by Bruce Deitrick Price
Muslims have a provision in their religious doctrine that allows them to lie. Indeed, they are in some situations commanded to lie, for example, if a lie will help Islam.
This doctrine is fully articulated in many places. Lying is thought of as part of Islam’s toolbox for conquering non-Muslims. However, this doctrine (taqiyya) is also used between Sunnis and Shias, as each may be commanded to lie to the other. It’s easy to see that taqiyya could be an advantage in some politico-military situations. It’s also easy to see that it can cause problems in civil-commercial society. If lying is accepted, whom can you trust?
President Obama— who grew up in a Muslim society— seems to have absorbed this doctrine as part of his own political toolbox. For example, when Obama steps before the microphone at a press conference, he seems to feel that he is entitled to say whatever will best promote his agenda at that moment.
“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” This exact same lie, according to various journalists, was told more than 30 times.
A few months ago, his loyal henchmen stepped forward to claim that Obama had a scandal-free administration. David Brooks of the New York Times argued this on PBS. Meanwhile his closest confidant David Axelrod Insisted that Obama had “no major scandals.”
These somewhat comical claims might themselves be considered scandalous.
WorldNetDaily quickly published an article listing “more than three-dozen scandals many of which are considered impeachable offenses by constitutional scholars and numerous lawmakers.”
Examples are Obamacare, IRS, Benghazi, supplying ISIS, Libya, executive orders, NSA, Fast and Furious, Muslim Brotherhood ties, unapproved czars, Extortion 17, birth certificate, DOMA, suing Arizona, losing Iraq, Iran treaty, Veterans Administration, etc.
Comically enough, no sooner did this list appear than somebody left a comment claiming that trading five deadly terrorists for a useless deserter (i.e., Bergdahl) was obviously another scandal. In short, Obama’s scandals seem never to be at an end.
Typically, explaining and defending each scandal requires additional lies. Remember Benghazi? Obama had to lie, Susan Rice had to lie, Hillary Clinton was in there lying. Almost everybody in the White House had to lie but to this date, nobody in the media has asked the president the obvious question: where was he throughout that evening? Apparently everyone guessed that this question would force the president to tell still more lies. That’s an awkward situation.
The media, either incompetent and/or comatose, permits President Obama to rewrite history as he likes.
In the process he has created a “doctrine of lies” based on a scaffolding of intellectual dishonesty.
We used to brag that we had presidents who never lied, such as George Washington. We assumed that there were honorable men serving in the White House.
For Obama, lying appears to be an automatic reflex. He seems to assess the situation, decide what might impress an audience, calculate what he can get away with, and then he lets it rip. Five day later, if required, he can always tell another lie.
YouTube has many compilations of Obama lies. Isn’t that a remarkable phenomenon? Our president is widely ridiculed as a man who lies virtually every day.
The remarkable thing is that many Americans remain trusting. Total distrust would be a more logical conclusion. Whatever he says, assume the opposite until you can verify his statement.
I have for years taken the 180° position on whatever the New York Times is saying. I suggest that it’s prudent to do the same with President Obama. In general, this country has become a cornucopia of sophistry. Much of the theories and methods used in K-12 education would disappear without sophistry.
So much of what the White House says is factless. Remember that the Menendez brothers pleaded for mercy on the grounds they were orphans. That sounds so crazy the first time you hear it, you probably laughed. But think about the beautiful logic. They were orphans! Surely they deserve mercy. Sophistry at a high level is an art form. Basically that’s what Obama is really good at. He lies and then slides off those lies to a different set of lies.
One thinks about Lenin and his famous reference to “useful idiots.” He was saying that there were people so oblivious that they actually believed what he, Lenin, was preaching. He didn’t say he was a murdering degenerate incapable of the truth. No, he said that people were idiots if they believed him. The burden is on the listeners. They should know that every time Lenin opens his mouth, it’s the socialist version of the taqiyya doctrine. Conversely, one can’t help thinking that Obama views his supporters as “useful idiots.”
The New York Times should do a thorough investigation of how parents are explaining honesty to their children these days. Seriously, why should children tell the truth if the president does not? The fabric of the society is being torn and shredded by his contempt for truth.
We have to wonder if public schools still tell children about Honest Abe Lincoln?
——