Little Green Footballs was the blog that introduced me to blogging. When I first discovered it in 2002, it was a fine conservative blog and its owner, Charles Johnson was a center/right sort of guy. He later became very well known for helping to expose Dan Rather’s Bush/ANG fraud. I would visit the site daily up through about 2008. Then Johnson went crazy.

I don’t know what caused him to lose his mind. Some say it was his divorce. Others say that he became asphyxiated during one long self induced Obamasim. I don’t know what it was, but he went from center/right to raving moonbat leftist. He set out to purge his registration site of anybody who is remotely conservative and banned thousands – including yours truly. I can’t even tell you why I was banned other than I posted a, you know, conservative comment. In any case, the guy is right in there with the Daily Kos on the political spectrum now.

His blog is worse than Kos, however. At Kos they still allow some dissent. At LGF, even the slightest comment in which disagree with Johnson gets you permanently banned. The result is that LGF has become a leftist site where dozens of sycophants fight to be first in line to fellate, what they believe to be, Johnson’s strawberry flavored johnson. It is a vomit inducing experience to wallow through the jackassery.

Still, I waded through the fever swamp so you wouldn’t have to. Today, for example, Johnson is shocked and appalled that Rush Limbaugh suggested that New York Times environmental blogger Andrew Revkin kill himself. Why should Rush suggest this? Because Revkin suggests requiring people who have children to be taxed for doing so.

I recently raised the question of whether this means we’ll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation. This is purely a thought experiment, not a proposal. But the issue is one that is rarely discussed in climate treaty talks or in debates over United States climate legislation. If anything, the population-climate question is more pressing in the United States than in developing countries, given the high per-capita carbon dioxide emissions here and the rate of population growth. If giving women a way to limit family size is such a cheap win for emissions, why isn’t it in the mix?

Well, he wasn’t so blunt as to actually say we would punitively tax people for having children. No, what he is suggesting is that people who don’t have children should be taxed less. Of course that is EXACTLY the same thing. If people without children are taxed less, then people with children are taxed more. Basic logic…

Rush simply stated that if Revkin believes too many people in existance is destroying the earth, he could do his part to reduce the number of people emitting C02 by committing suicide. Rush’s point was that Revkin obviously believes there is just the right amount of Revkins on Planet Earth; there is just too much of everybody else. Rush thus showed that the Revkins of the world want other people cease to exist, but they want to keep right on existing. Typical leftist hypocrisy.

Back at LGF, Johnson makes these comments….

Read Revkin’s piece. He does not suggest any kind of governmental population control at all. He mentions “baby-avoidance carbon credits” and “giving women a way to limit family size.”

These are voluntary suggestions, and he even makes it clear that he isn’t seriously proposing it, just bringing it up for discussion.

I don’t get why this should be controversial at all. It seems like completely straightforward common sense to me. Why should anyone get upset if other people choose to use contraception, for whatever reason? And why should anyone get upset if voluntary incentives to use contraception are offered to people?

Let’s see if we can’t enlighten Johnson. John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice from 1801-35, left us this memorable quote: “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” Marshall was arguing that the power of taxing the national bank by the states could be exercised so as to destroy it. Therefore, since the states obviously didn’t have the right to destroy the bank, the didn’t have the right to tax it.

Obviously the right to procreate is a natural right that precedes and transcends any government. No legal government has the right to destroy families or procreation so they have no right to tax it. Any government that attempts to tax procreation is obviously assuming the right to destroy procreation. This government would be engaging in tyranny of the most loathsome sort.

Johnson would likely argue that not having children rewarded with tax benefit, not that procreation is being taxed. As I pointed out earlier, this is logically absurd. If we were to create a tax code that divided the population into parents and the childless and, because they are parents, taxed them at a greater rate than the childless, the effect is exactly the same. Taxing the childless less is exactly the same thing as taxing those with children more.

There is no more sacred an institution than the family. It is at the core of our humanity and it transcends time, race and culture. Its existence is a universal aspect of the human condition. To argue that it could be curtailed by government coercion is to advocate for an especially virulent type of totalitarianism. Revken is wrong for suggesting it and Johnson is a idiotic ideologue for defending it. In any case, I agree with Rush. They could each contribute to the advancing their cause by offing themselves as soon as possible.

Poster promoting China’s disastrous and tyrannical One Child Policy.

Share on Facebook