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?

The minimum wage and presidential power

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27225997

A congressional vote on a measure to increases the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour failed in the senate today. The bill is part of a concentrated push by the Democrats and Obama administration to increase the national minimum wage. The president has already signed an executive order implementing the increase for federal workers, and a number of states have already passed the measure under presidential pressure.

I think this is an interesting example of the president using non-legislative powers to execute his agenda in spite of congressional recalcitrance. Between his executive orders and his ability to pressure state governments he has already made strides towards implementing his policy without even needing to rely on the federal legislature to cooperate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-no-us-military-involvement-in-ukraine/2014/04/17/d3bac43e-c66d-11e3-b708-471bae3cb10c_story.html

President Obama has once again restated his belief that military intervention in the Ukraine is not in the United States' best interests. This is a fairly obvious conclusion, as it is more an internal affair than an international one. However, the news article implies that the President has had to explain his decision multiple times. That seems strange, considering we voted him into office and generally should trust him to make the decisions he was elected to make. However, we are a naturally distrusting culture at this point. We don't want to let people do the things we appoint them to do, because we believe that they will fail.

This kind of attitude toward our government, specifically the President and those directly under him, is a massive impediment toward his efficiency. Moreover, being this cynical is going to cause a spiral and keep shackling our government officials by the fact that they have to explain themselves multiple times. This is going to cause a steady loss of efficiency and a decline of trust in our government until something is done to correct the issue

One-Dimensional Voters

            What qualities should we look for in our President? This is a loaded question, not only do we want someone who will best lead our country, but also represent us to the rest of the world.  Do we want someone who’s charismatic, but let’s his work slide? Or do we want a leader who gets the job done, but has no personality?   Obviously no one is perfect, and picking a leader is a balancing act between the pros and cons of each candidate.  Unfortunately, when voters go to evaluate a candidate’s character it’s often one-dimensional. They see each candidate as a “man of the people” or an “elitists”, an “honest man” or a “crook”.  This one-dimensional way of analyzing a candidate’s character leader to easy attack ads, and skewing voters opinions on an individual.

            Voters need to make a more conscientious effort to analyzing a candidate’s true political ideology, and not allowing for cheap attack ads and linear concepts to keep them from developing their own opinion on any particular individual.  Voters need to act in a more bipartisan nature when deciding whom to vote for.  Each candidate should be analyzed to the same extent, and one should be chosen who better represents that an individual wants and needs. 

            Other issues should be taken into account such as: political experience/skill, management ability, persuasiveness, and the Ten-Commandments of the President.  Although voters are not directly counted, each ballot cast is a serious matter, and should be treated with the utmost seriousness.  Voters are deciding who they want to lead and represent them for four-years, and that should not be taken likely. 

OBAMACARE and its effects on employment

This week the Obama Administration reached their target goal of 7 million Americans signed up under the Affordable Healthcare Act and healthcare.gov, a substantial feat to what most conservatives claimed as nearly impossible.  Also the expansions in Medicaid have provided millions more with benefits that will provide security for them in the future.  Also the fact that millions of people that already had insurance will be able to keep their health insurance even if they are terminated from their employment. So essentially people can continue to gain health insurance and work less hours or part-time, as people begin to opt out of working full-time the labor market is likely to see a demand for new workers and in turn higher wages from the supply and demand cycle of the US job Market.  A writer for the Guardian Dean Baker claims that there are going to be signs that the ACA is coming into full effect the first is that we will see an increase in the quit rate throughout the US as people can keep their coverage without being employed, next there will be a rise in people who voluntarily will work part time under 35 hours a week.  Another aspect to this series is that people who are elderly will decline in the workforce especially between the ages of 54-66 as they can retire and keep their coverage, and lastly the number of self-employed workers and the amount of small businesses will increase as well.

IS the Affordable Healthcare Act really as bad as conservatives make it out to be? I'm playing the devils advocate obviously so pick a side guys!!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/31/obamacare-deadline-signups-plan-keep-wages-up

Obama: For and Against Himself-Observations on Personality During His First Four Years

               At an early age we are taught not to judge.  Not to judge someone by his or her looks, the car they drive, the clothes they wear, or any other materialistic or worldly possessions they may have to their name.  Rather, we are tough to give everyone a chance and base our options of them by less shallow means.  Personality, ethics, and actions are how we would ideally evaluate the people around us.  Yet, how would we understand and analyze the people we cannot come into contact with?  How are we as Americans supposed to decide which presidential candidate we wish to align our support with, if we can’t truly meet them? We have to do this by casting aside political biased and partisanship, and create a real option determined by the issues a candidate stands for.  Sometimes this isn’t enough though, we need to understand a person’s personality and past before we can cast our ballots and set our decisions in stone.  Steven J. Wayne, of George Town University, feels the same way about this topic, and closely observed Obama’s behavior and past to gain a clear understanding of his personality, and how this affects his style of “ruling”.  By reading Wayne’s book Personality and Politics: Obama For and Against Himself, the reader can gain a concrete of idea of the kind of person current President Barack Obama truly is.  I will discus my options based on the major themes I came across while reading Wayne’s book.  These themes include: Obama as a realist or an idealist, his decision making ability, and finally if he is a transformational or transactional figure as leader. 

            We will start by examining the question is Obama an idealist or a realist?  An idealist is someone who is guided more by ideals than by practical considerations.  While a realist is a person who tends to view or represent things as they really are.  An example of each of these types of people are Karl Marx, an idealist, and Niccolò Machiavelli who was a realist.  Marx had a romantic idea of communism, and used this “imagine if” idea of it to gain support of an unproven theory in his writing The Communist Manifesto.  Machiavelli demonstrated his realist ideas in his book The Prince, where he simply explained how to be a strong ruler.  He didn’t use any romantic ideas he simply stated facts he gathered from historical events from around his time.  I believe Obama is more of an idealist than he is a realist.  He believes humans are generally good and hard working.  Obama sees himself as living proof the American dream can be reached.  In his Inaugural address he said, “… we can shape our individual and collective destines, so long as we rediscover the traditional values of hard work…” The key word in that sentence is “rediscover”.  He has no control over this, he is hoping on the American people to make a change to better the country.  This is very similar to Marx as he was hoping to make a change in the ideas of the people through his writing.  “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” according to Obama “immortalizes the American belief in individual freedom…” (Wayne, 38)  He believes that if he can level the playing field, people will work to better their lives, for themselves and the people around them.  He is lead by the ideals he found while discovering his own identity, and his religious beliefs are used as a moral guideline, and not a literal way to live his life. 

            Obama makes rational decisions, and he likes to please the people he is working for.  He keeps his focus on the doable, and understands that compromise of his plans is necessary to making anything happen in politics.  His visions and ideas are strong, but he will sacrifice here and there to see his ideas pass through and gain support. Obama describes himself as, “… a practical person, somebody who, I think can cut through some very complicated problems and figure out the right course of action.”  He avoids taking risks, and is slow to rush to judgment because he needs to think about everything his decisions can affect.  “Rigor, logic, and rationality guide his thought process.  He tends to keep whatever emotions he feels well buried.” (Wayne, 52) He thinks with his head when it comes to making policies and laws.  “He’s very methodical in how he evaluates decisions.” David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political strategist says, “He’ll engage you in a dialog on the options.  And then he’ll make a decision.  And he doesn’t look back at that decision.”  He is bold and he is confident.  In a way Obama is an elitist because of his ego.  Which he is fully aware of, this and his lack of emotion in making decisions makes him appear distant form regular people.

            Lastly, is Obama a transformational or transactional leader? A transformational leader goes beyond managing day-to-day operations and crafts strategies for taking his “company” to the next level of performance and success.  A transformational leader thinks about how to better the future of his “company”.  A Transactional leader is more concerned with maintaining the normal flow of things and keeping everything running smoothly.  Ideally one must possess traits from both styles of leadership to be successful, but I believe Obama is more of a transformational leader.  He is concerned with bettering the country for the future generations.  He wants to fix the problems we have now, and establish new programs to better situations down the road.  Obama’s policies on social change are what lead me to classify him as a transformational leader.  The easier thing to do would be to sit back and say everything is fine, but Obama addresses and warrants change.  Obama is pro-choice, pro same sex marriage rights, and his The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare as it’s now known) are all solid proof that he is trying to change the country for what he believes to be for the better.  “Obama sees government as a positive force in promoting greater contrary, Obama sees government as a positive force in promoting greater economic and social opportunities, especially for those at the lowest end of the socio-economic scale. “ (Wayne, 40)  Obama is trying to create programs and situations to better the lives of poor Americans.  He has been doing this since he was a young politician in Chicago.  Obama uses the Bully Pulpit to express his options on these issues.  He always speaks of how he plans to better the country, and he has been successful (to an extent) in doing so during his first four years as a president.

            In conclusion, I feel President Obama has done a good job in office during his first four years.  His upbringing and his search for his identity in a confusing time and in an unorthodox situation shaped him as a person and established his moral and political beliefs, as well as served as a means to keep him grounded and his ego in check.  He is an idealist, yet logical and is pushing for social and economic change.  He has already made many changes for the better, he cut prescription price of Medicare recipients by 50%, brought troops home, passed a $789 billion economic stimulus plan, Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research, and much more.  Although sometimes it takes him a while to get his ideas passed, he almost always gets things done.  He is a man of change for the better, yet he keeps the traditional American values of hard work in order to prosper in check.  The manifest destiny idea is still alive in America.  If you work hard enough anything can be yours, and President Obama wants to keep that dream alive for millions of hard working Americans today.