Scandals and the liberal mind

By A.J. DiCintio

The White House has spoken, making it undeniably true that President Obama considers "irrelevant" the multitude of facts sought by an ever increasing number of citizens who want the why, when, where, how, and who (especially regarding the president himself) with respect to the Islamist terror attack in Benghazi, the IRS' illegal treatment of conservative groups, and the Justice Department's outrageous behavior toward journalists.

Undeniably true as well is that in his ever-changing, shamelessly convoluted cover ups about the scandals, Barack Obama has sprung upon the nation not a "transparent" spring of joy and new birth but a dark, decrepit season of stunning disbelief and anger.

Now, if you aren't among the true-believing crowd fouling the national atmosphere with incense burned to a supposed messiah who is, with double irony, a mere human brought into being by the Chicago Political Machine, you would love to give Obama and his slobbering minions a piece of your mind with respect to their failures to adhere to the demands of duty, honesty, and the rule of law.

Problem is, however, that this is also true: Your chance of getting through to them approaches zero, owing to two profound realties.

First, that we humans aren't wired to turn loose our powers of reason when we are confronted with views opposed to those we already hold, a reality continually validated by modern psychological research.

Second, and crucially important, that despite touting itself as the human version of Swift's perfectly rational four-hoofed Houyhnhnms, the liberal mind is intellectually special only in its ability to exclude from consideration any idea inimical to liberalism, thereby rendering itself a horse's arse, with apologies, of course, to the beautiful members of the family Equidae, for whom obnoxious arrogance is impossible.

That second reason is by no means speculative, for there is a staggering amount of evidence to support the wildly flailing madness with which the liberal mind keeps itself closed, much of which came to light during Bill Clinton's second term and, happily, can be found in a single essay, "Bill Clinton and the American Character" (firstthings.com).

So, with thanks to Richard John Neuhaus, following are examples of how some of the nation's most esteemed liberals applied their minds to the very serious question of whether a president guilty of perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice (as well as being a serial assaulter of women and, most likely, a rapist) ought to be impeached and found guilty.

There is no better place to begin the list than with the moral and intellectual atrocity committed by then Arkansas Senator Dale Bumpers when he argued that no matter how illegal or rotten his fellow Senators might find Clinton's behavior, they ought to keep in mind that "He [Clinton] is not the issue" because "He will be gone [in] two years" while "You won't."

Once we have taken time to ponder the full import of that astonishingly slimy attempt to rewrite the best of moral teaching, criminal law, and just plain common sense developed and applied over thousands of years, we are prepared to move on to Hillary Clinton.

Yes, the Mrs. Hillary Clinton who, as the record irrefutably shows, raised the bar for chutzpah beyond the border of the Milky Way when she allowed that while her husband was guilty of a personal transgression, the charges leading to impeachment were ginned up by "a vast right-wing conspiracy" of which she could name not a single member, let alone explain any person's treacherous ginning.

Next, liberal artists, professors, and pundits, who were in no mood to be outdone by their congregation's politicians, entered the fray, opening their mouths and tapping their keyboards to reveal how incredibly far the mind of the liberal intelligentsia will stoop to defend the dogmas and the priests of the Liberal Church.

For example, novelist E.L. Doctorow, who was fully aware of Bill Clinton's behaviors as well as the Constitution's language, nevertheless admitted only that Clinton had lied to "the American people" while denouncing impeachment efforts as having "all the legitimacy of a coup d' état."

However, with respect to perversion of intellectuality, no one, despite the depth of her credentials or length of his recognitions, comes close to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who, knowing fully that the liberal Al Gore would assume the presidency upon Clinton's being found guilty, raged illogically, crazily, and encyclopedically in a manner befitting not a mere question of impeachment among humans but the matter of Milton's "Paradise Lost," at least:

"A vote against impeachment is not a vote for Bill Clinton. It is a vote against bigotry. It's a vote against fundamentalism. It's a vote against anti-environmentalism. It's a vote against the right-to-life movement. It's a vote against the radical right. This is truly the first battle in a great culture war. And if this president is impeached, it will be a great victory for the forces of evil . . . evil. . . genuine evil."

Finally, but not last, there was the outrage fulminated by Hollywood elites, who, in addition to ranking among the biggest contributors to the collection plates of the Liberal Church are indisputably the principal purveyors of filth, violence, and hypocrisy to every one of its outreach efforts, the latter exemplified superbly by the incomparable Alec Baldwin:

"I'm thinking to myself if we were in other countries. . .we would all. . .go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death. . . And we would go to [the homes of congressmen who vote for impeachment] and we'd kill their wives and children. We would kill their families."

Amazingly, during a campaign speech in Philadelphia in June of '08, certainly with children and teens in the audience, the "transformative" Barack Obama of the "new politics" channeled Baldwin to a tee, recklessly and irresponsibly concocting the metaphor that if John McCain were to bring a "knife" to the presidential race, he would "bring a gun."

That should do it with respect to the notion it is possible to hold an honest, rational discussion about the administration's current scandals with a liberal, especially the one who is the current high priest of the Liberal Church.

© A.J. DiCintio