Posts Tagged ‘charles johnson’

…from Victor Davis Hanson who is certainly no lightweight and a person who’s opinion must be respected. Hanson says in part:

Some bloggers sent me postings the other day about Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs website, and suggested that the site has changed—as in flipped sides. I have not followed the controversy, but I once rode a bike down in LA for an afternoon with Johnson and found him both a serious and bright guy with all sorts of original ideas about radical Islam and the anti-Enlightenment dangers it posed.

Out of curiosity I went to the site today. All I discovered different was a change in emphasis, but not necessarily attitude. He still is strongly anti-jihad; the difference is that he now worries just as much about creationism, paleo-right tribalism, and the white supremacists’ piggy-banking onto efforts to stop radical Islam. Those are legitimate worries for any liberal (as in 19th-century liberal) minded. Almost monthly I am smeared by the far far right for defending the Anglo-American effort in World War II or support for the melting-pot traditional of racial integration and intermarriage. So I understand some of his concerns.

This is the best single defense of Charles that I have read including one’s I’ve written myself (that’s no surprise after all it IS VDH). A person with no experience with what is going on who read this article would certainly be expected to take Charles side on this dispute.

For those more experienced with the matter it reeks of delicious irony.

First: He is right about the anti-jihad stuff so far I have not seen Charles abandon Israel and the War on Terror, or the troops. For me the war on terror is THE issue and I’d rather have him on board than not. Too bad Charles doesn’t have that same opinion concerning being on board.

Second: He bases his opinion on his personal experience with the man. It may be only a singular experience but that one meeting is one more than I’ve had. That is of course the best way to judge a person, first hand experience. I’m sure that Steven Green, Dan Riehl, Michelle Malkin, Pam Geller and Cynthia Yockey would agree with that statement. Too bad Charles Wouldn’t.

Third: He talks about being slimmed by people because of his arguments so he can relate: I’m sure that Rush Limbaugh honorary lizzardoid, Steven Green, Dan Riehl, Michelle Malkin, Pam Geller can all relate to that. Not so much Charles, under his current rules of engagement he won’t link to this article defending him since PJM and my extension you are associating with an unacceptable person and would normally be banned,

Robert Stacy McCain’s first article on Pajamas media was dated May 20th of last year, Charles did three Pajamas video interviews , the earliest is Dec of 2008 and the last is March 2009. According to his own rules, he can’t link to himself.

If Victor being dishonest? Of course not, but he is making the mistake that Tip O’Neill talked about when watching congress. The Action isn’t on the bills. (Posts) the Action is in the Amendments (comment threads). Although a long time Lizard I was never really a chat room guy and didn’t dive into comments, it was only when I took the time to do so and saw what was happening there that I saw something is rotten in Denmark.

As Two Face once said to Lex Luthor in Batman 293 “There is a difference between lying and not knowing the truth.” VDH is certainly no liar, but he doesn’t know all the facts here.

Update: I should point out if I haven’t made it clear that VDH is one of the GREAT writers and if you don’t read him regularly you should. His book Carnage and Culture is a classic, my review of it on Amazon is here.

The promised statement of common principles has been completed and is exists as a permanent page on the front of this blog.

Any blogger or user is welcome to sign it, as principle 20 states the act of signing it doesn’t represent an enforcement of this blog, it’s author, or any other signatory of the statement, nor does it suggest anyone on the list even likes each other. I would expect for example that Both Robert Stacy McCain and Charles Johnson could sign said statement without issue and I invite them both to do so.

As all comments are moderated here if you sign the statement then your signature will not appear until I get around to approving it, the wait time is solely dependent on if I’m on the PC and signed into the blog.

If you catch any typos etc that I missed on it let me know.

…and here I thought it was over after the ref checked the corner to see if Johnson was going to come out for a 6th Johnson shows he still has offense left in the tank.

Robert Stacy starts strong as he has continued to snark at Charles with jab after jab after jab both at his own site and at Hotair with this post and the fans are starting to cheer for him.

After rounds of swinging at others Johnson finally counters with a flurry of lefts (southern poverty law center) which do little damage and some heavy rights Particularly Bill White and overthrow.com (and those guys are Nazis, the real thing!)

The White & overthrow swing rope a dope and is blocked since he takes the McCain quote is totally out of context and Chucky doesn’t link to the actual post that would reveal it so. links but he gets one good punch in with the cache page on Race and teenage pregnancy.

Here it lands. Reading the article the stats themselves are not in dispute and demonstrated what “great society” managed to do in just a few decades to the black family when the Klan failed to do it with a century of trying. The tone of the article is really bad. Teen pregnancy is bad because of the general lack of fathers and the effect on family. The effect on demographics is irrelevant. It’s the lack of fathers and stable families that are the problem. And the focus on White demographics misses the point in the same way the BNP missed the point that John Rhys Davis made about radical Islam.

That one is a blow and Stacy’s initial counter is light:

Pay close attention, idiots: Just because I haven’t bothered to deny something doesn’t mean it’s true. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and good luck proving some of the things you have so flatly asserted. There are facts. And there are witnesses.

Johnson plays to the judges with his personal White story and it’s just as disgusting as he says it is. Too bad it has nothing to do with McCain.

Until the counter comes Johnson’s counter gives him his strongest round since the 1st and he even manages to lay a glove or two on Obama to over Israel and get a blogger in England who isn’t Andrew Sullivan to back him up.

Johnson gets the round 10-9 Current Score 58-55 McCain after 6.

Update: I might have ended the round too Hasty Johnson Fires with Alan Colmes interview and only manages to establish the name that Robert Stacy posted under. If that’s being destroyed then the fights like a girl argument is looking better and better.

And we are forced to conclude that the any person who posts at a doctor who site as “Supreme Dalek” harbors the ambition to exterminate all life forms and rule the universe.

McCain’s counter is for a previous attack and is effective. No change in scoring and plenty of fight left to go.

Totally unrelated it’s very odd to hear a voice for the first time of someone you have corresponded via e-mail and comments for a time.. It never matches the one in your head.

Robert Stacy McCain’s blog started out in 2007. He was linked by Glenn Reynolds for the first time that I can see on May 23, 2008.

Glenn linked to him 7 times under the name “R.S. McCain” in from that date till june 19th of this year.

He linked to him as “stacy mccain” 21 times between Feb 22nd 2009 and Sept 22nd 2009 (yesterday)

Now lets look at Little Green Footballs:

the first time the Tag Robert Stacy McCain is used was during Charles Attack on Stephen Green on September 12th 2009 (11 days ago).

If you search for the string rather than the tag, the first entry is September 12th 2009.

If you search for the string “The Other McCain” the first entry on LGF is September 12 of this year.

If you search for the string “stacy McCain” The first entry is, you guessed it, September 12th 2009.

The Phrase “R. S. McCain” produces no results, if you search for “Robert McCain” it yields no results.

Yesterday Charles attacked Glenn Reynolds for his link to Robert Stacy Yesterday and made it a point to leave that post up as high as possible today.

Also note that even Glenn Reynolds is now linking with approval to McCain. Here’s Instapundit denouncing neo-Confederates in 2005.

Now he’s praising them.

Apparently the importance to expose that racist, neo confederate and White supremacist Evil that is Robert Stacy McCain was so great that Charles waited until Robert Stacy McCain posted 5,071 entries on his blog on his blog before exposing him.

He was so outraged by Glenn Reynolds linking to him that he waited until his 21st instalance (yes that’s 20 instalances more than me, feel free to suggest to Glenn that I deserve another) to denounce him for it. Apparently he wanted to give Glenn every chance to change his mind.

My questions to Charles are these:

Why is that until Robert Stacy McCain wasn’t worthy of exposure until after September 12th of this year?

Why wasn’t he worthy of a tag until he started fighting back against you?

Did you mean to get to exposing him sooner or later but just didn’t get around to it?

And most important of all: what does Rush Limbaugh Honorary Lizardoid think of it?

I’d ask you in comments but since I’m proudly banned by little green footballs I figured I’d ask it here.

I may not have the experience of a combat veteran like Retired Sgt. Major David C. Carden of The Army Insider fame, but even I’m not enough of a sucker to fall for this.

Credibility is a precious commodity. Charles; I’m afraid you’re overdrawn.

Update: Moved a block quote to not include my introduction, also 21 chances, sounds like the New York Yankees and Steve Howe.

Update 2: Apparently Mr. McCain’s is so notorious a hater that the Wild Irish Rose blog who approvingly links to Charles latest attack on him didn’t find his extreme hated worth a post of denunciation in the entire history of the blog until today. Maybe they just didn’t get around to it till now, life is a busy thing you know..

However they weren’t too busy to turn on registration on comments after putting up the post. Amazing how speech rules tighten when you start to follow Charles.

Me I use moderation rather than registration, I hate giving my info and only have done so very rarely, but their blog not mine.

Update 3:
The man himself puts it better than I have then again he ought to, he writes for money:

Are Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (Diana West, Richard Miniter, et al.) fascist sympathizers, as Charles Johnson has repeatedly alleged? All four of the individuals named are persons known to me, and I am utterly certain that these allegations against them are false. That Robert Spencer may have an unfortunate habit of sending “seething e-mails” (a temptation to which I have at times yielded myself) is known to me, but does not cause me to suspect him of being a crypto-fascist.

If I know that Charles Johnson has lied about people whom I know, and whose bona fides I have no reason to doubt, the question arises as to Johnson’s motive.

ya want motive just scroll up and hit the “beck” choice in the poll