Chris Hayes thinks politicians who don't accept global warming theory or gay marriage should be disqualified from holding office.

On his MSNBC show "All In" Hayes made the astounding assertion after discussing multiple "disqualifying" views with a panel including former New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, Christina Bellantoni, editor-in-chief of Roll Call, and Richard Kim, executive editor of TheNation.com.

Newsbusters has the transcript which shows how this cadre of progressives appoint themselves the enlightened few who can determine which views are worthy of public discussion and which are to be agreed upon without debate. As Paul Bremmer points out in his article, "Hayes has stumbled upon a new way to squelch debate in this country and pave the way for liberal domination of American political thought."

Indeed. 

Herbert was all-in for disqualifying any candidate who doesn't agree with him and his pals on global warming:  

And I think nowadays it is. I mean, this is an issue that’s – I mean, we’re all threatened by this. I mean, the planet is in danger. Something needs to be done. And I think if you’re just going to deny that this is even occurring, it means that you’re going to be blocking the policies that we need, and it should be a dis-qualifier.

Surprisingly, Kim was not fully on board with the star chamber's plans. After calling conservatives "lunatics" he conceded that maybe they still have the right to have a voice in our country:  

So obviously, I don't believe, you know, these views, and I think they’re sort of lunatic and really dangerous. On the other hand, large percentages of the American population believe that. And don't they have representation in that political process?

Gee, Thanks for throwing us that bone, Richard. 

At the end of the segment, Hayes expressed his hope that tough questioning on his favorite topics would lead to a kind of "shaming" of politicians who don't fall in line:  

But that makes me hopeful about the power of this kind of – the force of this, as opposed to this being something that constrains consensus, it actually is this tool, right? It’s a tool of progress when we say that certain things, like opposing marriage equality, are sort of, like, not the kinds of things that mainstream American politicians –