kscarbel2

Aaron Blake, The Washington Post / January 27, 2017 President Trump's first week in office has been marked by two things, controversy and executive orders. The first is old hat for Trump. But for casual observers — and even some political junkies who are paying close attention to Trump's policy moves — the second might be a little foreign. Trump signed two more executive orders on Friday, attempting to fulfill his promise of “extreme vetting” to keep potential “radical Islamic terrorists” out of the United States. What is an executive order? Basically, an executive order is an official statement from the president about how the federal agencies he oversees are to use their resources. It falls under the broader umbrella of “executive actions,” which derive their power from Article II of the Constitution, and it is the most formal executive action. Executive actions also include presidential memorandums (which are a step below executive orders and basically outline the administration's position on a policy issue), proclamations and directives. An executive order is not the president creating new law or appropriating new money from the U.S. Treasury — both things that are the domain of Congress; it is the president instructing the government how it is to work within the parameters that are already set by Congress and the Constitution. Trump's executive order on building a border wall, for example, basically establishes building the wall as a federal priority and directs the Department of Homeland Security to use already-available funding to get the ball rolling on its construction. The president's executive orders are recorded in the Federal Register and are considered binding, but they are subject to legal review. (More on that next.) How can a president do this? In a word: carefully. Executive orders have often been the subject of controversy, with the opposition party accusing the president of overstepping his authority and acting like a dictator. Basically, they're arguing that he's changing the law rather than working within it. This came up most recently after former president Barack Obama signed executive orders exempting the children of illegal immigrants and parents of legal children from deportation. They are known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — or DACA — and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents — or DAPA. The plans would shield about 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, but Republican governors and attorneys general have sued, alleging that Obama was essentially implementing immigration reform on his own — overstepping his authority. In June, the Supreme Court deadlocked, leaving a federal judge's ruling blocking the programs in place. And questions have already arisen about the legality of an early Trump executive order involving illegal immigration: his order denying federal funding to sanctuary cities. Expect a court fight there, too. What is the history of executive orders? They have been around for as long as we've had presidents, in fact — all the way back to George Washington. Some of the most historically significant — whether for good or ill — include: The Emancipation Proclamation (Abraham Lincoln) The suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War (Lincoln) Sending federal troops to integrate Little Rock, Ark., schools (Dwight Eisenhower) The internment of Japanese Americans (Franklin Roosevelt) The desegregation of the Armed Forces (Harry Truman) How do Trump's number and scope of executive orders compare, historically? While Trump's first days in office have seemed to be full of executive actions, that's not really all that uncommon. A new president often shows up with many directives for the agencies he takes oversight of. Back in 2009, for example, Obama signed nine executive orders in his first 10 days and 16 total in January and February. Trump is under that curve so far. Through his first seven days, he has signed six executive orders (along with eight memorandums and one proclamation). Of course, many executive orders can be pretty mundane; the true measure is how far he goes with his orders. That's a measurement that's both subjective and subject to legal review. To judge for yourself, see the orders and memorandums for yourself here. Trump's executive orders before Friday — the border wall, sanctuary cities, beginning the repeal of Obamacare and expediting the Keystone XL pipeline — rankled Democrats who disagree with those policies. And that is even more the case with Friday's executive orders, which Democrats have argued amount to a thinly veiled ban on Muslim immigrants and refugees. Whether any of them overstep Trump's authority or the spirit of the Constitution, though, is a debate that will occur in the coming weeks and months. What are the political advantages and disadvantages of executive orders? Executive actions are sometimes derogatorily referred to as “legislating by executive order” — basically, what a president does when Congress won't comply with his wishes. That's not always the case — especially on more minor executive orders — but often, it is. Obama's executive orders on immigration, for example, came after years of failed attempts at comprehensive immigration reform, and Obama cited those failures when pitching the need for executive action that even he once suggested was beyond his authority. And any president would rather have Congress's stamp of approval on something controversial like that. The political downside to executive orders, then, basically boils down to two things: 1) Getting struck down by the courts, and 2) Looking like you can't pass your agenda through Congress and are acting as an all-powerful executive — in a system designed to limit absolute power. The upside is, of course, that you can try to do this all by yourself, with just the stroke of a pen. (And then hope for the best.)

Transport Topics / January 23, 2017 Equipment and component manufacturers are using new designs and materials such as aluminum to remove weight from Class 8 tractors, which helps fleets increase payload and maximize fuel efficiency. This movement toward lighter materials also helps original equipment manufacturers offset the additional weight from emission-reduction systems and aerodynamic devices that help them meet federal greenhouse-gas regulations. “As more weight is added to the vehicle, we’re looking for ways to neutralize that weight by reducing the weight of our products,” said Craig Kessler, vice president of engineering for wheels at Accuride Corp., a component manufacturer. C.R. England, a refrigerated carrier based in Salt Lake City, has calculated the fuel economy impact of a pound on its total cost of ownership. It estimates it at 98 cents for a three-year trade cycle for a tractor. “You need to know what that number is when you’re spec’ing a piece of equipment so you know the value of that weight savings,” said Ron Hall, vice president of equipment and fuel at C.R. England, which ranks No. 23 on the Transport Topics Top 100 list of the largest for-hire carriers in the United States and Canada. Andrew Halonen, president of Mayflower Consulting and co-author of a lightweighting study published by the North American Council for Freight Efficiency, said the amount carriers are willing to pay is dictated by what they haul. “You have 100 out of 100 people who want weight reduction but only one out of 100 who will pay for it,” he said. Halonen said the tank truck market will pay up to $12 a pound for weight savings, reefer carriers are willing pay $2 to $4 per pound, but dry van operations will pay only $2 per pound or less. JD Rutt, vice president of business development for Sapa Extrusions, a manufacturer of aluminum extrusion products and chairman of the heavy-truck working group for the Aluminum Association, said a move to aluminum can result in a 25% to 30% reduction in weight on a given part. C.R. England has taken several steps to remove about 1,000 pounds from its intermodal day cab tractors, Hall said. This includes removing the passenger seat, spec’ing a smaller engine and using an aluminum fifth wheel. OEMs and fleets want decreased weight, said Bryan Redeker, product manager for SAF-Holland Inc., a component manufacturer. “It helps when you hear it from both sides of the spectrum,” he said. SAF-Holland’s aluminum top plate fifth wheel, FWAL, for example, saves about 100 pounds, he said. In certain trucking sectors, such as bulk hauling, that can add up. Redeker estimates a bulk hauler handling two loads daily can carry an additional 73,000 pounds annually. Dupré Logistics, a bulk carrier based in Lafayette, Louisiana, specs aluminum fifth wheels. “Lightweight equipment is very important to our operations because we often want to achieve the maximum payload,” said Scott Allen, director of fleet assets and maintenance at the company, which ranks No. 97 on the for-hire TT100. Paul Rosa, senior vice president of procurement and fleet planning for Penske Truck Leasing, based in Reading, Pennsylvania, said an aluminum fifth wheel makes sense when a tractor is coupled to the same trailer the majority of the time. “It would be riskier to use if you have a high drop and hook operation where a driver could misalign when coupling. The trailer king pin could damage the aluminum fifth wheel, requiring replacement of the top plate,” he said. Aluminum is providing savings in other truck equipment, too. Jim McManus, national sales director for metal matrix composite technologies at Accuride Corp., said the company plans to release an aluminum composite brake drum in 2018 that weighs 62 pounds, a significant reduction compared with a typical cast-iron drum that weighs 113 pounds. Aluminum drive axles also are an option, but very few people will pay for them, said Steve Slesinski, director of global product strategy, planning and management at Dana Corp. On a tractor, Arconic’s lightest forged aluminum wheel offering can save up to 300 pounds per tractor, said Merrick Murphy, president of wheel and transportation products at Arconic, which manufactures Alcoa-brand wheels. The weight reduction is a result of both design and material. Alcoa Inc. split into two companies — Alcoa Corp. and Arconic on Nov. 1. Trucks, as part of its SuperTruck design, reduced the weight of the chassis by 700 pounds by replacing steel with aluminum, said Derek Rotz, director of advanced engineering for parent company Daimler Trucks North America. Additional weight savings were achieved by redesigning the cross members and shortening the wheelbase. The costs of lighter weight materials vary, Rotz said. “For example, switching from vertical to horizontal exhaust should save weight and money. Whereas, switching from a manual transmission to automated transmission will cost more up front,” he said. Several commercially viable technologies developed in conjunction with the SuperTruck program have been introduced in DTNA production vehicles, including a 6x2 axle configuration, horizontal exhaust and smaller fuel tanks, Rotz said. Meanwhile, Eaton Corp. has reduced the weight of its transmissions though different materials, including aluminum, and structural improvements, said Mihai Dorobantu, director of technology planning and government affairs. Dan Caranno, director of fleet maintenance at less-than-truckload carrier A. Duie Pyle, based in West Chester, Pennsylvania, said, there is no single silver bullet to trim vehicle weight. “You’re inching 10 pounds here, 20 pounds there,” he said. “You’re trying to shave the weight but not affect the integrity of the vehicle.” In its weight-sensitive dedicated accounts, A. Duie Pyle and has opted for a 13-liter engine instead of a 15-liter to save weight, Caranno said. A. Duie Pyle ranks No. 73 on the for-hire TT100. But not all fleets can move away from a 15-liter engine. Engine maker Cummins Inc. has developed a single module after-treatment system for its 2017 15-liter engines that will result in 80 to 100 pounds in weight savings, said Clint Garrett, product manager for Cummins’ X15 and ISX15 engines. Katherine Scheidt, product manager for Cummins X12 and ISX12 engines, said the company’s next generation 12-liter product will also have a lighter weight aftertreatment system and has achieved additional weight savings through design and composites on some components, such as the valve cover and oil pans. Overall, design changes rather than material changes can help manage cost, said Keith McComsey, director of marketing and customer solutions for Bendix Spicer Foundation Brake. Bendix offers low-weight brake chambers, which save 1.5 pounds per chamber, or about six pounds per vehicle. Dorobantu said Eaton has saved weight by combining multiple connections within the same assembly, such as valve actuation with the engine brake technology. Meritor Inc. also has removed weight by turning two separate components into one. “With our MFS+ front axle, we’ve taken the knuckle and tie rod arm and made them one part. That eliminated fasteners,” said John Bennett, general manager for global product strategy. Meritor said its 6x2 axle saves 400 pounds compared with a typical 6x4 configuration. When coupled with single wide-base tires versus standard duals, the savings can reach 800 pounds. John Nelligan, vice president of sales and service, said Meritor’s RT-145A axle saves about 60 pounds due to the aluminum. Through design, Dana removed about 40 pounds from the Spicer AdvanTEK 40 tandem drive axle. Dana Inc. has also integrated the ADB22X air disk brake mounting into the steer axle knuckle, saving 76 pounds compared with a bolted-on design on 13,200-pound rated steer axles. The company is launching a new drive shaft this month that will reduce weight by 20 to 30 pounds depending on the application, said Tom Bosler, director of global product planning at Dana’s commercial vehicle products group. SAF-Holland has taken weight out of its vocational air suspensions, with the Neway ADZ suspensions saving about 300 pounds per tandem compared with the Neway AD suspension, said Jason Heath, product manager of Neway truck, bus and RV suspensions. Ultimately, fleets said the available weight saving options have to make sense for their operations. “We make recommendations of lightweight components that we feel offer the best value without increasing the likelihood of added expense due to a higher damage risk,” Penske’s Rosa said.

Our traditional allies, with the exception of Japan, are not managing well at all to defend themselves. http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/46404-what-the-us-should-learn-from-britain’s-dying-navy/#comment-341940

Commercial Carrier Journal / January 27, 2017 Elaine Chao is in line for what could be a multi-million-dollar payout from Wells Fargo should she be confirmed as the U.S. Department of Transportation secretary, according to her financial disclosure form filed with the U.S. Senate and reports of her Wells Fargo stock’s value. Investigative reporting outlet The Intercept estimates Chao’s total payout, staggered over five years, will be worth $1 million to $5 million. Part of the estimate’s range reflects the unknown value of Wells Fargo stock at each payout. Chao’s disclosure does not list how many shares of Wells Fargo she owns. Chao writes in her disclosure statement she’ll “receive a cash payout for my deferred stock compensation” upon her confirmation of the DOT gig. She’ll receive 48 percent of her stock compensation in July, according to her disclosure form. She’ll receive another 29 percent in March 2018, 15 percent in March 2019 and 4 percent each in March 2020 and March 2021, according to her statement. Chao was selected by President Trump in December to head the DOT. She’s been favorably recommended by the Senate’s Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, and she’s scheduled to appear before the full Senate next week for a hearing. The Senate is expected to confirm Chao with little opposition. Chao’s no stranger to D.C. She labor secretary under President George W. Bush. She also was second in command at DOT under President George H.W. Bush. She’s also held other major jobs, including vice president of Bank of America, president and CEO of the United Way and president and CEO of the Peace Corps. She is on the Wells Fargo board of directors and holds advisory roles at Vulcan Materials, Ingersoll Rand, News Corporation, Ford’s Theatre and the Hudson Institute, according to her disclosure statement. Chao says in she will resign from all positions if confirmed as the DOT Secretary. Related reading - http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/47088-lawmakers-to-wells-fargo-ceo-why-shouldnt-you-be-in-jail/#comment-347322

My personal opinion, from an "up close" perspective, is that our Navy, Marines and Coast Guard are seriously underfunded.

I didn't mean to imply that. My principal point is that our armed forced have been underfunded for decades. The Navy, Marines and Coast Guard need a massive funding boost to reach what I'll define as "normal"...........or today's threats (ect. DF-21 cruise missile). If I had my way, I'd put the Air Force back under the Army.

In 1972, the United States had 17 aircraft carriers. Stop and think of that global footprint for a moment. But by 1976, we were down to 13. We had 13 from 1986 to 1994. And then, the new reduced capability standard of 12 from 1994 to 2006. 11, from 2007 to 2012. And then 10 from 2013 to the present. Every President from Ford on has been under-funding the U.S. Navy, and today a review of our naval bases will quickly tell you that it is a mere shell of its former self. Newport News Shipbuilding, the carrier "factory", is less than half as busy as it once was (I've long been troubled that in modern times, NNS is the "only" designer, builder and refueler of the nuclear carriers........never put all your eggs in one basket.). It says something that the U.S. Marines can be the world's most formidable fighting force even though they have been under-funded for decades as well. And we all know how under-funded the Coast Guard has long been. The scrapped carriers, though legendary (e.g. Forrestal), were old. Of course, who doesn't have a warm place in their heart for the "Big E". I rode the Nimitz out on its first cruise. The Exocet cruise missile that sunk the HMS Sheffield during the Falklands war though opened everyone's eyes once and for all to the modern day vulnerability of the aircraft carrier. Nothing like having forces forward positioned, but if they can so easily be taken out.............. I don't see the Ford-Class carriers as being any less vulnerable. Based on what we read, it's puzzling how we allow our defense contractors to be hacked, placing our current and next generation defense systems into the hands of our would-be adversaries.

C'mon Paul. You can't blame are Navy's unacceptably small size, including carriers, on Obama. Any ex-Navy man can tell you that our Navy has been shrinking since the end of the Vietnam war. I myself want a return to a large and well-funded Navy. But every presidential administration since Nixon has underfunded the Navy. As a result, for example, rather than buy similar replacements for the "purpose-designed" A6 bomber and F-14 air superiority fighter, the Navy was forced to buy an inferior flying compromise, the F-18, saddled with both missions, all because they weren't funded to do the right thing. Our oldest Ohio Class ballistic submarines are as old as 41 years, and their replacement (Columbia Class) is still a 3D picture. By 1990, President H.W. Bush had sent our four battleships (Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey and Wisconsin), which had figured so prominently during the first Iraq War, back into retirement. These platforms, modernized, had (have) vast potential. Nothing send a "message" better than the sight of a dreadnought. (And there's also the strong argument that the aircraft carrier, with today's weapons in mind, is a sitting duck. That's a now vulnerable critical wheel need to cleverly re-invent.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1972-1978 DATE ^ 6/30/72 6/30/73 6/30/74 6/30/75 6/30/76 6/30/77 9/30/78 BATTLESHIPS - - - - - - - CARRIERS 17 16 14 15 13 13 13 CRUISERS 27 29 28 27 26 26 28 DESTROYERS 132 139 119 102 99 92 95 FRIGATES 66 71 64 64 64 64 65 SUBMARINES 94 84 73 75 74 77 81 SSBNS 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 COMMAND SHIPS - - - - - - - MINE WARFARE 31 34 34 34 25 25 25 PATROL 16 14 14 14 13 6 3 AMPHIBIOUS 77 65 65 64 65 65 67 AUXILIARY 153 148 135 123 116 114 113 SURFACE WARSHIPS 225 239 211 193 189 182* 188 TOTAL ACTIVE 654 641 587 559 536 523 531 EVENTS • Last U.S. forces withdraw from South Vietnam following the ceasefire 1973. • South Vietnam falls to North Vietnamese communists 1975. NOTES ^ Beginning with FY 78, the fiscal year runs 1 October through 30 September. * Post-Vietnam low for surface warships. U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1979-1985 DATE 9/30/79 9/30/80 9/30/81 9/30/82 9/30/83 9/30/84 9/30/85 BATTLESHIPS - - - - 1 2 2 CARRIERS 13 13 12 13 13 13 13 CRUISERS 28 26 27 27 28 29 30 DESTROYERS 97 94 91 89 71 69 69 FRIGATES 65 71 78 86 95 103 110 SUBMARINES 80 82 87 96 98 98 100 SSBNS 41 40 34 33 34 35 37 COMMAND SHIPS - 3 4 4 4 4 4 MINE WARFARE 25 25 25 25 21 21 21 PATROL 3 3 1 4 6 6 6 AMPHIBIOUS 67 63 61 61 59 57 58 AUXILIARY 114 110 101 117 103 120 121 SURFACE WARSHIPS 190 191 196 202 195 203 211 TOTAL ACTIVE 533 530 521* 555 533 557 571 EVENTS • Grenada operation 1983. • Attempted peacekeeping in Lebanon 1983. NOTES * Post-Vietnam War low (total active ships). U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1986-1992 DATE 9/30/86 9/30/87 9/30/88 9/30/89 9/30/90 9/30/91 9/30/92 BATTLESHIPS 3 3 3 4 4 1 - CARRIERS 14 14 14 14 13 15 14 CRUISERS 32 36 38 40 43 47 49 DESTROYERS 69 69 69 68 57 47 40 FRIGATES 113 115 107 100 99 93 67 SUBMARINES 101 102 100 99 93 87 85 SSBNS 39 37 37 36 33 34 30 COMMAND SHIPS 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 MINE WARFARE 21 22 22 23 22 22 16 PATROL 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 AMPHIBIOUS 58 59 59 61 59 61 58 AUXILIARY 23 127 114 137 137 112 102 SURFACE WARSHIPS 217 223^ 217 212 203 188 156 TOTAL ACTIVE 583 594* 573 592 570 529 471 EVENTS • Fall of the Berlin Wall and many East European communist governments, 1989-1990. • Gulf mobilization and war, 1990-1991. • Dissolution of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, 1991. EVENTS ^ 1980s high for surface warships. * 1980s high for total active ships. A rapid decline in force level is evident after the anticommunist revolutions in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union, 1989-1991. U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1993-1999 DATE 9/30/93 9/30/94 9/30/95 9/30/96 9/30/97 9/30/98 8/17/99 BATTLESHIPS - - - - - - - CARRIERS 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 CRUISERS 52 35 32 31 30 29 27 DESTROYERS 37 41 47 51 56 50 52 FRIGATES 59 51 49 43 42 38 37 SUBMARINES 88 88 83 79 73 65 57 SSBNS 22 18 16 17 18 18 18 COMMAND SHIPS 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 MINE WARFARE 15 16 18 18 18 18 18 PATROL 2 7 12 13 13 13 13 AMPHIBIOUS 52 38 39 40 41 40 41 AUXILIARY 110 94 80 67 52 57 57 SURFACE WARSHIPS 148 127 128 123 122 109 106 TOTAL ACTIVE 454 404 392 375 359 344 337 NOTES End of the Cold War 'peace dividend' leads to decommissioning of many older ships, especially cruisers and auxiliaries, in a manner similar to downsizing at the end of the Vietnam war. U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 2000 - 2006 DATE 9/30/00 9/30/01 9/30/02 9/30/03 9/30/04 9/30/05 9/30/06 CARRIERS 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 CRUISERS 27 27 27 27 25 23 22 DESTROYERS 54 53 55 49 48 46 50 FRIGATES 35 35 33 30 30 30 30 SUBMARINES 56 55 54 54 54 54 54 SSBN 18 18 18 16 14 14 14 SSGN 0 0 0 2 4 4 4 MINE WARFARE 18 18 17 17 17 17 16 AMPHIBIOUS 41 41 41 38 37 37 35 AUXILIARY 57 57 56 52 51 45 44 SURFACE WARSHIPS 128 127 127 118 115 111* 114 TOTAL ACTIVE 318 316 313 297 292 282 281 NOTES • 9/11 and the GWOT does not increase Navy ship force levels. • START treaty limits encourage creation of SSGN class, fleet ballistic missile submarines converted to carry conventional strike cruise missiles. Older surface warships continue to be replaced at a less than one-to-one ratio. * Low since 1921 • To clarify the ship numbers included in this table, the year 2000 entries include active commissioned ships, those in the Naval Reserve Force (NRF) and ships operated by the Military Sealift Command (MSC). Row entries are self-explanatory, with the auxiliary category including combat logistic ships (such as oilers, ammunition, combat store ships), mobile logistics ships (such as submarine tenders) and support ships (such as command, salvage, tugs and research ships). Command ships have been subsumed into that category and the separate line entry removed. A new row has been added for guided missile submarines (SSGN). Post-1999 data provided by N8F. U.S.Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 2007 to 2010 DATE 9/30/07 9/30/08 9/30/09 9/30/10 CARRIERS 11 11 11 11 CRUISERS 22 22 22 22 DESTROYERS 52 54 57 59 FRIGATES 30 30 30 29 LCS 1 1 2 PATROL COASTAL 0 0 0 0 SSN 53 53 53 53 SSBN 14 14 14 14 SSGN 4 4 4 4 MINE WARFARE 14 14 14 14 AMPHIBIOUS 33 34 33 33 AUXILIARY 46 45 46 47 SURFACE WARSHIPS 115 118 121 123 TOTAL ACTIVE 278 282 285 288 U.S.Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 2011 to 2016 9/30/11 9/30/12 9/30/13 9/30/14 9/30/15 9/30/16 Combatant (Warship) 221 222 217 222 201 204 Aircraft Carrier (CVN) 11 11 10 10 10 10 Cruiser (CG) 22 22 22 22 22 22 Destroyer (DDG) 61 62 62 62 62 62 Destroyer (DDG 1000) - - - - - 1 Frigate (FFG) 26 23 17 10 - - Littoral (LCS) 2 3 4 4 5 8 Patrol Coastal (PC) - - - 10^ - - Attack Submarine (SSN) 53 54 54 55 54 52 Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) 14 14 14 14 14 14 Guided Missile Submarine (SSGN) 4 4 4 4 4 4 Amphibious Assault Ship [General] (LHA) 1 1 1 2 1 1 Amphibious Transport Dock (LHD) 8 8 8 8 8 8 Amphibious Assault Ship [Multi] (LPD) 7 8 9 9 9 10 Landing Dock Ship (LSD) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Combatant (Other) 63 65 68 67 70 71 Mine Countermeasures Ship (MCM) 14 14 13 8 11 11 Ammunition Ship (T-AE) 1 1 1 - - 0 Fleet Replenishment Oiler (T-AO) 15 15 15 15 15 15 Fast Combat Support Ship (T-AOE) 4 4 4 3 3 2 Dry Cargo & Ammunition Ship (T-AKE) 11 11 12 12 12 12 Command Ship (LCC) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Submarine Tender (AS) 2 2 2 2 2 2 *Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) Expeditionary Fast Transport (T-EPF) - - 2 4 5 7 Surveillance Ship (T-AGOS) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Salvage Ship (T-ARS) 4 4 4 4 4 4 Fleet Ocean Tug (T-ATF) 4 4 4 4 4 4 (MPS T-AKE) 1 2 2 2 2 2 Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) - 1 1 1 1 1 *Afloat Forward Staging Base/ Expeditionary Sea Base (T-ESB) - - - - - 1 *Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) Expeditionary Transfer Dock (T-ESD) - - 1 2 3 2 Hospital Ship (T-AH) - - - 2 - - High Speed Transport (T-HST) - - - 1 1 1 TOTAL BATTLE FORCE LEVEL 284 287 285 289 271 275 ^ Patrol Coastal (PC) were counted in the battle force level only for FY 2014. *JHSV and MLP classifications changed to T-EPF and T-ESD in August 2015. Additionally, the classification T-ESB was created for AFSBs used for expeditionary support. Published:Tue Dec 06 14:17:14 EST 2016

Trailer/Body Builders / January 26, 2017 European Union (EU) demand for new commercial vehicles increased 10.4% in December, totaling 211,941 units, and 11.6% in 2016, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA). Growth was sustained across all commercial vehicle segments. Italy ended the year extremely strong (+97.0%), with registrations almost doubling as a result of government incentives for fleet renewal that were introduced in September. Spain (+13.3%), Germany (+3.4%) and France (+2.9%) also posted growth, while the UK saw its demand decline during the last month of the year (-9.7%), mainly due to a drop in registrations of vans. In 2016, the EU market showed consistent growth (+11.6%) and rose for the fourth year in a row, reaching 2,324,371 million commercial vehicles registered. Throughout the year, the five big markets performed better than in 2015. Italy (+49.9%) showed the most significant increase, followed by Spain (+11.3%), France (+8.3%), Germany (+7.0%) and the UK (+1.2%). New heavy commercial vehicles (HCV) over 16 tonnes December 2016 results show a significant surge in the heavy truck segment (+16.1%), with 24,044 new vehicles registered. The Italian market (+200.2%) saw spectacular growth, driven by government support for transport companies, although Italy’s market is still below pre-crisis levels in volume terms. Germany (+8.8%), Spain (+6.6%) and France (+5.4%) followed with more modest increases, while the British market contracted by 9.1%. In 2016, the market for new heavy trucks grew by 12.3%, reaching 292,170 units. All major markets made a positive contribution to the overall upturn, especially Italy (+52.9%) and France (+12.9%) with their double-digit increases. New medium and heavy commercial vehicles (MHCV) over 3.5 tonnes In December 2016, new truck registrations in the EU totalled 30,428 units, up (+12.0%) compared to December 2015. Italy finished the year strongly (+193.0%) with registrations nearly tripling, while France (+4.3%), Germany (+1.3%) and Spain (+0.8%) saw more moderate growth rates at the end of 2016. In 2016, 365,051 new trucks were registered in the European Union, 11.0% more than in the year before. Italy (+54.4%), France (+12.6%) and Spain (+10.1%) made particularly significant contributions to this growth. New medium and heavy buses & coaches (MHBC) over 3.5 tonnes In December 2016, new registrations of buses and coaches increased again (+5.5%) following a slowdown in the third quarter of the year, now totalling 4,210 units. Growth was mainly driven by Spain (+68.5%) and Italy (+57.4%), while France (-25.1%) and Germany (-1.7%) performed less well than in December 2015. Overall in 2016, the EU market for buses and coaches only registered a moderate increase (+2.3%), counting 40,370 new vehicles. During the year, most growth came from Spain (+26.1%), Italy (+16.1%) and Germany (+8.9%), while France (-10.2%) saw demand decline. Noteworthy is the positive performance of the Dutch market (+144.2%). New light commercial vehicles (LCV) up to 3.5 tonnes In December 2016, new registrations of light commercial vehicles totalled 177,303 units, up (+10.3%) compared to December 2015. Demand was mainly driven by the Italian (+90.3%) and Spanish (+14.1%) markets with double-digit increases, while the German (+4.3%) and French (+3.3%) markets only saw modest growth. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, performed less well than in December 2015 (-10.4%). Overall in 2016, nearly two million new vans were registered in the European Union, 11.9% more than the year before. Italy (+50.0%), Spain (+11.2%), Germany (+8.5%), France (+8.2%) and the UK (+1.0%) all contributed to this positive upturn.

Robert Boxwell, Reuters / January 27, 2017 President Donald Trump kept one of his major campaign promises on Monday when he withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The ramifications of Trump’s decision are worrisome and, whether or not the withdrawal helps American workers, it would be helpful to U.S. standing in the region if he communicated better, and to a larger audience, exactly what he’s trying to do. I have lived and worked in Asia for 25 years. Feelings of uncertainty about the United States right now are palpable. People want to know what’s going on. Trump was seated at his desk in the Oval Office on his first weekday as president. Behind him were Vice President Mike Pence and an entourage of advisors including Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus and Peter Navarro. Navarro’s presence seemed incongruous for a University of California economist whose fame comes from warning Americans about the menace China’s government poses to the United States’ well-being. The TPP’s standards on intellectual property protection, the environment and labor conditions effectively excluded China from joining the treaty because it would have made Chinese manufacturers spend what TPP members spend, something Beijing – always welcome to join – doesn’t want to see happen. Trump surely knows that with the United States out, the treaty might die – and with it this leveling of the playing field – a gift for Beijing. Priebus, a leather folio in hand, stepped forward. “OK, we’re going to sign three memorandums right now. The first one is the withdrawal of the United States from the Trans- Pacific Partnership.” Trump reached for his pen as Priebus handed him the portfolio. He gave it the Chief Executive once-over, cocked his head, looked at the reporters in front of him, and jutted his jaw toward them slightly. “Everyone knows what that means, right? We’ve been talking about this for a long time, thank you.” He signed it. “Okay.” He held it up for the cameras – I’d hold it up too if I had a fabulous signature like his – and concluded, “Great thing for the American worker, what we just did.” That was it. Problem is, nobody really does know what that means. Besides calling it “the death blow for American manufacturing” he hasn’t said much about what he else has in store now that the United States is out. And while there’s a lot of merit in the president’s seeming willingness to let Beijing do a little guesswork for a change, there’s not much merit in letting the other eleven countries in the TPP do the same. Some of the United States’ closest allies – Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand – are in the TPP, and all the others are friends. Even if one agrees with Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the TPP, there’s a lot of work to be done between now and the “great thing” arriving. Economists and the media have been insisting that jobs sent abroad aren’t coming home and, even if they did, robots would be doing most of them. There’s some truth in this. But I’d never bet against American business. As a retired private equity friend said to me recently, after complaining about his industry brethren who buy domestic businesses to send abroad to cash in on cheap labor, “We have to make stuff here.” He didn’t mean everything and he didn’t mean all of it, but the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing base so the private equity guys and their banker friends can get rich was never a good thing for the country. China might be able to make the world’s steel at the lowest cost, for example, but what government would cede this strategic industry to Beijing? If the right policies emerge from Washington as the Trump team fleshes out its trade and related policies – which can’t be simply increasing tariffs to keep the competition less competitive – expect American business to rise to the challenge. But they need to know what those policies are – uncertainty freezes business – and American allies and friends around the world do, too. Here’s what Trump should have said or, better, read from the written statement that wasn’t on his desk, because his audience isn’t hostile reporters, it’s the rest of the world. “Before I sign this, I’d like to say a few words. We recognize that our allies and close friends, with whom the last administration worked on the pact, are disappointed by our withdrawal from the TPP. International treaties like the TPP require ratification by our government, and we are not moving forward in no small part because the American people don’t like the TPP, and we can’t – I can’t – go ahead. It’s worth noting that my opponent was also against the TPP. “We are not abandoning the Pacific region. From Japan to Australia, to Chile, to Canada, and stops in between, we value our relations with all the TPP countries and will continue to expand our trade with them all. Making America great again does not, in any way, come at the expense of our friends and does not, in any way, mean backing away from our long-term commitments and friendships. The TPP doesn’t exist now, so trade tomorrow will be the same as trade today. “As I said many times, we like trade and are happy to trade, even with China. We just want the trade to be fair. Since Richard Nixon extended a hand of friendship to China and the economic help from trade that came with it, our position has always been one of fair play and mutual gain. No Chinese government has reciprocated. It’s time to change. Beijing doesn’t play by the rules that have helped its rich accumulate vast personal wealth at the expense of others, both inside and outside of China. We’re done being part of that. This is a regime that taxes our exports to them, bars some of our companies from entering, keeps entire sectors off limits to foreigners, and is making it increasingly difficult for foreigners who are there to do business. They want to buy our successful companies, especially in the technology sector and, recently, Hollywood, yet won’t allow foreigners to wholly own or even control companies in many industries and restrict or prohibit outright investment in dozens of other industries. “The United States and our allies and friends have led the postwar world in trade and establishing international institutions that have benefited billions of people globally. The United States has no intention of ceding that role or impeding global trade. We are studying all aspects of our trade and look forward to increased, mutually beneficial trade and security with all our allies and friends.” That’s not a tweet, but it’s the message America’s allies and friends would like to hear directly from Trump. He hasn’t actually done anything that’s bad for global trade yet, except create a lot of uncertainty. Better communication from him can serve everyone well, and the sooner, the better.

The correct way to reach your goal is to contact your preferred local Mack brand dealer, or Watts Mack (provider of the BMT website) and provide them with your model and serial number off the vehicle identification plate on your driver's door. They'll take that information and submit a "changeover request" to Mack parts operations, who will research what parts would have been used had the truck originally been ordered/built that way. They'll provide the list of necessary parts to your chosen Mack dealer who can then order them for you.

Are Trump administration press office members university graduates? First I noticed they spelled energy without a “g’……”enery” “President Trump Takes Action to Expedite Priority Enery and Infrastructure Projects” Then they mistakenly posted the same press release on Jan 25 and Jan 26......"President Trump Approves Georgia Disaster Declaration" ".................https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog Then they title a press release without spaces between the words......"President TrumpReleasesNationalSchool Choice Week Proclamation" Now they repeatedly spelled the UK’s visiting prime minister’s name without an “h”, Teresa May rather than Theresa May, which went over like a lead balloon with one of our oldest allies. The rule of thumb is, in the world’s greatest country, our White House staff ensures they spell……correctly. Misspelling the name of a head-of-state simply isn't allowed, and there's no excuse for it. .

Will Trump Rescue Theresa May? Matt Purple, The National Interest / January 26, 2017 British Prime Minister Theresa May touched down in America on Thursday and spoke at a Republican retreat in Philadelphia. How would she react to Donald Trump? She offered accolades for his election, pledged to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him in fighting radical Islam, and agreed that Europe needed to pull its weight within the NATO alliance. Yet she also contradicted his nationalism, touting Britain’s overseas humanitarian aid and reiterating her intention to become “even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.” It was a tightrope of a speech and her upcoming huddle with Trump will have to be just as carefully balanced, given the single word that underscores all of this: “Brexit.” May is often compared to Margaret Thatcher. It’s a clunky analogy—the prime minister’s preference for conservatism lite has more in common with John Major—but the similarities are still there: both are Tory women, both have imperturbable demeanours, both regularly batter their hapless Labour counterparts in Parliament. On this, though, the comparison falls apart: whereas Thatcher came to office able to define her own circumstances, turning the British ship of state as she saw fit, May’s job has been largely defined by forces beyond her control. The bulging Brexit portfolio was dropped in her lap by the British people, who voted “out,” and by her predecessor David Cameron, who called the referendum and then skedaddled when it didn’t go his way. Leaving the EU is consequently her primary concern. It is also her secondary concern and her tertiary concern. Its success or failure will define her premiership. In a speech earlier this month, more candid than the one she gave in Philadelphia, May acknowledged that the most likely outcome for Britain was a “hard Brexit,” crashing out of the EU’s free-trade single market. This is probably realistic: the European Union can’t let Britain slip away without leaving a scar first, lest they empower nationalists in other countries. That means May needs to start laying the groundwork for trade agreements with other nations, especially Anglophone ones, to compensate for whatever post-Brexit trade impediments the EU throws up. New Zealand and Australia have both expressed interest, but the United States, the world’s largest economy and the UK’s top national trading partner, is the crown jewel. A strong bilateral relationship with America, free of any lingering post-Blair hangovers, is a necessity for Britain. I rather doubt the polished May is particularly keen on Trump’s brand of politicking and I’d bet money that she winced when he referred to her recently as “my Maggie.” And yet, in a perverse way, Trump is valuable to May. The European Union has indicated it intends to take a very hard line indeed toward the UK during the Brexit talks. Brussels has appointed to its negotiating team ruthless operators like Martin Selmayr and hardline federalists like Guy Verhofstadt. In Trump, May will have an invisible bully in her corner, one who snarls with contempt for the EU, one who clinched the most powerful job on earth by waving the same banner of populism that now threatens European elites. There is approximately zero chance that Trump will let the boys in Brussels sway him out of prepping a trade deal with Britain, an assurance that May needs. The devil will be in the details of that trade deal. The United States and United Kingdom share a language, true, but there are still plenty of divergences in the two nations’ policies, over the environment (Britain is more committed to renewable energy than America), health care (open market access for the United States could draw cries of NHS privatization from May’s Labour opponents), agriculture (the use of growth hormones in meat is illegal in Britain), and financial services (the UK will want its powerful City of London advantaged). There’s also the matter of timing. Britain is forbidden from formally negotiating trade deals until it’s free from the EU, which lessens the pressure May and Trump can apply on Brussels. But something else is becoming clear: the Brexit negotiations aren’t between a slingshot-deprived David and a club-thumping Goliath, as many EU elites would like to portray it. In order for the European Union to effectively punish Britain—which is the objective, make no mistake—it has to turn the UK into an isolated hostage, walling it off from the rest of the planet and slamming it with tariffs. In our globalized and open world, that simply isn’t possible. With the United States still a heavyweight, China rising in the east, and Europe’s own economies expanding at a glacial pace, Britain has plenty of attractive alternatives to pursue. London can also retaliate against any punitive actions taken by the EU. May, in her Brexit speech, warned that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal” and hinted that her Conservative government could drastically lower UK taxes to poach business from the continent. For France, where GDP growth is anemic, and Germany, already timorous over Brexit denting its exports, that’s a resonant threat indeed. Trump might be a difficult partner, but it could be that he helps May make a success out of Brexit yet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over. But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene." British Prime Minister Theresa May .

Associated Press/Reuters / January 26, 2017 A federal judge has refused to force Wal-Mart to pay $80 million in penalties in a lawsuit that accused the retail giant of failing to pay hundreds of truck drivers in California the minimum wage for certain tasks. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said in San Fransisco Wednesday that Wal-Mart acted in good faith when paying the drivers, believing its payment policy was in line with California's labor law. A jury awarded the workers more than $54 million in back wages in November after finding that Wal-Mart didn't pay the drivers the state's base wage for pre-and post-trip inspections,10-hour layovers and 10-minute rest breaks, the news services report. Attorneys for the drivers had asked Illston to award an additional $80 million in penalties and damages. Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said its drivers earn among the highest salaries in the field and that the plaintiffs were "overreaching." The company has said its drivers earn from about $80,000 to more than $100,000 a year. Illston largely agreed with Wal-Mart, citing testimony that she said showed Wal-Mart's compensation was among the highest in the trucking industry. Attorneys for Wal-Mart also had said in a court filing that "reasonable minds could differ" about the legality of its pay and layover policies. The judge said Wal-Mart's payment policy developed in an "uncertain" legal landscape, giving the company reasonable grounds to believe it was complying with California minimum wage law. Wal-Mart drivers are not paid by the hour rather remuneration is based on mileage and specified activities. The company argued during trial that it paid drivers for activities that included smaller tasks and could not have a separate payment designation for everything they did, some of which took just minutes. Wal-Mart pays drivers $42 for 10-hour overnight layovers as an extra benefit, but it does not control their time during that period

I've no time nor pity for a country blatantly playing both sides of the fence. Choose your side. Don't play games.

Reuters / January 26, 2017 The United States [taxpayer] will upgrade and build facilities on Philippine military bases this year, Manila's defense minister said on Thursday, bolstering an alliance strained by President Rodrigo Duterte's opposition to a U.S. troop presence. The Pentagon gave the green light to start the work as part of an Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), a 2014 pact that Duterte has threatened to scrap during barrages of hostility towards the former colonial power. "EDCA is still on," said Defence Secretary Delfin Lorenzana. EDCA allows the expansion of rotational deployment of U.S. ships, aircraft and troops at five bases in the Philippines as well as the storage of equipment for humanitarian and maritime security operations. Lorenzana said Washington had committed to build warehouses, barracks and runways in the five agreed locations and Duterte was aware of projects and had promised to honor all existing agreements with the United States. This week, Republican Senator John McCain, who headed the U.S. Senate's Armed Services Committee, proposed $7.5 billion of new military funding for U.S. forces and their allies in the Asia-Pacific. The geopolitical landscape in Asia has been shaken up by Duterte's grudge against Washington, his overtures towards erstwhile adversary China, and the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, whose administration has indicated it may take a tough line on China's activities in the South China Sea. The Philippines has said it wants no part in anything confrontational in the strategic waterway and will not jeopardize promises of extensive Chinese trade and investment, and offers of military hardware, that Duterte has got since he launched his surprise foreign policy shift. Lorenzana said the Philippines had asked China for two to three fast boats, two drones, sniper rifles and a robot for bomb disposal, in a $14 million arms donation from China. The arms package would be used to support operations against Islamist Abu Sayyaf militants in the southern Philippines, he said. "If these are quality equipment, we will probably buy more," he said. Lorenzana said Russia was offering hardware such as ships, submarines, planes and helicopters. As with China, those offers have come as a result of a charm offensive by Duterte, who has praised Russia and its leadership. Duterte last year said if Russia and China started a "new order" in the world, he would be the first to join.

There are few things that I'd rather have than a cherry first generation Ford Bronco with a 302 V-8, auto and the dual fuel tank option (14.5 + 11.5 gal).

Trump has repeatedly repeatedly about a 35 percent import tariff to force companies to produce U.S. market-sold products………in the U.S., rather than Mexico. Where did 20 percent come from ? Why is Trump going to give companies producing in Mexico for the U.S market a 15 percent discount ?

Trump floats 20% border tax for wall as Mexico feud deepens Bloomberg / January 26, 2017 The Trump administration floated a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico to pay for a wall along the southern U.S. border, a plan revealed hours after Mexican President President Enrique Pena Nieto canceled a meeting with Trump. "When you look at the plan that’s taking shape now, using comprehensive tax reform as a means to tax imports from countries that we have a trade deficit from, like Mexico, if you tax that $50 billion at 20 percent of imports," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said. "By doing that we can do $10 billion a year and easily pay for the wall just through that mechanism alone." Spicer spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One as President Donald Trump returned from a speech to a congressional Republican retreat in Philadelphia on Thursday. Spicer didn’t explain how such a tax would work or how it would affect U.S. consumers and companies. Asked if the tax could be applied to other countries, Spicer said the administration is "focused on Mexico right now." Later, Spicer summoned reporters to his office and said the tax was only one idea to finance the wall, and that its economic impact would have to be examined. The conflict between Trump and Mexico escalated over a 24-hour period after Trump signed a directive Wednesday to initiate the process of building the border wall. Trump’s border plan rapidly exploded into a showdown that threatens one of the world’s biggest bilateral trading relationships. Mexico’s currency has plunged almost 14 percent since Trump’s election on concern that Trump will renegotiate or scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement. After Pena Nieto said in an address Wednesday that his country would refuse to pay for a barrier on the U.S. southern border, Trump blasted him with a tweet Thursday morning. “If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting,” Trump wrote. Pena Nieto, who was to meet with Trump Jan. 31, responded a few hours later with his own tweet: “This morning we’ve informed the White House that I won’t attend the working meeting scheduled for next Tuesday with @Potus.” The border tax Trump floated wouldn’t directly be imposed on Mexico but added to the cost of products as they crossed the border, translating into either lower profits for companies that import goods such as Ford Motor Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Target Corp. or higher prices for U.S. consumers who buy the products. "Mexico doesn’t pay for the wall," said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "American consumers who shop at places that import, like Walmart and Target, pay for the wall, making it a regressive tax supporting a dumb, wasteful idea." Spicer’s comments appeared to move the president closer to embracing a “border adjusted” tax approach that House Republicans favor, Bernstein said. That plan would radically remake the U.S. corporate tax system to apply a 20 percent tax rate to companies’ domestic sales and imports, while not taxing their exports. It would apply to all imports, not just those from Mexico, and would generate roughly $1.1 trillion in revenue over a decade, according to an analysis by the conservative Tax Foundation. Currently, the U.S. taxes its corporations’ worldwide income at a 35 percent rate -- though they can use foreign tax credits to reduce that amount, and companies don’t have to pay any U.S. tax on overseas income until they bring it to the U.S. The border tax Trump floated would be a clear violation of NAFTA, which allows the duty-free movement of goods between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, though Trump already has said he will demand a renegotiation of the deal or withdraw. Under existing treaties, Trump could impose 15 percent duties for 100 days on Mexican imports, claiming a “balance payments emergency,” but that would fall short of the punishment he’s threatened. Other fines, such as anti-dumping duties, require special and lengthy procedures to enact. For his tariff to stick, Trump would likely have to ask Congress to include it in a broader overhaul of the U.S. tax code. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell both suggested Thursday that, after months of studiously ignoring the border wall proposal, they’re now ready to act on the wall as part of a spending request they expect from Trump that would help jump-start construction. The two leaders said they’re ready to spend as much as $15 billion from the federal treasury to build the wall.

As of today, it has been confirmed that no less than five Trump family members and top administration appointees are/were registered in two states during last fall's election. Steven Mnuchin is registered to vote in both New York and California. Steve Bannon was registered to vote in both Florida and New York (Florida removed Bannon from its rolls just this Wednesday). The President Trump's son-in-law and White House adviser, Jared Kushner, is registered to vote in both New Jersey and New York. Tiffany Trump, the president’s youngest daughter, is registered to vote in both Pennsylvania and New York. Sean Spicer, White House press secretary, is registered to vote in both Rhode Island and Virginia. Gregg Phillips, who Trump has promoted as an expert on voter fraud, is registered to vote in Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. “You have people that are registered who are dead, who are illegals, who are in two states,” President Trump told ABC's David Muir Wednesday. “You have people registered in two states. They're registered in a New York and a New Jersey [like Jared Kushner]. They vote twice. There are millions of votes, in my opinion.” [including Trump’s own people] It is not illegal to be registered to vote in two states, and of course it doesn’t automatically mean that these voters are casting ballots in two locations. BUT, Trump’s clear position is "they vote twice" (his comment above). Here in year 2017, in the electronic age, why isn’t there a national registration system that, should you attempt to register in a state, it would immediately note that you are already registered in another state, and give you the choice to switch your registry, should you choose, but effectively preventing you from registering in two or more states ? And again, in year 2017, why isn’t there a national (federal) electronic “direct vote” system that, after presenting your voting ID (driver’s license), allows every American to cast one vote, and one vote only, in any state they happen to be in at that moment ?

You guys certainly enjoy a colorful discussion. I enjoy hearing everyone's thoughts, as you all bring valid points to the table. We're all different. As has been said, if we were all exactly the same, the world would be a pretty dull place. In my mind, the last great president with significant accomplishments was Dwight D. Eisenhower. What can I say......I have high expectations in a president. I myself don't think Obama was any worse that George W. Bush, who, I feel, created a real mess in foreign affairs (e.g. Al Qaeda, ISIS, ect.).

Trump’s order for "major investigation" into voter fraud is based on misquoted university’s research The Associated Press / January 25, 2017 If Jesse Richman could get one message to President Donald Trump, it would probably be this: Stop misquoting our research. Richman, an associate professor at Old Dominion University (ODU) in Virginia, found his work tangled up in Trump’s latest effort to support his unsubstantiated claim that millions of illegal ballots were cast in November – the reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million. Trump announced Wednesday that he’s ordering a “major investigation“ into voter fraud – a claim he first made on the campaign trail, then repeated this week at a meeting with Republican leaders. Richman heard his research – or some twist on it – being cited by White House press secretary Sean Spicer as he defended Trump’s “long-standing belief“ to a room full of reporters Tuesday: “I think there have been studies; there was one that came out of Pew in 2008 that showed 14 percent of people who have voted were not citizens.” Spicer got it all wrong, according to Richman. “First of all, he’s confusing our study with another study,” Richman said, “and then he’s flipping ours around and exaggerating the most extreme estimates from it.” The Pew Charitable Trusts did release a study in 2012 that indicated 1.8 million deceased voters remain on the roles and millions of other voter records are out of date. But the study did not say anything about voter fraud. The 14 percent cited by Spicer appears to have come from research Richman and ODU co-authors published in 2014, an analysis titled “Do non-citizens vote in U.S elections?“ Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which interviews tens of thousands of people every election year, the ODU study concluded that, at most, “maybe 14 percent of non-citizens engaged in some type of voting behavior,” Richman said. Repeat: That’s not 14 percent of all voters. That’s 14 percent of all non-citizens. “And keep in mind that non-citizens are a fraction of the total U.S. population,” Richman said, around 20 million adults. “So they maybe make up, at the very, very high end, 1 percent of an electorate.” Even if every one of them voted for Clinton, would that have been enough to cost Trump the popular vote? “The answer is no,” Richman said. The White House has yet to provide details about the investigation. In back-to-back tweets, the president revealed that it would cover “those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal” and “those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time).” Trump used all capitals – VOTER FRAUD – for emphasis. “Depending on results,” he tweeted, “we will strengthen up voting procedures!” Ironically, Trump’s treasury department nominee and chief strategist and senior counselor was among those who fit the first category. Steven Mnuchin is registered to vote in both New York and California, and during the campaign it was discovered that Steve Bannon was registered to vote in both Florida and New York. Florida removed Bannon from its rolls just this Wednesday. Trump has been fixated on his loss of the popular vote and a concern that the legitimacy of his presidency is being challenged by Democrats and the media, aides and associates say. Secretaries of state across the country have dismissed Trump’s claims of voter fraud as baseless. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have finalized their election results with no reports of the kind of widespread fraud that Trump is alleging. Trump’s own attorneys dismissed claims of voter fraud in a legal filing responding to Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s demand for a recount in Michigan late last year. “On what basis does Stein seek to disenfranchise Michigan citizens? None really, save for speculation,” the attorneys wrote. “All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.” As for Richman: “We wish Donald Trump would stop citing our work.”