Posse Incitatus

Islamic extremists supporting a secular dictator?

Sometimes trying to sort out the alliances and enmities of the Middle East, or attempting to analyze the fissures within different Islamic sects, can make you feel as if you're on drugs inside of a funhouse, stumbling into mirrors and groping to sort your way through the maze.

There are the Shias, Sunnis, Wahhabis, Salafists, Alawites, Twelvers, plus Sufism and myriad politically-oriented groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, al Aqusa Martyrs, al Shabaab, et al... I've probably only scratched the surface.

Primarily Shia Iran supports secular Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. So does the Iranian-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah, which has been a thorn in Israel's side for decades. But al Qaeda, a Sunni terrorist organization, is a key player among the patchwork of rebel groups attempting to overthrow Assad. No doubt, if they succeed in toppling his government, these factions will fight amongst themselves for the spoils.

Over 20 years ago, when the first President Bush formed a broad coalition to kick Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis out of Kuwait, Assad's late father Hafez al-Assad, joined the coalition against Hussein. This despite the fact Assad and Hussein both were Baathists (a socialist, secular party). 

Then there's the Arab-Persian dynamic. Some experts such as Professor Fouad Ajami, believe the mistrust and cultural differences between Iranian and Iraqi Shiites will prevent Iran from having its way in Iraq. Time will tell.

Meantime, I think the roiling stew of dysfunctional and violent groups in Syria makes it crystal clear that the United States ought not to get involved in that train wreck of a nation. There is little chance of successfully nurturing a desirable outcome. Besides, lest we forget, we are $17 trillion in debt, have crumbling roads and bridges, and millions of unemployed citizens.

At some point, you've got to look out for No. 1.

 

Second verse, same as the first

Remember that cheesy 1960s song "Henry the VIII" by the British group Herman's Hermits? For some reason, that funny line, "Second verse, same as the first" came to mind when I heard about former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole being paraded out in front of the media to advise the Republicans to tone it down and work with Democrats.

This inane advice is as persistent as Freddy Krueger. We've heard it from Colin Powell, John McCain, Jon Huntsman Jim Jeffords, Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, Joe Scarborough, former Michigan governor William Milliken and untold other hacks and has-beens who have an unrealistic view of the cancer known as progressivism.

These are the same clowns who idiotically proclaim that "Ronald Reagan wouldn't be welcome in today's Republican Party" and that the various Tea Party groups are nothing but rabblerousers and grumpy old men (often one-and-the-same, in their eyes).

Earth to the gullible, naive RINOs: You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. WHY do you think the Republicans need to "moderate" their positions on the issues. Have you been asleep all this time? Living on another planet? Delusional?

Our nation is $17 trillion in debt. There are 50 million people on food stamps, 11 million on disability. I'd hazard to say the vast majority of them are capable of at least working part-time for minimum wage. But they want to leech off of the government. Millions more are intelligent, well educated and blessed with a solid work ethic. Yet they find themselves working in coffee shops or grocery stores for $8.50 an hour, thanks to the regulatory/tax/central planning/pipe dream economy of the Blessed Messiah from Chicago.

We have urban dystopian societies in Detroit, Chicago and other cities that are more dangerous than Fallujah in 2004. A 70 percent illegitimate birth rate among black women keeps the chaos rolling ahead. Many of our urban schools are miserable failures, chock-full of gangs, drugs, violence, illiteracy and rats. Corruption and ineptitude are destroying communities nationwide.

Our federal government is rife with mismanagement, waste, corruption and unmitigated arrogance. Lois Lerner and Eric Holder are the smug, self-absorbed personifications of Barack Hussein Obama's hubris. I can credit Bob Dole for one thing (well, TWO if you count his heroic service in World War II): "WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?" about Bill Clinton's lies and shameful behavior back in the late 1990s.

Yet naive, gullible Republicans — sorry, John Lennon, but I am going to misappropriate one of your early 1970s terms from the song "Give Me Some Truth" — "soft-soap" Democrats. They want to make nicey-nicey with these misguided leftists whose ideology is dark, destructive and menacing.

Today's New York Times editorial, "The Wisdom of Bob Dole" tells you all you need to know. The Manhattan elites opined that although Dole railed against regulations, touted tax cuts and opposed U.N.-inspired international treaties "when the time came to actually govern, Republicans used to set aside their grandstanding, recognize that a two-party system requires compromise and make deals to keep the government working on the people’s behalf."

By contrast, says the Times, today's neanderthal Republicans "want to dismantle government, using whatever crowbar happens to be handy, and they don’t particularly care what traditions of mutual respect get smashed at the same time."

If straw-man arguments were on the New York Stock Exchange, our nation would have millions of new millionaires tomorrow morning. But alas, reality bites.

How many times do we have to keep hearing this drivel? Well, when it comes to dense leftist craniums, "SECOND VERSE, SAME AS THE FIRST!!!'

The Volunteers: Memorial Day 2013

One of the more remarkable aspects of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that they are being fought entirely by volunteers.  Not since the Spanish-American War of more than a century ago has the U.S. relied on volunteers for such prolonged combat operations.  Including training and deployments, Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm lasted barely a year and while the air war raged for a month, ground combat operations lasted less than a week. 

Subsequent military endeavors were likewise limited - Somalia is noteworthy for a single firefight while the Kosovo War was so desultory that its greatest crisis was when a handful of G.I.s got lost and were captured.  A few aircraft were shot down, but the aircrews were recovered.

Yet more than a decade after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our forces are still actively engaged.

I've said it before, but the truly Greatest Generation is that segment of the American population who, given every excuse to do otherwise, chose to enlist and shoulder the burden of these wars.  For their pains, they risked death, debilitating injuries and endured lengthy separations from their loved ones.  Their reward?  Increasing irrelevance, a culture that ignores honor and a media who portrays them as war-addled dupes.  Certainly the elites regard them as little more than useful tools - people too stupid to get a job doing anything else than stopping bullets for Uncles Sam - a viewpoint famously articulated by John Kerry:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Obviously that hideous slur on our troops engaged in deadly combat completely destroyed his political career made him the ideal choice for Obama's Secretary of State.

This statement perfectly illustrates how unusual it is for people to choose service to country over service to self.

It is hard to imagine a politician saying that in 1918 or 1945 and having any subsequent career.  His own party would have cashiered him.  But today, with "honor" an increasingly archaic notion and "courage" defined as doing something everyone else agrees with, Kerry's words resonate with a substantial portion of the population - primarily the self-styled elites.

Because they cannot imagine enduring extremes of heat and cold, facing mortal danger and giving up the wealth and comfort of a career at home, they assume that anyone who does so must be either too stupid to understand the good life that awaits or too ignorant to achieve it.  Unable to understand why the volunteer would make the choice to serve, they try to remove it by eliminating any other alternative.

Deep down, they know they could never make that choice.  This makes them feel inferior - inferior to high-school graduates who own pickup trucks and watch NASCAR!?  Intolerable!  To one of the elites whose parents paid for a masters in liberal arts and who now works for a trendy non-profit, this is cannot be borne.  So they must find something to justify their hollow chests, a reason to explain why the selflessness and honor and courage of these people exists.  They do so by calling them idiots.

Most Americans aren't like that.  A great many appreciate our volunteers.  I know more than a few who, if the Taliban landed on the Jersey shore, would take up arms without hesitation.  They have families, children, jobs and mortgages.  If called, they would serve, but at the moment they would rather not.  They would do their duty, but other duties keep them busy.

In times past, we used the draft to call them, and they came by the millions.  My great-grandfather was called shortly after he was married and served as replacement in the Meuse-Argonne in 1918.  His son was born while he was overseas and I have the letter he posted on November 12th - one he'd composed several days before but which he was only able to send after the Armistice.  At the bottom there is a post-script:  "11/12/18  I am o.k."  And so his young wife learned he survived the war.

He was nothing special, he merely did his duty.  To many people that means holding down a job and taking care of the family.  But the volunteers hear a different call, one that compels them to do more.

Today is the day when we honor the sacrifices of the fallen and decorate their graves.  Long-time readers know that I have taken on the particular responsibility of honoring one of my friends, Capt. Sean Grimes who was killed in Iraq eight years ago this spring.  His grave is in New Jersey; I am in Michigan.  So this is where I place the flowers and small flag.

The World War I generation has passed and the World War II generation is passing.  Korea is close behind and Vietnam has already filled the beds in the veterans' homes.  Behind them, the volunteers of my generation are stepping up, taking from their strong but ageing hands the torch of freedom.

Like those who went before, they are struggling to make sense of what they have seen and done, what they have given up, and what they have gained.  While they may wonder, I don't think there is any question that they have satisfied the requirements of honor and that when the tale of these days is written, the same epitaph that has graced the headstones of warriors past will grace their markers as well:  "They did their duty."

Better late than never

Nearly four years ago, I posted a blog about President Obama's reliance on czars to carry out policy. I also noted that the government bureaucracy itself — agencies, departments, bureaus, panels, commissions — is chock-full of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who create, implement and enforce regulations that often exceed the reach and influence Congress intended.

I mentioned that it was way back in my freshman year of college (1978-79) that I learned in a government class of the "fourth branch" of government, the administrative branch. To those of us who have long favored smaller government and been aware of the tyrannical tendencies of big, intrusive government, the fourth branch is not an irrational fear lying in the distant future. It is a disturbing reality of today — one that's been present for many years but grown worse since the election of Barack Obama to the Oval Office in 2008.

So it astounds me that a professor of law at George Washington University just wrote a column expressing his concern about this decades-old trend as if he'd just discovered something about which few of us were aware.

Here's an excerpt from Johnathan Turley's column, "The Fourth Branch of Government," that ran in today's Washington Post: 

The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.

In other news, CDs have replaced vinyl records, and someone fatally shot John Lennon...

A tangled mess

Campaign finance laws, a 10,000-page tax code and a compromised Internal Revenue Service infected with partisan hacks make for a tangled mess. The latest IRS scandal should shed some light on the roots of the problem.

For decades, tax-exempt organizations such as the AFL-CIO, Roman Catholic Church and many others have advocated certain political beliefs to their members and the public at large. This despite a supposed requirement for these organizations to be non-political (or at least not blatantly political) to qualify for 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) status.

A Catholic priest can remind his parishioners on the Sunday before election day to think about protecting the vulnerable unborn when they cast their ballots. He may not come out and say "Vote Republican" (or in rare instances, vote for a Democrat who is pro-life). But you know that's what he means.

Likewise, labor unions can preach to their members about voting for a higher mininumum wage, against free trade agreements and for more socialized medicine. They are not endorsing specific Democrat candidates, but they certainly are endorsing that side of the aisle.

This is all a big dog-n-pony show, a lot of sturm-and-drang that gets liberals apoplectic, disgusts conservatives, and enriches lawyers.

Put simply, having the IRS play nanny to nonprofits, and attempting to regulate money in politics are the equivalent of passing a law against gravity, or trying to make water run uphill. Money and other types of influence will always find their way into politics, especially as the federal government keeps getting bigger and bigger, with more and more of other people's money to pass out.  

Laws can have unintended consequences no matter how well-intentioned they may be. Tax exemptions for nonprofit groups that meet certain criteria offer plenty of opportunities for mischief, meddling and manipulation.

We need to rethink what we're doing with the government's power of taxation and citizens' right to free speech. I am for removing the muzzle, but ensuring that organizations that receive tax-exempt status are more along the lines of churches and charitable organizations as opposed to labor unions and chambers of commerce that charge membership dues to their members.

It's a can of worms, granted. And attempts at tax simplification always threaten to gore the oxes of various special interest groups, making real reform practically impossible.

But let's admit that the present system is a farce.

PRAYERS TO THE PEOPLE OF OKLAHOMA — My thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Moore, Okla., and nearby communites that have been devastated by a horrible tornado this afternoon. As of about 9 p.m. EST, 51 people are confirmed dead from an EF-4 tornado, and dozens are injured.

Faux Outrage and Naive Consternation

I've been walking around incredulous for the past few days.

Not incredulous about the three scandals engulfing one of the most arrogant and hypocritical administrations ever to govern our great nation. Rather, astounded at the naivety of the mainstream press. These dimwits are so surprised and appalled that their beloved administration would abuse the IRS to target political opponents and ham-handedly monitor Associated Press reporters, including obtaining their phone records.

I guess I should not have been surprised at President Obama's transparent faux outrage about the IRS abuse. Perhaps I am guilty of the same naivete of which I accuse others. Seemingly nothing is beyond the pale for this shameless man who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Peggy Noonan nailed it in today's column about the IRS fiasco (NOTE: If link doesn't lead to ENTIRE column, try www.opinionjournal.com), stating: "It is not even remotely possible that this was an accident, a mistake. Again, only conservative groups were targeted, not liberal. It is not even remotely possible that only one IRS office was involved." She added a few sentences later that it's not remotely possible this was the work of just a few agents.

Near the beginning of her column, Noonan writes, "The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged."

Thank you, Peggy. I'm just sorry it took you six years to see through this fraud. Aren't you one of those Colin Powell type Republicans who voted for hope & change in 2008? You're an intelligent person, a fine human being, and a gifted writer. But you've also shown yourself to be susceptible to naivete, to idealism, to the emptiness of hope (in the temporal sense). 

Progressivism such as that espoused by Barack Obama invariably leads to a bad outcome. But when its failures become apparent, its proponents double down, thinking they just didn't fight hard enough to fully implement their agenda. And they NEVER, EVER take responsibility for the failures of Keynesian economics, welfare expansion, identity politics and naive foreign policy. Finger pointing is their standard M.O.

In the case of the IRS scandal, the O-man and his minions thought they could hinder their political opponents by wielding a blunt instrument of government. Because they believe theirs is a higher cause, more moral than simply obeying the law, that makes it alright in their minds.

When it comes to Benghazi, the administration believed its own silly propaganda about the threat of terrorism being greatly diminished by the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011. Therefore, security was not beefed up in a dangerous neighborhood (Benghazi had a reputation as a terrorists' haven even when Gaddafi was still in power). And the unconscionable decision not to even attempt using military power on that awful night? Well, that speaks to Obama's cold, aloof soul.

And as for the AP matter, don't be surprised if it comes out that more of this type of overreach has been going on with other news organizations. Who knows, wiretapping of reporters' phone calls and interceptions of their email messages may well be going on routinely, so controlling is this administration.

My co-blogger stated the other day that he doesn't think the press will keep the heat on, that it will go back to carrying Obama's water. I am not so sure. Despite the fact most of the mainstream reporters, anchors and editors share Obama's left-of-center ideology, many of them deeply resent being used and lied to, and may well want to sharpen up their own resumes with some blockbuster stories exposing the regime's hypocricsy and malfeasance.

But in the meantime, when it comes to Benghazi, I just wish the press and bloggers would quit discussing the talking points and focus more on the lack of security, absence of a military response to quell the attack and rescue the stranded State Department employees, the president's strange disengagement that evening, and what exactly he was doing on the night of the attack.

Inquiring minds want to know. As some have already pointed out, if Obama had legitimate alibis and people to vouch for him about what he was doing that night, he would have put out that info very soon. He wouldn't be stonewalling eight months later. Really makes you wonder, eh?

Keeping the stories straight

Had Mitt Romney run a commercial last fall declaring that Barack Obama was an empty suit utterly preoccupied with playing golf and basketball who had no idea what his government was doing, the outrage would have been deafening. 

Yet that is now what his own spokeman expects us to believe.  He had no actual awareness of events in Benghazi or the talking points created in response to the terrible events there; when the IRS admits wrongdoing and apologizes, he's not really up to speed on it; a wide-ranging probe of Associated Press reporters eludes his attention and he'll have to read up on it.

Even his condemnations are weak - if events which have already been proven to have happened have in fact happened, he will condemn them.  Of course.

While the press may be suddenly interested (no doubt because many fear that they, too, maybe under secret investigation), close observers find nothing new in these developments.

As far back as 2010, the president admitted he had no idea what was going on with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and had to find out who was responsible so he could kick their ass.

Fast and Furious also evaded his awareness - those guns apparently sold themselves to Mexican drug lords.  Things happen.  Mistakes were made.  And Eric Holder remained his attorney general.

To the casual observer, this response makes no sense - it is well past its expiration date.  An actual leader does not tolerate misbehavior on the part of his subordinates. 

In a normal administration, the IRS administrator and AG would already have resigned in disgrace.  The Secretary of State would have left under a cloud well before the inauguration.

But this is not a normal administration.  It truly believes the rules don't apply.  This is less a function of ambition or a hunger for power than a psychological viewpoint stemming from their social class.

Among the liberal gentry their is a belief that they are Good People and while Good People may make mistakes, it would be wrong to punish them for good faith efforts.

This is the exact opposite of Gen. Curtis Lemay's famous dictum that "I have neither the time nor the inclination to separate the incompetent from the merely unfortunate."  Lemay - clearly the product of another, more serious, time - was interested in results, not intentions.

But in this jaded age, intentions are all that matter.  This is why abortionists that kill live infants and their mothers cannot be given too much scrutiny.  The result - dead children and harmed women - is less important than the intention - protecting abortion.

This also explains why the same administration that purposely sold guns to criminals can work itself into a frenzy in support of legislation that it admits will not stop violent crime.  The intentions are pure, which is what counts.

As an added bonus, their enemies suffer.  This 'punitive liberalism' defines policy victories not in terms of helping society but in crushing the opposition, and it is a key part of the administration's strategy.

It clearly influenced the IRS, which wasn't really interested about money in politics or the integrity of the law but what instead interested in punishing the right people.  Former Obama staffer David Plouffe offered a revealing defense of this scandal by noting that all the abuse didn't really hurt anyone, so no big deal.  I highly doubt if it could be proved that the abuse was effective and tipped the election that Plouffe would be more apologetic.

In the meantime, the administration is reduced to lamenting the fate of it's second term agenda - because apparently transforming the government is more important than running it.  As I've noted before, conservatives are always looking for a tipping point where the media turns on a Democrat administration, and it never actually happens.

Still, I must admit that the combination of using the IRS as a political weapon and snooping secretly on reporters are two things that might actually move the needle.  Most liberal reporters justify their devotion to the Democrats by arguing that as bad as things are, Republicans would be even worse, so better to take what they have.

At this point, only the most partisan can maintain that fiction.  The press is now like an oft-abused spouse who has finally found out that the sweet nothings whispered after each beating really were lies.  He really doesn't need them or really care about them.  No one likes being used.  We'll see how that plays out.

 

Dysfunction, Depravity and Disconnectedness

Editor's Note: I started this blog on Saturday but had to put it on the back burner because my MacBook Pro is on the fritz. My wife dropped it off at a repair shop on Monday, and they said it needs a new chip for the monitor to work again. It will set me back about $50, but I won't have the machine until I am back in town on Thursday night. Right now I am on a library computer. So that explains my tardy commentary on the nightmare in Cleveland. Now, on to the blog...

The horrible story of three young ladies held in captivity for years by a monster sexual predator in a shabby Cleveland home has been all over the news for several days.

With each passing day, more horrifying revelations come to light. Such as the fact that the now-arrested and jailed Ariel Castro impregnated Michelle Knight five times and starved and beat her during her pregnancies to induce miscarriages. Castro also fathered a now six-year-old girl by Amanda Berry, who was forced to give birth inside an inflatable kiddy pool, presumably with no anesthetics.

It is haunting to contemplate the physical and psychological pain these three women (two of whom were teens when abducted approximately a decade ago) endured at the hands of the sadistic, warped Castro.

I also cannot fathom how authorities say no charges will be pressed against Castro's two brothers IF they lived in the house. Obviously they would have known what was going on; failure to report it to authorities or assist the captives ought to be a crime. I have not read where they lived, but it sure seems like they would have at least visited the home several times over 10 years.

As more dettails come out about the twisted and depraved horror story, we are saddened to witness dysfunction all around.

The oldest of the victims, Knight, is estranged from her mother. The 31-year-old was 21 when she was abducted in 2002, had already been through a bad relationship and had a child of her own. She did not reunite with her mother after gaining her freedom last week. No one but close family members know where she is.

Gina DeJesus was the youngest of the captives -- only 14 when kidnapped in 2004. In a bitter irony, her father knew the Castro brothers.

Charles Ramsey, the black man who helped free 27-year-old Berry on May 6 and let her use his phone to dial 9-1-1, gained his 15 minutes of fame by showing off his charismatic, goofball personality in numerous TV interviews.

His flippant comment, "There's something wrong when a pretty little white girl goes running into the arms of a black man" was meant as much to amuse as to comment on the state of race relations. He told several TV interviewers that he was "eating my McDonald's" when he heard Berry's cries for help.

Someone from the restaurant chain Tweeted thanks and kudos to Ramsey for helping rescue the girls and added, "We'll be in touch." (Presumably to give him a reward and lots of coupons for free meals.)

Turns out Ramsey was arrested three times for domestic violence between 1997 and 2003. And speaking of fast food, ironically Berry was walking home from her part-time job at a Burger King when Castro lured her into his car with the offer of a ride home.

Several neighbors reported occasionally hearing strange sounds coming from the Castro home, and at least one neighbor reported seeing an adult female crawling naked in the back yard with a leash tied around her neck. They claim they called the police, and no one came. The Cleveland Police Department contends it has no such calls on record.

This goes to show the level of dysfunction in so many of our inner cities. Police often don't respond to calls about crimes either because they are overwhelmed and understaffed, or they question the veracity of the caller. You see, people who are unsavory, mentally ill, drunk and/or on drugs can report some pretty outlandish things that are not really happening. Or they can embellish. (This isn't to negatively paint with a broad brush all residents of inner cities, but let's face it: There are, on a percentage basis, far more of these troubled souls in the ghetto than in other parts of any given metro area.) The police must "pick their battles."

Police also reportedly treated the girls as runaways rather than abductees, meaning they didn't focus as much time and resources on the cases as they otherwise would have. They must have been just playing the percentages.

I hope and pray these young women can find peace and heal from their hellish ordeal, and that Berry's six-year-old daughter can have a relatively normal childhood and grow up without major problems.

This case illustrates the pain and hardship so many families endure daily, and the level of depravity to which humans can sink. It truly serves as a lesson that we ought to be our brother's keeper.

 

Time to change the channel

What an education Obama's supporters have had in the last two months.

A man who once seemed to stand as a colossus on the American political scene is now consumed with scandal and doubt.

His signature issue - gun control - collapsed due to an intraparty rebellion.  The Nobel Peace Prize-winning Lightbringer allowed a Republican arch-Libertarian to outflank him on civil rights and the morality of drone strikes.

And now we learn that the Internal Revenue Service was playing Nixonian games with tax exemptions, using its investigative power to target the president's political opposition.  It's enough to shake one's faith in the Party.

One of the evergreen questions posed by conservatives is when liberals and their media allies will have "enough"  and turn on their leader.  Each time a scandal emerges, someone can be counted on to say "This is when they turn, this is when they remember their principles."

Except they never do.

Partisan politics are best understood as a tribal exercise.  The actual political positions - gun control, abortion, scope of government - are best understood as identifiers rather than actual beliefs.

This is how an anti-war movement can support a man who has ramped up combat operations in Afghanistan and how Constitutional scholars who called the Iraq campaign illegal can rally behind the Libyan adventure.

It's a tribal thing.

But even tribal loyalty has its limits.  There comes a point when self-respect demands some sort of reaction.  One can only eat so  much excrement before questioning the Party line that it tastes delicious.

For the anti-war street theater people, the point has been reached.  They are stirring from their long hibernation and demanding action.

Not from the president of course.  No, they are taking their show to National Guard bases to protest the use of drones.  The fact that the National Guard does not set the policy regarding them is irrelevant.  The fact that they should be lying down in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue rather than the front gate at Syracuse is lost on them.  They may reach that point, but not just yet.

For now they know only that something is wrong and something must be done.  For now, they remain loyal.

The Benghazi affair has also strained that loyalty and the IRS revelations will add further burdens.

I do not believe the tribe will turn on him - the Great Defection that some conservatives hope for will certainly not come.  But what will happen is that the tame media will lose interest.  Just as the anti-war movement has turned to protesting obscure bases, the media guardians will look elsewhere.   It's always easier to change the subject than face unpleasant facts.

The end result will not be wall-to-wall scandal coverage, but rather a cessation of presidential coverage altogether.  Washington will recede into the distance.  The fawning profiles, the magazine features, the tongue-bath interviews - all of this will cease.  The fawning adulation will be replaced with embarrassed silence.

And maybe it's better that way.  The President-as-celebrity has not worked out well.  We could use a break. 

Just say 'No' to the Internet sales tax

It's as if the rank-and-file Republicans just won't learn their lesson. John McCain's many misguided stances -- co-authoring campaign finance reform, opposing the Bush tax cuts, pushing for a leviathan immigration bill -- ought to be enough to, shall we say, "inform" the Republicans of what NOT to do.

But apparently not.

To no one's surprise, McCain has voted in favor of imposing an Internet sales tax across the board on retailers with at least $1 million of sales annually. What's appalling and disheartening is that 21 other Republicans, including so-called conservatives such as Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, were among the yeas.

As things currently stand, Internet retailers only collect and pay the sales tax if they have actual "bricks-and-mortar" facilities for sales and/or distribution.

There are 9,600 taxing jurisdictions in the United States. In many states, sales taxes vary by county and/or municipality. This imposes a difficult administrative burden on small Web retailers that would be expected to collect and pay taxes to thousands of governments.

This opens a can of worms involving audits, litigation, and lots of work for accountants and tax lawyers. The compliance costs would be prohibitive for many small Internet retailers.

Big businesses and, of course, money-hungry governments from coast to coast favor this bill. Too bad 22 Republicans voted in favor of something that puts the screws to mom-n-pop entrepreneurs.

But beyond the reasons already stated, this tax is bad policy because it has something in common with the inheritance tax: It piles taxes upon taxes. Just as the inheritance tax (aka "death tax") puts a levy on money that the owner already paid taxes on (income when he/she earned it, interest, dividends, capital gains, etc.), the Internet tax hits entities that already are taxed.

Internet retailers pay business taxes; they pay taxes on the phone, cable or Internet service that carries orders from buyers to their servers; they may pay Social Security taxes for their employees; who knows what other taxes they pay to vendors or local bureaucrats in order to "hang out a shingle." And now they need to charge sales taxes, too?

Can't our government think outside the box FOR ONCE? The Internet is an engine of economic growth and innovation. Leave it to Uncle Sam to douse the flames of innovation with stifling water. This bill, if enacted, will cause economic activity to contract, which ultimately shrinks tax revenues.

The only encouraging thing about this fiasco is that the House is likely to shoot it down. But then, strange things have been happening inside the Beltway of late. It seems you can't trust conservatives to stay conservative anymore. Ever since John Roberts upheld the abomination known as Obamacare, I've been pessimistic about the future.

Something in the water in Washington? Or is it just that deep human need to be loved by someone (in this case, the media and elite politicians).