The other article i was looking at had to do with the race of our president, though this is not an issue with any others and something the founding fathers most likely would not have cared about, i find it interesting that this is even still something going on, with the election this was something that was kept fairly in check and now that Obama is leaving its coming back in full force and not only that but in New Hampshire. The use of the N word to describe the president is nothing short of disrespectful and stupid, though it makes the news. Someone who works for the government should have a higher moral compass if you ask me, though free speech is a whole other issue.

I leave you to make your on opinion on this.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/05/local-town-official-academically-defends-using-a-racial-slur-to-describe-obama/370930/

Looking at what has been in the news there is a movement to ask Obama to remove a show from the BBC from being aired here, this was something to my knowledge that he had no jurisdiction over the media, and i can not imagine that the founding fathers would have wanted the president to have this power. I just find it interesting that for one people think the president has this power and two that they think he can do anything about an international station. Frankly i do not know much on the subject as to why they are targeting the president of the united states, i'm guessing that it has something to do with just getting press which is also unfortunate. If there is one thing i hate it is the spread of mis information.
There is more on the story

http://jalopnik.com/this-group-wants-obama-to-ban-top-gear-in-america-1571839705

White House Correspondent's Dinner

I love the White House Correspondent’s Dinner. I really do. President Obama’s bits during the past two years have been delightfully biting commentaries on the absurdities of the current political atmosphere, and Stephen Colbert’s 2006 roast of the Bush administration was the stuff of legend. Much as I love the event though, I can’t help but look at certain criticisms levied at it and admit to a certain begrudging agreement.

The main criticism I see is that the Dinner serves to reinforce the concerning chumminess between the White House and its Press Corps. Like a sort of regulatory capture, the journalists of the Press Corps are wooed by promises of access and schmoozing at the increasingly glamorous ceremony. You’re far less likely to doggedly pursue a line of questions or critically dissect an administration if you’re worried about preserving your invitation to the year’s big blowout.

The President's Cabinet

The President of the United States has an enormous cabinet to allow him to better implement the Laws established by Congress.  The size of the President has grown enormously over the last 100 years.  This is an indication to me of the size of the Federal Government and the increase of the number of areas in which the Government has encrouched on private life. 

At the start of the nineteenth century, the President's Cabinet consisted of six positions. These Departments included the State, Defense, Treasury, Interior, Agriculture, and Justice.  Teddy Roosevelt added the Commerce and Labor Department in 1903.  Since Woodrow Wilson and his Progressive program of central planning however, there has been an explosion of Cabinet positions.  Wilson seperated the Commerce and Labor Department, making them two seperate positions, Lyndon Johnson added HUD and Transportation, Carter added Health and Human Services, Education, and Energy.  Ronald Reagan added the Department of Veterans Affairs and George Bush the Department of Homeland Security. 

Some of these new departments seem relatively harmless in and of themselves, such as the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, it seems appropriate that we take the best care of our veterans as we possibly can since they risked their lives to fight for our country.  Others however seem to be put into place as a response to some catastrophic incident or the result of an over zealous central planner.  Most of the Cabinet positions interfer in one way or another the normal practice of letting the states dictate how their state should run.  The education department for example, was created as a way for the federal government to get more directly involved in the process of teaching our children.  However, what we should learn from this is that to treat the entire nation as one monolithic group and assume that the entire national schooling system can be fixed by a group of education experts in Washington DC has come at a massive cost, and has not created the results that are going to help propel the US into future competition with the rest of the world.  No Child Left Behind, CommonCore, or Race To The Top are all standardized tested that do not really represent the education of the kids or have a positive impact on their future growth into adulthood. 

In my opinion, it is best to let the states dictate their education standards according to their own ways.  The states are supposed to be expirements in policy, if it works in Vermont, South Dakota can try it.  If something is tried in Utah, but fails miserably, then Nevada may not want to try it.  When everything is dictated by the federal government to the states, we lose that ability.  We also pay far heavier prices when something is a nationwide mandate and it fails than if it just affects one state. 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/05/11/boehner-defends-benghazi-investigation/?mod=WSJBlog&mod=WSJ_Politics
As many of you know, the Benghazi special committee has been formed by the House of Representatives to investigate the actions of the President and the State Department.  This committee has been tasked with deciding if the Obama Administration and the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton deceived the American People about their reaction to the news of the attack, and the information that was told to us after the attack.  Did the State Department deny numerous requests for more security before the attack?  Why wasn't a strike team sent to the consulate even though there was a military presence only a short distance away?  These are all very important questions that should be answered by the committee.

It is important that the committee seek the truth about the incidence.  My concern is that the committee is going to divide along partisan lines and nothing important will come of it.  I hope this is not the case.  For me, finding the truth about what happened is secondary to fixing the problem that caused the deaths of four brave Americans in the first place.  Is there a breakdown in communication that needs to be corrected?   Is it possible that we could have a permanent military presence in that troubled region just in case future events occur that require a safe extraction of our people?

 It is unlikely to me that an impeachment process will occur because of this incidence despite this desire by some.  My concern is that the outcome of these hearings find the flaw that caused this and fix it.  I have heard Jay Carney say on numerous occasions that there were several heavy protests occurring in that part of the world. If this is true, why wasn't more security personnel stationed at a central location near the area and ready for any violence that could break out?  These protests were occurring in a very hostile location in which violence is not unheard of.  This makes it even more puzzling to me. 

The Boko Haram Abduction

Previous week the world witness the horrible abduction of 200 plus Nigerian girls. The situation seem normal for the Nigerian's government because they didn't take any action before the protest begin. Now almost every leader is somewhat involve to support the rescue for the Nigerian girls, who now are being sold as slaves. For my understanding the Boko Haram is an islamic terror group that very much supported Sharia law, and the group has curse many attacks, and killing christians who are against the islamic. For my point of view here, I see this group as the rising of Al-Qaeda in Africa, and the world was just watch what they do without any intervention. My question is we fight agains any terrorist group, so do you think our government should do something about?