The administration handlers calculated media response when all the "scandals" were revealed. Now that liberal journalists have criticized Obama, even from the NYT, because of civil liberties violations, when they say they have looked into the issues thoroughly and found no smoking guns to nail Obama for corruption, they'll have credibility, so that when Republicans continue with the investigations they'll look as if they're obsessed with destroying Obama. Even this morning journalists and reporters are moving on and praising Obama's foreign policy speech. The speech was simply more deception, a defense of the drone policy and a statement that Obama's interventions in the Mideast will continue. The Press is advertising the speech as a turning point, and it is -- it's an escalation of interventions, just without troops on the ground -- at least for now. These types of interventions always lead to boots on the ground, so the seeds of the next war are being planted by Obama's "turning point".

Obama handlers are also calculating that foreign policy policy will draw attention away from the "scandals". I put scandals in quotes, because, as I've stated lately, these are simply consequences of statism and progressivism. The media will help Obama build his foreign policy image as more confusion is spread about the IRS and the AP/Fox phone/email spying and the Benghazi gun-running deal that led to the death of four Americans. As media tell us that Obama is not implicated in any wrongdoing, honest Republicans will push the issues, but the GOP establishment will back off.

When the "scandals" have passed, the level of rights violations will have been raised to allow more violations. Rights violations are being normalized. The Obama operators calculated this.

I support a well-trained, technologically advanced, voluntary, capable military. I support maintenance of weapons necessary to defend the nation and fight a large scale war if such a war arises. I support intelligence operations designed to prevent attacks on Americans. In short, I support defense of our national security. When moral dilemmas arise, such as a foreign country run by a ruthless murderer and the question of our duty to protect the innocents being slaughtered, such cases can be decided based on the facts and our ability to stop the killings. These types of situations are not common, so they can be decided on individually, preferably in concert with other nations, but, as a general doctrine, I advocate non-interventionism.

After 9/11 the US had to respond, and how we responded will be analyzed as we go forward, but it's apparent that a decade after the attack it's time to bring the troops home and stop our interventions in the Mideast. Obama's speech today called for a change in our approach to terrorism, but I don't believe much will change with Obama's approach except troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan. Obama will pretend that troop withdrawals signify a change in foreign policy, but they won't. Obama made it clear that he wants to intervene in mideast affairs in several different ways -- aid, diplomacy and targeted attacks on "extremists". What Obama likely has planned is backing the Muslim Brotherhood as they spread their influence from Egypt to Libya to Syria and beyond.

Obama wants the US to manipulate the region in concert with Turkey to establish Turkish-style "democracy" and an alliance with the US. Obama believes that the Muslim Brotherhood will moderate in power enough to create a mideast form of democracy. At least I hope Obama is gullible and believes this, because it's way too troubling to accept that Obama knows the tyrannical nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and supports them anyway.

Since the beginning of America, in spite of a public that supported non-interventionism mostly, at least when they weren't being ginned up to battle the Arabs, the US has intervened in the Mideast, attempting to change the region in ways our leaders thought the people of the region desired, or should desire. The people of the region have never really wanted our interventions and patronizing -- they want to live their lives the way they see fit, but they've taken our money and they've played us for fools over and over. America has no business manipulating nations in the Mideast. We could have been energy independent long ago, and we can become energy independent now.

Obama likely has several reasons for his "new" direction in the Mideast. One reason is that Obama needs to change the conversation from Benghazi in any way he can. Secondly, I think Obama believes that once troops are removed from Afghanistan, at least most of them, he'll be able to help shape the Mideast changes toward "democracy". This is Obama's Progressive foreign policy, and it has to do with the Progressive idea of social justice. The West, according to the ideology, has dominated the world long enough, and now other suppressed nations have to be brought along and made partners in global progress toward equality and justice.

Obama made it clear that all manipulations in the region have to be in concert with other nations, and this brings us to the transformation of the post-WWII global order to the post-War on Terror, 21st century global order. The 21st century global order will be different from the US-European controlled order. The new order will include Russia and China and Brazil and India and whatever player in the Mideast rises to prominence to represent the region.

Supporting our Mideast interventions is not the same as supporting a war against our enemies -- what Obama is leading in the Mideast is not a War on Terror, but rather a Mideast transformation under the management of the Muslim Brotherhood or some organization like them. This is not going to turn out well, because the Muslim Brotherhood has shown their tyrannical nature, and they won't get any better when they meet resistance. The US must stay out of this region -- no aid, no "diplomatic" manipulations, no military attacks unless we're defending our national security. Let the Mideast settle its own problems, and let them know that we're hands off from now on. They don't attack us and we don't attack them, but if we're attacked, and when we find out the origin of the attack, we'll respond with godawful force, then we'll leave -- no clean up, no rebuilding -- we'll just punish and leave.

With Obamacare coming out, the mindset in government is to do what it takes to implement the program. When young people pay fines rather than buy policies, what do you think government will do? They will force young people to subsidize old people by any means necessary, because government has decided it's best for the whole. What will happen when businesses push employees to the exchanges? Government will do whatever it takes to make businesses pay their "fair share". When Obamacare starts to implode, government will make the case for single payer nationalized healthcare, and then  push it through. Taxes will go up tremendously. Then watch how the Senate beats down any company not paying the amount of taxes government demands it pay. By God, Government tried nudging, and we wouldn't respond correctly, so now we must face the consequences. If you don't want a beat down, then start acting right.