Sunday, September 13, 2009

Point Three: Charles Johnson will regret it but once, and that will be continuously

Knowledge is superior to ignorance, yet no one knows everything and everybody knows something. Nothing can be more offensive than to be lectured about what you know by someone who clearly does not know.

This is why people hate the MSM, which constantly lectures us as if they were infinitely more knowledgeable than we. And having been a journalist since 1986, I've seen both sides of this.

If your hometown ever makes news -- the kind that brings the focus of national media -- chances are you will be offended by the way the story is covered. Basic facts will be wrong. TV announcers will mispronounce names. And, if there is any sort of liberal/conservative angle to the story, any fact that supports the conservative side of the dispute will be buried down in the 14th paragraph, or omitted altogether.

The MSM Went Down to Georgia
So it was when, in 1995, the argument over the Georgia state flag was resurrected by the media in the context of the upcoming 1996 Atlanta Olympics. A few years earlier, Gov. Zell Miller had invested significant political capital in an effort to persuade the Georgia legislature to change the flag's Confederate battle flag emblem. Yet is was for naught: There simply weren't enough votes.
At the time, I asked one Democratic member of the General Assembly about this issue, and he answered, "Stacy, if it would feed or educate one child, I'd vote to change the flag. But it's just a symbolic issue, and changing the flag isn't going to change anything."

And then came November 1994, when Gov. Miller, who had risked so much in an attempt to change the flag, barely squeaked by to re-election. (I voted to re-elect Miller, although I cast my congressional vote that year for the Republican who defeated Rep. George "Buddy" Darden, who had made the mistake of voting for the so-called "assault weapons" ban. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand, Mr. Darden?)

In wake of that election, it was discovered that certain black leaders in Atlanta had accepted "walking around money" from Republicans, in an effort to suppress black turnout for Miller. For years, Democrats had provided "walking around money" to Atlanta's black community leaders at election time, and the GOP had decided to turn the tables.

Many Georgia Democrats were shocked by this discovery. Miller had very nearly been defeated, after trying so hard to help black Democrats on what was one of their top legislative priorities -- and had been sold out by some of the very people he'd been trying to help!

As Tony Said to Scarlett . . .
Now, with Georgia preparing for the national limelight that the '96 Olympics would bring, the media decided that the state flag issue should be front-and-center in their coverage. The Democratic-majority legislature had debated and rejected the Democratic governor's proposal to change the flag, which meant the issue was politically dead -- but the MSM decided to use it to smear Georgia during the months leading up to the Olympics.

To say that our readers at the Rome (Ga.) News-Tribune were angered by this unfair treatment from the national media would be an understatement. They were furious. And I, who had not really paid much attention to the earlier flag debate -- covering the General Assembly was somebody else's beat -- became actively engaged in the debate sparked during the period before the Atlanta Olympics. I wrote columns defending the state, and criticizing the opportunistic "activists" (including some who had taken GOP "walking around money" in '94) who were seizing on the national media attention to get their 15 minutes of fame.

All this background on the issue was never reported by the New York Times, and the people who have condemned me as a "neo-Confederate" know nothing about how I gained that descriptor.

Did I write some things that were . . . intemperate? Hey, we're talking about Stacy McCain here, OK? When I go to fight, I go to war, and it's war to the knife, knife to the hilt. To quote Tony Fontaine:
"My God, Scarlett O'Hara!" said Tony peevishly. "When I start out to cut somebody up, you don't think I'll be satisfied with scratching him with the blunt side of my knife, do you? No, by God, I cut him to ribbons."
-- Gone With The Wind
A good rule in the blogosphere, really. If you're going to criticize someone, you'd better be ready to annihilate him. So when I was bashing Yankees and scalawags and New York Times know-it-alls back in 1995-96, I did not scruple as to the mode of attack.

But I don't hate Yankees -- heck, I married a Yankee. My wife's from Ohio. A mixed marriage, you see. Let us not, however, get ahead of the argument. Ahem.

Hayek's Theory of Knowledge
The point is that, in attacking me as a "neo-Confederate," Charles Johnson arrogantly supposes that the facts he knows (or rather, believes he knows, as there has been so much misinformation propagated over the years) are the only facts that matter, and that whatever facts he doesn't know must be irrelevant.

This is where the Hayekian insight comes in handy. Friedrich Hayek understood that central economic planning could not work because the information contained in prices is too complex, diverse and localized to be supplanted by decisions made by "experts."

In the same way, our individual opinions on subjects of controversy -- including, but not limited to, public policy -- are shaped by our personal experiences and knowledge.

My opposition to the 1994 "assault weapons" ban was informed by my knowledge that a semi-automatic weapon is not a machine gun, no matter how much it may superficially resemble one. The so-called "assault weapons" banned by the 1994 law were all semi-autos, and thus not fundamentally different than the .22-caliber semi-auto I received as a gift when I was 11 years old. Therefore, the entire legislation was based on a falsehood, intended to fool the ignorant -- e.g., "soccer moms" -- and the politicians who supported it were dishonest.

Well, does this make me a "gun nut"? That's the epithet that liberals stick on anyone who opposes gun control. And far be it from me to deny that my home is a well-armed compound, stocked with more weapons than a National Guard arsenal. If anyone wishes to believe that I never go anywhere without a 9-mm pistol, I won't deny it. A reputation as a dangerously violent man can be quite valuable at times.

Let us take the argument further: Am I a "neo-Confederate"? A "white supremacist"? A raaaaacist? To repeat what I said earlier:

"Racist" has been re-defined to mean, "Anyone who disagrees with a liberal." And the accusation requires the accused to prove a negative, you see?
Shall I deny being a vicious hater? Shall I denounce Richard Spencer and Peter Brimelow? How many others will Charles Johnson require me to denounce before he's satisified? And how well did the deny-denounce-and-apologize approach to such accusations work out for George Allen?

The Futility of Explanation
The true story of all I've been through, all I've seen, all I've learned, is quite interesting. But I'm not going to write it for free. There are some misunderstandings that probably need explaining, if anyone is confused, but I'm not going to waste my valuable time on explanations, if I have nothing to gain by doing that. Anyone who would be sympathetic to Johnson's attack is unlikely to be persuaded by my defense.

And this is what is so puzzling about Charles Johnson's attack on me. Just like his attacks on Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Glenn Beck and others, the question is, "What's in it for him? What is his motivation?"

I confess my utter ignorance. Others have speculated on the causes of Johnson's recent erratic behavior, but I am mystified. Why does he take such a keen interest in the European conferences attended by Geller and Spencer? Why does he rage so vehemently against creationists and pro-lifers? Who pissed in his cornflakes?

It wasn't me. When he first took a shot at my friend Pamela Geller, I noticed it, but didn't feel the need to get involved. Then he repeated the attack, and I became curious. When he threatened Michelle Malkin (!) I became concerned that he might have suicidal tendencies.

The important issue that confronts America now is not a dispute over Southern history, or which conferences Robert Spencer attends. The folks I saw at the 9/12 March on D.C. were flying lots of "Don't Tread On Me" Gadsden Flags -- probably a Guinness Book record for the most Gadsden Flags ever displayed in a single location -- and I don't recall seeing any Confederate flags. But I wasn't looking for them.

We are in a fight to preserve what remains of American liberty, and I don't want to waste time defending myself. However, if I may be forgiven for paraphrasing a Yankee, I'm willing to fight it out on this line if it takes all week. Or I might quote Nathan Bedford Forrest's famous words to Braxton Bragg:
I have stood your meanness as long as I intend to. You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it. . . . I say to you that if you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path it will be at the peril of your life.
Bragg was a notorious loser. It seems fitting.

Point One: Charles Johnson doesn't know me from Adam's housecat
Point Two: Charles Johnson is prejudiced, and subscribes to stereotypes


  1. Lift up a pony tail, find a horse's ass.

    Charles is relegated to one tiny, tiny (and he's furiously painting himself into an even smaller corner of it) little niche of the internet. Truly he has changed, and I think physically changed in his neural system (Charles, have that checked, m'kay? wouldn't want you to become another Charles Whitman). He's just not the same guy he was one, two, three years ago.

    Has he ever had a break from blogging, with guest posters? A shut down for a vacation? If not, now would be a good time to hand over the reigns to someone and just take a break. Get off the net, and get checked out. Go on tour, go to Israel or something, whatever. Just go.

  2. I was ahead of the curve (for the first time in my miserable life) on Johnson. I quit reading him when he started finding links and funding between jihadists and creationists. Somehow his psyche was able to equate everyone who rejects his social, philosophical, and hey, maybe even dietary views. Try explaining to him that creationists are, to the man, conservative evangelicals, and conservative evangelicals are Zionists, even more than Menachim Begin. They really don't truck with people who want to destroy Israel.

    But it fits his veltenschaung, so it had to be the truth. Is there a chance the CJ is Jewish? Has he drunk the liberal Jewish koolaid that Christianity is the real enemy? Maybe Netanyahu could explain it to him. Does anyone remember that the first stop that Binny made in the US was to visit Jerry Falwell?

  3. CJ reminds me of Christopher Hitchens. They both were for the war on terror effort to start with, IIRC, if only because it was anti-militant Muslim and it helped to fit their narrative.

    They're expanding that narrative to include those evil 'Christianists' as well. And praising Teh Won.

  4. A gentlemanly response to a scoundrel.

    I suspect it is as a result of the recent grounding of the New Messiah - this has come as a shock to many-a-well-intentioned little groupie.

    NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo - He cannot be a mere human - cover thine eyes! No one knows the time or place the ONE cometh.

  5. I started reading LGF back in Nov 2003. I was impressed by his grasp of the facts and his overall demeanor in how he presented his blogs. I particularly enjoyed his debunking of of the NG memo on GW Bush and stalwart defense of western civilization. He was what was right and good about blogs. Until about six months ago or so, he was a daily read while noticing a degradation in his site.

    However his vitriol of late, incessant whining about ID, supposed enemies within the blogoshpere and general nastiness that he is now showing resulted in fewer reads. It was kind of like watching an old friend in a slow motion train wreck and not understanding what was happening.

    Last week I stopped by LGF after not reading his site for several weeks and it had further deteriorated into the rantings of a madman. It was with great reluctance that I said goodbye to LGF and deleted the link to LGF.

  6. Doood!

    You've wasted wa-ay too much of your gray matter Charles' lil green johnson.

    Go outside & take a breather.

  7. Began internetwork with friends met online once upon a time @ LGF. After our meet-ups, we all were the first round to leave years ago when the site gravitated into ignorance. Poor Ground Chuck. Did he really "change" by nature? Or just get more crazy with time. He can always rationalize his fall from grace caused by a spill from his bike, or what all he'd do for a girl. /As if he ever were Sampson.

    When I grew up out West, to me, everything along the Atlantic was "back East". My ancestors had emigrated to Northern and well as Southern American Colonies prior to the Revolutionary War. And I came from family members who had already emigrated to pioneer out West from Northern and from Southern States prior to the Civil War. Our community public and private schools were already non-segregated when I entered school before the civil rights movement. I hadn't heard of segregation until we went "back East" for my dad's sabbatical leave in 1963. Our church congregation in College Park, MD had a beautiful elderly black lady who was so kind as to invite our family to her home for dinner to meet her wonderful husband. That was the year of Martin Luther King Jr.'s moving speeches and marches (and of course the year of JFK's assassination).

    My generation knows the difference between racism and what is not racist. We're the ones who did NOT submit to peer pressure to do wrong and excuse wrong because so-and-so did it. And we're sure as hell not going to put up with the likes of Charles Johnson, who has always bent over forward to progressive peer pressure, define anything beyond himself, his own enigma as he can't admit his own faults. He's just another pain in the @ss tiny blackhole in a network domain.

    Serr8d pinned the tail on the impotent mule headed donkey horse. "Just go."

  8. I recognize the quote, "He will regret it but once, and that will be continuously" That was a great Souther warrior,and Christian gentleman JEB Stuart.

    Stacy, I am looking forward to watching you thrash CJ.I dropped him from my links months ago, after seeing him for what he is. An self-appointed elite, who goes around looking down his elevated nostrils at others.
    As a Southerner, I have chosen to defend our heritage without apology, and yes, you are correct, there is no middle ground.Yep, I have been attacked for DARING to honor my ancestors, and for belonging to the SCV as well. But, studying the War Between the States since I was a kid has given me knowledge, and as yet, I have never lost any debates on the subject. And frankly, CJ there would not stand a chance either! Nor wil he stand long against you!
    Let's put it this way. He is like Gen. Banks, or Fremont, or Shields, and you, are like Gen. Jackson. It will not be pretty!

    Give 'em Hell sir!

    Doug Hagin The Daley Gator!

  9. CJ has really gone downhill ever since Ace destroyed him over Van Jones. And watching how pitiful his cultists are when they try to venture out of the compound to defend, and get slapped around by any one with an IQ higher than dishwater, him is a beautiful thing.

    When Irish Rose (who is an unemployed and unemployable welfare mooch from Michigan) threatened the legally trained Ace with "slander" charges over what he wrote about Johnson, that was so pathetic, I temporarily felt bad for her.

  10. After being a pretty rah-rah member of the Lizard Army for a while, CJ recently locked me out of the server for criticizing/questioning him lightly. I, too, think he's losing it now.

    Keep it up, Stace - I read you all-the-time:

    TMR's got your back.

  11. Doug Hagen:

    How do you defend the Southern "system of labor"? Not snark, I'd really like to know.

  12. As I've said before, I figured chuckie out after a few visits to LGF post 9/11. I was one of a handful of people to have visited the site occasionally before 9/11, and chuckie was a fairly typical granola muncher with the occasional interesting comment.

    After 9/11 it soon became obvious that chuckie was a typical McNamara style liberal chickenhawk.

    Most dems seem to have a thin cover over their fascist tendencies, and chuckie's cover slid back and revealed what he was to become, a soft fascist with a hardon for anyone who dared to question chuckie's vision.

    Sadly, birds of this feather seem to rise to prominence, look at Frum, Brooks and O'Reilly, amongst others.

    Their weakness is what they DO know, and their strength, (of conviction at least), is what they don't know. They probably all read 'The Shockwave Rider' by John Brunner while growing up.


  13. FYI RSM, we had about 3500 attendees at our 9/12 satellite rally in LA. Not one Confederate flag, of any type, in sight. Plenty of Gadsden flags, naval Gadsden flags, colonial militia Gadsden flags... no Confederate flags.

    Did have one pathetic little counterprotester waving a handwritten sign reading KKK GO AWAY, but... he went away.

  14. Oh, and thanks for reminding me, I might still be registered at LGF. Gotta go get banned.

  15. Am I the only one who thinks his site is a popular front for AIPAC?

    That's the reason for his hatred of Ron Paul: he's antiwar and of course he's an evil *gasp* Christian.

  16. It's a Lord of the Flies atmosphere over there. Chuckie and the resident butt-kissers crack their whips and the frightened posters fall into line, lest they be *horrors* "flounced." Because life apparently is not worth living if Chuckie bans you.

    He's the king of an Internet dunghill that is rapidly decreasing in size.

  17. CJ reminds me a bit of Andrew Sullivan... I think its definitely rubber room time soon. Here's a post of his from earlier today:

    "Waah! What happened to LGF! Waah! Why are you taking the word of the socialist DC Fire Department! You suck! Waah!"

  18. I'll say it right here for anyone who cares to read it: Stacy McCain is no more a racist nor a white supremacist than I am a jelly doughnut.

    I have known and worked with Stacy at least since he started this blog and at no time have I ever -- EVER -- heard or seen him act in a fashion that could be considered racist.

    I defy Charles Johnson to provide even a scrap of proof for his assertion and until he does, I call him out as the most base prevaricator and an intellectual fraud.

    Stacy, feel free to use this comment as you wish. I have your back and Charles Johnson can pucker up and smooch the widest part of my left butt cheek.

    Why only the left one? Well, the right one's too good for him.

  19. RS,

    Let this former NYC Jew (now an LA goth) tell you he has your back.

    When I went to school at American University, I understood the affection the people from the South had for their history.

    Except for the slavery thing (which everyone in America has paid the price, can we get an Amen!), Southern culture is intereting.

    Never was involved w/LGF -- but every good activist kniows not to fire on your own troops.

    What the Left does not understand is we have been nice, we have turned the other cheek, they have still made Emmanuel Goldsteins of our officals.

    What happened to Palin and Bush can happen to US, that is why we are angry.

    Keep fighting.

  20. I used to think Charles Johnson was a helpful guy. Now I’ve been sent to this link by someone who believes Mr. Johnson’s shrill tittering that I write for a “disgusting, openly racist website.” Well, that’s a load of horse puckey. Obviously, Charlie has a different idea of what the words “openly racist” means that differs from what the rest of society thinks.

    This is particularly ironic coming from the author of a website who calls Saudi Arabian people charming names like “Oil Ticks.” Did I miss the memo where you can use vile racial epithets towards Arabs without being considered a racist, or at least a bigot? Other fun neologisms from Charlie’s website: “Paleosimians,” “koranimals,” “ragheads.” Oh yes, and when was the last time the FBI investigated Taki’s magazine (or VDare for that matter) for hate crimes? I seem to recall Charlie had a few problems like that. Those that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    Doubtless Charlie will next denounce me as a vicious racist for making fun of prominent financial figures on my blog; obviously that makes me an antisemite! Oh, except the actual guys I make fun of are English, Greek and Italian. Damn sneaky, we “vicious racists!”

  21. I spent something like 26-28 hours (in two stretches of 13-14 hours each) crammed into a van with about 15 other people in May of 2008. One of those people was Robert Stacy McCain, and at least one of the others was an African-American gentleman. I can honestly attest that I did not once hear McCain mutter the n-word under his breath, observe him actively attempting to avoid conversational engagement or physical contact with said gentleman, etc., and I'm pretty sure that the two of them sat at the same table and broke what passes for bread together at McDonald's during one of our food stops.

    That doesn't "prove" that he isn't a racist, of course. But at the level of personal interaction, he doesn't act like a racist (and I say that as someone who's known some outstanding examples, including a cousin who got too radical for the Ku Klux Klan).

    On the other hand, when you roll with pigs (voluntarily associating with VDARE, comparing Bob Barr to George Wallace as if that comparison reflected well on Barr, etc.), you probably shouldn't be surprised when people notice notice the mud on your clothes.

    Frankly, though, I think that this may just come down to the obvious ... money. I see that neither of the Blogads strips at LGF has any takers at the moment. And to quote one RS McCain:

    "Being Notorious Is Not the Same as Being Famous, But It's Better Than Being Anonymous."

    Especially for ad sales.

    Johnson squeezed the "Muslims are Bad, M'Kay?" schtick until it stopped bleeding cash, he got some mileage out of goading the Paul cultists, and now he's like a professional wrestler casting about for a new leotard/mask/trash talk combo and trying to drum up a grudge match with one of his former tag team comrades (Malkin) and an up-and-comer (in the blogosphere -- RSM has seniority on both Johnson and Malkin in "real journalism").

  22. LGF has fully transformed into a racist, hateful, third rate liberal blog. I have no idea why any intelligent or free thinking person would ever visit that blog anymore.

    If you dare to even mildly and politely disagree on a variety of topics there, you are banished, I speak from experience as I am one of the many that has been banned from there after being a member for many years. LGF has become a pitiful, failed experiment in group think and Obama worship, and those opinions are enforced using gestapo like methods, aimed at eliminating all opposing viewpoints.

  23. Stacy, as someone who does know you better than Charles Johnson, I have refuted the slanders against you, quoting from my actual knowledge of you dating back to 1995. I hope it meets with your approval.

  24. Charle's takedown of Dan Rather was classic. It was something he deserve's lots of credit for. Unfortunately his acolytes gave him lots of credit for it and it went to his head.

    He was a several times daily read for me at that time. Mostly because the commenters were so good. However, a strange vibe seemed to surface and, shortly after, the attacks on Pamela Geller...all originating with Charles. The petulant tone of the attacks was as offputting as their substance. Both seemed to point to a deep seated problem.

    After giving LGF a rest I return to see Creationists and Christians under attack....and many of the old commenter crew gone. This was too much. Other than an occasional peek, I've not been back.

    I hope he finds the help he needs. He once did fine work.

  25. I looked at the links that Charles provided, and the only damning quotations attributed to RSM are the following:

    "[T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us."

    That's from New York Press, and there's no link to where he got that quote.

    Then there's this from the extremely unreliable Southern Poverty Law Center, again with no source:

    Or, as LOS [League of the South] member and Washington Times national reporter Robert Stacy McCain says in an essay posted on the League’s main site, slavery was 'generally' characterized by 'cordial and affectionate relations between white and black Southerners.'"

    As for the first quote, which has been circulated throughout the internet, this entry at AllExperts quotes RSM as roundly denying having said that thing.

    The provenance of the second quote is dubious as well. They allege that he said these things on white supremacist web sites that no longer exist, so hey, allege away!

  26. In a different age, I would call the bastard out onto the field of honor and then made quick work of this despicable cowardly cretinous ignoramus.

    Linked to at:

  27. dicentra,
    Having read two books on the history of American slavery, I can attest to the accuracy of whoever commented on cordial relations between master and slave being common in the ante-bellum South. During the Great Depression the Writer’s Project was part of the WPA and many former slaves were interviewed and their testimony written down. They, the former slaves, are the ones who described this politically incorrect truth. If something is factually true, it cannot be “racist.”

    There was a practical reason (as well as a humanitarian one) for being kind to the slaves: happy slaves were more productive and did not try to run away.

    Whether McCain ever said it or not is irrelevant. Web sources attribute the remark to one that McCain allegedly stated in a speech to Sons of Confederate Veterans.

    The first comment on interracial marriage was spoken by Michael Hill, President of the League of the South. It was misattributed to McCain and other bloggers, including CJ at LGF, repeated it, as did the Southern Poverty Law Center. I have been friends with McCain for 15 years and he has always known that I am in an interracial marriage. It is highly doubtful that McCain cares who marries whom (as long as they are of the opposite sex).

  28. What aggravates me is that people try to fly the rebel flag as some funky "rebel without a cause" thing, like they're all Deep South James Deans.

    But the flag did have a cause. It stands for a short-lived nation born of treason in defense of slavery. What kind of decent person takes pride in that?

  29. For anon and others- while chuckie got a lot of credit for bringing down Rather, I'd give a lot more credit to Denny at

    Denny was a long term IBM'r, and as far as I know, was the first to definitively show the letter's typeface was NOT authentic to the date in question, and couldn't have been from the alleged typewriter.


  30. Jim said "What kind of decent person takes pride in that?"

    If such a thing were true, no good man would take pride in it. But on the contrary, what you describe is not what happened. That flag represents the troops of a dogged, determined, faithful army who served their states, the Confederacy they had established, and their understanding of their duty to the point of laying down their lives. You fool, you think men would die for the sake of owning slaves? You think they would fight and die so that rich men could own others? You think every last one of those men hated black people so much they would suffer pain, toil, and death to see them kept as human cattle? You and your ignorance disgrace the memory of those who stood for the liberty that the Constitution promised them.

    Slavery was an abominable practice, whether relations were polite or not. For one man to "own" another is an offence before God and I don't know a man of character who says otherwise. I believe the United States have suffered at God's hand in the war and since for that sin. But the states of the South stood up not for slavery, they bled not for slavery, they died not for slavery. They did all these things for the right to decide their own direction, for the freedom promised by the 10th Amendment. That is what that flag stands for, Jim. They may have been wrong - that is not my place to judge. I am not a son of the South (perhaps a little in spirit), but for the shame of calling those who defended the honor and rights of the South traitors and indecent men, I name you an ignorant cad and a troll. What kind of decent person? Have you never read Mr. McCain's writing? He is a proud Southerner who loves his homeland, and from all that I know one of the most decent men I ever hope to meet. Educate yourself, Jim. Reduce your ignorance, and then I invite you to come back and review the facts and lives on which you presume to pass judgement.

  31. I used to enjoy LGF long ago also, there's very little doubt that somewhere along the lines, CJ lost his mind.....

    For me, the wakeup call was when he attacked Robert Spencer, a true gentleman.

  32. richard mcenroe,

    I haven't seen you in my usual haunts. Nice to see you here. I too remember when LGF was fun and I saw you regularly there.

    Times change.

  33. Free Range-Oyster,

    I spent a few years in the South as a youth. I actually lived at the foot of Monticello and could see the big house from my back door. I remember at age 5 drinking from a "Colored Only" fountain. It offended me so much. Age fookin 5.

    My mother was so proud. She did pull me back after a couple of minutes. It was expected. She was part of the community and our business depended on keeping the good opinion of the locals (we were transplanted northerners - Nebraskans).

    It was not just slavery.

    Water under the bridge though. Times have changed. For the better.

    Now a days Southerners are in the vanguard defending our liberties. What ever you can say about the misguidedness of the Southern Spirit it is coming in handy now. And I stand with any one who will defend our liberties. No matter what they think of their ancestors.

    And further. The problem with Europe is that the evils they were involved with in 1933-45 broke their spirit. The South is different. Their spirit didn't break. But it did change. For the better. My hat is off to them.

  34. "Am I the only one who thinks his site is a popular front for AIPAC?"

    Charles Johnson let intial success go to his head, and now is little more than an egomaniac who will ban anyone who disagrees with him or merely fails to bow down to him.

    Nevertheless, CJ's psyche has squat-all to do with AIPAC, Israel, or the Jews, and comments suggesting that are simply anti-Semitism and a discredit to this site.

  35. Is Charles Johnson gay?