American University Professors Continue To Show Us That They Love Fascism

First, the story from yesterday:

100 UC Irvine faculty members ask district attorney to drop charges against Muslim students
February 9, 2011 | 11:20 am

A group of 100 faculty members at UC Irvine signed a letter asking the Orange County district attorney to drop criminal charges against 11 Muslim students who disrupted a speech by the Israeli ambassador to the United States.

The group, including five deans, said the Muslim Student Union was wrong to disrupt the speech last year by Ambassador Michael Oren but that the students and the group had already been disciplined by the university.

Orange County prosecutors announced last week they were charging the students with two misdemeanor counts, including conspiracy to disrupt the speech. If convicted, each faces up to six months in jail.

The decision to charge the students, the faculty letter says, “sets a dangerous precedent for the use of the criminal law against nonviolent protests on campus.”

It goes on to argue the charges are harmful and divisive to the school and risk “undoing the healing process” after widespread debate erupted following the protest and the decision to temporarily suspend the group.

“I think there was a great deal of dismay that the DA was reviving what we thought had been a closed chapter in the university’s history,” said UC Irvine history professor Jon Wiener.

The district attorney has argued that the students organized to squelch the speaker in clear violation of the law. The students are set to be arraigned March 11 in Santa Ana.

Here’s the Youtube video of these students disrupting the Israeli ambassador’s speech – and, yes, free speech rights.

Now, any UC Irvine professor worth his tenure knows that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs and should most certainly not enjoy the free speech rights that liberals cherish.

Let’s not talk about the fact that radical Muslims are very much on the list of “good groups” with the left; and let’s not talk about the fact that no leftist worth his or her KoolAid likes Israel.

Let’s make this even easier: I challenge you to perform an experiment.   Enroll in a course taught by any of the following professors (i.e., the 100 who signed this morally idiotic letter):

Frank D. Bean, Chancellor’s Professor of Sociology
Kitty Calavita, Chancellor’s Professor of Criminology, Law and Society
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, School of Law
Joseph F. C. DiMento, Professor of Law and Policy, Planning & Design
Valerie Jenness, Dean, School of Social Ecology
Catherine Liu, Director, Humanities Center
Duncan Luce, Distinguished Research Professor of Cognitive Science
Penelope Maddy, Distinguished Professor of Logic & Philosophy of Science
George Marcus, Chancellor’s Professor of Anthropology
James M. McGaugh, Research Professor, Neurobiology and Behavior
Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Chancellor’s Professor of Law
Jack Miles, Distinguished Professor of English and Religious Studies
Mark Petracca, Chair, Dept. of Political Science
Kenneth Pomeranz, Chancellor’s Professor of History
Vicki Ruiz, Dean, School of Humanities
Sharon Salinger, Dean of Undergraduate Education
Barry Siegel, Director, Literary Journalism Program
Brook Thomas, Chancellor’s Professor of English
Jeffrey Wasserstrom, Chair, Dept. of History
Henry Weinstein, Senior Lecturer in Law and Literary Journalism
Jon Wiener, Professor of History
Dan L. Burk, Chancellor’s Professor of Law
Catherine Fisk, Chancellor’s Professor of Law
David A. Snow, Chancellor’s Professor of Sociology
F. Allan Hubbell, Executive Vice Dean, School of Medicine
Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Distinguished Professor of English  & Comparative Literature
Etienne Balibar, Distinguished Professor of Humanities
Greg Duncan, Distinguished Professor of Education
Grace C. Tonner, Associate Dean of Lawyering Skills
Ulrike Strasser, Associate Professor, History and Director, European Studies
Irene Tucker, Associate Professor of English
James Given, Professor of History
Dickson D. Bruce, Jr., Professor of History, Emeritus
Hugh Roberts, Assoc. Prof. Dept. of English
Robert Newsom, Professor Emeritus, Department of English
Mark Poster, Emeritus Professor, Film and Media Studies and History
Sharon Block, Associate Professor of History
Ann Van Sant, English
Jennifer Terry, Chair and Associate Professor of Women’s Studies
Laura J. Mitchell, Associate Professor of History
Emily Rosenberg, Professor of History
R. Radhakrishnan, Chancellor’s Professor of English and Comparative Literature
Eyal Amiran, Associate Professor, Comparative Literature and Film and Media Studies
Jerome Christensen, Professor of English
Susan Jarratt, Comparative Literature
Rebeca Helfer, English Department
Annette Schlichter, Associate Professor, Comparative Literature
Timothy Tackett, Professor of History
Touraj Daryaee, History Department
Carolyn P. Boyd, Professor Emerita, Department of History
Amy Wilentz, Professor of English and Literary Journalism
Victoria Silver, Associate Professor of English
Alice Fahs, Associate Professor of History
Anne Walthall, Professor of History
Laura Kang, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies
Alexander Gelley, Professor, Dept. of Comparative Literature
Elizabeth Allen, Associate Professor of English
Rubén G. Rumbaut, Professor of Sociology
David A.  Smith, Professor of Sociology and Planning, Policy and Design
Sarah Farmer, Associate Professor of History
Raul Fernandez, Social Sciences/Chicano Latino Studies
Keith Nelson, Professor Emeritus of History, Director, Program in Religious Studies
Estela Zarate, Assistant Professor, Department of Education
Leo Chavez, Anthropology
Deborah R. Vargas, Assistant Professor, Chicano/Latino Studies
Thurston Domina, Assistant Professor of Education and Sociology
DeSipio, Chair, Department of Chicano/Latino Studies
Jutta Heckhausen, Professor, Psychology and Social Behavior
Heidi Tinsman, Associate Professor of History
Ellen Burt, Professor of French and Comparative Literature
Belinda Robnett-Olsen, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology
Robert Folkenflik, Edward A. Dickson Emeritus Professor of English
Ron Carlson, Professor of English
Edwin Amenta, Professor of Sociology and History
Francesca Polletta, Professor of Sociology
Susan K. Brown, Associate Professor of Sociology
Adriana Johnson, Comparative Literature
Rachel Sarah O’Toole, Assistant Professor, History Department
Nancy McLaughlin, Assistant Professor, History Department
Steven C. Topik, Professor of History
Gilbert G. Gonzalez, Professor, Chicano-Latino Studies
Judy Stepan-Norris, Sociology
Julia Reinhard Lupton, Professor of English and Comparative Literature
Spencer Olin, Professor Emeritus of History
Glen Mimura, Associate Dean of Graduate Study, School of Humanities
Ana Elizabeth Rosas, Assistant Professor, Chicana/o-Latina/o Studies and History
Robert Moeller, Department of History
Elizabeth M. Guthrie, French, retired
Cecile Whiting, Chair, Department of Art History
Cynthia Feliciano, Associate Professor, Sociology and Chicano/Latino Studies
David S. Meyer, Professor, Sociology
Charlie Chubb, Professor, Cognitive Sciences
Alejandro Morales, Professor, Department of Chicano/Latino Studies
Ian Munro, Associate Professor of Drama
Luke Hegel-Cantarella, Head of Scenic Design – Claire Trevor School of the Arts
David Igler, Associate Professor of History
Stephen Barker, Associate Dean, Claire Trevor School of the Arts
Cliff Faulkner, Senior Lecturer, Drama Department
Vincent Olivieri, Designer/Composer/Assistant Professor, Drama Department
Carol Burke, Professor, English
David Carroll, Professor Emeritus of French
Robert Cohen, Claire Trevor Professor of Drama
Frank B. Wilderson, III, Associate Professor African American Studies & Drama

And the moment any of these professors begins lecturing, start shouting him or her down.  Scream as loud as you can so that the professor can’t make a single point. 

And see how long these complete, unadulterated hypocrites will tolerate your presence in their class.

I’d go on and say, “Do this every single day, just as the radical Muslims would scream down an Israeli every single time he spoke.”  But you wouldn’t get two chances with any of these professors: they’d have you out on your ear after your first minute, never to return on penalty of arrest.

I wrote the following the last time I wrote about a leftwing “intellectual” attacking Jews:

Thomas Sowell described the destruction their kind has done:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

American liberals enthusiastically supported Hitler’s socialist fascism during his rise to power, just as they had supported totalitarian communism in the years before.

Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left.  They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing.  Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics.  Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.

And the foolishness of academia continues full throttle and full speed to the next fascist dictator.

Do you want to know which guy who engaged in “nonviolent protest on campus” should have his rights preserved?  How about that Israeli ambassador who came to say pro-Israel stuff that liberals can’t stand???  How about the large crowd of people who came out to hear that ambassador speak, rather than to hear a bunch of Islamic fascist shout???  What about their right to nonviolently protest by hearing something that these 100 moral idiot professors didn’t want them to hear???

If you want to defend these slimeball professors, you first go to their class and shout them down every time they try to speak, just so you can watch them put their “tolerance” into action.

These professors aren’t making a courageous stand for non-violent protest.  They are cowards of the worst kind, endorsing and supporting the “right” of their student pawns to shout down speech that liberals do not want to tolerate and will not tolerate.

One of the good things about a free society is that you have the right to protest.  Another good thing about it is that a free society has the right to put you in jail for breaking the law.  And, of course, another good thing is that there are consequences in a free society, as people are either rewarded or punished for good or bad behavior, respectively.

You can scroll down the list and see the names of 100 UC Irvine faculty who clearly do not want a free society.  They don’t want to allow Israeli ambassadors the right to speak.  They don’t want the law to be applied to those who scream down speech they don’t like.  And they don’t believe in negative consequnces for those who fail to uphold he laws of a democracy.

Shame on the student protestors.  But far more shame on the faculty of UC Irvine and the entire university that supports these contemptible mal-educators.

Update, February 10, 2011: Here’s further evidence  (to go along with still further evidence) that the radical left and radical Islam are working together.  What the two movements have in common is totalitarianism, socialism, fascism, rabid intolerance for dissent and a belief in government as God.

Moral Fool And Moral Weakling: Obama Weighs In On Ground Zero Mosque Before Wavering

As usual, Barry Hussein has talked himself into a pretzel.  And the twisted shape suits him.  It appears to go off in every direction, but leads nowhere.

In this case, Obama was for that mosque before he was against it.

He doesn’t support it (or at least he doesn’t not support it???):

Obama wades into New York mosque debate – again
By Ross Colvin Ross Colvin   – August 14, 2010

PANAMA CITY, Florida (Reuters) – President Barack Obama said on Saturday he supported the right of Muslims to build a cultural center near the site of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City but would not comment on the “wisdom” of such a move.

Obama’s comments came after his remarks at a White House event on Friday in which he appeared to offer his backing for the construction of a center called Cordoba House near the site known as “Ground Zero” in lower Manhattan.

Americans in both political parties, including many New Yorkers, object to the project.

Obama’s comments on Friday drew criticism from conservatives and others, and the president sought to clarify them during a trip to Florida on Saturday.

“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there,” Obama told reporters while visiting the U.S. Gulf Coast.

“I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”

On Friday, Obama said he believed Muslims had the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in the country.

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said.

Before he did support it.

From ABC News:

Closing Argument: Obama Endorses Islamic Community Center Near Ground Zero
August 13, 2010 9:34 PM

This evening, President Obama endorsed the controversial plan to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero in New York City.

Obama thinks that everyone in the country is some kind of moron.  And he can say one thing, and then say another thing, and only he can tell the difference.

From the Associated Press:

Obama Comes Out in Favor of Allowing Mosque Near Ground Zero
Published August 13, 2010
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — After skirting the controversy for weeks, President Barack Obama is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it.

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” Obama told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.

It was already much more than that, sparking debate around the country as top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich announced their opposition. So did the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group.

Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation.

While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed “hallowed ground,” Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.

Democrats have been moral idiots for the last forty years.  And Barack Obama has stomped his foot all the way down to the floorboard toward moral idiocy.

I watch Fox News regularly.  I hear what the Republicans and the conservatives have been saying.  I’ve heard what Sarah Palin has said and what Newt Gingrich has said.

None of them are saying that the Muslims who want to build this “community outreach center” don’t have the legal right to build it.  What they are saying is that the Muslims shouldn’t build it if they actually want any genuine community “outreach.”

It isn’t “outreach.”  It’s “outrage.”

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims that this “community center” “will serve as the platform to launch a broader vision of Muslim-West harmony and interdependence.”  That clearly isn’t anywhere even remotely true.

This isn’t about freedom of religion, and it isn’t about the Constitution.  It’s about right and wrong.

Let me give you an example of what I’m saying.  In this country, I have every right to go into a black establishment and repeatedly shout the N-word at the top of my lungs.  I have the right to go into a black church wearing a white robe and a white pointy hat.  But I shouldn’t do it.  And all rights aside, I’m profoundly wrong if I do do it.

On the Democrats’ morally idiotic defense of the mosque, the fact that the Muslims have a right to build it means therefore ergo sum that they should build it, and that anyone who disagrees is “intolerant” or is violating the Constitutional rights of the Muslims.

But that is every bit as stupid as my walking down the street pointing out every single black person and shouting the N-word, and then telling anyone who criticizes me for doing it that they are enemies of the Constitution.

And, of course, the only reason I’m wearing that white robe and that pointy hat is for “community outreach.”  You see, I want to create a “racial dialogue.”

So how DARE you criticize me.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll put my pointy hood back on and be on my way.  I have some black people to go shout at.

And yet Democrats who argue that I should have no right to criticize the inappropriateness of building a mosque celebrating a religion immediately adjacent to a site that was destroyed with huge loss of life in the name of that decision refuse to extend that same principle to their fellow citizens as they repeatedly demonized Tea Party people who were merely exercising their Constitutional rights.

Now, I don’t have to explain this to people who have moral common sense.  But if I actually want to create a community, or to create a racial dialogue, I don’t set up a gigantic act of offense to the very people I claim to be reaching out to.  There’s something profoundly wrong with this picture.

And building what is essentially a mosque (or are they going to build a synagogue and a church in this “community center” so that Jews and Christians cans worship there, too?) clearly incites rather than heals.

Maybe, instead of building a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero, this “outreach” could focus on building a synagogue as close as possible to Mecca, instead.

The Reuters article points out that:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll showed Americans across the political spectrum opposed the project being built near the New York site.

The survey, released on Wednesday, showed nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed it, including 54 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents.

Seventy percent of Americans don’t feel any “community” from this community center.  They feel outraged.

Which is why the next paragraphs that follow that demonstration that the American people are opposed to the construction of this “community center” are true:

U.S. House Republican leader John Boehner called Obama’s “endorsement” of the center’s construction near Ground Zero troubling.

“The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do,” Boehner said in a statement. “This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history.”

Gary Bauer, president of the conservative non-profit group “American Values,” said Obama’s comments showed the president had lost touch with his fellow citizens.

“This latest decision is proof positive that the President does not understand the values and sentiments of the American people, especially while we are still at war around the world with jihadists,” Bauer said in a statement.

The American people understand the difference between the fact that the Muslims who own the property have a right to build, and the fact that it is an outrage for Muslims to build a mosque near the site where a group of Muslims acting in the name of Islam and shouting “Allahu Akbar!” murdered 3,000 innocent Americans in a cowardly attack.

This “outreach center” should not be built near Ground Zero.  Build it somewhere else.  The American people have been very tolerant regarding the building of more than 3,000 mosques in the United States.  The fact that radical Muslim – and their useful idiot liberal apologists – are now arguing that they have the right to build a mosque so close to a scene of Islamic jihadist massacre is a profound demonstration of which side is intolerant.  Especially since Islamic countries refuse to allow Christians to build a single church in their countries, let alone 3,000 of them.

And there are questions.  So many questions.  Who is paying for this “community center”?  Can we know for certain that this center is not being funded with radical Islamist money for radical Islamist purposes?  No.  We don’t get to know.

And what about the man – Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – who is behind this center?  Is the man who refused to even acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization someone we want behind such a huge venture?  Do we want the man who said that American policies were an ‘accessory’ to the crime of 9/11, and who said “Osama bin Laden is made in the USA,” to be the American face of Islam as a result of this center?

Particularly when we find that this man says one thing to Americans audiences, and quite a different thing to Islamic audiences?

For that we searched Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf’s own words – in the Arabic and not what he says in English to the western media. It should shock every American to find out that Faisal Abdul Rauf stated to the popular Islamic media Hadiyul-Islam (www.hadielislam.com) on May 26th, 2010 in an article by Sa’da Abdul Maksoud. In it he states that an Islamic state can be established regardless of the government being a kingdom or democracy.  In another article titled “I do not believe in religious dialogue” should alarm the ardent skeptic on the mindset of the Islamic visionary who advocates establishing Islamic lobbies throughout the West.

He also admitted that “[In the West] they have separation of church and state, this of course does not exist in any Muslim country. About 99% refuse to separate religion from state and many call for establishing an Islamic Caliphate.”

“Cordoba” refers to the Muslim conquest of Spain.  And how is naming this “the Cordoba Initiative” and “the Cordoba House” anything other than Islamic triumphalism, in celebration of the successful 9/11 attack?  Add to that the historic Muslim tradition of building a mosque on top of every place of victory (i.e., 9/11 as a victory for Islam and a defeat for Christendom), and we’ve got a problem.

Do we want an Imam to represent Muslims in America who favors Shariah Law?  Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf DOES support Shariah Law in America.

Do you want to see the face of Sharia Law?  Here it is:

And no decent American wants that evil taking root here.

So does Obama do?  Other than twist himself into a pretzel in endorsing the mosque that he doesn’t endorse?  He foots the bill to make this extremely questionable imam his emissary representing the interests of the American people.  When this man represents the exact opposite of American interests.

There are good Muslim leaders out there.  Faisal Abdul Rauf is not one of them.

Barack Obama is a fool.  And nearly 70% of the American people understand that as regards to this issue.  Obama is as fundamentally twisted about this issue as he was about Gitmo when he demonized it and idiotically promised he would close it no later than January 2010.  He is a moral idiot and a moral weakling.  He is a disgrace to this country.  And until he day he is gone, we are living in “God damn America.”

Even Harry Reid is breaking with Obama and publicly stating that this mosque is a terrible idea.  That should tell you something.

Liberal Supreme Court Justices Support Material Support To Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Obama-installed Sonia Sotomayor gazed into the Constitution like gypsies gazing into the murky depths of a crystal ball, and somehow discovered the penumbras and emanations justifying allowing material support to foreign terrorist organizations.

Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 21, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars ”material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.

The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

”Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” Roberts said.

Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. Breyer said he rejects the majority’s conclusion ”that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally” for providing instruction and advice about the terror groups’ lawful political objectives. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.

The law allows medicine and religious materials to go to groups on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

The Obama administration said the ”material support” law is one of its most important terror-fighting tools. It has been used about 150 times since Sept. 11, resulting in 75 convictions. Most of those cases involved money and other substantial support for terror groups.

One of the funny things is that the “humanitarian aid group” that is behind this case is ITSELF tied to terrorism.  But American liberals are determined to serve as the useful idiots for Islamic jihadists.

Better that every single American die a horrible death of radiation poisoning from the next major terror attack than that a single terrorist be deprived of a single “right” as championed by morally idiotic liberal justices on the US Supreme Court.

Even Barack Obama and his insanely leftist administration realizes the sheer craziness of these three morally idiotic whackjob justices.  Which begs the question why Obama would have appointed one of said morally idiotic whackkob justices.

Obama is saying he opposes Sonia Sotomayor’s stupid ruling.  But the dumbass disgrace supported it and hundreds of idiotic rulings just like it when he appointed this racist and sexist “wise Latina” to the bench in the first place.  It’s like shooting yourself in the foot, and then opposing the gunshot wound in your foot.

Leftist ideas cannot possibly work in the real world.  Governing by leftist ideology is akin to playing Russian Roulette with all six cylinders loaded.

Obama is about to appoint yet another moral idiot whackjob to the Supreme Court, who will curse this country with her despicable lunacy for decades to come.

You can’t really blame Obama, or his Supreme Court appointees, though.  They are merely working to enact the vision of “God damn America!” that Obama’s reverend for 23 years planted in the mind of the Manchurian President.

Here’s why we have such contemptible justices who are trying to destroy America one asinine and self-destructive decision at a time:

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”

“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

Obama campaigned on a platform of complete moral idiocy.  At some remote level, he is beginning to realize that his ideology is utterly useless and inherently self-destructive as a basis from which to actually govern.  But moral idiocy is all he has to offer.  So he’s paralyzed, stuck somewhere between being utterly useless and being inherently self-destructive.

All he’s got is the perennial campaign; the ability to actually govern or lead has been purged from the White House until this president is himself purged from the office.

Obama supports the lunatic environmental movement, and then flounders in the Gulf as every solution to contain the damage of the oil leak is opposed by the very environmentalists he appeals to.  Obama supports the pro-illegal immigration movement even as he falsely promises to somehow reduce illegal immigration.   Obama supports the lunatic liberal judicial approach, and then flounders in the war on terror (renamed the “overseas contingency operation” to satiate the left) as the very liberal judicial approach he so favors gets in the way of actually winning or even just not losing.

The sad thing is that you can count on Obama to keep appointing fools – and then being forced to resist the very rulings that his fools dictate.

That’s just what fools do.