Obama Administration To Bypass Congress–Again

Obama administration officials are increasingly using regulation and litigation to bypass Congress. The most recent event was openly called for by President Obama himself. While speaking in Pittsburgh recently, the President was obviously disappointed when his Democratic-controlled Senate did not pass his “Jobs Bill.” His frustration was showing when he announced that he was ordering his staff to pour over the bill to find ways that he can order it into law by Presidential decree without Congressional approval.

This is not new for our leader.

You might recall that when Congress (again, Democratic-controlled) failed to bend to his wishes and pass the Dream Act, immigration officials announced, that they will no longer apply immigration law against illegal immigrants who are studying, who have family relations in the U.S. military, or who are caring for ailing relatives. Two months later, officials announced they would drop deportation procedures against up to 300,000 illegal immigrants who are now being held, but not suspected of having committed major crimes. Those who are released will get a work permit, even though national unemployment is at least 9.1 percent.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced that he would use his regulatory power to exempt state education agencies from the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, providing they develop alternative education standards that meet his approval.

Amid increasing pressure from gay groups and voters, Obama’s appointees at the Department of Justice decided that 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and announced they would not defend it from a constitutional challenge.

The administration has used and is continuing to use bureaucratic procedures to constrict legal energy extraction since the Democratic-led Congress failed to pass the “cap and trade” law to regulate carbon-dioxide.

President Obama did not seek congressional authorization before launching strikes on Libya. Instead, he based the authority for his mission on a United Nations resolution that only authorizes force in order “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.” Those words notwithstanding, our targets in Libya — and other comments by Obama — suggest that the real goal is getting rid of Moammar Gadhafi, aka “regime change.

These are just examples of the current administration finding other means to advance their agenda when either Congress, the Constitution or the will of the people get in the way.

If there are elections next year, we need to elect a president and a legislature that can begin the process of turning the ship of state in the direction of liberty and freedom. That direction is back toward the Constitution.

U.S. Could Be Energy Independent By The End Of The Decade, Says Oil Executive

Harold Hamm, the founder and CEO of Continental Resources, which is the 14th-largest U.S. oil company, spent a few minutes of exclusive one-on-one time with the president at the White House recently. He told President Obama that America has enough oil within its borders to “replace OPEC.”

The President told Hamm, “Oil and gas will be important for the next few years, but we need to go on to green and alternative energy.” The President went on to say that Energy Secretary Chu has assured him that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.

Hamm wants to know, “Even if you believe that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development?” saying that the U.S. could be “completely energy independent by the end of the decade. We can be the Saudi Arabia of oil and natural gas in the 21st century.”

Given the state of affairs in the Middle East, I have to wonder what the president is thinking. Getting the U.S. free of Middle Eastern oil is, or should be, a primary goal for the sake of national security. To produce the oil and natural gas believed to be available in our own country is in our national interest for more than national security reasons. North Dakota, which is on pace to surpass California in oil production in the next few years, has the nation’s lowest unemployment rate at 3.5%. The economy in the state is expanding so fast that there is a housing shortage in the state, primarily due to oil production.

Mr. Hamm told the Wall Street Journal that if Washington allowed more drilling permits for oil and natural gas on federal lands and federal waters, “I truly believe the federal government could over time raise $18 trillion in royalties.” That is more than the U.S. national debt.

But this administration is not interested in freeing the United States of its reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Despite his speeches, this president is not really interested in creating jobs that don’t fall into the category of green, union or government jobs. Furthermore, this president is not interested in lowering the national debt.

President Obama has said all along that he hopes to take our nation down the same path as Spain with its “green economy.” Spain, the place that has lost 2.2 jobs for every “green job” it has created and whose unemployment rate, which is calculated separately by the National Statistics Institute, amounted to 20.9% in the second quarter of 2011 – the highest among industrialized nations.

I do not believe that the United States should abandon its quest to find or develop clean and alternative forms of energy. However, until we find one or more that works and are profitable, we will need to continue to rely on and improve on the sources of energy that we have.

If there are elections next fall, we need to elect a president and a congress that supports both paths.

AK-47s Awarded to Winners of Radio Contest in Somalia

Al-Shabab is a group fighting Somalia’s central government and African Union troops in Mogadishu. It controls large parts of southern Somalia where it has imposed its strict interpretation of Islam. It is estimated to have some 15,000 fighters.

Al-Shabab has claimed an affiliation with al-Qaeda since 2007, and its leaders are believed to have received training at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. In February 2008, al-Shabab was added to the U.S. government’s list of foreign terrorist groups.

Al-Shabab’s members are very clear about their objective: to overthrow Somalia’s government and enact strict Shari’a law. The group has banned music, videos, shaving and even bras in the areas it controls and maintains control through often brutal methods. Women accused of adultery are publicly stoned to death; teenaged thieves have had their limbs severed; one Somali said his brother was killed simply for selling phone cards to Ethiopian troops.

Recruiting fighters for the civil war in Somalia is evidently becoming more difficult and Al-Shabab has been resorting to desperate measures to gain new recruits. A radio station operated by the Al-Shabab militant group ran a contest for children and youths earlier this month in which the main prize was an AK-47 assault rifle plus the equivalent of $700 and religious books. The second prize was an AK-47 plus $500 and religious literature. The third prize was two hand grenades and $400.

A very large ceremony was held in Mogadishu outskirts of Elasha, and was attended by senior officials of Al-Shabab group where they advised the children to go into ongoing fighting in Somalia and battle against Somalia government and the African Union troops in Mogadishu.

At the end of the ceremony Sheikh Moktar Robow abu Mansur, senior Al-Shabab leader and former spokesman of the group awarded three young teenagers who have won the contest.

“We want the children to fight for defending of their country and their religion.. just take these guns,” he said, “Children should have one hand on the Koran but the other on a rifle to defend Islam.”

ACORN-affiliated Group Gets $300,000 From Taxpayers via HUD

In early August, an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) received another $300,000 in taxpayer funding.
President Barack Obama’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded the $300,000 grant to the post-ACORN ally: The Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA). The Obama administration awarded the money despite a 2010 law saying no taxpayer funds could be issued to ACORN “or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.”

AHCOA was previously named “Acorn Housing Corporation,” a group that did a lot of business with ACORN. Acorn Housing changed its name to AHCOA in late 2009.

The way HUD and the Obama administration justify funding AHCOA is by saying it’s not “affiliated” or “allied” with ACORN. To make their case, the Obama officials rely on a September 29, 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report arguing the case that AHCOA isn’t “affiliated” or “allied” with ACORN.

The GAO argument is that since AHCOA changed its name and cut off official financial ties with ACORN, it’s still legally allowed to receive taxpayer money, as AHCOA is not technically connected with ACORN when applying the legal definition of “affiliated” or “allied.”

This is one more example of the current administration choosing to ignore the laws of the nation and the will of the people.

The government should act immediately to recoup the money illegally obtained by this, and any other “formerly associated with ACORN” organizations which have simply changed their names. I would further suggest that any amount awarded to these organizations by HUD should also be deducted from HUD’s budget as a penalty for their brazen disregard for the law passed in 2010!

Hezbollah Expanding Operations – Coming to a Base in Cuba Soon!

According to a recent report in Italy’s respected Corriere della Sera newspaper, Cuba has allowed a group of Hezbollah operatives to establish a base for external terrorist operations in the region.

Three Hezbollah terrorists operating out of Mexico have left that country to establish a permanent ”bridgehead” to the communist island, calling their clandestine operation “The Caribbean Dossier.” Twenty-three other terrorists from the Iran-linked terror group are expected to join the operation, which has a startup budget of more than $500,000. Corriere reported that the mission in Cuba is to provide logistical support for upcoming terrorist attacks planned in the Western Hemisphere.

Safely ensconced with the Cuban government’s hospitality, Hezbollah’s operatives can carry out missions such as acquiring passports, recruiting informants and forging documents.

More disturbingly, they have been tasked to network with Hezbollah’s other terrorist cells in Venezuela, Paraguay and Mexico, all in need of logistical support for attacks.

The Italian newspaper reported that Hezbollah might be planning a major attack against Israeli targets in the Western Hemisphere in retaliation for Israel’s killing of Hezbollah’s chief assassin, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus in 2008. Mughniyeh was a Hezbollah terrorist leader implicated in the two huge attacks in Buenos Aires in the 1990s on Jewish targets — strikes that remain unpunished.

But the targets might not all be Latin American. With Hezbollah ordered to meet with, presumably in Havana, Mexico’s cartel traffickers that control illegal alien routes into the U.S., it’s likely terrorist attacks are in the works for America, too.

“Once you create the networks, the guerrillas will be held ready for their missions,” Corriere reported of Hezbollah’s orders.

A 2007 investigation by Telemundo and NBC News uncovered details of an extensive smuggling network run by Hezbollah based in a remote region divided by the borders of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina known as the Tri-border, or the Triple Frontier.

The operation funnels large sums of money to militia leaders in the Middle East and finances training camps, propaganda operations and bomb attacks in South America, according to U.S. and South American officials.

At the time, it was reported that U.S. officials feared that poorly patrolled borders and rampant corruption in the Tri-border region could make it easy for Hezbollah terrorists to infiltrate the southern U.S. border. From the largely lawless region, it is easy for potential terrorists, without detection, to book passage to the United States through Brazil and then Mexico simply by posing as tourists. Then Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Hezbollah militiamen would raise no suspicions because they have Latin American passports, speak Spanish and look like Hispanic tourists.

The CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center, in a 2004 threat paper, singled out the Mexican border as an especially inviting target for Hezbollah operatives. “Many alien smuggling networks that facilitate the movement of non-Mexicans have established links to Muslim communities in Mexico.”

According to a 2010 internal memo from the Tucson Police Department, Islamic terrorist groups are setting up shop in Mexico and forming alarming ties with the country’s brutal drug cartels. The memo warns that Hezbollah has established operations — and a large arms stockpile — in Mexico.

The memo also warns that consequences of partnerships between Hezbollah and Mexico’s drug partnerships could be disastrous for Mexico’s drug war, given Hezbollah’s advanced weapons capabilities — specifically their expertise with improvised explosive devices (IEDs). It notes that some Mexican criminal organizations have started using small IEDs and car bombs, a marked change in tactics that indicates a relationship with Islamic militants.

Partnerships between Mexican organized crime and Islamic militants are mutually beneficial — and therefore terrifying. The cartels are able to gain smuggling and weapons expertise, as well as access to cheap heroin from Afghanistan and Iran. The terrorists benefit from Mexico’s drug war lawlessness and its porous border with their primary target: The United States.

Perhaps, this scenario being played out in our back yard could be a reason that some call for the U.S. to secure its borders. It might not have anything to do with racism as is so often reported!

President Obama’s Plan to Cut National Debt or Campaign Tactic

This morning, while watching Morning Joe on MSNBC, I was treated to the fact that President Obama would be speaking from the White House Rose Garden later today to announce his plan to cut the national debt.

Even co-host Mika Brzezinski and regular guests Mark Halperin and Jon Meacham questioned whether President Obama is serious or whether it is a positioning tactic for re-election.

They discussed highlights of the president’s proposals which include a $3 trillion in savings in addition to the approximately $1 trillion in cuts already called for under the debt ceiling deal enacted in August.

The proposed savings over the next 10 years would include:

$1.5 trillion in tax increases, primarily on the wealthy, through a combination of closing loopholes and limiting the amount that high earners can deduct.

Just over $1 trillion in war savings coming from ending the combat mission in Iraq and withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

Also $580 billion in cuts to mandatory spending which includes approximately $250 billion from Medicare and $80 billion from Medicaid. White House officials say the Medicare cuts will not come from raising the retirement age, but may include some means testing.

The White House is calling the new program the “Buffet Rule”, named after billionaire investor, Warren Buffet, who has frequently argued that the rich aren’t taxed enough.

What they didn’t say out loud, but scrolling on the bottom of the screen was a statement that a reduction of military retirement benefits would also take place.

All of what I was seeing on MSNBC brought a number of questions to my mind.

First, is this proposed cut to Medicare that President Obama is going to suggest going to be in addition to the $818 billion cut to Medicare Part A and the cuts to Medicare Part B which would bring the total Obama administration cuts to Medicare to $1.05 trillion in the first ten years and $4 trillion over the first 20 years?

Secondly, the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq? I thought the President and his handlers took the credit multiple times for the withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq when the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division crossed the border into Kuwait in August of 2010.

Thirdly, it strikes me as odd when I hear a proposal to raise taxes on the rich by closing loopholes and restricting deductions, but stretching it over ten years, by the same people who reject suggestions to completely change tax system because it would take too much time. Would it take longer than ten years?

And lastly, the “Buffet Rule?” Really? We are talking about the same CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, aren’t we? You know, Berkshire Hathaway, the company who still owes back taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009. An administration that would use that name for a new proposal that includes tax increases would hire someone who hasn’t paid his taxes to be Secretary of the Treasury!

What the President is doing today, is making a statement that will be followed in a couple of days with speeches criticizing the Republicans for blocking “progress.”

Obama-speak. Washington-speak. Why don’t we try something new and refreshing…truth and openness.

Sheila Jackson Lee’s Most Recent Use of the Race Card

Few people could suggest with a straight face that the U.S. House of Representatives includes the best and brightest among us. In fact, most Americans are already well aware that the members of Congress struggle to represent anyone but themselves.

Racism seems to be Representative Shelia Jackson Lee's favorite topic.

Enter the lovely and talented Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

Friday on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee was back at it, raging from the people’s pulpit about her favorite topic: racism.

The reason Republicans aren’t negotiating and aren’t willing to compromise on the debt ceiling, she said, is because of Obama’s race.

“I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president, only this president, only this one has received the kind attacks and disagreements and inability to work,” she said. “Only this one.”

Jackson Lee acknowledged that Republicans have a majority in the House, and that it means sometimes Democrats will lose fights in the Congress. “It’s all right to agree or disagree on the balanced budget amendment. It’s all right to talk about how we’re going to appropriate … It’s all right to have that disagreement, that’s the give and take of democracy.”

But it wasn’t long before she pulled the race card back out. “I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness directed at this president. Why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community, that is the question that is being raised. Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully?”

Of course, she and her fellow Democrats treated President George W. Bush with the utmost in regard and respect. To be fair, Bush deserved some of the barbs he faced, given his profligate spending, harebrained schemes like No Child Left Behind, and his tendency to do things to the English language for which gave the writers at Saturday Night Live a lot to work with.

I often wonder if progressives, including Ms. Jackson Lee, consider the fact that by laying the exhausted race card on the table every time Obama slows for a political roadblock, they are essentially saying that Obama is nothing more than some helpless racial avatar, incapable of accomplishment. Therefore, playing the race card in order to defend his every misstep is either an admission that he needs to be rescued with personal attacks on his critics, a revelation that progressives have no other cards to play, or that they’re just plain silly.

Either way, the constant use of the race card by the likes of her only serves to keep the people of our nation divided when they so badly need to come together.

I would be willing to venture a guess that she’s not even aware that she’s calling Obama’s critics racist for agreeing with him: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” (Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill., March 20, 2006)

Indiana Schools Saying Good-bye to Cursive

Most people remember learning how to write in cursive back in elementary school. But now, children in Indiana’s school systems will no longer be required to learn to write in cursive, as Indiana’s Department of Education will make it optional for schools to teach this style of handwriting.

Instead, the department is focusing on students’ keyboard use. Indiana will enforce more typing programs because it makes more sense in our day and age, as computers become a larger part of our professional lives.

State officials sent school leaders a memo April 25 telling them that instead of cursive writing, students will be expected to become proficient in keyboard use.

The memo says schools may continue to teach cursive as a local standard, or they may decide to stop teaching cursive altogether. One might ask how will each district be effected by budget considerations in the future when considering whether to continue teaching cursive writing.

The state is moving from Indiana Academic Standards, which includes cursive writing in third grade, to national Common Core standards, which do not include cursive writing at all.

Most states have adopted the Common Core standards, which aim to create consistent national benchmarks for all students, regardless of their home state. To see if your state is one that has adopted the Common Core standards, click here.

The problems arising from students not being taught to write cursive should be considered. For instance, How will Indiana’s students know how to sign their name? When you’re born, someone signs your birth certificate. When you’re married, you have to sign your marriage license. When you die, someone’s going to sign your death certificate. All these things are important aspects of your life.

A more immediate problem for students is the fact that the SAT test and Advanced Placement exams call for handwritten essays.

Additionally, Karen Goeller, deputy superintendent of the Vigo County School Corp says, the SAT test and Advanced Placement exams call for handwritten essays. “Speed and legibility are keys to success.”

Also, research has shown that handwriting does make a difference in the perception of a student’s knowledge and ideas. Legible handwriting may improve a student test score, while messy handwriting may detract from the writer’s ideas, she said.

She noted that some employers consider cursive handwriting as important in day-to-day work.

Learning to use a keyboard is important in 21st Century education, but until you find a way to sign your name on a form with it, you might also need to know how to write.

A New Nation Is Born

Today a new country came into existence in Africa. On Saturday, July 9, Southern Sudan proclaimed independence. The move effectively strips Sudan, Africa’s largest country, of a quarter of its area — and the world has a new country, the youngest on the continent of Africa.

Not only Africa, but the entire world is anxiously watching to see what happens in South Sudan. The new state is roughly the size of France and will have sole possession of and authority over more than 80 percent of Sudanese oil reserves.

“The Republic of the Sudan announces its acknowledgement of the establishment of the Republic of South Sudan as a sovereign state within the 1956 boundaries,” announced Bakri Hassan Salih, Sudanese minister for presidential affairs.

The reference to the 1956 boundaries, however, was controversial because that puts the contested region of Abyei in the north. The region, which is about the size of Connecticut, is home to the Ngok Dinka people, who are closely allied with the South, but it also serves as grazing grounds for northern Misseriya tribes.

For 40 years, the Muslim north and the Christian and animistic south have been at war — disputes between the ethnic groups with Arab roots in the north and the Nilotic peoples living in southern part of the country have likewise always been part of the problem.

The two areas were joined into one country in 1947 — though without any input from the south. And, in 1956, soon after Sudan was granted its independence by Britain and Egypt, civil war broke out.

Brief interludes of peace notwithstanding, the conflict lasted five decades and cost more than 2 million people their lives. The south, despite being blessed with oil, plenty of water and fertile soil, became one of the poorest areas in the world as a result of the fighting. Around 80 percent of Southern Sudanese are Christians. During the 20-year civil war, the Muslim north tried to convert the believers in indigenous faiths to Islam, but people turned to Christianity.

A half dozen warlords, veterans of the war of liberation, are now looking to stir up fresh conflicts. They had laid low until the referendum held in early January because they didn’t want to hurt the chances of independence, but they never have been truly integrated. In recent weeks fighting has erupted in Abyei again, sparking fears of another war.

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to send up to 7,000 peacekeepers and 900 uniformed police to the new country of South Sudan. The Security Council is expected to meet again Wednesday to discuss U.N. membership for the new nation.

The government in Khartoum is doing nothing that might contribute to stabilizing the south. And why should it? The north has debts of some $38 billion and the conflict surrounding the country’s oil reserves has not yet been resolved. From the north’s perspective, a stable government in Juba is not helpful.

Most of the oil is pumped in the south, but all of the pipelines run through the north on their way to the refineries in Port Sudan, on the Red Sea. The proceeds have long been split, but now, the south is claiming a bigger slice of the earnings.

Officials in Juba, the future capital of the south, seem unfazed by such quarrels. In the Ministry for Regional Cooperation, State Secretary Majok Guandong raves about the more than 40 embassies scheduled to open around the world by 2013. A clock standing in the city’s main intersection counted down the days and hours until July 9. Huge billboards herald the “last step to freedom.”

But in addition to freedom, the new state would have to focus on a long term battle against poverty and hardship. The south has the world’s highest incidence of women dying during childbirth, and nine out of 10 women are illiterate. Half of the region’s population has to make do on less than a dollar a day.

The designated president of the new state of Southern Sudan is 59-year-old Salva Kiir, a former rebel leader and freedom fighter. Kiir lacks the charisma of his predecessor, John Garang, who died in a helicopter crash in 2005. But he is a skilled tactician — a skill that could ultimately tip the scales.

The only issue that Kiir hasn’t managed to settle with the north is that of oil revenues, which will undoubtedly ignite serious disputes after January 9. While the wellheads are in the south, the pipelines run north to Port Sudan, on the Red Sea. There, the oil is refined and put on ships for export. At the moment, the north and the south split the proceeds almost fifty-fifty. But the south wants to alter the arrangement: Since it has most of the oil wells, it thinks it should get a bigger cut of the earnings.

In addition to freedom, the new state will have to focus on a long term battle against poverty and hardship. The south has the world’s highest incidence of women dying during childbirth, and nine out of 10 women are illiterate. Half of the region’s population has to make do on less than a dollar a day.

On July 6th, President Barack Obama announced the designation of a Presidential Delegation to the Republic of South Sudan to attend the ceremony marking the Declaration of the Independence of the Republic of South Sudan on July 9, 2011. He named Susan E. Rice, United States Representative to the United Nations to lead the delegation. In addition to attending the ceremonies, Ms Rice is scheduled to meet with President Salva Kiir and will attend a ribbon-cutting to officially transform the U.S. Consulate in Juba into the U.S. Embassy to the new Republic of South Sudan.

Bring ‘Em Home

A majority of Americans believe that, in the wake of 9/11, toppling the Taliban regime and hunting down al-Qaida was the right thing to do. But now the war is in its 10th year and is costing $2 billion a week, and the United States is adjusting its priorities to conform with the widely held view that if Washington is to be involved in any reconstruction effort, it ought to be at home in America, where it is urgently needed.

The United States remains mired in an economic crisis. Three years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, unemployment remains high; the official rate is 9 percent, but the unofficial one is 16 percent. Growth is crawling along at less than 2 percent, and the country’s debt burden is swelling by $4.38 billion a day. Many cities are so broke that roads and bridges are in disrepair, and some areas of America already resemble a Third World country.

The war in Afghanistan has been America’s longest ever. It began in the fall of 2001, just weeks after the attacks on New York and Washington. We went to Afghanistan for the right reason; we are staying for the wrong reason.

In an internal briefing sent to senators last week by the White House in which the president states that “on the threat side we haven’t seen a terror threat emanating out of Afghanistan for the past seven or eight years” — a claim that conflicts with what President Obama has said publicly. Even General David Petraeus, former supreme commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan and now headed to the top position of the CIA, conceded as far back as May 2009 that al-Qaida is no longer operating in Afghanistan. The organization became decentralized a long time ago, with nerve centers spread around the globe. In Afghanistan, what we’re really fighting is not international terrorists, but a national resistance movement — and, in doing so, we’re creating exactly the thing we claim to be combating. For every civilian we kill, 10 more young people across the globe rise up, determined to strike back with terror.

Last week I heard both from the Hollywood crowd and the Eastern political pundits talk of how President Obama is pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and singing his praised for doing so. They neglected to mention that he is also leaving about 90,000 troops in that war torn country! I’m not totally convinced that they are even aware of that minor detail.

It’s time to bring ‘em home.

It reminds me of how President Obama is credited with bringing the American soldiers out of Iraq and ending the war in that nation. Little is mentioned of the fact that roughly 47,000 soldiers remain in that country as well, still in combat gear and still in harm’s way. It’s time to bring them home as well!

To say that we have these men and women in those countries to train the local military forces is ludicrous. If it takes Americans roughly 18-24 weeks to get trained to go fight in those countries, why is it taking 10 years to train theirs.

Enough is enough. Bring ‘em home!