America only recently left Iraq a few years ago and in that time frame we have seen the rise of ISIS.  With the entire region in disarray trying to deal with ISIS and how to fight them US troops may end up in Iraq and the Middle East in some capacity to help fight and contain the threat of ISIS.  As the fight against the Islamic State seems to have come to a standstill President Obama has been pressured to increase American military presence and involvement.  The recent involvement of Russia and its apparent targeting of US backed rebel groups only adds to the dangerous mixture and time constraint to fix the problem, if America waits too long with Russia’s help Assad could regain control of Syria.  This problem went from simply being a Middle East conflict into a power play between two world powers.  Over the past few months Obama has been meeting with his military advisors to discuss his options, ranging from moving forward with boots on the ground, establishing a no fly zone, continued training of Iraqi soldiers, small strategic strikes against ISIS with US special forces in conjunction with Iraqi security forces etc.  All the options at the president’s disposal shows the expanded role of the branch has acquired over time.  Go back a hundred years no one would believe the president could basically start a war around the world without the approval or even a vote by congress. I personally hate the idea of the president wielding such power as this.  I understand in times of crisis, such as America being attacked, the president would have to use the military without congress but for actions like this congress must be involved.  We wonder why people around consider America to be a bully this is why.  We act unilaterally and without a lot of help.  Recently Obama has done better with forming coalitions to deal with international crises but recently America has been taking a larger role as it considers devoting combat troops.  How can America champion democracy when we have presidents who are so apt to use force instead of negotiating in instances, granted the problems with ISIS would not be able to be solved with diplomacy.

Source

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-weighs-moving-us-troops-closer-to-front-lines-in-syria-iraq/2015/10/26/4ae2f36c-7bec-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html  

Blog Posting Schedule

Be sure to post on or before Thursday of the week scheduled

Week of October 26

Kenny Louzier

Aaron Maddux

Week of November 2

Cassidy Spencer

Zachary Franklin

John Rescigno

Connor Brown

Week of November 9

Erin Campbell

Zachary Franklin

John Rescigno

Kelsey Dustin

Week of November 16

Erin Campbell

Kenny Louzier

Joseph Hall

James Morrow

Philip Wettengel

 Week of November 30

Cassidy Spencer

Aaron Maddux

James Morrow

 Connor Brown

Week of December 7

Kelsey Dustin

Joseph Hall

Philip Wettengel

 

Welcome to our Presidency Class Blog for Fall 2015!

 Welcome to our Presidency class blog! The first step for class members is to set up an account with Blogger.com so I can add you to this blog so you can get started posting! Look for an email from me, if you do not receive one, let me know. I will send a sign up sheet around and publish the posting schedule.


(I took this photo when then Senator Obama spoke to us here at PSU).



A few rules to follow:

1. No profanity or obscenities! This Blog will maintain professional standards of discourse!

2. No jerks.

3. No incivility. You are expected to treat one another with respect and offer constructive comments.

4. follow all rules about fair use of material--copyrights etc.

5. You are expected to post a story on or before Thursday of the week assigned below.

Now--get blogging!

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.