Legal Insurrection talks a little about a nasty murder that has put the left all a twitter:

This is becoming a pattern. Left-wing politicians and blogs appear to be hoping for an act of right-wing violence so that they can justify their attacks on ordinary citizens who are against the overly intrusive and destructive Democratic policies. The problem is, right-wing extremists have not obliged, fortunately. So in the absence of right-wing death squads, the left-wing agitators invent facts and events to fit their narrative.

So here’s my moderate voice on the subject: You are a bunch of ghouls who would love to do nothing more than perform a political dance on the grave of poor Bill Sparkman, about whom you really don’t give a damn.

Read his round up of blog reaction and partiucalrly at the Moderate Voice which for once lives up to its name.

If only there was an actual reporter who blogs who could go to Kentucky and actually report on the facts of the case.

Where could we find such a man?

Here is the missing piece to the Trig Truther puzzle!

The pregnancy is believed to be a case of a rare condition known as superfetation, or conceiving while pregnant.

The pregnancy may sound weird, but it is possible, according to NBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman.

This is the moment that Andrew has been waiting for! (via Glenn)

Fun Riddle for the day:

Q: How do you know when you have really gone over the deep end?

A: When Robert Stacy McCain and Charles Johnson can BOTH look at you and laugh!

As the bell for Round 7 rings Johnson using the VDH to set up what appears to be a solid defense:

Sorry to those who wrote me, but I can no more get on the anti-Johnson bandwagon than I could the birth certificate allegations about Obama

But alas the defense crumbles as Johnson refuses to link to the story defending him:

Thanks, Victor. But please follow this up, and take a look around at who you’re sharing web space with.

Or “thanks for defending me you person who associates with Racists.”

And that’s even before the Irony police were unleashed upon him

Meanwhile Robert Stacy opens with a right to the satire:

The FBI has already acknowledged that as many as 20 young men have disappeared from the Somali community in Minneapolis over the past two years, many believed to be recruited by people affiliated with the Islamic Flemish terrorist group, Al-Shabaab Vlaams Belang. . . .

Listen to Kejda Gjermani: Beware the Flemish Menace!

He then puts up a solid defense that if was used yesterday would have earned him a split in the scoring.

For decades now, the demographic approach of “white supremacists” (following the lead of Margaret Sanger) has been to promote efforts to suppress the birth rates of poor minorities — a campaign based on what more properly could be called fear than hate, but it doesn’t matter what you call it. Hate and fear are related emotions, both of which are contrary to my religion
As many authors — among them Ben Wattenberg and Mark Steyn – have explained, the root of the West’s demographic crisis, crucially relevant to many public policy issues, is the collapse of the birth rate since the 1960s. The West has embraced what has been called a “Culture of Death.”

“A culture that no longer has a point of reference in God loses its soul and loses its way, becoming a culture of death.”
– John Paul II, Jan. 1, 2001

The consequences of this anti-life philosophy are predictable.

Nice defense but trying to butter up the judge by quoting the pope gotta watch out for that.

He then throws a feint to Kejda that hides a roundhouse from Cynthia Yockey

Johnson, in his post yesterday, is using the “waving the paper” technique that trial lawyers employ. To wit, wave a random piece of paper and claim it is damning evidence. If the witness does not demand to see it — and discover it is no such thing — a guilty one will then confirm the existence of the damning evidence by reacting to it. So Charles put up a bunch of links purporting to prove Stacy McCain is a racist — Stacy already explained they do no such thing on account of the fact that he is not, and never has been, a racist — so the trick didn’t produce a confession. However, the effect of the post on Stacy is to waste his time forcing him to reply. Plus, I suspect what Charles was really playing to is the court of public opinion, which will NOT investigate the truth of Charles’s “evidence” or read Stacy’s defense but will say, “Why, Charles lists so many links that he must be right.”

the whole thing is pretty heavy. And then comes the the block and counter on the Hanson thing:

Glenn Beck and Tea Party people are not loving Western Civilization in the “Right Way,” according to Charles Johnson. Nor are Geller, Spencer, Diana West, Richard Miniter, Jim Hoft, Baldilocks, Pajamas Media, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, etc. As I said early on in this engagement, the extremist ideology which Johnson demands that all of us must accept is Charles Johnson supremacism.

Well, Professor Hanson, here I must draw the line. Nothing that might be gained by acceding to this insulting demand could compensate the dishonor involved in abandoning so many friends who have in the past two years suffered from the wickedness of Charles Johnson, whose superiority I refuse to acknowledge.

You shall not have other gods besides me. Exodus:20:3

It’s always a good idea to have God as your co-pilot. It’s even a better idea to butter up the Judge.

Charles makes an interesting counter, rather than attacking he keeps his previous links on the top to make them permanent. Clever in that it makes the accusations viable to any new user to plant them as “facts”. Also saves him the trouble of backing the stuff up.

Stacy stops the attempted Johnson rally cold. McCain wins 10-9. Scoring 68-64 McCain after 7.

Full disclosure, Robert Stacy called me today. It is the first time I’ve ever talked to him, I’ve never EVER met any prominent blogger socially, and the only ones I’ve talked to in non-social environments we’re HiWired podcast interviews.

We talked for nearly an hour and his post on the matter has only one minor error, the neighborhood is where my Grandfather had his barber shop, not where he lived. My sister lives in his old house and sleeps next to the room my mother was born in. The title of his post is a direct quote from me and I’m happy to stand behind it.

And yes I asked the question directly man to man, he answered man to man and I believe him. For me personally; the fight is over, but as a fair Judge I’ll do my best to score subsequent rounds as they take place fairly.

Secondly: Robert Stacy signed my Statement of Common principles, (and listed his corollary). Using the LGF e-mail system I sent Charles a copy of the statement and gave him permission to use it if he wished. I personally believe there is nothing in it he can’t agree with.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I would rather have Charles in our corner on the War on Terror than not, I would rather have Charles on the side of Israel than not. If we aren’t getting along the earth doesn’t shake, When in my opinion he defames Stacy he is acting dishonorably I expect Stacy to hit and keep hitting him for it…

..but the guys trying to kill all of us are going to be happy to kill any of us. This is a vital truth. As Americans I expect all of us are going to do our best to keep ANY of us from suffering that fate.

If our foes attempt to harm any of us from Glenn Reynolds to Jane Hamsher it’s an attack on all of us. If they succeed in hurting any of us it s a matter to be avenged.

…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 (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

In comments Robert Stacy McCain pointed me to this post concerning liberals that includes this paragraph:

It is one thing to assume (at least, for the sake of argument) that a liberal like Obama desires what is good for America. It is another thing to assume that a liberal actually knows what is good for America, or that, knowing what is good, he will actually pursue the good competently and persistently. The history of liberalism disproves any such assumption.

We may give liberals credit for their good intentions – how else shall they pave the road to hell? — but we can never credit liberals with good sense.

If they had any sense, they wouldn’t be liberals, would they?

Not bad, nothing there I don’t agree with. Before that he says this:

No, DTG, what we need are ex-liberals like Ronald Reagan, who was a bleeding heart until he recognized that liberalism amounted to a formula for paralysis, failure and decline, as it still does.

Like Ronald Reagan, I am an ex-Democrat. You don’t recruit liberals, you either defeat liberals or you convert liberals.

That’s pretty good, I’m an ex-democrat myself, mainly because the party changed to the point where being a Roman Catholic who ya know actually believes means you are a racist/sexist/bigiot/homophobe to them. But there are also times like now when liberals are in power, either by the the hubris and excesses of conservatives (or faux conservatives) or the American people exercising their inalienable right to be wrong.

If such a time is a time of war like now the consequences of defeat don’t change. It is necessary to fund, recruit and prosecute said war. The consequences of said defeat are going to be the same for everyone (actually it will be worse for liberals as an we might not allow Andrew Sullivan to marry but an Islamic state will not allow him to live.) if we make them understand this simple fact we can be assured of the first necessary thing. Survival.

This also has important side effects:

First: It makes it easier to convince or convert a liberal to our way of thinking. To get people to our way of thinking you need to start somewhere. That is the single easiest part of conservatism to understand. Conservatism 101. You want to get the basic course out of the way before you go to more advanced stuff. Ya gotta walk before you run.

Second: It exposes liberals to the strength of conservative values; best represented by the American soldier. I’ve found that people who actually know troops in person have a much firmer grasp of reality. The best example is a young man I’ve known for most of his life, he served at Gitmo and in Iraq and teaches locally. Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states but his kids practically worship him. Good luck with liberal indoctrination with the bunch that has been in his history class.

Third: Most importantly every bit of political capital that we don’t have to spend on the war is political capital we can spend on other things. Funding and winning the war is the Sine non quan for the country. If it came down to twisting arms would you want to have to make a choice between that and say Obamacare? Would you want to have to divert resources?

Don’t get me wrong, Conservatives need to fight just like our troops do.

What happens when you come to a swordfight without a sword.
What happens when you come to a swordfight without a sword.

Conservatives need to make sure we are more Conan than Captain America but the as in Iraq the sword wasn’t the only weapon our guys use to win.

I’ve got teenage sons, you have six kids. Their future depends on us winning. If I can get an allies on the war on terror that’s going to help them grow old and gray I’m damn well not going to worry if they have don’t have a conservative decoder ring.

…because I’m not doing another round of the McCain/Johnson fight because although Robert Stacy keeps firing relentlessly, (he has no choice as explained here) Charles has not been letting off a shot in posts (and I’m still not inclined to check all his internal comments, I may be out of work right now but I do have a life). This perfectly illustrates the correctness of the title of my first post on the subject:

Irresistible force vs immovable object: Johnson vs McCain

Meanwhile blog after blog has sided with Robert Stacy McCain very loudly indeed this while the only person who seems to have had a kind word for Charles is of all people Andrew Sullivan.

What do I think of all this? In case I haven’t made it clear I think Charles is wrong, I think he’s wrong about Robert Stacy, Wrong about Dan Riehl and Wrong about Hot Air. (although in fairness hot air should have mentioned that Charles sent them an e-mail stating that the initial actions against them were done without his knowledge or approval.) You might notice if you look at my blog there is a category that wasn’t there last week called:

Worth defending Publicly

all three blogs I just mentioned are listed there.

However if Charles believes he is right he is just not going to change, and he certainly isn’t going to be persuaded by someone who thinks he is wrong, to quote a comment I made elsewhere:

The problem is that it would seem to me it is his nature to go “all out” once he decides something is right, everyone who supports it is right and a friend. Once he thinks something is wrong than everyone who supports them is wrong and his skin isn’t as thick as it once was.

I’ve been hitting Charles a bit, with PUN-isment but there was something else in that comment that is also worth repeating:

Liberals are exactly the people that we NEED to bring over concerning the War on Terror. Johnson for all of his faults recognized the war for what it is right away and even now still links to Michael Yon and strongly supports the War and keeping Gitmo open. You can always change legislation you can’t un-lose a war or un-kill someone.

Personal issues not withstanding he has been a valuable ally in the war on terror and the subject is important enough to matter.

That’s why I’m still a registered user at LGF and still make my cases and arguments in comments and I intend to stay there unless he abandons the war on terror (highly unlikely) or until I’m banned.

Last night when I hit the sack I was contemplating the problem and something I posted in a thread over there hit me:

The problem there is you win elections by getting a majority, it’s hard to win when you exclude people.

For example if I was a GOP candidate and I was approaching a Ron Paul supporter I would emphasize my support for smaller government and opposition to abortion. If he brought up the Crazy uncle isolation/Israel stuff I would disagree with him but If wooing him I wouldn’t bring it up when making my initial point.

As Captain Renault said to Rick

How extravagant you are, throwing away women like that. Someday they may be scarce.

You win elections by finding areas of agreement with as many voters as possible and getting them to vote on you based on those areas.

So if there is going to be a prince Alfonso moment the first thing necessary is a point of agreement among all parties involved.

I intend to put up a post sometime later today titled “A statement of common principles” I intend to inform all the principles in the latest disputes to “sign” it in comments. As comments are approved here that will allow me to preclude a false affirmative. Any blogger who has posted on the subject is welcome to sign it in the name of their blog or themselves.

Now this doesn’t mean it will lead to anything resembling a resolution but ya gotta start somewhere and it’s my time to waste.

Update: One bit of Irony that just hit me. I’ve been thinking about this all night. This morning at Mass. Fr. Bob’s sermon was on reconciling enemies and on the saying “When you seek vengeance be prepared to dig two graves.”

Update 2: Well that didn’t take long to be Proudly Banned, but I had it coming, how dare I defend Rush Limbaugh, Honorary Lizardoid on LGF.

…and his troubles with Charles Johnson

The wicked say: Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.

Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, God will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.

With revilement and torture let us put the just one to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.

Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words. God will take care of him (Wisdom 2:12, 17-20)

This is ironic as Robert keeps bringing up the following meme when referring to Charles:

how’s that “praying to Nothing” working out for you?

Meanwhile Johnson standard answer:

white supremacist blogger

This is why Robert Stacy has and will keep the upper hand in this fight. When Charles gets hit he has to deal with it as an attack.

When Robert Stacy gets hit, as a Christian he considers it just part of the job description.

BTW As Robert Stacy is a protestant it is unlikely that his church recognizes the book of wisdom as most protestant churches removed it from their bibles post reformation but the verse fits. He would likely be more comfortable with this one.