The left seeks only plausible liars to lead them

There is no point in arguing that Hillary is being inconsistent, or that those who have accused her husband of rape have made a case that needs to be answered. Same with everything else about the lies that surround Clinton. No one believes her unless they desperately want to. But many of those who vote for the left now understand somewhere deep inside that everything they believe is wormeaten and rotten. If they are therefore to go on as before, they must find ways to shield themselves from the truth they will not confront. So they look for liars, and the better they are the more they seek them out. Clinton to Obama and to a different Clinton, with the media there to protect them at every turn. America and the West may crash and burn but they will keep their illusions at all cost. The applause at the end shows there are some who will never allow reality to intrude, but seeing how muted the applause was shows even among those who show up at Clinton event know that she is lying and her husband is as well. What she represents remains an unknown to me, but she is 50-50 to be the next president of the United States/

The corruption of the fourth estate

This is Pat Buchanan on Why Liberal Media Hate Trump but it is more than that. It has a history lesson worth thinking about.

In the feudal era there were the “three estates” – the clergy, the nobility and the commons. The first and second were eradicated in Robespierre’s Revolution.

But in the 18th and 19th century, Edmund Burke and Thomas Carlyle identified what the latter called a “stupendous Fourth Estate.”

Wrote William Thackeray: “Of the Corporation of the Goosequill – of the Press … of the fourth estate. … There she is – the great engine – she never sleeps. She has her ambassadors in every quarter of the world – her courtiers upon every road. Her officers march along with armies, and her envoys walk into statesmen’s cabinets.”

The fourth estate, the press, the disciples of Voltaire, had replaced the clergy it had dethroned as the new arbiters of morality and rectitude.

Today the press decides what words are permissible and what thoughts are acceptable. The press conducts the inquisitions where heretics are blacklisted and excommunicated from the company of decent men, while others are forgiven if they recant their heresies.

Now do read on how this is affecting us today and especially how the media is aiming to prevent, if it can, the election of Donald Trump.

Obama is the cause of a problem of gargantuan proportions

From Roger Simon, From Paris to San Berdoo, Obama’s War on Western Civ Continues. How it would unfold was not predictable with any kind of detail. That it has come to this ought to be a surprise to no one who was paying attention.

America, and its trailing entities in Europe, has a problem now of gargantuan proportions. Barack Obama was and is precisely the wrong man, possibly the worst conceivable man, to be president of the United States at this point in history. No one more invidious could be invented.

Consider how, on hearing of the mass murders in San Bernardino, the first thing out of his mouth was … gun control. That is not just blindness. It’s something scarier — willfull distortion for evil political ends.

Consciously or unconsciously, probably both, this man seeks to destroy the very thing that nurtured him from Honolulu to the White House.

So now the game has changed and Islamic terror has reached our shores as never before, just as many have predicted. It has invaded our bourgeois neighborhoods, with the neighbor next door unwilling to a report a garage bomb factory for fear of being called racist. (This, too, is at the foot of Obama.) What, in the words of Lenin, is to be done?

But while Obama will no longer be president in 2017, the media and the Democrats will still be there, as dangerously empty-headed as ever.

Global warming and free speech

From John Hinderaker at Powerline, estimating that 27% of Democrats are totalitarians:

Rasmussen Reports asked likely U.S. voters whether the government should criminally prosecute those who don’t go along with the global warming scare. This was the precise question:

Should the government investigate and prosecute scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming?

In response, 27% of Democrats called for prosecuting global warming realists. (Remarkably, 11% of Republicans did, too.) Happily, 63% say the debate on global warming is not yet over, while 68% oppose criminal prosecutions. So that 5% difference must represent people who are in favor of freedom of speech.

No wonder that, as Rasmussen also notes, only 20% of Americans say that we enjoy “true freedom of speech,” while 73% “think instead that Americans have to be careful not to say something politically incorrect to avoid getting in trouble.” These are sad times for those who value liberty.

This story is paired at Drudge with this: Antarctic Ice is Growing, Even Hit a ‘Record,’ But Evening News Shows Hype Melting Arctic Instead.

Media outlets predicted an “ice-free” Arctic time and again, and so far have been wrong. But with all the panic about melting glaciers, or sea ice, or ice at the poles the media have reported, one would imagine good news about increasing ice would at least get some attention.

Not from the broadcast networks anyway. In the past year, they’ve ignored data showing increasing ice in Antarctica, presumably because it did not fit perfectly with their climate agenda, instead choosing to hype melting Arctic ice repeatedly.

The media is the message, or the absence of the message. Americans with their round-the-clock news coverage may be among the most poorly informed people on the planet.

And also in the news today – terrorists have blown up another plane mid-flight

You cannot say that it has not been reported, but on the other hand, it is hardly in the news. Pan Am Flight 103 and Lockerbie remain bywords to this day of an indifference to human life and a terrorist atrocity that can never be forgiven. Why then is Kogalymavia’s flight 9268 not front-page news? Why is this not controversial enough for it to be carried by every newspaper in every country: BRITISH extremists were behind the bombing of a Russian jet over Egypt, intelligence experts believe. Oh yes, Islamic terrorists blew up the plane coming out of Egypt. Is this really now just so ho hum?

They were overheard celebrating moments after the explosion that blew the plane apart, killing all 224 on board.

The jihadis were heard talking in Birmingham and London accents by spies at GCHQ in Cheltenham.

Trained in Syria and with an electronics background, it is believed they may have had a hand in building the bomb.

The success of the attack could inspire them to target British airports next, a former Special Branch officer warned last night.

GCHQ, the Government’s secret listening centre, picked up “chatter” from extremist groups in Egypt immediately after the Russian plane came down.

The regional accents suggest “a definite and strong link” between British extremists and the attack, according to intelligence sources.

Is it because the international economy would collapse if too many people stopped flying? Is it because those who write the papers don’t want to suggest there are certain ideological dangers that are stalking us ever more closely? I am getting used to the idea that newspapers no longer actually carry news that are contrary to the media narrative, this bombing being in every way identical to the invasion of Europe about which there is hardly a story to be found. But with these I at least know certain things that cannot be totally suppressed although they are downplayed to an extreme extent. What I don’t know is what is not reported at all. Does anyone know the term “memory hole” or has that gone down the memory hole as well?

The latest news from 1984

hitler store

Is this photo not news of some kind? Where in the world would one name a store after Adolf Hitler and expect to do a land office trade, that is, where else but in Gaza? And the clothing merchandise is advertised with a knife in hand to go along with the latest attacks on Jews in Israel. At least it shows up on the net, but in the news, not a chance. We are used to it but is there any particular reason that this doesn’t hold some kind of general interest?

But the bit of news that I was hoping to catch up on are the latest developments in relation to the Russian airliner that may have been blown up by ISIS. Not a word on Drudge, as there was earlier today, and not a word about it in Friday’s Oz, at least not obviously evident online. It was mentioned by Andrew Bolt which comes with a link to an earlier story from CNN, Russian plane crash: U.S. intel suggests ISIS bomb brought down jet. But now there’s nothing. Isn’t this a story worth following up? We do live in a 1984-world and there really is a memory hole.

But there is this small story at Drudge which might interest a small few, although probably not really.

‘ISLAMIFIED’ EUROPE ROAD TO RUIN…
3 MILLION MORE REFUGEES ON THE WAY… [by the end of 2016]

Now back to Game of Thrones.

Is the American media really as clueless as this?

Are journalists the last to know? Are they so uninformed, indeed actually lacking in even a basic notion of the wiles and tactics of politicians, that this Charlie Rose comes off as such an idiot? Are they all like that, or is it just that there is no level to which they will not debase themselves to see Hillary elected? A bit of all of it, I’m afraid.

The media are the opposition

Good answer since at last there is an attack on the media. But the question that I ask is whether people even know what Bosheviks and Mensheviks are. But still good. Here is the Drudge aftermath:

ALL OUT WAR AGAINST CNBC…
Bush campaign manager confronts producer…
BOZELL: Forum Was an ‘Encyclopedic Example of Bias’…
HANNITY: ‘Will Go Down in History as Really Bad Night for Media’…
Montage: Harwood Debates the Candidates…
Moderators booed — again and again…
Trump boasts about limiting debate time ‘so we can get the hell out of here’…
But RNC Chairman Threw Candidates To The Wolves!
REVOLT…
MEESE: Should Be Condemned…

Permissible lying

From Diana West. The media has obviously taken up the same rules for itself.

Dear Glenn Kessler,

First of all, how come your “Fact Checker” column of 9/22 awarding Dr. Ben Carson “Four Pinnochios” for his statement regarding “taqiyya” is running for a second time? It first appeared last week, but there it is again in today’s paper, 9/27, on p. A5.

Oh well, I missed it the first time. It’s definitely worth revisiting.

Dr. Carson said the following: “`Taqiyya’ is a component of sharia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals.”

You then write: “In other words, he appeared to be saying that this tenet of Islam offered some kind of loophole that would allow the Muslim to lie about his or her religious beliefs to pursue other objectives. Is this the case?” (Emphasis added.)

For the record, your paraphrase is not what Carson said. He invoked “taqiyya” to describe a concept in sharia, or Islamic law, that, as he put it, “allows and even encourages [a Muslim] to lie to achieve [his] goals.”

I note that you have chosen to frame Dr. Carson’s very broad claim about sharia-approved lying by focusing on a literal definition of “taqiyya,” as if Carson were discussing only whether Muslims were specifically permitted to lie about “religious beliefs.”

You then go on to “fact-check” this concept of lying about religion in Islam.

Note that I put “fact-check” in quotation marks. This is because you did not, in fact, check the facts. You just contacted sharia-apologists and “taqiyya”-artists for comment.

As a reporter, you really ought to check the authoritative Islamic sources yourself, even if just for “balance.”

Such sources include Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. It is available on Amazon, which should please the boss. Even at $29.95, it is a bargain, and I cannot recommend it highly enough as a means of quick access to “sharia,” or Islamic law, as authorized by Sunni Islamic authorities, including certification by Al Azhar.

Turn to the detailed subject index of Reliance of the Traveller where you will find a section on “Lying.”

This “Lying” section includes, relevantly, a subsection called “reasons that permit.”

Before I tell you what it says under the heading “Permissable Lying” on p. r8.0, I will quote three men you selected to referee this crucial discussion about lying in Islam, which, thankfully, Dr. Carson has brought to mainstream-media-attention for the first time, incredibly, since 9/11.

I am calling them (A), (B) and (C).

(A) actually addresses Dr. Carson’s general statement about the permissibility of lying in Islam, declaring: “There is no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal. That is a complete invention.”

“Complete invention”? As we will see below, “Fact Checker” does not have enough PInnochios to reflect the mendacity of (A)’s statement.

Now, to the other “experts,” who discuss lying in Islam in terms of protecting a religious minority:

B) “It is a dispensation within some aspects of Shia law, which was developed out of the experience of a persecuted minority. … If a Shia is being persecuted, and someone holds a gun to your head asking, `Are you a Shia?’ you are allowed to say `no’ in order to save your life.”

C) “Taqiyya is dissimulation when one is being oppressed or tortured or having one’s views banned, a bit like Jesuit dispensation to lie under oath when your life is in danger.”

To recap, you, and, by extension, the Washington Post, are reporting that Islamically-legal lying to achieve goals is “a complete invention,” or narrowly approved in cases of religious persecution.

Now, to the authoritative Sunni Islamic law book, Reliance of the Traveller.

The sharia discourse on “Permissable Lying” opens by citing canonical “hadiths” (or traditions of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed) by Bukhari and Muslim that quote Mohammed as having said: “He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.”

The text continues, quoting Umm Kalthum, a daughter of Mohammed, who appears in Muslim, where she says:

“I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements and a man talking with his wife or she with him….”

War, settling disagreements, and talk between man and wife: That’s a whole lot of “permissable lying” right there.

“This,” Reliance of the Traveller continues, “is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissable for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful.

“The best analysis,” the text continues, “is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali,” a famed theologian (d. 1111).

And Ghazali said:

“If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissable to lie if attaining the goal is permissable…and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”

Now, back to your Source A. He claimed “there is no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal.”

No concept?

Really?

I just found exactly such a concept in the Al-Azhar-approved sharia law book, as derived from the “hadiths” of Bukhari and Muslim and explicated by Ghazali. And, more important, you can, too. Have a look for yourself. It will help in your preparations for the Washington Post correction that Dr. Carson greatly deserves.

The section on “Permissable Lying” in Reliance of the Traveller continues, offering additional detail. It underscores the fact-checkable fact that there exist within Islamic law different circumstances in which lying is permissable if not “obligatory.” ”

Meanwhile, I haven’t even mentioned the Islamic conception of “slander,” (completely, divergently at odds with our own), which serves as the Islamically legal means of outlawing free speech about Islam that is true but not complimentary.

So, to one side of the West-Islam divide, we have Thou Shalt Not Lie. Neat. Simple.

On the other side we have a body of Islamic law stipulating when exactly Thou Shalt Lie.

Dr. Carson was right again. I trust that Fact Checker is already preparing the necessary correction.