The Sad Turnaround of Charles Johnson

As those who've read this site over the last seven years know, I was a huge fan of Charles Johnson's site Little Green Footballs. Charles fought the good fight and wasn't afraid to call Islamic terror what it was when a great many cowered due to fear of violence or due to fear of being called bigoted. I have to say that along with Glenn Reynolds and Tim Blair, Charles' blogging style and writing style had the biggest effect on what and how I write.

A year or two ago, Charles took a dark turn. He started writing daily about a Flemish right-wing group and equated them to Nazi's. He went so far as to accuse Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs of supporting the group because they attended a conference where a bigwig of the Belgian group was spoke--a conference Johnson himself was invited to but declined. From there, it went downhill quickly. Johnson made it a mission--or jihad if you will--to start calling out conservatives and worse still for a blogger, banning numerous commenters from his site. It was ugly to watch his site devolve into a site that no longer commented on events of the day but became one of attacking individuals by name and tarnishing them with a wide brush. It became personal. Those commenters who were loyal to his site but who took a dissenting view were banned and some from even reading the home page of the site. That is Charles' right but it stank of solipsism and self righteousness. Also of extreme arrogance.

He once posted something and I e-mailed rebutting him. He e-mailed me back instantly and was pretty arrogant. I proved to him that he was wrong and it didn't seem to please him too much.

That's about the time I gave up on Charles. I used to have a widget at right showing his posts and linked to him often. Hell, Charles has linked to me numerous times and aside from an Instalanche from Glenn Reynolds, which I've had several times, Charles links led to probably six of the ten biggest traffic days I've ever had. He even commented here once and challenged the left wing to bring it on.

He also went on a rampage against anti-evolution believers and went straight into the ditch. Amazingly, he called them science deniers but has now become a huge advocate for global warming when it's now clear that the "hide the decline" community has destroyed what was "science".

Anyway, I went to his site the other night and it was like I was a guy who walked into a vegan convention gnawing on a turkey leg. The commenter's don't even listen to reason or facts anymore, they seemed...shell-shocked. They are loyal to their leader and anyone who says anything remotely anti-LGF is fair game. It was embarrassing for Charles and he doesn't even see it.

Just something to get off my chest and this piece about Charles in the New York Times reminded me. It goes without saying that if Charles had been a left-winger and moved to the right the Times wouldn't have published this.

This is inside baseball to those who don't follow blogs daily but something that needed to be said.

Exit question: Does anyone get the feeling that Charles went left because he thought the nation was going left and it was a good business move? If so, he was mistaken big time as this glorious week has proven.

The aformentioned Pam Geller responds to the surprisingly even piece in the Times as does Robert Spencer.

Be Honest; Glenn Beck Creeps You Out Too

Back about five years ago, the local talk radion station replaced Imus with Glenn Beck. I gave it a shot for a week or so and went to sports talk radio then Laura Ingraham and never listened to the guy again.

I'm not sure what it is about the dude, he just isn't funny, espouses views that I find extreme, drivels on about insignificant topics and is a horrid example of what I think of as a Conservative. I don't want people like him representing what I think is a new and emerging wing of the conservative movement where we take a hard line on terror, militant Islam, illegal immigration and big government. We tend to take a more centrist line on issues that are more cultural like gay marriage, abortion and the "war on drugs".

He attacked ER-linker and one of those I reference and link to to often--Charles Johnson of LGF. Video at Charles' site if you want to see it. Beck disparages Johnson in the same smug manner that turned me off and continues to keep me from tuning in to his FoxNews show.

Granted, I've been a bit turned off by Charles of late due to his battles against Creationist's, I view it along the same lines I view the abortion debate; people are fixed in their mindset and no amount of bickering or "facts" will change their view. But Charles has been vigilant in exposing hate--whether it be white supremacism, Islamo-fascism or anti-Semitism. Beck on the other hand is one who will do anything to gain another fifteen minutes of fame...we are about three years past the time he should have been relegated to the dustbin of inane radio hosts right alongside Garofalo, Cuomo and Donahue. Why Fox gave him a show is beyond me and the fact that he draws ratings is disturbing. I'm guessing the rest of the lineup helps that considerably.

Anyway, for a national talk show host to go after a blogger who has gone decidedly centrist is beneath contempt and to be honest, is disconcerting. We are facing real issues like piracy inspired by al-Qaeda, a wretched economy and two wars. The fact that Glenn Beck felt it of importance to attack Charles Johnson shows me that he's not only one who is just not serious about pressing issues but is highly vindictive and a classic narcissist as well.

Tuesday News and Notes

Headlines and interesting stories from around the web:

Oil is now around $37 a barrel. Tim Blair gloats at the expense of Bill Moyers, which is alway funny.

Charles Johnson is tireless when it comes to uncovering fauxtography and faux videos. It's good to see him get some pub.

Mmmmm...Raccooooon. It must have been a slow news day at McClatchy.

Rest assured that neither Bill Clinton or Rod Blagojevich can get away with this defense.

Speaking of LGF; go now and vote for the Fiskie nominee that signify the Idiotarian of the Year. The MSM is in the lead but with the year they've had, it's kind of like rubbing salt in the wound so I went with Al Gore. He's had a bad year with the whole global warming thing looking more and more inane to a large swath of the nation but for all he's put us through, there's not enough salt in the Pacific Ocean to rub in his open sore.

Another Anti-Semitic Lefty is Exposed as a Moron

Sweet.

Follow the links and read it all.

These idiots make it too damn easy.

Is the LA Times/Obama/Khalidi Tape the October Surprise?

Could be and McCain had nothing to do with it.

This is anecdotal but I tripled my daily average yesterday and it was purely for people searching for the LA Times Obama tape. Granted, I'm no Instapundit but my trends do follow the stories of the day pretty regularly.

People are intrigued by this tape and anyone who has raised kids knows that if you declare something off-limits or don't let them have it, it becomes their sole focus. It's not much different with adults who have information such as this withheld, their interest is piqued and not being able to look at the tape just makes them believe that the LA Times and has something to hide that could swing the election.

I would bet the Obama camp is glad the (other) Times is not releasing it but in not doing so, the pundits start chattering and the candidates start asking why knowing full-well that America is aware that the media is in the tank for Obama.

How ironic would it be if the media, which is doing Barack Obama a major service by withholding a video that was most-likely an Israel bash-fest, would cause the election to tilt because of their protection of Obama? They've handed McCain a present he never expected and, with polls starting to tighten, it could be just what he needed this last week.

The Times is now saying they are not releasing the video because it was obtained by a confidential source and they don't lie to their sources. That's fine, let Sarah Palin hammer Obama and connect him and Khalidi in every speech she makes over the next six days. I'm guessing the Times will eventually give in and give some lame excuse like their source gave them permission to release it.

I'm hoping the LA Times hangs on to it though and the outcry becomes a din. If they do release it, it will most probably be on Friday (the traditional bad news document dump day) and just enough votes are reversed to give McCain Pennsylvania and Ohio. People in the states who "cling to guns and religion" will have second thoughts about a man on the verge of becoming POTUS who has not only cozied up to domestic terrorists but those who made it standard operating procedure to murder innocent civilians attending a seder and kids at a local bar.

Right Pundits has good background and indispensable Charles Johnson has been hammering this--and the Times--for the last few days.

Also see Zombie's latest on the other connections Obama seemed to have while matriculating at Columbia. Zombie is doing the work the media should have done over a year ago.

BTW, where's Patterico been on this? The LA Times has generally been his private whipping post.

Update: This guy claims to have two quotes from a "reliable source" that would explain the LA Times hesitancy (take with the usual grain of salt, etc...):

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

It would be really controversial if it got out. Tha's (sic) why they will not even let a transcript get out.

Emphasis mine. That would indeed be quite inflammatory if the tape contains what this source says.

This piece from the Irish Times offers the Palestinians view of our election and their support of Obama but also contains this interesting tidbit:

Tarif Khalidi, professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the American University of Beirut observed, "I would very much like to turn my back on the American election. The very fact that our fate hangs on a few American individuals is very upsetting.

Hopes pinned on them are invariably disappointed. Obama was a very good friend of Rashid [Khalidi, a cousin who assumed the Edward Said chair at Columbia University]. But Obama shed all his Arab and Muslim acquaintances."

Evidently not soon enough, Professor as his relationship to your cousin Khalidi may just turn this election.
.

LA Times Still Dodging Khalidi-Obama Tape Release

I would say that 80% of the hits I have today are searches for Obama/LA Times/Tape or something to that effect.

It's getting play as Howie Kurtz weighed in today but seems to have missed the point.

Charles Johnson has thoughts along the same lines as I did yesterday that the LA Times is missing a golden opportunity to gain some credibility back and maybe to stem the tide of readers that have stopped subscribing.

This may well be the most egregious behavior we've yet seen in a campaign season defined by complete media bias against McCain. More here.

Hatin' Toward LGF

Charles Johnson posted that someone at an anti-Semitic site was posting comments using his name, a charge he denied. It's easy enough to post whatever comments you want using whatever name you want. No one can have an account everywhere.

Anyway, I e-mailed Charles to say that after linking to me several years ago someone had commented using his name and the reason I even brought it up was because I actually commented on it a few weeks ago. Read his post to get a better feel.

My point is that as soon as LGF linked, the haters showed up immediately such as this a-hole:

Charles is a shameless apologist for Israeli atrocities, and the level of support for Bush in the comments above is shocking. Now I know where to find the dwindling, bit-slow-on-the-uptake 20% of America that still supports him.

While anyone who reads Charles knows that's not the case, it clearly shows that as soon as these haters smell blood, they come out full-bore. They hate LGF and they hate Israel. They hate Bush and are ragingly anti-Semitic as show by the vile rantings of the guy who left the comment last night.

You can't fight every battle and this is just one small diversion in an otherwise bigger war against hate and anti-Semitism. I prefer to keep my eyes on the ultimate goal of exposing every filthy anti-Semite I can for the worthless scumbags they truly are.

My Support For Lionheart Ends

I've written about Brit blogger Lionheart who is facing arrest for "inciting racism". You can read the posts at the links for background.

Anyway, Charles Johnson wrote a post supporting Lionheart and then as an update added this:

UPDATE at 1/7/08 10:43:47 am:

Konservo notes that Lionheart is a supporter of the neo-fascist British National Party, which leads me to state clearly that by posting about the case, I am not supporting what Lionheart says on his blog—just his right to say it.

As with my position on Vlaams Belang and other European neo-fascist parties, I want nothing to do with the BNP. But criminalizing speech is exactly the wrong way to handle them.

A disagreement on his ideology but Charles explained that he thinks what they are doing to him is wrong.

Well, Lionheart didn't like the update Charles added and posted the following:

Little Green Footballs you are a traitor, nothing less than the equivalent of a Second World War Nazi collaborator who would have been shot because of his treason - I am sure there are many who would have obliged!

Well I'll say right now in no uncertain words that you scare me Lionheart. Not scare as in I fear you but scare as in your ideology is no different than the Jihadi's and other Muslims you rail against. You want this to become a religious war akin to the Crusades and will do everything to stoke that. Your belief in God does not make you the Crusader you think it does, it makes you sound like a raging zealot. You say Charles is a "traitor", a traitor to whom or what? I'm assuming you mean a traitor to the white race by context used and that would make you a racist and would bolster Charles' rationale for updating that post the way he did.

I'm sorry for your problems with the law but I feel strongly that I can no longer support you individually or the words you write. There are two sides and they aren't Christian and non-Christian. Those two sides are right and wrong and you fall into the latter.

I hope things work out in the future for you and I hope you find it in your heart to let go of the hate.

Update: My thoughts spelled out in previous posts about the the actions of the British government stand. It is wrong that they are threatening arrest for a man because of the words he wrote. That's censorship and to an American is abhorrent. By saying I end my support, I mean that I will no longer post anything about the man with the possible exception of legal proceedings, etc. in the interest of pointing out the abuses of the UK legal system.

Update: More on this issue here and why I believe that Lionheart and his supporters are so venomous.

Temple U Turns Down IIIT Donation

$1.5-million to be exact.

The IIIT was to donate the money for an Islamic Chair to be held by Mahmoud Ayoub until the Philly-based university learned of the terror connections that organization was accused of having:

But after months of talks, the deal fell apart when trustees and others raised concerns about the donor, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a nonprofit research organization that was included in a government probe into funding of suspected terrorists.

"They did not want a chair of Islamic studies funded by a Muslim organization," said Ayoub, a blind, 69-year-old Islamic and interreligious scholar who was to be the first occupant of the chair. "That is really a sad thing, because part of the chair's mandate was to encourage and engage in interfaith dialogue with Jews and Christians and others."

Ayoub and religion department colleagues said negotiations between Temple and IIIT broke down in the fall after trustees and others pressed the school to reject the gift.

"There were allegations from outside groups that we shouldn't be taking the money from this organization," said department chair Rebecca T. Alpert, who was involved in talks with IIIT, an academic organization based in Herndon, Va., that was cofounded by a former Temple professor.

Temple president Ann Weaver Hart declined to be interviewed but issued a statement saying, "After much discussion and consideration, Temple decided to neither accept or reject this generous offer. The university indicated that no decision regarding this matter would be made until post-9/11 federal investigations of the IIIT are complete."

Good for Temple as a mil and a half is some serious money. There's sure to be an outcry from the various Muslim groups but the history of the IIIT is riddled with ties to many suspect groups.

Background on the IIIT can be found at this page that has all of LGF's references to the organization.

More on the IIIT can be found here and here.