This does deserve some elaboration.

My reference to Darwinism stems from our government's need to place science above all other ideas, as though science by itself is pure and without defect. Obama's recent comments about trusting the science, and putting science first is a prime example of this logic. Not that I am discounting the necessity of scientific discovery, or the advances that come from science; but to discount any other position on the word of some scientists over that of other scientists or ideals is absurd. Global Warming is a natural outgrowth of placing Darwin's theory first. Darwinism is the root of most modern scientific thought. Global Warming makes certain assumptions in logic.

This is the logic: since there is no God or Creator, there is nothing or no one that can arrest or diminish the effects of CO2 emissions. We will simply continue on and destroy ourselves and all life on the planet; and there is no God to intervene before we destroy His purposes in creating the Earth in the first place. It is left then to the infinite wisdom of man to stop what has begun. Bruce Willis to the rescue!

The irony here is belief in God requires faith. And yet so does Darwinism. You chose which one requires "blind" faith.

One strength of the Communist [or of a socialist] system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion.
(Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years, 1950)

I personally have a deep religious foundation. It is this foundation that teaches me to hold the liberties of others to be of more importance than any other thing. We may chose who, how, or where we are to worship, and even if. My concern is the gradual deterioration of that liberty as the government slowly encroaches on that right by espousing Darwinism as the State religion. I have NO desire to force my religious views on others, or require that they espouse my faith. That sentiment certainly is not being reciprocated by those who are driving us to swallow this new piece of legislation with the same blind religious zeal as has not been seen since the crusades. The Cap and Trade bill takes advantage of this euphoria under the guise of offering "salvation" at the hidden expense of taxation.

There were many that fell victim to a doctrine that was later repudiated. What do they say about history?

I appreciate the comment. The government has not run social security, medicare or medicaid efficiently in any manner. In fact the only way someone on medicare Part A can effectively manage risk is to elect Part B and then purchase a supplement policy. If anyone thinks that Part A is sufficient coverage, they better read the fine print: the limitations and exclusions. Take special notice also to the number of specialists and physicians not electing, or refusing, to be in network providers. You will also find the same problem exists in the care off base for our military personnel. I wonder why that is? Hmmmm....

If any of the public believe that the government can't or won't employ similar limitations or gate-keeping they are sorely misled. These are but two of the multiple methods used for cost containment I will cover in future posts.

Publius Alter