According to a February 5, 2007 statement from the Department of Justice, “Benkahla was convicted of making materially false statements both in his grand jury appearances in 2004, as well as to the FBI in 2004. These false statements included his denial of his involvement with an overseas jihad training camp in 1999, as well as his asserted lack of knowledge about individuals with whom he was in contact.”

If you want to fundraise for a jailed jihadist, Dar Al-Hijrah is definitely the $40-donation-for-a-halal-chicken-dinner venue of choice.  Dar Al-Hijrah’s  jihadist credentials are impeccable:

Dar Al-Hijra is the mosque where Anwar al-Awlaki was Imam  between January 2001 and April 2002.  Al-Awlaki (bio here and here) was the senior al-Qaeda recruiter and motivator for various terrorists, including three 9/11 hijackers, the accused Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the Christmas Day 2009 attempt to blow up  Northwest Airlines Flight 253.  Al-Awlaki may still be alive in Yemen, and after some concerns about his civil rights, reportedly the Obama administration now has him targeted as a terrorist.

And who can forget that earlier Dar Al-Hijra Imam from 1995-1999, Mohammed Al-Hanooti,  named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  In 1999, when he was still Imam at Dar Al-Hijra, he testified in support of Ihab M. Ali, who had refused to testify before a grand jury investigating the 1998 United States embassy bombings.   Al-Hanooti told the federal judge that Islamic law “gives him [Ihab M. Ali] the right to abstain from giving testimony in case it hurts him or it hurts any other Muslim.”

Or the Dar Al-Hijra Islamic Studies teacher – and Dar Al Hijra Islamic Camp Counselor -  Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, convicted in 2005 of providing material support to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, and conspiracy to assassinate President Bush, now serving a life sentence.  Abu Ali was also valedictorian of his class at the Saudi Islamic Academy, the Saudi Embassy-backed 900-student school in the Washington, DC suburbs, that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has repeatedly urged the US State Department to shut down on the grounds that it teaches religious intolerance.

Or the Dar Al-Hijra Imam between August 2003 and May 2005, the memorable Sheikh Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh, formerly a Muslim Brotherhood member and Shariah judge in the Sudan, and one of the founders of both the mosque and the Muslim American Society (MAS), who left the mosque to become the executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America.

That’s the same  Fiqh Council that on February 9, 2010 issued a legal opinion – a fatwa – against the use of full body scanners in airports for Muslims.  He’s also active in bringing Shariah law to America, as the head of the Islamic Judiciary Council of the Shari’ah Scholars’ Association of North America (SSANA).

And we cannot neglect to mention the member of Dar Al-Hijrah’s Executive Committee, Abelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar, convicted in November 2007 of contempt and obstruction of justice for refusal to testify before a grand jury with regard to Hamas, and sentenced to 135 months in prison.   A major Hamas operative since at least 1988,  Ashqar was accused of opening bank accounts and maintaining U.S. records for Hamas.

Nor is Dar Al-Hijrah  just your average, friendly neighborhood mosque.  In fact, their original Constitution required their Board of Directors to  include  leaders of  Muslim Brotherhood front groups who would later be identified as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial: “the Current Secretary General of Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Current President of Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), the Current General Manager of North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), and the Current President of Muslim American Society (MAS).”  In 2005, when the current Imam Shaker Elsayed became Imam, he amended the mosque’s constitution to give precedence to the Muslim American Society, and now the mosque Board is run by the “Current President of the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Current MAS DC Area Chapter President, the Executive Director of MAS National Office.”  Elsayed had been Secretary General of the Muslim American Society before becoming Dar Al Hijrah’s imam.  The Muslim American Society was founded in 1993 as the American chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It was Imam Shaker Elsayed who sent the email invitation text for the February 13, 2010 fundraiser for Sabri Benkhala:

“Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:22:48 -0700
From: legaladmin@universal-justice.net
Subject: Mark Your Calendar (2/13/10): Dinner

Dear Friends of Justice,

Assalamu Alaikum. The Universal Justice Foundation is pleased to announce that it will be hosting a fundraising dinner to support Br. Sabri Benkahla by contributing to his legal fees. The event will feature Dr. Jamal Badawi from Canada, Imam Rodwaan Saleh from Texas, and Br. Sabri’s attorney John Sheldon, Esq. and will be held at Dar Al Hijrah IslamicCenter’s Main Courtyard. Tickets are only $40 and registration will be at 5:30. The program will begin promptly at 6:00 P.M., and dinner will be served early. Please arrange to purchase tickets as soon as possible because space is limited! You may buy tickets at our website www.universal-justice.net or from Sh. Shaker at Dar Al Hijrah. If neither option is convenient, please email us at legaladmin@universal-justice.net and we will arrange your ticket sale…

May Allah reward you greatly for your efforts in serving justice!

Sincerely,

Shaker Elsayed
Founder and Chairman, UJF

Shaker Elsayed, the current Imam, and founder and Chairman of that “United Justice Foundation” fundraising organization for convicted terrorists,  is a dual citizen of Egypt and the U.S.  He stated in  a sermon at the Dar Al Hijrah in 2005, shortly after becoming Imam there and stacking the Board of Directors with Muslim American Society leaders,  that “Islam forbids you to give allegiance to those who kick you off your homeland, and to those who support those who kick you off your homeland…We do have license to respond with all force necessary to answer our attackers.”  And in the same sermon he stated, “The call to reform Islam is an alien call.”  He is also an outspoken supporter of Hamas and their objectives, including the destruction of Israel.

The Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hassan, attended Dar Al-Hijrah periodically when he lived in the Washington, DC area, up to 2009 when he was transferred to Texas, and his now infamous powerpoint presentation, “The Koranic Worldview as it Related to Muslims in the Military” is closely in line with the 2005 preaching of the current Dar Al-Hijrah Imam, Shaker Elsayed.    See for example slide 11 in that series: “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims”; the examples in slide 13; or the quote that appears to track exactly with Elsayed’s 2005 sermon, on slide 49:  “Fighting to establish an Islamic State, to please God even by force, is condoned by the Islam.”

Dar Al-Hijrah has been staffed by a series of Imams who  radicalize their members – the members don’t “self-radicalize,” as Major Hasan was said to do in the negligent report on the Fort Hood Shooting put out by the Pentagon.  The U.S. intelligence community missed the warning signals from Dar Al-Hijrah’s earlier Imam Anwar al-Awlaki; they should heed the warning signals from the current Imam, Shaker Elsayed.

More on this in days to come – including which invited elected officials could be coming to dinner at Dar Al-Hijrah in April, at their gala annual fundraiser…

When the Christmas Day panty bomber was arrested for trying to blow up himself and the plane he rode in on, he was questioned for approximately 50 minutes before an attorney was brought in to advise him.  What happened next?  Mister Burning Briefs clammed up.

Contrast that with James O’Keefe, American citizen, who was denied an attorney for 28 hours after he was arrested and accused of trying to tamper with the phones of Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu.  During that time, the FBI issued a press release on the arrest and leaked the criminal complaint.  The mainstream media salivated, while ACORN’s Bertha Lewis scambled to appear before TV cameras.

The Christmas Day bomber was given Constitutional rights and Miranda’d within an hour of his arrest but a U.S. citizen was not given a lawyer until more than a day had passed?

How — and why — did a terror suspect get kid glove legal treatment?  And as another conservative journalist asked, “Where was the ‘don’t rush to judgment’ media when someone killed innocents while shouting Allah Akbar?  But at the first hint of a scandal, they crucify O’Keefe?”

On Monday night, O’Keefe appeared on the Sean Hannity TV program, his first public appearance since the arrest.  When asked by Hannity about the incident, O’Keefe declined to say too much.  “I just can’t comment any further.  There’s an investigation ongoing, and I’m just going to have to leave it at that.”

Hannity asked if he recorded the entire incident.  O’Keefe said he did.

Hannity: “If we were to show this video tonight, what would people conclude?”

O’Keefe: “That this is a huge misunderstanding, I think… you know, like in all my videos, like in my ACORN videos, I’m trying to get to the bottom of something. I’m trying to expose the truth. I’m trying to get to the true intent about what these people think about their constituents.  I’m trying to show the American people what, are they concerned about their constituents.  And that’s what I was trying to do.”

Hannity pressed him about what was on the videotapes now in the possession of the government.

O’Keefe: “Our entire visit to the Senator’s office… actually there’s two different cameras.  One was on the helmet, and one was on the cellphone.  So there’s tapes, the government has them in possession and I want them to be released because they refute a lot of these claims being made by the media.”

O’Keefe says the media jumped the gun and tried to destroy his reputation.

Don Surber at the Dailymail asks if James O’Keefe was framed.

“That’s the rumor swirling after the U.S. attorney recused himself from the criminal case in which O’Keefe and 3 others were arrested at Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in New Orleans. However, the U.S. attorney was a Bush appointee who was championed by Landrieu to keep his job under Obama. I am willing to bet this is the reason for his recusal, and if so, that is an honorable thing to do.”

Surber suggests that the Republicans on the House and Senate Judiciary committees might want to demand an investigation of this case.

Andrew Breitbart, publisher of BigGovernment.com said in a Fox News interview on Monday that O’Keefe was ‘framed’ by the media and the U.S. attorney’s office. Hours after that interview, Jim Letten, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana recused himself from the case,” according to a Fox News report.

“James O’Keefe sat in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney, while the U.S. attorney leaked the information about his arrest, helping the media frame it as ‘Watergate Junior,’” Breitbart said.

Blogger Patterico wrote:

“Breitbart said he though the U.S. attorney’s effort was part of a payback scheme against O’Keefe, who posed as a pimp and prostitute with another citizen journalist to enter ACORN offices around the country and get advice on how to apply for federal housing grants for a brothel.

“It’s tied to the Justice Department. And we’ve been very aggressive in asking (Attorney General) Eric Holder to investigate what’s seen on these ACORN tapes and he’s ignored it,” Breitbart said of the media ploy.”

FWIW, I don’t think Letten’s recusal has anything to do with Breitbart, his claims, or even O’Keefe. Letten recused himself, not his office, and the first assistant Jan Maselli Mann will take over the prosecution. My guess is Letten’s recusal is related to the fact that one of the suspects is the son of the U.S. Attorney in Shreveport, who is likely a Letten acquaintance and the basis for his recusal.”

O’Keefe is accusing members of the mainstream media of journalism malpractice over its coverage of his arrest and the circumstances surrounding it.

Obviously a media malfunction.

Some highlights from the poll:

*       Independent Women Voters: This demographic was key to the electoral outcome. They bucked their gender, with 67% of them supporting Scott Brown.  Majorities say that Congress should stop the current levels of spending and call for enacting provisions that make it more affordable for people to buy health insurance on their own, instead of through their jobs, in the same way people buy homeowners’ and life insurance (56%). Two-thirds of Indie women would allow small businesses to form groups to buy healthcare coverage at lower rates, and 45% want Congress to “start over” on healthcare reform; just 2% say continue with the reform “as is.”

*   Those who had frequently voted for Ted Kennedy in the past (63% of the sample) had some surprising opinions: 79% of them said providing tax cuts to small businesses for job creation will speed up the nation’s economic recovery; 47% say Congress should open healthcare negotiations for the public to observe.

*     Healthcare Plays the Heaviest Hand: Nearly two-in-five (38%) actual voters said they had healthcare on the brain when deciding between candidates; of those, 57% said in a later question that they support current efforts being undertaken in Washington.  Other issues of importance were the economy (16%), jobs and unemployment (13%), government spending (7%), and taxes (3%), meaning that fiscal issues summed statistically-equal to healthcare (39%).  Among the 29% of respondents who said that healthcare was their top concern, the majority (51%) said it was because they oppose the current legislation being considered in Washington, D.C., 46% because they support it.

*National Security: Because the Christmas day near-miss terrorist attack happened during the campaign, the issue of national security presented itself.  During a rally, then-candidate Scott Brown said, “In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”  Sixty-four percent of voters indicated that hearing Scott Brown say this was “very” (42%) or “somewhat” (22%) important when deciding which candidate to support.  Seventy percent of voters who said the statement had importance cast ballots for Brown.

*       National Consequences: Whereas 72% of Brown voters said they cast votes “mostly for” him and 60% of Coakley voters said theirs were also “mostly for” her, voters had not forgotten the consequences of their voting decisions.  Consider that 80% of Brown voters said that their “all” or “some” of their votes were “to oppose President Obama’s agenda in Washington” and, similarly, 82% of Coakley supporters said that their “all” or “some” of their support was “to advance President Obama’s agenda in Washington.”

*       When asked which candidates they supported in the past – Democrats or Republicans – for United States Senate and then asked to anticipate how they will vote in the future, there was a seven-point difference between the percentage of voters saying they have always or mostly voted for Democrats and the percentage saying they will do so in the future

IWV — Massachusetts Post-Election Survey TOPLINE DATA to CLIENT 1.26.10 –

The poll, conducted for IWV by Women Trend, a division of the polling company™ inc. surveyed 411 Massachusetts voters from January 23rd-24th, 2010.

IWV — Massachusetts Post-Election Survey Release to CLIENT 1.26.10 –

Many have simply tried to dismiss the phenomena as the ranting of a relatively small number of angry right-wing zealots. They are dead wrong but one gets the feeling the political class finds this easy dismissal far more comforting than the unsettling truths driving angry and vocal dissatisfaction by people from across the political spectrum.

“Real people” like me resonate in politics right now because of the growing chasm between what the political elites of both parties see as the best course for the nation—and for themselves– and the hopes and fears of the average American man and woman. In China that difference might mean very little to government as we saw in Tiananmen Square but, according to the Founding Fathers, such a division should not even exist here in the United States.

Those who are passionately protesting at Tea Parties and making themselves felt at the polls have rightly detected more than a hint of contempt for the average citizen. If everything were going well such elitist arrogance might be accepted, as it has been in the past. But things are not going well for our nation and more and more people are challenging the performance, ideas and motivations of those who hold themselves out as smarter and better than the rest of us.

Can a plumber or carpenter, housewife or truck driver (clutching their bibles and guns as Mr. Obama once sneered) have anything much to add to the public policies developed at the seats of government and financial power? To those of us “out here” the righteously indignant answer is “yes”–and not a moment too soon.

To understand the Tea Party perspective, political elites will have to come to understand that they are seen as having failed us. Whether it’s “Brownie’s” “great job” after Hurricane Katrina or the recent “system worked” remarks by Janet Napolitano or the tax problems of various government leaders (including the chairman of the House committee writing tax laws), we feel betrayed. This judgment is actually directed at politicians on both the right and the left. The arrogant and often contemptuous “smart guys” have saddled us with failure after failure and now seem bewildered that people are so angry.

Have political insiders given us a Social Security and Medicare system with more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities? Yes. Did the “successful” job stimulus program really end up costing more than $200,000 per low level job? Yes. Did we get help with usurious mortgage and credit card rates and life wrecking job losses caused, in truth, by bad government? No. Does the public education system really produce 50% and higher drop out rates in almost every major city? Yes. Does the unfathomable income tax system really cost us more than $300 billion a year in tax preparation expenses? Yes. Has spending billions of dollars to confiscate blue-haired ladies’ knitting needles and millions of pocket knives and lighters stopped terrorist bombers? No. And to many of us, the answer to everything is not shifting more of the fruits of our labors to the 40% of the population who pay no income taxes at all.

If all politics is really local, consider Washington D.C.’s abysmal public education record. The political clout of teacher’s unions saw the school choice program there dismantled last year even though it was working very well and wildly popular with poor African-American parents desperate for something better for their children. Their views were summarily ignored and then trampled on by both the White House and Congress because of the political advantage to politicians willing to ignore the fate of these children.

Are we angry? Yes. Because even worse than being routinely ignored by our leaders is the growing certainty that policy decisions that are bad for citizens and the nation often work out to the advantage of those inside government and those close to government. If you doubt this or wonder why there is such grassroots fervor for the FairTax, for example, take another hard look at the tax code’s 67,500 pages of regulations, the “royal treatment” of Congressional tax committee members and staff and the billions spent on special interest tax lobbying every year.

The Tea Party movement will grow larger and larger and will resist being taken over by insiders who see potential for their party or candidates until the distance between what average Americans feel and what political leaders do in pure self-interest has been closed. To understand the anger in the Tea Parties one has to understand that many Americans still expect our government to act in the public, instead of private or political interest.

In campaigning with Brown in the final days, Rudy Giuliani mapped out the battle lines: “This election will send a signal, and a very dramatic one, that we are going in the wrong direction on terrorism, and we need to change it, and change it now.”  Giuliani added: Scott’s background in the military speaks volumes about his understanding of what we face.  And frankly his opponent’s ignorance about the issues facing us is astounding.”

From the start candidate Brown was unequivocal on defense matters.  A 30-year Veteran of the National Guard, still serving as a lt. colonel, Brown unashamedly backed the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.    It’s notable that not once did he seek to separate himself from the Bush foreign policy agenda.

He repeatedly criticized his opponent, an attorney general, for her support of Obama’s policy of trying Khalid Sheikh Muhammed in a civilian trial in New York City.

Scott Brown refusted to back away from allowing the CIA and the Military to use strong interrogation techniques, including water-boarding, after being accused of supporting “torture” by Coakley and her supporters.

In contrast, candidate Coakley took a Ron Paul almost isolationist view on foreign policy.

Coakley called for a complete and immediate pull-out of Afghanistan:

“I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan.  I think that we should plan an exit strategy.  Yes.  I’m not sure there is a way to succeed.”

Coakley on her campaign website, like Paul, took a straight Anti-War in Iraq stance:

“Had Martha been in the Senate at the time, she would have voted against the Iraq invasion. It is now crucial that American troops leave the country.

Martha supports President Obama’s plan to fully withdraw from Iraq…”

I served as Congressman Ron Paul’s Senior Aide from 1997 to 2003. I can remember his early noises made to his policy advisor circle immediately after the 9/11 attacks, not to vote for the resolution to go into Afghanistan.  He finally relented after much pressure from the district, and even his staff.  It was his decision in 2003 not to back the President Bush and the War in Iraq that finally led to my resignation.

Looking back, with the Iraqi people fully liberated, and a stable pro-American democracy developing, we can see that George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani were right. Ron Paul got it wrong.

Perhaps Massachusetts voters sensed that Coakley’s Ron Paul-esque approach to fighting Islamic terrorism was rather weak like Paul’s.  Perhaps the seriousness of the terrorism issue, came back to the fore in the minds of these voters, after the shocking Ft. Hood shooting, followed by the Christmas Day bomber.

Yes, health care was front and center.  But it is notable that voters of one of the most dove-ish of states, chose to side forthrightly with the candidate of the Bush foreign policy agenda, over Obama/Paul.

In the wake of the Christmas Day bomber’s attempted attack, the US Visas Viper terrorist reporting program criteria have been broadened.

The Visas Viper program is used by the Department of State and other national agencies to place on “watch lists” known or suspected international terrorists in unclassified and classified government look out systems such as CLASS (Consular Lookout and Support Systems).

So it’s a good thing that Obama is broadening the criteria for reporting terrorists in this program, isn’t it? Actually, no. Make no mistake: it is not going to help whatsoever. Obama’s “tough” new criteria don’t let us filter out potential terrorists using minimal profiling criteria.

The vast number of bureaucracies involved already render the “watch list” process a tangled up inter-agency web. And it is simply ridiculous how the Visas Viper system, which is the main system that we use to try to prevent terrorists from obtaining visas, uses such vague and toothless criteria – even after Obama’s “reform.” How vague and toothless? Under the present system, people who express anti-American sentiments can fly. People who contribute money to identified terror organizations can fly – no problem. People who associate with known terrorists, but have done nothing further to support terrorism, can also fly. Even people who claim to be members of a terrorist organization, but have done nothing to further support terrorism can fly.

This is insane. Isn’t membership in a terror organization support of terror?

All this is consistent for Barack Obama. He has blamed Gitmo for Islamic expansionism, appearing to believe that if we bow and kowtow to our mortal enemy he will become a friend. Don’t upset the Nazis, and they will love us!

Obama has long ignored the onslaught of jihad attacks in America. Close to 40% of the planned and actual Islamic attacks on America post-9/11 took place in Obama’s first year.

Back in September, in a breathtaking act of audacity, Obama stood at the podium of the UN in New York City talking about what he thought was the greatest threat to Americans and to future generations: global warming. As he spoke, bomb-sniffing dogs were out in force in New York City. Ray Kelly, the New York City police commissioner, was giving a press conference on the situation. A cell of Islamic jihadis targeting New York City was planning to blow up the transit system, as well as sports stadiums and the sites used for Fashion Week. Self-storage lockers in Queens were being searched for bomb-making materials.

The president spoke of the global warming hoax like a snake oil salesman. He said that “we understand the gravity” of the threat. “We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations.” He said that a failure to address the threat could lead to an “irreversible catastrophe.” Time, he said, is “running out,” but “we can reverse” the problem. “If things go business-as-usual, we will not live, we will die,” he said. “Our country will not exist.” He told us that it wouldn’t be easy, but “I am here today to say that difficulty is no excuse for complacency. Unease is no excuse for inaction.” Imagine, he said this while the city was in the throes of jihad terror – what would have been the worst attack on New York since 9/11.

Yet when Senator Jack Reed said on FOX News Sunday that the Obama administration was better on terrorism than the Bush administration, he wasn’t joking.

Only the left can massacre language, render words meaningless and have their egregious actions left unchallenged.

But they will not forever go unchallenged. The jihad will only get worse. And I predict when a Muslim gets one off in a mall or an airport, and limbs are flying and babies are dying, that Tea Partiers and Town Hallers will be joined by counter jihad protests. They will be protesting the Obama administration’s hopeless inaction and impotence in the face of the jihad against our nation.

No mere academic cheer for Democrats, they have campaigned on their Blame America First theme for years.  In the minds of those Democrats, rather than display arrogance, America must be more humble, except blame for World troubles and not seek to impose its view on the world.  The latest iteration of that, of course, was Obama’s campaign.

According to Obama, following 9/11:

Millions around the world were ready to stand with us. They were willing to rally to our cause because it was their cause too – because they knew that if America led the world toward a new era of global cooperation, it would advance the security of people in our nation and all nations.” According to Obama, however, the Bush Administration “squandered that opportunity . . . [and]  . . . World opinion has turned against us.

What is the cure for such “mistakes,” according to Obama? As we have seen, it is to apologize on his world tours for American actions, to promise to talk directly to dictators, to abandon missile systems, to speak softly in the face of phony Iranian elections and crack downs on dissent, to bow in front of dictators, wear a thin mustache in front Middle Eastern leaders in Egypt, preach global responsibility, promise to close Guantanamo, give rights to Interpol over US territory, and on and on.

So what significant results have such “unmistaken” actions begot our leader and our nation on the great issues of the day?  Frankly, a slap in the face.

After offering rapprochement to Iran, Iran has changed its actions not at all.  Indeed, it is pursuing nuclear energy/weapons with the same vigor as before and Ahmadinejad turned bellicose on Obama.  He has variously called Obama a “meddler,” demanded Obama apologize, said that Obama has been “a disappointment to the world,” and characterized Obama’s year-end deadline on a U.N.-drafted fuel deal as “meaningless.”

Not to be completely out done, the Olympic Committee embarrassed Obama in front of the World;  China and India effectively scuttled a deal in Copenhagen, governments spurned Obama’s demand for tighter airport screening, and, of course, al Qaeda sought to blow-up an American plane.

Surely no one can confuse Obama’s actions or rhetoric, on the whole, for President Bush.  Yet, a year into his Presidency, the World just doesn’t seem to buying into Obama’s messianic esteem.  To the contrary, Iran and the al Qaeda mini 9/11 bombing demonstrate that they still hate America regardless of Obama’s peace overtures.

Of course, those of us who understand Jefferson’s admonitions that “Weakness provokes insult & injury while condition to punish it often prevents it,” and “Whatever enables us to go to war, secures our peace,” are surprised not at all that the World dictator class has not rolled over for Obama.  They will make use of him where they can and when they can.  The only question becomes, how much danger will the US incur, before Americans wake up again to the fact that Obama will probably always Blame America First and that there is no international substitute for true stature.