Al-Qaeda's Sexual Morality

Al-Qaeda's Sexual Morality

Al-Qaeda spends a lot of time contrasting what they stand for with the decadent West. And yet, there's a rather long history of al-Qaeda and its allies showing that their notion of sexual morality is "rape is okay." Most recently, one of al-Qaeda in Iraq operatives confessed to something that seems to be policy. After discussing al-Qaeda's severe enforcement of its notions of morality with respect to smoking, women being insufficiently covered, and so on, this article in the September 20, 2007 Human Events reports:

Enforcement of these laws -- which can perhaps be described as Shari’a taken to the greatest extreme -- has included taking measures to brutally punish people who commit the slightest offense, from smoking, to a woman failing to cover her head in public, to a man not growing a long enough beard. The strictest social mores are to be observed and any deviation from the standard can result in a punishment consisting of torture, mutilation, or death -- including, as the western world has seen on a few occasions (though not enough to grasp the extent of its use), beheading.

Unfortunately for those who might have chosen to join this hardline Islamist faction in hopes of keeping more virtuous company, the recent apprehension of a key ISI figure showed just how hypocritical – and, as if more evidence was necessary, unspeakably inhuman -- the leadership of that movement is capable of being.

Earlier this week in Samarra, the Iraqi National Police apprehended a man named Ahmed Mohammed Sabar Hamud al-Medhi al-Bazi, a key figure in a five-man ISI cell which was responsible for an attack on the National Police using an Improvised Explosive Device (IED), as well as for IED, rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), and small arms attacks on coalition forces.

...

Without a bit of pressure -- indeed, without the appearance of a care in the world -- Medhi, described in graphic detail the other half of his ISI cell’s operations: running an organized al Qaeda Rape ring in Samarra. With a modus operandi of breaking into various houses and either raping women on the spot or threatening the family with death while taking their daughter away to become a hostage and a sex slave, Medhi, a self-described homosexual who engaged in intercourse (via rape) with women “because other members of this group” did, confessed to his cell’s penchant for abducing girls and “holding them [hostage] just for their pleasure.” Most recently, he said, he had taken part in the rape, kidnapping, and/or killing of five women, three of whom were supposedly still alive.

Among these most recent victims was “a twenty-five year old virgin,” who was “alone in her house” when the al Qaeda leaders “raided” it. Breaking into the house, all five members of the cell held her captive in her own home and raped her repeatedly. Finally, when all five had quenched their base desire for that action which they so brutally prohibited others from humanely engaging in, under the guise of enforcing “true Islamic law,” the terrorists departed, leaving the woman alone in her pain and misery.

If there is such a thing as “getting off easy” for a girl who is gang-raped, this first woman did just that. Two others, both age 23, met a much more gruesome fate shortly after the first, as they were taken from their houses (in front of their families), raped repeatedly by the entire al Qaeda cell, and then slaughtered. According to Medhi, their bodies were buried in a cemetery somewhere in the city.

This doesn't appear to be just a one-time quirk of this particular cell. Rape was a widely used weapon of war in East Timor--and al-Qaeda specifically targeted Australian tourists with the Bali bombing because Australian forces were part of what ended this reign of terror in East Timor. See this November 12, 2002 CNN report:

Further possible evidence of the al Qaeda connection to the Bali blasts is contained in a tape released Wednesday by the Al Jazeera TV network, purportedly of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. (Bin Laden praises attacks)

In the tape, bin Laden singles out Australia and other U.S. allies as an enemy of Muslims and says al Qaeda had warned Australia over its involvement in East Timor and Afghanistan.

Similarly, when Chechnyan terrorists took hostages at a school in Russia, leading to hundreds of deaths--these proud warriors for the higher morality of the Koran raped many of the children. (See also here.)
Of course, rape is a fundamental part of the process by which Sudanese militias--who al-Qaeda praises--commit the crimes of Darfur.

As this article from the September 24, 2004 Front Page points out:

What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).

After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.

Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.

Something that isn't widely known in the West (because it might present a poor picture of Islam) is that a number of Islamic countries use the Koranic standard for rape convictions: there must be four eyewitnesses to a rape confirming the victim's account. If she can't produce four eyewitnesses at trial, she is convicted of prostitution. For practical purposes, this makes rape legal. How would there be four eyewitnesses to a rape who didn't stop it, unless they were participants? This is the law in Iran, and attempts to reform this law in Pakistan are being fought by--who else?--the Islamist parties that are allies of al-Qaeda. The only reference I could find was at the bottom of this other story from November 13, 2006 Reuters:

Supporters of opposition Islamic alliance Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) hold placards during a rally in Multan November 28, 2006. The rally was held to protest against amendments to Pakistan's Islamic laws that will allow rape victims to seek justice without the need for four male witnesses while alliance leaders have threatened to resign from the parliament saying amendments are un-Islamic.

Not surprisingly, this ugly little detail isn't getting much attention, because the left wants to imagine that al-Qaeda and friends are on the same side, since the left and al-Qaeda have the same enemy: George Bush.

Gun Dealer In the District of Columbia

Gun Dealer In the District of Columbia

Dave Hardy reports that he has found a federally licensed gun dealer in the District of Columbia...Josh Sugarmann, who runs the Violence Policy Center, one of the primary supporters of gun bans. The business address is listed as VPC's offices on Rhode Island Avenue.

Now, there are reasons why Sugarmann does this, other than to sell guns. It gives him access to gun trade shows, for example. But back during the 1990s, the Clinton Administration cracked down hard on people who had the FFL and were what groups like the VPC characterized as "kitchen table dealers." If you were doing this out of your home, and the zoning wasn't right for a home business--nope! That's part of why I could not get my FFL renewed.

Federal law has always required you to actually be in the business of selling guns--they don't want people to be using the FFL just to buy guns for themselves. I don't see how Sugarmann can qualify unless he is actually selling guns.

UPDATE: Red's Trading Post did a little digging--and it does indeed appear that Sugarmann's FFL doesn't conform to zoning requirements.

Living Wages

Living Wages

Radley Balko over at Reason Hit & Run mentions this charming bit of hypocrisy:

The workers who clean Baltimore's Camden Yards baseball stadium are planning a hunger strike to protest their $7 per hour wages. The stadium is the largest employer of the city's homeless day laborers. The kicker, though, is that the Maryland legislature recently passed a "living wage" bill, setting the minimum at $11.30 per hour. But while the bill covers any business with state contracts in the Baltimore area, the state government is exempt, and Camden is owned by the state of Maryland.

He also mentions that the leftist organizing group ACORN has a history of not paying a living wage to its workers--and then challenging the law when applied to them with a free market critique of a law that they want applied to everyone else!

ACORN isn't the only leftist operation that wants laws that it won't follow itself. Back in the late 1970s, the Campaign for Economic Democracy (Hayden and Fonda's operation) was demanding a raise in the minimum wage--but they weren't paying their workers a minimum wage. Why? They were a non-profit, and thus exempt from California law for that reason.

If the left really wanted to do something to alleviate the misery of the poor, they would be shutting off the spigot that supplies vast quantities of poorly educated illegal aliens. But that wouldn't do anything for their campaign against capitalism.

A reduction in the supply of cheap labor would drive up wages. Would it drive wages up enough to pay the equivalent of these "living wage" laws? I don't know. I do know that in the 19th century, before steamships made travel to America cheap, the perpetual shortage of labor here meant that even unskilled workers did much better here than in Europe--with daily wages often three or four times that of Britain, for example. In Britain, workers averaged about a shilling a day. In America, three or four shillings a day was more typical.

The response of the privileged classes, at least during the Colonial period, was to pass maximum wage laws, so that the poor wouldn't exploit the rich. A couple of years back, I mentioned an example from Massachusetts Governor Winthrop's journal of an "insolent" worker, and why they just had to pass a maximum wage law. Some colonies set a maximum wage of three shillings a day for skilled laborers, and 2 1/2 shillings a day for unskilled laborers. Accounts from English travelers to America in the early Republic also mention how difficult it was to keep servants, because they could, if mistreated, find another equal or better paying job on short notice.

I know, I know, interfering in the free market by enforcing our immigration laws would drive up prices of anything that has unskilled labor in it. There's no question that this is true. But I rather doubt that even a 25% increase in labor rates for lettuce pickers would mean a 5% increase in the price of lettuce. Remember that a lot of the cost of food isn't the labor to pick it, but packaging and transportation. Even labor in restaurants isn't the major cost of your meal. I would much rather pay another 50 cents for a Big Mac Meal, in exchange for stopping the flood of illegal aliens, and see the people working behind the counter get paid enough that leftist ideology doesn't sound so attractive. And remember: these are our neighbors, sometimes our friends, and even our kids (at least until they get through college).

Hypocrisy Considered As A Human Failing

Jonah Goldberg has an amusing column about how Democrats are using Senator Craig's bathroom antics as a tool:

Since most on the Left think Craig’s alleged sexual liaisons are perfectly benign, they shouldn’t object. “Who are we to judge?” and all that. Rather, the Left claims it hates Craig’s hypocrisy, not his behavior.
From Rush Limbaugh’s drug use to Bill Bennett’s gambling to the long list of Republican politicians who’ve thrown a few earmarks and riders into their marriage vows, the Left has chosen to denounce the perceived hypocrisy rather than the behavior. The indictment sometimes loses its punch in the details. Bennett never inveighed against gambling, for example.
But that misses the point. The Left claims to hate “moralizers.” So any failure to live like Jesus while telling others to follow his example is an outrage, even the defining challenge of our lives. (In 2005, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean pledged, “I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy.”)
One solution to the hypocrisy epidemic, of course, is to have no morals at all. You can’t violate your principles if you don’t have any. Another solution: simply define down your principles until they are conveniently consistent with your preferred lifestyle. My own perfect moral code would mandate a strict regimen of not enough exercise, too much scotch and a diet rich in cured meats.

More to the point, Goldberg points out that hypocrisy isn't a failure of an ideology, but a failure of individuals, using the example that I mentioned a few days ago--John Edwards asking us all to sacrifice, and give up SUVs--but he hasn't done so. What really bugs me, however, is how many liberals do things just as hypocritical as family values politicians playing footsie in the men's room--and they do it and say it in public, with no sign of shame:

You don’t even have to give up traditional religion, so long as you now define the teachings of your faith in perfect compliance with the Democratic platform.
Why, just look at John Kerry. In 2004, the Democratic nominee repeatedly insisted that his religious faith is “why I fight against poverty. That’s why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That’s why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.” Great! But when it comes to, say, abortion, consulting one’s faith is a no-no: “What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn’t share that article of faith.”

I happen to agree that concern for the poor is a Christian value, and even government providing some basic level of subsistence is a Christian value. It is also a conservative value; American and English government has been doing so since the Elizabethan Poor Laws. Contrary to what a lot of ignorant liberals and conservatives want to believe, the New Deal wasn't the beginning of governmental assistance to the poor. The real dispute is about what is the most effective way to provide that assistance, what level of assistance is obligatory, and whether particular programs help the poor--or encourage destructive behaviors.

But a politician who claims to be a Christian, and therefore has a moral obligation to use governmental power to care for the poor and the needy is in no position to suddenly claim that the government has to ignore Christian values when it comes to defining marriage, or prohibiting obscene materials, or punishing sexual immorality. There might be pragmatic arguments for why and how the government writes these laws. There might be a case for writing laws that reflect a societal consensus about these issues. But pretending that Christian values require the government to care for the poor--and ignoring those values when it would offend the immoral minority--that's not principle. It's hypocrisy, no different from preaching against homosexuality while sneaking off for your afternoon session of homosexual sex.

Sacrificing the SUVs

I mentioned earlier that the Goracle's fans showed up at one of his events driving expensive, gas-guzzling SUVs. The Hedgehog Report invites you to count the number of SUVs parked about John Edwards house--who has just called on Americans to give up driving SUVs, as part of sacrifice:

How about a little game - let’s count how many SUVs are parked around Edwards’ 28,000-square foot mansion (click here for hi-res photo).

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves….

It wouldn’t be so ridiculous except later in the article, Edwards is questioned on the hypocrisy of him telling everyone else to sacrifice while he lives in a 28,000-square house.

There are days I wonder who is more stupid: the journalists who fall all over themselves praising "courageous" people like John Edwards, or John Edwards, for assuming that no one else will see what a transparently dishonest person he is.

Senator Craig's not the only politician with some hypocrisy problems.

Fans of the Goracle And What They Drive

Instapundit likes to say that he'll start to take global warming seriously when the advocates start to act like they take global warming seriously. Zombietime has a great collection of photos that she took in the parking lot at the Marin Civic Center when the Goracle came to speak about global warming. Go here, and scroll down to "Gallery of Gore Fan SUVs."

And let me emphasize: Marin County is among the most wretched excess of wealth counties in America. These are people who can easily afford to show their environmental responsibility by having their Mercedes SUVs dismantled, and then buying a hybrid or whatever hair shirt best shows off their concern for Mother Earth.

It reminds of something that happened to a friend of mine back in 1992. He was driving north from San Francisco to Sonoma County. This friend was one of the tiny number of Republicans in Sonoma County, and he had a Bush bumper sticker on his car. Somewhere in Marin County, a Volvo pulled up alongside him on the 101, and started swearing and screaming at him. Not being a lip reader, about all he could make out was something about Bush--and then the deranged liberal pulled out a handgun and started waving it around. (Doubtless a member of at least two gun control groups, I'm sure.) Fortunately, one of those rare, historic events, there really was a cop around when you need one--a California Highway Patrol car was two cars back, saw this confrontation, and pulled the brandishing liberal over.

My Corvette gets about 20-21 mpg around town; often in the high 20s on the highway. I telecommute four days a week. For this house, I spent a bit of extra money to make sure that I had R-50 insulation in my attic. I used 2x6 construction in the walls instead of 2x4 to add air space insulation, and every window in the house opens, so that most of the year I can use natural breezes for cooling instead of air conditioning. I am almost certainly doing less damage to Mother Earth than these environmentally self-righteous sorts.

How Dare I Quote An Environmentalist About Al Gore!

Over at 43rd State Blues, BinkyBoy does his usual classy and accurate number, complaining that the reports about Al Gore dining on an endangered species were inaccurate:

Al Gore recently was seen eating Chilean Sea Bass. To those that are ready to jump to judgement, that suddenly makes him less of an environmentalist.

Unfortunately, they're lying again.

Now, there has since been a news report that says the first news report was wrong. It turns out that the environmentalists who made the first, and inaccurate claim--were wrong.

Now, if BinkyBoy is upset that his hero is being falsely castigated by environmentalists in a newspaper article, then this is where the rage should be directed. If the environmentalists who made the initial claim knew that it was a false statement, you could claim that they were "lying." But to claim that people who report a newspaper report by someone on Al Gore's side is "lying" is about what I have come to expect from BinkyBoy--a rather severe carelessness about the meaning of words.

"Lying" means that you are making a statement that you know or have good reason to be believe is false. A statement can be incorrect without being a lie.

BinkyBoy has an awful lot of rage at people that don't agree with him, and it shows up in very juvenile behavior--such as calling people liars for linking to a news report by people whom BinkyBoy would normally defend.

What's really interesting is that 43rd State Blues has a comment section where a reader might ordinarily point out this distinction. But I have been specifically prohibited from commenting there. Policing comments is a lot of work; that's why I don't have comments enabled on my blog. If BinkyBoy didn't want the extra work of doing so, I could understand and agree. But BinkyBoy apparently doesn't mind doing the work of policing comments--he just won't allow me to comment there. How typically Democrat: they believe in free speech, as long as you agree with them.

Anti-Gun Political Activist Arrested...For Unlawful Gun Sales

Classical Values pointed me to this utterly unsurprising article in LA Weekly:

FEDERAL ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS AGENTS knocked first, then entered the Downey home of purported anti-gang activist Hector Marroquin on Wednesday, arresting him for selling silencers and weapons — including three assault rifles and a machine gun — to an undercover ATF agent.

The gun sales, some of which Marroquin, the founder of the gang-intervention group No Guns, transacted at his bar in the city of Cudahy, were captured on videotape and audiotape, said police officers present at his arrest.

Inside the house, the 51-year-old veteran of the 18th Street Gang surrendered as his daughter’s boyfriend, David Jimenez, a parolee at large, jumped out a window, tossed a gun into the backyard pool and climbed on the roof, authorities said. Officials said ATF agents then confronted him, he climbed back inside and was arrested and charged as a felon in possession of a gun.

Marroquin, an alleged associate of the prison-based Mexican Mafia, has grown accustomed to such intrusions, having been arrested many times over the years while at the same time being the founder and CEO of No Guns, which has received $1.5 million from Los Angeles City Hall via the much-criticized L.A. Bridges program designed by the Los Angeles City Council to keep youth out of gangs.

Last December, the L.A. Weekly exposed Marroquin’s allegedly persistent gang ties and suspected mafia association, in its “Broken Bridges” article, based on federal Drug Enforcement Agency memos, classified L.A. County Sheriff’s Department documents, wiretap transcripts and interviews with current and former law enforcers.

Since then, John Chavez, the head of L.A. Bridges, which funded No Guns through the Community Development Department, has lost his job.

On Wednesday, the L.A. District Attorney’s Office filed five charges related to Marroquin’s sale of automatic weapons and silencers to the undercover ATF agent, according to a criminal complaint filed in L.A. Superior Court. Also charged was Marroquin’s girlfriend, Sylvia Arellano, who police arrested the same day in Cudahy. Police searched Marroquin’s bar on Atlantic Avenue in Cudahy, as well as an auto yard in South Gate, where they recovered gang photos and journals.

You might think this government funded gun control group is just an example of an opportunistic criminal looking for an easier way to get money than criminal activity, but I think it is a bit worse than that:

At the time of his arrest Marroquin faced a separate gun possession charge, also reported in December by the Weekly. That trial has been delayed. Meanwhile, his son, Hector Marroquin Jr., a former No Guns officer who police say is an admitted 18th Street Gang member, has been indicted on charges of home invasion robbery and faces up to 40 years in prison.

Oh yes, it isn't just one bad apple:

No Guns finally lost its funding last year, after city officials found the organization had engaged in nepotism and misappropriation of public funds. Along with his wife, son and daughter, who police say is a member of the Hawthorne L’il Watts Gang, the Marroquins made more than $200,000 a year in salaries — public funds paid by L.A. taxpayers — to steer children away from gangs and help active gangsters escape the life.

However, a report by civil rights lawyer Connie Rice and independent audits have stated that L.A. Bridges, which has funneled more than $100 million to programs like No Guns, cannot show that it has reduced gang activity, and the city council lacks any meaningful measures for determining success. Just last week, another purported gang-member-turned-good, 30-year-old Mario Corona, with a group called Communities in Schools, also a recipient of L.A. Bridges money, was sentenced to 32 months in prison for transporting a large amount of methamphetamine and being a felon with a gun.

This isn't the first time that an anti-gun activist has demonstrated that their ideology is primarily a matter of projection:

A bereaved mother whose son was shot and killed nearly two years ago -- and who spoke out against gun violence and memorialized shooting victims at the "Million Mom March" rally in Washington, D.C., last Mother's Day -- was herself convicted of shooting a man she wrongly believed was her son's killer.

Barbara Graham, the Washington Post reported Thursday, "was found guilty in D.C. Superior Court … of trying to avenge her son's death by shooting a young man" last year that "she blamed for the killing."

Graham, who lost her own son in 1999 in a shooting death at a Martin Luther King, Jr. rally, became active in a Washington-area group, "Mothers on the Move Spiritually," in the months following her son's death. The group helped sponsor the MMM event, where Graham "spoke out … and helped memorialize the dead," the paper said.

The Million Moms March, which becomes nine months old as an organization Feb. 14, has become one of the nation's leading advocates of stringent gun control. The group, which promotes gun-control activism among the nation's mothers, says it is "dedicated to preventing gun death and injury and supporting victims and survivors of gun trauma."

And this anti-gun activist, who wants pro-gun legislators killed:

(CNSNews.com) - An Illinois gun-rights group says it plans to complain to the Catholic Church after a Chicago priest at the weekend appeared to call for the murder of a suburban gun shop owner.

During a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition protest at Chuck's Gun Shop & Range on Saturday, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina's Church, threatened to "snuff" shop owner John Riggio.

The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) has posted online what is says is a recording of Pfleger's remarks.

PflegerIn the audio clip, the priest is heard being introduced to the crowd by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Immediately therafter, Pfleger launches into a tirade.

"I want the NRA [National Rifle Association] to understand - you have a lot of money, but money can't buy moral authority and it can't buy justice or freedom, and we will fight you, NRA," he says.

"We will fight you on every angle [sic], no matter how much money you've got, we will embarrass you, and we will embarrass every legislator that takes money from you. We will call them out by name, by district. We will expose you, legislators."

Pfleger then turns his attention to Riggio. "He's the owner of Chuck's. John Riggio. R-i-g-g-i-o. We're going to find you and snuff you out … you know you're going to hide like a rat. You're going to hide but like a rat we're going to catch you and pull you out. We are not going to allow you to continue to hide when we're here …"

"We're going to keep coming back, and like Reverend Jackson says, it takes civil disobedience, if it takes whatever it takes … we're going to snuff out John Riggio, we're going to snuff out legislators that are voting … and we are coming for you because we are not going to sit idly. Keep on fighting, people. Keep on fighting, keep on fighting."

There are people that should not own guns, no question about it. And they are often those screeching most loudly that no one should have them.

UPDATE: David Codrea points out that along with advocating assassination for holding the "wrong" positions, this priest has a long history of using his church for partisan political purposes. I'm not keen on the IRS bullying churches into silence by threatening to pull their tax-exempt status--but I would like this to be a consistent position. Either they do this for all churches, or for none. Right now, black churches are allowed to pull stunts like Father Pfleger does--but churches that lean towards the right end of the political spectrum are not.

One of Codrea's readers contacted Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and asked them to take on Pfleger's church concerning this. I am very skeptical that anything will happens, since Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is a liberal group, and therefore not committed to integrity or honesty.

John Edwards Asks Students to Do Something About Poverty...

Like write him a $55,000 check:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.

The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus' Mondavi Center confirmed Monday.

That amount -- which comes to about $31 a person in the audience -- included Edwards' travel and airfare, and was the highest speaking fee in the nine appearances he made before colleges and universities last year, according to his financial records.

The earnings -- though made before Edwards was a declared Democratic presidential candidate -- could hand ammunition to his competition for the Democratic presidential nomination. The candidate -- who was then the head of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina -- chose to speak on "Poverty, the great moral issue facing America," as his $55,000 topic at UC Davis.

If they covered his travel expenses, okay, I can understand that. If he wasn't a multimillionaire, I can understand wanting to be paid for his time. But Edwards is obscenely rich from his work as an ambulance chaser. It isn't like he needs the money.

Greed is an awful thing. But there is something worse. And that's a Democrat who talks about "two Americas," one rich, one poor, who thinks he should be paid $55,000 to come and speak for an hour.

Sore Losers

It is astonishing what sore losers the left are. When they lost the presidential election in 2000 and in 2004--the whining and screeching were beyond belief. When Republicans lost control of Congress last year, instead of dark mutterings about conspiracies by Diebold, or raising the very real issue of election fraud (which is actually the norm in some cities), they sat back and evaluated in what way we had failed: the personal corruption of members of Congress who would couldn't keep from making lewd suggestions to pages, or who solicited bribes.

Of course, the left just lost in France, and rather than ask themselves why, they responded with riots:

Street violence took some of the shine off victory in the French elections for new president Nicolas Sarkozy.
Far-left activists had running battles with police across France as 270 people were taken in for questioning and 367 parked vehicles were torched.

Imagine If Jerry Falwell Had Said Something Like This...

They would have been screeching night and day about it--even worse than Don Imus's offensive remarks. These are far worse--but this isn't a national news story--because it was said by a Muslim, and therefore liberals must genuflect to show their support for diversity:

A community debate over religious freedom surfaced in Western Pennsylvania last week when Dutch feminist author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who has lived under the threat of death for denouncing her Muslim upbringing, made an appearance at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.

Islamic leaders tried to block the lecture, which was sponsored through an endowment from the Frank J. and Sylvia T. Pasquerilla Lecture Series. They argued that Hirsi Ali's attacks against the Muslim faith in her book, "Infidel," and movie, "Submission," are "poisonous and unjustified" and create dissension in their community.

Although university officials listened to Islamic leaders' concerns, the lecture planned last year took place Tuesday evening under tight security, with no incidents.

Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali's appearance.

"She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death," said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976.

Instapundit turned it around nicely:

When you come into the United States you must abide by the laws and customs that prevail here. You're supposed to leave this kind of medieval idiocy behind. If you keep it up, don't be surprised if you get thought of as some sort of medieval idiot.

ElBayly does not seem to have crossed the line into directly saying that someone should kill Hirsi Ali, so I guess that he hasn't actually broken any laws--but compared to what Don Imus said, this is far worse. And you won't hear a word about it from the usual screeching heads on television.

A Little More About Gore's Purchases of Environmental Indulgences

It turns out that the "carbon credits" that Gore is buying to offset his global warming sins are sold by...Al Gore:

In its original story, The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville reported that Gore buys “carbon offsets” to compensate for his home’s use of energy from carbon-based fuels. What is a “carbon offset,” exactly? Essentially, it’s a payment someone makes to an environmentally friendly entity to compensate for personally using non-green energy.

As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset “is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases.” Wikipedia goes on to explain that “a wide variety of offset actions are available; tree planting is the most common. Renewable energy and energy conservation offsets are also popular, including emissions trading credits.”

So far, so good. So, where does Gore buy his ‘carbon offsets’? According to The Tennessean newspaper’s report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management. a company he co-founded and serves as chairman:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe…

As co-founder and chairman of the firm Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

How interesting--he runs a company that sells carbon credits to other sinners--while telling everyone what sinners they are. And all this time, I just assumed that Gore was peddling his snake oil about what ecosinners we are because he wanted to be President. Maybe he just wants to be rich!

It is as if Pope Leo X, who sold papal indulgences to build St. Peter's in Rome, had been out whoring every night, paid money to the Catholic Church to wipe away his sins--and then took a salary to go out and preach about why all the sinners in Christendom needed to buy papal indulgences. Most people would recognize that there is a conflict of interest going on there.

If You Haven't Already Seen This Example of Al Gore's Concern for Global Warming

He wins an Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth, so Instapundit calls this, "An Inconvenient Electric Bill":

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

The hypocrisy of Al Gore never ceases to amaze me. I rather doubt that Gore believes much of any of what he says on this. As this article points out, there are some embarrassing pictures of Al Gore with the Rev. Fred Phelps (the "God Hates Fags" crazy) from 1988, when Gore wanted to be President--and would curry favor anywhere and everywhere to get there. Gore probably figures that global warming is a good way to get himself elected; clearly, he doesn't live as though he thinks this is the case.

Oh yeah, my electric bill last month was $40--about 800 kWh.

I Guess I Have To Buy State of Fear

Laurie David, limousine liberal environmental activist who criticizes the masses for buying SUVs--but flies around in a private jet--and is now accused of environmental despoilation on Martha's Vineyard--is attacking Michael Crichton for writing State of Fear.