing the geopolitical line between the two entities to the division of Germany at Yalta. Bush’s tone ruffled French President Jacques Chirac’s feathers, whose stance on Turkish membership was lukewarm to begin with, who groused that “not only did [Bush] go too far, but he went into territory that isn’t his.” He fussed: “it was a bit as if I were to tell Americans how they should handle their relationship with Mexico.” But Bush was never one to be swayed by Chirac, and in 2006, a year after Turkey’s accession talks with the EU began, the former again encouraged admission. There were several reasons for America to prefer a Turkey inside the EU. Strategically, the White House wanted Turkey fully behind its Iraq policy, a request Ankara shrewdly tethered to its EU accession. Economically, membership would ensure stability for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which transports oil out of the Caspian Sea and terminates in Turkey. Politically, Turkey was home of Ataturk, burial ground of the last recognized caliphate, a rare secular democracy in a Middle East gripped by dictatorships. It’s that last one that likely intrigued Bush. When it came to geopolitics, the forty-third president was a big-picture thinker who disdained what he called “mini-ball” and preferred boldfaced words to fine print: a democracy in the Muslim world joining up with Europe would advance the cause of freedom. Smaller issues, and even somewhat larger ones like Turkey’s refusal to recognize EU member Cyprus, were squashed in his mind by enduring and abstract concepts. Bush also wanted to short-circuit the narrative that the war on terror was a religious crusade against Islam. Accordingly, he contended that Turkish accession would “expose the ‘clash of civilizations’ as a passing myth of history.” To Bush, the great ideological tug-of-war in the Middle East was between the democratic West and the dark theocracies favored by Islamists, and he was determined that the former win out so Muslims could be free. To usher Turkey into the EU, to claim it for the good guys, would have been a heady moral victory. Bush never accounted for a potential authoritarian reversion in Turkey; he certainly never imagined the EU could be seen as anything less than democratic. His perception was enhanced by Ankara, which did a lot during this period to allay Western suspicions over its history of coups. For example, passed a suite of reform packages that diminished the military’s power. Alas, a lot changed 2004: the Iraq war went south, Syria was immersed in chaos, refugees flooded into Europe, Germany throttled Greece with failed economic reforms, discontent with the EU spread, Britain voted for Brexit, Erdogan took a sudden dictatorial plunge and tens of thousands in Turkey were detained after a coup attempt. Bush’s idealistic hopes were crashed on the shoals of reality. Meanwhile, Turkish negotiations with the EU have been mired for over a decade. The impedimental Cyprus issue still remains unresolved, and the Cypriots have vetoed several of the requisite accession chapters. While Turkey once sought to meet EU standards, today the EU is scrambling to appease Turkey so an agreement on the migrant crisis doesn’t get scrapped. Ankara is threatening to pull out of talks unless it’s granted visa-free travel within the Schengen Area—which would play into the hands of European nationalists, which could weaken the EU even further. Turkish membership has also grown unpopular; in Britain, it was a potent issue for the successful Leave campaign. Surely this isn’t what George W. Bush had in mind. Today, the prospects for a European Turkey appear bleaker than ever. The chessboard is almost unrecognizable.

Donald J. Trump? Never. The National Interest / August 8, 2016 There was a brief moment when I thought I might hold my nose yet vote for Donald Trump in the presidential election. I found myself in agreement with several elements of the late April 2016 foreign-policy speech that he delivered hosted by the National Interest. He appeared to extend an olive branch to Israel and the Arabs, and even to the NATO allies, although he insisted that they fulfill their commitments to increase their level of defense spending to 2 percent of GDP. He also outlined in more detail than previously his vision of what America’s defense posture should look like. He supported strategic nuclear modernization, a robust missile-defense posture, and an increase in Army end-strength, in the size of the fleet and in that of the Air Force. Even Trump’s posture toward Russia seemed a bit more balanced than was previously the case. He made it clear that he would only engage that country from a position of strength. Trump did not convince me, though I am a lifelong Republican who intends to vote for all the other of my party’s candidates whose names will appear on the ballot in November. His staunchly negative attitude toward free trade worried me; I felt that his stance was the canary in the neoisolationist coal mine. I was concerned that he seemed cavalier about the possibility that his insouciance toward both trade and alliances would lead Japan and South Korea down the road of developing an independent nuclear capability. I did not see how his self-vaunted negotiating skills would bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians; to the contrary, his meddling was likely to drive them further apart. I could not abide by his proposals to deport eleven million illegal immigrants, many of them Hispanic, and to build a wall on the Mexican border. He mistakenly characterized those illegal immigrants as Mexican rapists and criminals when the majority of these people actually hailed from elsewhere in Latin America and were less likely to commit violent crimes than were American citizens. Finally, I remained deeply troubled by his attitude toward Muslims, which not only threatened America’s relationships with Sunni states already uneasy about American reliability, but smacked of racism that hearkened back to the 1930s, when the Klan hounded Blacks, Jews and Catholics, and “America First” was the watchword of bigots. For all that, I felt Trump had turned a corner with his National Interest speech, that perhaps he had begun to listen to those advisors who were encouraging him to moderate his tone. I was wrong. His subsequent behavior has demonstrated time and again that the only voice he really seems to hear is his own, and that without a teleprompter, he remains the quintessential rabble rouser, who pays little if any attention to the consequences of what he offers to cheering crowds. Trump has doubled down on his critique of NATO, to the point where he has created the impression among the members of that alliance that it is of no value to him, and, by extension, neither are they. He has not modified his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is meant to be a major symbol of America’s role as a Pacific power. Nor has he altered the impression that he has few if any qualms about Japan and South Korea going nuclear, or, for that matter, going it alone. While his hostility to China remains undiminished, his mildness toward Russia has persisted as well. Moreover, his astounding ignorance of, and seeming indifference to, current events—notably that Russia invaded Ukraine—calls into question whether he has any real ideas about international security other than those he reads from his teleprompter. Yet none of the foregoing has led me to conclude that I could under no circumstances vote for Donald Trump. Rather, it is his behavior, his thin-skinned narcissism and particularly his acting out of the many incendiary statements he seems to enjoy tossing out, that have rendered him completely unfit for the highest office in the land. His attack on the Hispanic heritage of an American-born federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University smacked of a degree of racism that could not even be termed “thinly veiled.” His clashes with the Khan family, American Muslims who lost their son in Iraq, were completely out of the bounds of common decency. And his mimicking of a disabled reporter, now widely televised in a Clinton campaign ad, was nothing short of a disgrace. I am fortunate to have been blessed with many grandchildren. Five of them are either teens, or are preteens. Their parents have brought them up to be upstanding young citizens, respectful of both the men and women who wear our country’s uniform as well as of persons who may not look or pray as they do. I cannot abide by the prospect that Donald Trump would be their president, and thereby offer them a role model that runs totally counter to the values that have been instilled in them. Every candidate has faults—Hillary Clinton certainly has no shortage—but Donald Trump is beyond the pale. He is a disgrace to the Republican party, and, far more important, to the United States and all it stands for.

Hillary Clinton? Never. The National Interest / August 8, 2016 When Bill and Hillary Clinton arrived in Washington as president and first lady in 1993, the Wall Street Journal editorial page went on the attack, suggesting they brought with them from Arkansas a brand of politics that was inherently corrupt, with personal gain routinely and consistently factored into official decision making. The paper took a lot of heat for this line of editorial criticism in the absence of definitive proof of mendacity on the part of the new president and his wife. Then came the cattle-futures scandal, in which Hillary hauled down a $98,540 profit in cattle futures in less than a year of trading on a $1,000 investment, without maintaining the normally required fund reserve to diminish the risk of leverage. Further, she was advised on the matter by an outside lawyer for Tyson Foods, a giant Arkansas company with big interests before the state government, where Bill Clinton served as attorney general and then governor. Thus began a pattern that has led us to Hillary Clinton now as the Democratic presidential nominee even as multiple polls indicate that fully two thirds of Americans consider her dishonest and untrustworthy. During the Clinton White House years, following the cattle-futures scandal, came "travelgate," "filegate," and the Whitewater land investment scandal, in which a box of missing papers, under subpoena for two years, miraculously appeared in the White House living quarters—but only in copy form; the originals were never recovered. It seemed that the Clintons were constantly mired in scandal or hints of scandal, always struggling to stay ahead of nettlesome little revelations that raised persistent questions about their ethical rectitude. There can be no doubt that these episodes from the distant past, combined with Hillary Clinton’s more recent ethical lapses related to her doing public business on a private email server, have contributed to her reputation as a person who can’t be trusted to tell the truth or conduct herself strictly on the up and up. Does it matter? That’s for the voters to decide. But every voting booth decision requires a multidimensional analysis that includes an assessment of the favorable and unfavorable attributes of each candidate. Herewith an assessment of Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable attributes, constituting a case against her. This isn’t designed to be definitive for any voting decision but rather a warning that all candidates have downsides, and Clinton’s are significant. One could argue, in fact, that the Democratic Party was reckless in granting her the nomination, given her past embroilment in scandal and prospects that new revelations could catch up with her during the campaign or through her presidency. Although FBI Director James Comey didn’t recommend an indictment against her related to her email server, he said she was "extremely careless" in her handling of "very sensitive, highly classified information." Thus, he declined to take actions to destroy her candidacy and left it to voters to assess the magnitude of her lapses. But the recklessness of her behavior is reflected in questions now being raised about whether damaging new revelations about her could be forthcoming from hackers, foreign or domestic, who gained knowledge of her activity via her unprotected server. Security experts have suggested there is a strong likelihood that China, Russia and other hackers gained access to all 63,000 emails on Clinton’s private, unprotected server—including the 33,000 she destroyed under the contention that they were merely personal and had nothing to do with her official actions and decisions. But if those emails contain evidence of questionable actions, as the Wall Street Journal’s L. Gordon Crovitz has argued, Russian President Vladimir Putin "will have the capacity to blackmail her at will" should she become president. What kind of evidence of questionable actions could be found there? We don’t know, but it would be imprudent to dismiss the possibility that it could be related to the Clinton Foundation, that international good-works institution created by Bill Clinton that doubles as a repository of political/financial power for the Clintons. It has served as a lucrative way station for Clinton cronies waiting for Hillary Clinton’s next campaign. It has positioned Bill Clinton to collect huge speaking fees from major overseas and American corporations and from foreign governments—some $105 million for 542 speeches between the time he left the White House and the time Hillary left her job as secretary of state, according to the Washington Post. It has rewarded Clinton friends and political allies within a Clinton network that constitutes a potent political force. The foundation, we learn (though not from the Clintons), continued to receive money from foreign governments even during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state, although she had promised that no such money would be accepted during her public service. The money flowed in from such countries as Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Swiss bank UBS contributed some $500,000 after Secretary Clinton helped settle an IRS problem dogging the bank. The Associated Press reported that Hillary Clinton excised from her official State Department calendar some seventy-five meetings she held with "longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors, and corporate and other outside interests." Was there actual corruption going on here in the form of quid pro quos, or merely the appearance of corruption? We don’t know, though those 33,000 emails may hold the key to that question. But, in any event, we see a pattern that first came to light with the cattle futures scandal—big sums of money flowing to the Clintons as they conducted official business to the benefit of the individuals and organizations providing the money. Leaving aside the corruption question, the Clinton Foundation represents a giant stride toward American oligarchy—the flow of power from the people at large to clever and connected elites who know how to game the system to their political and financial advantage. It is noteworthy that, in this year of seething political anger directed against the country’s elites, Hillary Clinton is emerging as the likely next president even as she projects herself as the embodiment of what is stirring all that national anger. Which brings us to another major element in the case against Hillary Clinton. She will give us, as many have suggested, Barack Obama’s third term. The country is deeply divided on the Obama presidency, and it’s appropriate that Americans should debate his legacy as his departure nears after White House eight years. But, whatever one may say about him, it can’t be denied that he failed to solve the country’s crisis of deadlock. When the country needed a new paradigm of governmental thinking to break the deadlock and move the country in a new direction, he doubled down on the stale old politics perpetuating the political stalemate of our time. There is no reason to believe Hillary Clinton would break the deadlock. She represents the politics of old when the country desperately seeks something fresh, capable of scrambling up the old political fault lines and forging new political coalitions that can give propulsion to a struggling America. Hence, under her leadership, we likely will see the continuation of the current deadlock crisis for another four years. That’s a long time for that kind of crisis to fester, generating ever greater anger, frustration and civic tension.

Your truck was available with several rear (drive) axle options, and hence could have one of several seals. What did your Mack dealer tell you when you supplied them with your truck's model and serial number off the vehicle identification plate located on the driver's door ? What did your heavy truck parts house say when you supplied them with the number off of the old seal ?

There are some beautiful women in Turkey, no doubt about it. Many of the attractive women in Germany today are from Turkey. Come to IAA.