What's more fake? Mohammed or Obama's Bio?

[4est_4est_Gump]

Maybe neither one of them wrote a thing of their own!

Here is a relevant excerpt from my book:

In 2008 a Muslim theologian at Germany’s Universityof Münsters candalized his co-religionists by asserting that the Prophet Mohammed was a figment of myth rather than an historical personality. Sven Muhammed Kalisch was a convert to Islam who held one of the most important positions in Islamic studies—the first German university chair for teaching Muslim religious instructors in German public schools. His paper, “Islamic Theology Without the Historical Mohammed,” was the first work by a Muslim academic to dispute the Prophet’s existence. Prof. Kalisch since has apostatized and repudiated the Muslim faith, but the damage was done. As he told a German newspaper, “It might be that the Koran was truly inspired by God, a great narration from God, but it was not dictated word for word from Allah to the Prophet.”

In Kalisch’s account, the invention of the historical Mohammed transformed the Christian message into a declaration that the Arabs were God’s chosen people. The Koran accomplishes this theological feat, Kalisch argues, by casting Mohammed as an Arab prophet who embodies the characteristics of Moses as well as Jesus.

“We hardly have original Islamic sources from the first two centuries of Islam,” Kalisch observes. “And even when a source appears to come from this period, caution is required. The mere assertion that a source stems from the first or second century of the Islamic calendar means nothing. And even when a source actually was written in the first or second century, the question always remains of later manipulation. We do not tread on firm ground in the sources until the third Islamic century [ninth century A.D.]” This substantial lag between the time Mohammed is supposed to have lived and the first historical evidence of the religion he is purported to have founded is extremely suspicious,” Kalisch observes. “How can a world religion have erupted in a virtual literary vacuum?” As he quotes Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds,

It is a striking fact [writes Kalisch] that such documentary evidence as survives from the Sufnayid period makes no mention of [Mohammed] the messenger of god at all. The papyri do not refer to him. The Arabic inscriptions of the Arab-Sasanian coins only invoke Allah, not his rasul [messenger]; and the Arab-Byzantine bronze coins on which Muhammad appears as rasul Allah, previously dated to the Sufyanid period, have now been placed in that of the Marwanids. Even the two surviving pre-Marwanid tombstones fail to mention the rasul.[ii]

The trouble with the Muslim version of the religion’s early history lies not in the absence of evidence, but rather in an abundance, including a large number of coins and inscriptions on monuments during its first two centuries that fail to refer to the Prophet Mohammed. “Coins and inscriptions are incompatible with the Islamic writing of history,” Kalisch concludes, citing the monograph Crossroads to Islam, by Yehuda Nevo and Judith Koren.[iii] The oldest inscription with the formulation “Mohammed Messenger of Allah” is to found in the sixty-sixth year of Islamic reckoning. But there also exist coins found inPalestine, probably minted inAmman, on which the word “Muhammed” is found in Arabic script on one side and a picture of a man holding a cross on the other. Kalisch cites this and a dozen other examples of evidence that contradicts official Muslim history. Citing Nevo and Koren among other sources, Kalisch also argues that the Islamic conquest as reported in much later Islamic sources never happened—instead, there was a gradual migration into depopulated Byzantine lands by the Arab auxiliaries of theEastern Empire.

“To be sure,” Kalisch continues, “various explanations are possible for the lack of mention of the Prophet in the early period, and it is no proof for the non-existence of an historical Mohammed. But it is most astonishing, and begs the question [sic] of the significance of Mohammed for the original Muslim congregation in the case that he did exist.” The numismatic and archeological evidence against the received version of Islamic history confirms the source-critical case that the Koran is based on earlier Christian sources and was originally written at least partly in Syriac-Aramaic, not Arabic.[iv] This compelling case has been assembled by scholars who swam against the current of Islamic studies—for example Patricia Crone, Martin Hinds, Karl-Heinz Ohlig and John Wansbrough. Kalisch, though, was the first Muslim scholar to argue against the authenticity of the Koran.

If the Mohammed story was invented, then by whom was it invented, and to what end? The answer, Kalisch explains, is that the new Arab empire wanted to conflate the figures of Moses and Jesus into an Arab prophet. Neither the Jews nor the Christians as people of God, but the Arabs, instead, would become the Chosen People under Islam. “No prophet is mentioned in the Koran as often as Moses, and Muslim tradition always emphasized the great similarly between Moses and Mohammed,” Kalisch writes. “The central event in the life of Moses, though, is the Exodus of the oppressed Children of Israel out of Egypt, and the central event in the life of Mohammed is the Exodus of his oppressed congregation out of Mecca to Medina . . . The suspicion is great that the Hegira appears only for this reason in the story of the Prophet, because his image should emulate the image of Moses.” Furthermore,

“…the image of Jesus is also seen as a new Moses. The connection of Mohammed to the figure of Jesus is presented in Islamic tradition through his daughter Fatima, who is identified with Maria . . . The Line Fatima-Maria-Isis is well known to research. With the takeover of Mecca, Mohammed at least returns to his point of origin. Thus we have a circular structure typical of myth, in which beginning and end are identical. This Gnostic circular structure represents the concept that the soul returns to its origin. It is separated from its origin, and must return to it for the sake of its salvation. . . . In the Islamic Gnosis, Mohammed appears along with [his family members] Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Hussein as cosmic forces . . . the Gnostic Abu Mansur al Igli claimed that God first created Jesus, and then Ali. Here apparently we still have the Cosmic Christ. If a Christian Gnosis gave birth to Islam, then the Cosmic Christ underwent a name change to Mohammed in the Arab world, and this Cosmic Mohammed was presented as a new edition of the Myth of Moses and Joshua (=Jesus) as an Arab prophet.”

David P. Goldman
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/05/18/why-invent-mohammed/?singlepage=true

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Second, the mechanism by which the new religion recasts the figures of Moses and Jesus is Gnostic, that is, the belief that an esoteric knowledge enables the adepts to see past the surface: underneath the Hebrew Bible and Christian Gospels lies the “true” revelation of Islam. But that is not a revelation at all, not, at least, in the sense that the giving of the Torah or the ministry of Jesus were understood to be revelations, namely, a human engagement with an infinite God. There really is no revelation at all, because Allah always remains infinitely remote and unrevealed: there is merely Gnosis, a new esoteric knowledge, a re-reading of earlier sources that transforms Moses and Jesus into Mohammed.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

April 23, 2012
Inventing Muhammad?

By Robert Spencer
Why would it matter if Muhammad never existed? Certainly the accepted story of Islam's origins is taken for granted as historically accurate; while many don't accept Muhammad's claim to have been a prophet, few doubt that there was a man named Muhammad who in the early seventh century began to claim that he was receiving messages from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Many who hear about my new book Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins ask why it would matter whether or not Muhammad existed -- after all, a billion Muslims believe he did, and they are not going to stop doing so because of some historical investigations. Yet the numerous indications that the standard account of Muhammad's life is more legend than fact actually have considerable implications for the contemporary political scene.

These are just a few of the weaknesses in the traditional account of Muhammad's life and the early days of Islam:

No record of Muhammad's reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur'an. They call the conquerors "Ishmaelites," "Saracens," "Muhajirun," and "Hagarians," but never "Muslims."
The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don't mention Islam or the Qur'an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of "Muhammad" are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name, but also as an honorific.
The Qur'an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s. Casting into serious doubt that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention its existence until the early eighth century.
We don't begin to hear about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself until the 690s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik. Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.
In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynasty supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik. In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Muhammad began to proliferate. The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era-at least 125 years after the traditional date of his death.
The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more, suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.

How to make sense of all this? If the Arab forces that conquered so much territory beginning in the 630s were not energized by the teachings of a new prophet and the divine word he delivered, how did the Islamic character of their empire arise at all? If Muhammad did not exist, why was it ever considered necessary to invent him?

Every empire of the day had a civic religion. The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was Christian. Its rival Persia, meanwhile, was Zoroastrian. The Arab Empire quickly controlled and needed to unify huge expanses of territory where different religions predominated. The empire was growing quickly, soon rivaling the Byzantine and Persian Empires in size and power. But at first, it did not have a compelling political theology to compete with those it supplanted and to solidify its conquests. It needed a common religion -- a political theology that would provide the foundation for the empire's unity and secure allegiance to the state.

Toward the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth, the leaders of the Muslim world began to speak specifically about Islam, its prophet, and eventually its book. Stories about Muhammad began to circulate. A warrior-prophet would justify the new empire's aggressive expansionism. To give those conquests a theological justification -- as Muhammad's teachings and example do -- would place them beyond criticism.

This is why Islam developed as such a profoundly political religion. Islam is a political faith: the divine kingdom is very much of this world, with God's wrath and judgment to be expected not only in the next life, but also in this one, to be delivered by believers. Allah says in the Qur'an: "As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them" (3:56). Allah also exhorts Muslims to wage war against those infidels, apostates, and polytheists (2:191, 4:89, 9:5, 9:29).

There is compelling reason to conclude that Muhammad, the messenger of Allah came into existence only after the Arab Empire was firmly entrenched and casting about for a political theology to anchor and unify it. Muhammad and the Qur'an cemented the power of the Umayyad caliphate and then that of the Abbasid caliphate.

This is not just academic speculation. The non-Muslim world can be aided significantly in its understanding of the global jihad threat -- an understanding that has been notably lacking even at the highest levels since September 11, 2001 -- by a careful, unbiased examination of the origins of Islam. There is a great deal of debate today in the United States and Western Europe about the nature of Islamic law; anti-sharia measures have been proposed in at least twenty states, and one state -- Oklahoma -- voted to ban sharia in November 2010, although that law was quickly overturned as an infringement upon Muslims' religious freedom. Others have been successfully resisted on the same grounds.

If it is understood that the political aspect of Islam preceded the religious aspect, that might change. But that will happen only if a sufficient number of people are willing to go wherever the truth my take them.

http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...m/articles/../2012/04/inventing_muhammad.html

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I always wondered what Mohammed was smoking up there in that cave.


Must have been some really good shit.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Note from Senior Management:
Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.
Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama's ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.
It is for that reason that we launched "The Vetting," an ongoing series in which we explore the ideological background of President Obama (and other presidential candidates)--not to re-litigate 2008, but because ideas and actions have consequences.
It is also in that spirit that we discovered, and now present, the booklet described below--one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.
It is evidence--not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.
***
Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."
The booklet, which was distributed to "business colleagues" in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.
It also promotes Obama's anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White--which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.

In place until 2007

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I always wondered what Mohammed was smoking up there in that cave.


Must have been some really good shit.

He might be as real as Sun Tzu...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I give myself a B+!

“The honeymoon is over.” Instructors who award low grades in humanities disciplines will likely be familiar with a phenomenon that occurs after the first essays are returned to students: former smiles vanish, hands once jubilantly raised to answer questions are now resentfully folded across chests, offended pride and sulkiness replace the careless cheer of former days. Too often, the smiles are gone for good because the customary “B+” or “A” grades have been withheld, and many students cannot forgive the insult.

The matter doesn’t always end there. Some students are prepared for a fight, writing emails of entreaty or threat, or besieging the instructor in his office to make clear that the grade is unacceptable. Every instructor who has been so besieged knows the legion of excuses and expressions of indignation offered, the certainty that such work was always judged acceptable in the past, the implication that a few small slip-ups, a wrong word or two, have been blown out of proportion. When one points out grievous inadequacies — factual errors, self-contradiction, illogical argument, and howlers of nonsensical phrasing — the student shrugs it off: yes, yes, a few mistakes, the consequences of too much coffee, my roommate’s poor typing, another assignment due the same day; but you could still see what I meant, couldn’t you, and the general idea was good, wasn’t it? “I’m better at the big ideas,” students have sometimes boasted to me. “On the details, well … ”.

Meetings about bad grades are uncomfortable not merely because it is unpleasant to wound feelings unaccustomed to the sting. Too often, such meetings are exercises in futility. I have spent hours explaining an essay’s grammatical, stylistic, and logical weaknesses in the wearying certainty that the student was unable, both intellectually and emotionally, to comprehend what I was saying or to act on my advice. It is rare for such students to be genuinely desirous and capable of learning how to improve. Most of them simply hope that I will come around. Their belief that nothing requires improvement except the grade is one of the biggest obstacles that teachers face in the modern university. And that is perhaps the real tragedy of our education system: not only that so many students enter university lacking the basic skills and knowledge to succeed in their courses — terrible in itself — but also that they often arrive essentially unteachable, lacking the personal qualities necessary to respond to criticism.

The unteachable student has been told all her life that she is excellent: gifted, creative, insightful, thoughtful, able to succeed at whatever she tries, full of potential and innate ability. Pedagogical wisdom since at least the time of John Dewey — and in some form all the way back to William Wordsworth’s divinely anointed child “trailing clouds of glory” — has stressed the development of self-esteem and a sense of achievement. Education, as Dewey made clear in such works as The Child and the Curriculum (1902), was not about transferring a cultural inheritance from one generation to the next; it was about students’ self-realization. It involved liberating pupils from that stuffy, often stifling, inheritance into free and unforced learning aided by sympathy and encouragement. The teacher was not so much to teach or judge as to elicit a response, leading the student to discover for herself what she, in a sense, already knew. In the past twenty years, the well-documented phenomenon of grade inflation in humanities subjects — the awarding of high “Bs” and “As” to the vast majority of students — has increased the conviction that everyone is first-rate.

...

Even more seriously, such students have not only been misled but fundamentally malformed. They have never learned to listen to criticism, to recover from disappointment, or to slog through difficulties with no guarantee of success except commitment. The person who is never challenged is also never refined, never learns to cope with the setbacks that come on the way to high endeavor. And it is not only in the academic realm, of course, that they may be hampered: a full life outside of university also requires the ability to confront one’s weaknesses and recover from defeat. Despite the admittedly important emphasis on character formation in our schools — on tolerance, anti-racism, refusal of bullying, and so on — it seems that we have failed to show students what real achievement looks like and what it will require of them.

Janice Flamengo
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-unteachables-a-generation-that-cannot-learn/?singlepage=true

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It’s been pretty foggy in those precincts for some time. During the 2008 campaign, many of us asked the question: “Who is Barack Obama?” It wasn’t a question that Obama’s official PR firms—The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc.–were interested in, no sirree, but it was a question that some of us pajamas-wearing-bitter-enders asked ourselves when we weren’t snake handling or nuzzling our firearms.

It’s a question that has recurred as more and more pieces of the Obama jigsaw puzzle have worked their way loose and exposed little gaps or fissures in the story. The most recent one concerned Ms. Composite, the girlfriend who didn’t exactly exist. But there have been other revelations, or, rather, revelations of non-revelation. Turns out the book filed under “Autobiography” ought to have been filed under “Teen Fantasy,” “Mystery,” or some other rubric in the fiction section.

Since 2008, the meticulous Stanley Kurtz has patiently been sifting through what materials are publicly available to answer the question Who Is Barack Obama? His book Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism is essential reading for anyone the least bit curious about the political history and ideological commitments of the most powerful man in the world.

But not everyone shares Mr. Kurtz’s curiosity. At the beginning of the Metaphysics, Aristotle observes than human beings are by nature curious animals: they ask questions and want to know the truth about the world around them. But not all men. One of the great oddnesses of the 2008 campaign was the code of omerta enforced by the the legacy media about anything having to do with Obama’s past. Where was he born? Don’t know, don’t care. What were his college years like? Can’t you move on to something important, like the time Mitt Romney ragged some hippie in high school? Why did Obama say that former Weatherman Bill Ayers was “just a guy in the neighborhood” when he was plainly an important political mentor, if not also the ghostwriter, for the future president?

http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/05/19/who-is-barack-obama/?singlepage=true

 

[Wat_Tyler]

He might be as real as Sun Tzu...

I bet you forgot to say "Tzu" to the Sun when it rose this morning.


So did I.


I wonder what Hell wants for breakfast today?


I think I'd like some pancakes.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I bet you forgot to say "Tzu" to the Sun when it rose this morning.


So did I.


I wonder what Hell wants for breakfast today?


I think I'd like some pancakes.

I think I would like to serve up some Crow...

Was Mohammed 1/32 Cherokee?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

She might have gotten away with not having any documentation to back up the identity she claimed, if only she’d exhibited some contrition, but what’s making Elizabeth Warren a pariah, even among liberal sympathizers, is that she still doesn’t have a clue of how egregiously exploitative she appears to be.

That brazen sense of entitlement, so unattractive, apparently makes humility impossible, even if it’s feigned for the purpose of public relations. …

Native Americans were massacred, plundered, displaced and herded onto reservations where misery, depravation [sic] and despair darkened a barren existence. They were described as “merciless savages” when our Declaration of Independence was authored, and well into the 1950s they were still portrayed as barbarians by Hollywood directors and TV cowboys.

Not unlike slavery, it’s a part of our past that now haunts America’s conscience. To Elizabeth Warren, however, it offered great political camouflage, a dramatic touch to her resume, as she claimed to be a descendant of those who suffered mercilessly, as if she was somehow deserving of our sympathies, too.

Please. What she deserves is our contempt.

Joe Fitzgerald, Boston Herald

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Now let me say right up front: when it comes to Obama, I'm not going to speculate who wrote what, when. Dystel had assistants, one of whom is now her partner, Miriam Goderich, who says the whole Obama-born-in-Kenya thing was a fact-checking mistake by her. And I cannot speak specifically to the mechanism of Dystel's publicity. (Alas, Dystel was unable to sell anything I wrote, so she had no reason to promote me, but I'm getting ahead of myself.)

I can speak of what she was like to work with and how she generated material. In my dealings with Dystel, I found her exceptionally thorough and very professional. She had a template she wanted non-fiction writers to follow, and my writing partner and I followed her template closely. She was rather fastidious, going so far as to mail a personal "Season's Greetings" card in December.

All material she used in our proposals came directly from me and my writing partner. She edited our rough-draft proposals and gave us feedback, but the final versions were all ours. Our final versions, bio included, were then simply photo-copied, by us, and distributed to potential publishers. This was back in the pre-Google days, recall.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...on-guidelines-obama-kenya-fact-checking-error

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I think I would like to serve up some Crow...

Was Mohammed 1/32 Cherokee?

If there were some Creeks, he would have been easier to drown.


But he did marry well.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Creek and Crow...




Sort of a Native surf and turf? Served with steaming buffalo chip and some Kenyan lightly plagiarized Pow Wow Chow?

 

[JohnnySavage]

"What's more fake?" Doesn't sound grammatically correct to me.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"What's more fake?" Doesn't sound grammatically correct to me.

What is more fake?

Interrogative; subject and predicate.


☝ Fragment

 

[badbabysitter]

1. Occidental college records sealed

2 Columbia College Records sealed

3 Columbia thesis paper sealed

4 harvard College records sealed


wow.. that would be amazing..if true.... the simple point of the matter is Obama simply hasnt released them and it would be illegal to force him to do so


but god bless the party of small government who wants to give government the power to illegaly access private information

5. Selective service registration sealed


you mean this?

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012...ps-and-obamas-selective-service-registration/

6 Medical records sealed


sure

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/obamas_2010_physical_test_deta.html

7 Illinois State schedule sealed

nope, public record


8 Illinois State senate records sealed


apparently lost is actually just code for sealed

9 law Practice client list sealed

how dare he? attorney client privacy is communist!!! what kind of monster respects the attorney cleint privilege!!!!!!!

10 , 11, 12... birther bullshit

http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ineligible.asp

13. Michelle Obama can no longer work as an attorney why?


Yes, she can.. she wasnt disbarred... in 1993 she was ordered on inactive status... inactive means inactive not a ban.. this being the direct result of her becoming the Executive drector of Public Allies which would have come in direct conflict of interest

hell, she could start practising law tomorrow if she wanted

14. Michelle has 22 assistants, other First Ladies only had one


Laura Bush had between 24 to 26 actually

15 Foreign Aid as a student

hey, that's bullshit too.. what a surprise

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

16 Used some other country's blah blah blah passport Pakistan 1981

you mean he used a passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981 when there was a travel ban..what a bastard


wait...whadda ya mean there was no travel ban?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/


well his using another countries is treasonous,...that bastard

except he didnt

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/passport.asp

 

[badbabysitter]

tumbleweeds roll by

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Annenburg records?



And how about the divorce records of the people he ran against?

Prove 1-4.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Democrats lie about race even while chiding the rest of us for refusing to have an honest conversation...

So while the situation is amusing, it is not a joke — it is the poison fruit of the Left’s long history of racial exploitation reaching its ripeness. It has long been known that affirmative-action programs advertised as benefiting blacks and members of other minority groups in government contracting and the like have mainly benefited white women — to a great extent college-educated, well-off white women such as Ms. Warren. When it comes to coveted benefits such as admission to prestigious universities, scholarships to pay for same, and academic appointments afterward, the racial spoils system has created powerful incentives for misrepresentation. Ms. Warren protests that her misty claims of Native American ancestry played no role in her being hired as a professor at Harvard or at Penn, but that claim, like her Cherokee ancestry, is undocumented, the universities’ personnel records being sealed against inquiry. To ignore such considerations would certainly have been out of character for Harvard Law, which proudly describes itself as an “Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer,” and which positively seethes with ideological discontent. In the academic world, “diversity” really means hiring liberals of all kinds.

...

Ms. Warren, who checked the “white” box at the University of Texas before getting in touch with her inner Cherokee when she stormed the Ivies, owes it to the people of Massachusetts to make the records of the Harvard Law hiring committee available to voters. Harvard, though a private institution, owes the people of its home state the same. If Ms. Warren’s undocumented claim to minority status did in fact play a role in the law school’s decision to hire her as a professor enjoying a prestigious, middle-six-figures chair, that is a fact of public importance.

The Editors, NRO

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The free market depends on honest quid pro quo. Fraud is generally defined as misrepresenting a material fact to induce another person to part with something of value.

The quid pro quo between private parties to a transaction need not be equal in the eyes of others, or government regulators, but just fair to the parties to the transaction.

It may be of more value to me than to others to acquire what you have or do, so that I may be willing to pay more than the market price. However, if you were to intentionally deceive me about your goods or services to lead me to believe that they have a higher value, you have committed a fraud.

There are mutual incentives for honesty in the free market, because once someone is exposed as dishonest, fewer if any people will transact business with that person. Just as mutual honesty is incentive to play fair in the free market, the free market is an incentive to mutual honesty.

The free market does not always result in honest transactions because people are not perfect. Penalties for fraud developed under the law to punish those who intentionally disrupt the integrity of honest transactions.

The law was originally designed to punish those who violated, whether intentionally or by lack of care, the covenants of civil society, and make whole those who were harmed by the wrongful conduct of others. That system goes back to the Old Testament, and the English common law on which American law was first based. Unlike many laws developed under liberal big government since then, the system was quite logical.

Without knowing all the facts yet, there at least appears to be cause to believe that Barack Obama, or someone acting directly on his behalf, misrepresented that Obama was born in Kenya, and that the statement was more than just a fact-checking error by his literary agent.

Mark J, Fitzgibbons
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/obama_the_inchoate_kenyan.html


But we all know that Barack is not really a big fan of the free market, so no harm, no foul, eh? As with Islam, the ends justifies the means and the ends is control...

The only differentiation is the means.

 

[miles]

They're not the same guy?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They're not the same guy?

Let's be fair, let's be straight, we know, for a fact that Obama is a Christian.

It's in all his bios...






... we're just not supposed to look too closely at "what kind of a Christian" he is.

It's not the Wright thing to do.

 

[MeeMie]

http://www.moonbattery.com/animated-thats-racist.gif

 

[Ishmael]

Re. your opening posts about Islam.

If you recall back in the "Lit. Islam Research Era" I started a thread opining that Islam was merely a Plagiarism of Judaism and Christianity. I believe one of the loudest nay sayers back then was Marxist.

Of course my writing on the subject back then was lacking in the details of the historical record of the time as well as access to the many root documents that the authors have quoted and referenced. I was merely basing my thoughts on what I had read of the Qur'an vis-a-vis the Bible.

Obviously I wasn't the only one to have such thoughts.

Ishmael