The Green Cult

March 1, 2010

I’ve argued before that, for many, the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a more of a religion or a cult than a reasoned approach to problems facing the Earth: the attempts to stifle argument by declaring a revealed truth, thus turning theory into dogma; treating those who disagree as heretics who need to be silenced or even destroyed; and the whole aura of punishment for Man’s sins against the Earth that suffuses AGW theory.

Today’s Telegraph brings an extreme example of the cult’s irrationality, as two parents in Argentina shoot their children and kill themselves out of fear of global warming:

A seven-month-old girl survived for three days alone with a bullet in her chest after being shot by her parents as part of a suicide pact over their fears about global warming.

Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their daughter and her toddler brother before killing themselves.

Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.

However, their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her father’s handgun missed her vital organs.

Tragic and mad, and yet I wouldn’t be surprised to see more examples of desperation on the part of true believers as their church continues to collapse.

RELATED: On a much less dramatic note, the Cult’s High Priest, Al Gore, has come out of hiding in the wake of Climategate to pronounce anathema on skeptics and assert that the science is still settled:

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

But, of course, the (revealed) truth is that we are still on the way to disaster, in spite of all the evidence of flawed research, junk science, and scientific corruption. Read the whole article; it’s a masterful reassertion of a fatally challenged creed, and take note especially of this sentence:

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.

One can only be redeemed if one has first sinned. Tell me again this isn’t a religion?

Jules Crittenden dismantles the Goracle’s ravings.  (via Sister Toldjah) Roger Kimball calls it the Al Gore Comedy Hour. Maggie’s Farm talks more about “redemption by law.” At American Thinker, Rick Moran rips into the Goracle’s article, ending by calling him a megalomaniac.


Begging to pay too much

March 1, 2010

The latest bright idea out of the Lightworker administration is a doozy: the awarding of government contracts based on who pays their workers more. Oh go on

No, I’m not kidding. Surprise

Watch as liberal Dave Madland (a fitting name if there ever was one) tries to defend this hair-brained idea and Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute makes clear just how stupid it is. (And I don’t think the hostess was convinced, either.)

This is like making Pentagon procurement practices official policy.

(via Mitchell’s blog, International Liberty)


Court packing: Don’t go there, Mr. President

March 1, 2010

Yet more proof that Progressives are anti-democratic. First, they whined about the filibuster; when they couldn’t get their own way, in spite of having overwhelming majorities in both houses for over a year and owning the presidency, it had to be because archaic rules thwarted them, not because the people were rejecting their statism and forcing moderate members of their own party to back away from ObamaCare.

Now it’s the court system. With the only seats on the Supreme Court likely to open up before 2012 being liberal seats and with a 5-4 Center-Right majority in place, it’s occurred to some that, if ObamaCare passes, the Court could undo major portions of it. For Progressives, who know better than anyone else in the nation (in their own minds) how citizens should manage their lives, this is unacceptable. Therefore, the only solution is, according to Stan Isaacs,  to stack the deck:

This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court.

The original Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices at six. It shrank to five in 1801. It expanded to seven in 1807. It grew to nine in 1837 and 10 in 1863. It fell back to seven in 1866. It returned to nine in 1869 and has remained at that number since.

Political issues accounted for the changes. The Federalists reduced the number to five, hoping to deprive Thomas Jefferson of an appointment. The incoming Democrats repealed that measure, raising the number to seven. It went to nine in 1837 to give Andrew Jackson two more seats. Civil War issues led to more fluctuations before the court settled at nine under President Ulysses Grant.

So if nine justices is not writ in stone, the embattled President Obama should deal with this hostile conservative/reactionary court by adding three members.

Oh, I dare you Stan. Go for it. Just try it. How’d it work for FDR, anyway? Average citizens may not remember his court-packing scheme, but they can smell a rat, nevertheless. They’ll see that jamming the Court with new, Progressive justices is nothing more than an attempt to impose by judicial fiat what the Left cannot get through the legislature. There’s a word for using unelected judges to impose one party’s policy, Stannie:

Dictatorship.

Mr. President, ignore the advice of anti-democrats like Stan Isaacs. Your term in office has nearly hit the rocks because of your single-minded attempts to impose statist health-care reforms the majority of the nation soundly rejects. Sir, I guarantee you: if you even hint at going for court-packing, Election Day next November will not just be a bad day for the Democratic Party. Trust me, the people’s anti-authoritarian antibodies will kick into overdrive.

It will be an absolute catastrophe.

LINKS: Allahpundit laughs at the idea and tries to figure out who in the Senate would vote for it.

LINKS II: Big Journalism is aghast.