American Stinkers

Recently, while engaging in a little internet spelunking, I happened upon one of the enclaves of neocon "true believers": the ironically named American Thinker.

Because I am intrigued by such phenomena, I explored a bit. Its "About" page has this to say:

American Thinker is a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism, and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.

There is no limit to the topics appearing on American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions, strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military is emphasized. The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture.

Staff

Editor and publisher Thomas Lifson

News editor Ed Lasky

Chief political correspondent Richard Baehr

Chief investigative correspondent Clarice Feldman

Consulting editor J.R. Dunn

Seems pretty reasonable, doesn't it? I mean, you might detect a hint of foreshadowing, in much the same way that you can smell bat guano before you enter a cave, but that doesn't mean the bats have rabies, does it?

Think again. While some of the articles are well-written, and even raise good points, most of them are mere propaganda and the overarching philosophy they espouse is as regressive as theocracy.

But, if you have the ability to look askance at it, this can occasionally provide some entertainment.

Take, for example, this article: Barack Obama has Women Troubles.

This was clearly an opinion piece, tailored to the well-established tastes of the readership, replete with wild-eyed speculation, loosely based on cherry-picked facts.

My favorite part was this:

Michelle [Obama] will take the art of interfering first spouse to a whole new unexplored level. This will be a lot more than just -- as Bill Clinton spoke of Hillary -- "two for the price of one."

Be it her only recently found pride in her country or moans about the price of ballet lessons or complaints about what "it [criticism of the odious preacher, Rev. Wright] is doing to my kids," Michelle is already famous for a strain of affluent victimhood; I can only feel for the White House staff who would have to suffer four years of her employ.

Add to this her leftist view of Barack Obama as Commander-in-Chief, not just of the military but of the whole nation; the nanny state with her as the chief nanny. Think of this famous prediction from Michelle:

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

Hmm, where in the US Constitution does it give him the power to do that? Michelle is Hillary, Cherie and Oprah on steroids

And yes, she will have the power.

It was just funny on so many levels.

For starters, it's hilarious that the author (in conformity to the well-established tastes of the readership) would choose to deride the ideas of:

• work
• shedding cynicism
• putting down divisions
• coming out of isolation
• moving out of one's comfort zone
• pushing oneself to be better
• engaging
• being involved
• being informed

But mostly, I howl with laughter whenever someone on the political right asks, "Where in the US Constitution does it give [insert Democrat's name] the power to do that?" while simultaneously believing that the current president deserves to occupy the Oval Office, considering that, when enacting new laws, he routinely writes signing statements that express his intent to ignore those laws whenever he sees fit.

Why don't we put on our American Thinker's caps and ponder that, hmmmmm?