I've stumbled across commentary from the conservative ideologues who claim that the latest controversy concerning children from Latin American nations showing up at the U.S./Mexico border is the ultimate evidence of President Barack Obama's ineptitude in office.
They say his failure to offer up a quick, and definitive, solution to this problem is a sign that he's weak and should never have been elected to office.
OF COURSE, WHAT doesn't get said in these instances is that the solution they want probably is just one step removed from armed troops at the border -- prepared to do a re-enactment of the National Guard at Kent State University if those miniature foreign freaks comes too close to the border.
Obama's solution, thus far, was to ask earlier this week for some $3.7 billion (yes, "B" for billions) for funds that would be used to cover the cost of humanitarian aid for this flood of children headed for the United States.
It might well turn out that most of the kids will be turned away, sent back home, once they are checked out here. A few might find legitimate places to stay in this country.
But that goes counter to the ideologue way of thinking, which wants to view these young people as "illegals in training" (or maybe, illegal-ites) for whom there must be a hard-line approach to giving them the boot.
YES, I'M REFERRING to those nitwits who spent their Independence Day gathered at the border in Murrietta, Calif., chanting "U.S.A., U.S.A." and "Go Home!" at busloads of kids who were arriving to be processed.
In short, to determine the responsible approach for dealing with them. Instead, nonsense rants shouted down common sense, and those busloads were intimidated away from Border Patrol processing centers.
These are the same people who are getting grouchy at the thought of Obama citing the need for some federal funds to cover the cost of determining what needs to be done with the situation.
These also are likely the same people who are wetting their pants with glee at the thought of one-time Vice Presidential dreamer Sarah Palin going around using the "I" word (as in "impeachment") to talk about the president.
FOR SOME PEOPLE, that is the reason they're excited about the Nov. 4 election cycle. Keep control of the House of Representatives, and gain a large-enough caucus in the Senate that you can dominate activity there, and suddenly the thought of "impeachment" isn't a fantasy.
The nutjobs of our society will be able to actually take a partisan vote so they can tag the Obama legacy with the thought of removal from office. They couldn't beat him at the polling place, so they're going all out in their ideological fantasies.
If there is one thing Obama is guilty of, it's that he hasn't dealt harshly enough with these people. Just as how he has gone this far into his presidency without trying to do anything other than give lip service to serious immigration reform.
Does Obama really have a blind eye as to how intensely certain elements of our society despise his ideals and are determined to oppose everything that the people who voted him into office wanted (and expected) from him?
AS FOR THE new round of funding, it sounds like a tremendous amount for those who put their entire focus on municipal activity and state officials -- and expect federal representatives to do what they are told by the local types who usually have no comprehension of the big picture.
But we're talking about funds that will go for expansion of the Border Patrol and other operations -- including the hiring of more immigration judges and conducting of aerial surveillance.
Operations that the ideological types would usually be the first to call for. Except they don't want a certain president to wind up getting credit for handling a situation (some 52,000 minors arriving in this country without any adult supervision during the past three weeks) in a responsible manner.
Which is why we get the trash talk, and the reluctance from Republicans in Congress to back this latest round of funding.
IT REALLY IS all so reminiscent of the "Council Wars" we in Chicago experienced some three decades ago in the City Council -- when an opposition determined to take down then-Mayor Harold Washington was willing to stall the city government into submission.
Short-term harm to government was justified by the thought that a chief executive of their own preference could fix the problems they were causing for partisan and racial reasons.
Perhaps we need to keep that in mind as we watch the activity toward Obama in Washington in coming months.