Divine Retribution?

On January 12, 2010 at 4:53 PM EST a magnitude 7.0 earthquake happened 25 km (15 miles) WSW of Port-Au-Prince, Haiti. The world is still unsure of the extent of the damage and the loss of life but all estimates agree that it was a horrendous disaster for the chronically and desperately impoverished nation of Haiti.

A few people believe that the quake was the result of divine retribution, the wrath of an angry God or Goddess. The statement by one of them, Pat Robertson, most people have had heard of. The other one, by Danny Glover, unsurprisingly has gotten a lot less publicity in the Main Stream Media (MSM).

Pat Robertson – They Made A Pact With The Devil

Pat Robertson’s response to the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that hit Haiti on Tuesday, January 12, 2010, was the sort of thing that was sure to set off a storm of anger and condemnation. It was made worse by being delivered in the calm, patient, and paternal tones that Robertson is famous for using.

And, you know, Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, “We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.” True story. And so, the devil said, “OK, it’s a deal.”

And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other. Desperately poor.

— Pat Robertson
January 13, 2009,  The 700 Club

That’s Pat Robertson for you; in his mind every misfortune or catastrophe that has ever afflicted Man is the caused by the Wrath of God. I think he takes the old axiom, the wages of sin are death, utterly and completely literally.

Personally I think he’s insulting his God. From what I’ve read, Yahweh was good at retribution. Were these things His wrath, there’d have been far fewer survivors.

But here’s a very similar statement made by the actor, director, and now producer Danny Glover. He too believes that the earthquake that devastated Haiti was divine retribution. But, as a Warmist, his deity is more politically correct.

Danny Glover – You Know What I’m Sayin’?

You just have to laugh at Danny’s Glover’s jabbering, nonsensical response to Haiti’s calamity, finishing as it does with the ebonic ghettoism – would that be Negro Dialect? – of,  “You know what I’m saying?” – or should that be, “Yo nahemsane?” in the vernacular (mis)spelling?

When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?

— Danny Glover
January 14, 2010 GRITtv Interview

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that Glover has enough intelligence and education to know that marginal warming or cooling of the planet does not cause earthquakes or any other form of seismic activity. That leaves the supposed “response” that Glover was speaking of an act of divine retribution.

So Mr. Glover believes that, because the Warmists’ neo-Socialist agenda at COP 15 in Copenhagen wasn’t achieved, the Earth or some deity representing her “punished” mankind by level Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince.

Gaea is the logical deity in question but, since it’s Danny Glover speaking and his ethnic background shouldn’t be discounted, it could be: Ane, Asase, Unkulunkulu, or possibly Ogun.

That belief seems ridiculous to me – and I assume to any rational person. Why would a God or Goddess devastate Haiti over the thankfully failed results of COP 15? Striking down America, Europe, or China would make more sense if Anthropogenic Global Warming was true and the Gods outraged by it.


So we have two individuals, both with access to the media, who have made similar statements about Haiti’s earthquake being a punishment and an act of divine retribution. Both statements were the sort that make the speakers and their causes look bad in the eyes of the general public. Yet, only one garnered any significant attention by the MSM.

There are some differences between Robertson’s and Glover’s statements. Robertson believes that Haiti was punished for its sins; Glover thinks they were punished for ours!

But the MSM is firmly committed to the dogma of Al Gore’s Warmist cult and likewise committed to President Obama and are ever unwholesomely and unethically eager to attack and marginalize anyone and anything that has ever stood in the way of or dissented from Obama’s agenda, Pat Roberson and which Christians in general have done.

Nobody could rationally expect them to fail to capitalize on Robertson’s idiocy or to report on Glover’s similar but less well-spoken stupidity.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

8 Responses to “Divine Retribution?”

  1. zhann Says:

    Why is it that people listen to celebrities at all? Intelligence is by no means a prerequisite for their profession, instead a good actor is in fact a good liar. Why would you take advice from someone you KNOW is a good liar?

    Worse yet, for all intents and purposes, actors are meerly well paid clowns. They are for our entertainment in every sense of the word. We shouldn’t be taking advice from them, but laughing at them. When someone like Danny Glover makes a statement like that we should simply take it with a grain of salt saying, ‘another crazy actor’.

    Some entertainers earn respect, Bono comes to mind even though he too has his ‘moments’. However, the vast majority are just clowns.

    Glover is an idiot, plain and simple.

  2. jonolan Says:


    People listen to celebrities because, for some strange reason, society has decided that they’re role models – or cautionary figures once they’ve “fallen” – and some how better – later worse – in a multiplicity of ways than the rest of us.

    It’s, to my mind, an extremely stupid practice, but that’s the way it is when people will do almost anything and go to almost any length to have someone else to them what they should think, do, and/or even look like.

    On thing though, zhann – given your description of celebrities, how are they any different from politician, people we hire to do the same things and more?

  3. zhann Says:

    When comparing Politicians to celebrities, the only real difference is that ‘generally’ politicians are given the benefit of the doubt by a majority of those that vote. This is meaningless, in the grand scheme of things, but the majority have far more sense than the majority of celebrities.

    As for being great liars, this is one thing that Celebrities and Politicians share a great deal, hence the practice of some celebrities actually becoming politicians. To be a celebrity you have to be a convincing liar on stage, or behind the camera … successive politicians have taken it a few steps further. Not only are they naturally good liars, but they are then trained in rhetoric, mastering the trade.

  4. Jay Burns Says:


    Yet I’m sure you hypocritically watch their movies and still vote for one of them or another. If you really feel the way you do you have an obligation to boycott all entertainment as you put it, and certainly not vote. For doing so would make you responsible for those in office. If you have a problem with the politicians in office do something about it. Stop whining. Pull yourself off your mother’s tit and take action. Run for office. Financially contribute to campaigns you support, campaign against those causes you do not support, but stop wasting all our time with your crying. You are getting my shoulder wet.

  5. zhann Says:

    Run for office? I see your grasp on politics is relatively weak. Running for office is easy, winning is an entirely different animal. Reaching the upper echelons of politics, now that’s something reserved for the elite or those supported by the elite.

    I assume your ‘whining’ reference is with respect to my criticism of politicians and their lies (however, the movie reference does seem out of place if I am correct). Hence, I am led to believe that you either feel that politicians are honest, or more specifically the politicians you support are honest. Why not enlighten me, then, who is it you support?

  6. jonolan Says:


    To a large extent I agree with opinion on the feasibility of the average person to successful gain high political office, but then, if this is true, how can any of explain Gov. Sarah Palin?

    Palin, with little or no funding whatsoever, defeated the GOP incumbent in the gubernatorial primary election and then went on to defeat the Dem candidate despite the fact that the AK GOP was funding the Dem’s campaign!

  7. Jay Burns Says:

    Look my point is that if you don’t believe in the system of government that we have then it is your obligation to change it.

    A person who sees a problem yet does nothing to change it is a coward.

  8. zhann Says:

    Jay, why do you think I visit blogs and state my opinion? While it is fun to stir up a crowd (visiting any fundamentalist blog is extremely fun), my objective is to force people to think. The majority of Americans, for example, believe that their elected officials are not corrupt and would never take a bribe. When such a thing comes to light, the outrage is laughable. Changing the US system of government is not something that can be done overnight, nor by a single person. However, the number of Americans that think like me are quite substantial, and I like to think our numbers are growing. When the time is right, action will be taken. In the meantime, education is the only means of revolution that is feasible.

    As for Palin, it boggles the mind. There are exceptions to every rule.

Leave a Reply