Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs lies again

This reminds me of the cowboy movie with Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson when Jackie suddenly becomes a "bad guy" just by hanging out with Owen. Guilt by association.

Have faith Mr. Spencer, we here at JW know your character, intellect, and emotional stability are sound.

How sad, Mr. Johnson.

You only *wish* you had the speaking engagements that Mr. Spencer has had. Furthermore, where are your activities that show both individual and societal compassion such as with Rifqa Bary? Did you live blog from Ms. Bary's hearing on the 3rd?

No?

Parasite.

Yep, I'm in agreement with Jew_Lover:
Your character and your steadfast word have always been good enough for me, Mr. Spencer~!
What a shame about the once-fine site, LGF.

I do not believe this.

I did not make any judgment on either side as I had not studied the story in detail to make conclusions. However I commented at the LGF lounge that Spencer called Johnson a lying scoundrel. Next thing I know, my LGF account is blocked.

I didn't even make a judgment. I just quoted what Spencer said without even expressing agreement or disagreement. And even if I did so, Johnson himself always remarks on Spencer's comments - will he block himself too? If I didn't do it, Johnson would have in the comments thread himself.

Unbelievable.

That guy needs a life.

Sorry big fella, it would only be newsworthy if that lying sack of rotting flesh actually posted something accurate or ..... rational.

Just been through some of the comments on that article at LGF. His dwindling band of supporters come across as totally clueless.

Mr. Johnson is probably setting up a compound for his followers.

Anyone else notice the rapid decline of the link viewer?
It was great once upon a time: now it's dwindled down to almost nothing.

Talk about self-destructive!

Robert, your integrity has always preceded you!!

I've seen many comments regarding the lack of sanity in CJ. I will not repeat the many theories presented as to why he's actin' crazy.
He has lost all credibility and meaning. Wotta pity.

Robert, I don't think any of the regulars at JW believes a word of Johnson's. We know you are principled, and would certainly not "hang out" with the EDL - who have even managed to get themselves proscribed by the BNP!

As for me, I never thought Charles was for real, even when he was on 'our side'---I just saw him as an opportunist, so I wasn't terribly surprised that he threw so many people under the bus to rebrand his product for the post-Bush era. He has always struck me as uprincipled.

His great hubris was to believe that he could bring a large following with him or recruit new followers in his rebranded image. It didn't work and the site is sinking like a stone on all the traffic monitors except Alexa, where he seems to be cheating like crazy now---11 or 12 percent of readers are in South Korea? Are you kidding, Charles?

Funny, too, that the great turnaround on Alexa happened when he started falling out of the top 100,000 on a regular basis. Suddenly all the South Koreans and others appeared. (But look at Quantcast, Google Pagerank and Wikio and he's clearly in freefall.) He was getting taunted about it too, so it's probably a way of saving face, even if advertisers aren't buying it---nothing there anymore but pay-per-click ads.

War on Hate: I got banned by Charles last winter for posting this link: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3799
and lamenting that we are no longer all united in the same cause. Charles never announced my banning because---how could he admit he banned me for linking to an old blog of his own?

In any case, I always knew him to be a rascal so nothing really surprises me.

http://www.quantcast.com/littlegreenfootballs.com

The continuing decline of LGF's traffic can be seen here.

Robert is right. He did not meet with the EDL members - their arrival at the George coincided with the exodus of those who had been there earlier.

The EDL members did not attend the meal and left the vicinity of Crossharbour early and, like myself, they did not attend the dinner.

This "guilt by association" tactic, made by people who were not at the event, is insidious. I - on the other hand - did talk briefly with the EDL members, to try to find out what sort of people they were (rather than believing the hype put about on internet weblogs).

My conversation took place on a walkway beside one of the docks, with neither Robert Spencer nor Douglas Murray present. Does my talking to them make me a member of their group, in league with "forces of Evil"?

If one is invited to an event in good faith, one cannot be held responsible for the presence of other people on the host's guest list.

I do not collude with or condone the EDL's tactics of physical confrontation. I see such tactics as damaging - violence begets violence and benefits no-one, no matter how personally frustrated these EDL members may feel.

But I do believe in talking to people to try to find out who they are and what their viewpoints are.

I also discovered, in the course of the short discourse, that one of the three EDL members who had turned up had a black daughter.

Freedom of speech and freedom of association are fundamentals of a democracy. The British blog that Johnson quotes attacks the "association" of Martin Mawyer and the EDL. The EDL had been invited to the George pub (unbeknownst to Robert Spencer and other invitees) because Martin Mawyer had - the day before Robert Spencer arrived in Britain - been interviewing these individuals for a documentary.

If interviewing people is a crime, (it is a crime for those on the left, it seems) then journalism itself might as well be outlawed.

Maybe Charles Johnson should visit Britain and start talking to people who were eyewitnesses - as a true journalist should - rather than typing away in his ivory tower, gossiping about people he does not know and pretending to be an authority on situations he has not witnessed or properly examined.

I - unlike Johnson - was actually present on that Thursday in Docklands.

And if it came to a libel suit - I would willingly give evidence on Robert Spencer's behalf. Robert is telling the truth.

I used to enjoy reading LGF a few years back as a source of news, not as a source of gossip and character assassination. But something has changed. Sneering insinuations are never an adequate substitute for the honest reporting that should exemplify good journalism.

I think many well-known people who set themselves up as messengers of "factual details" should own up and admit that they are just purveying "spin", and not even doing that very well.

Adrian Morgan

Charles Johnson (selrahC or Icarus to his friends) is unable to debate the issues and can only look for demons under his bed.

His once informative and popular blog is now just a pile of anger and abuse directed against all and any perceived protagonists who dare to disagree with his view of the world.

And if you dare to challenge or disagree with Charles in any way you are despatced forthwith.

Johnson feeds the anti-LGF lobby with a constant supply of individuals who are banned by him in an attempt to satisfy his lack of self esteem.

Johnson will go the way of Dean Esmay, another inconsequential liberal with dwindling readership.

I'm not an EDL member, nor have I ever met them, in fact I hadn't even heard of them before the so-called riots in Birmingham but I can tell you this: they are not even remotely like the group portrayed by the media.

ty were alleged to have started violent confrontations in Birmingham. This is false. The "anti-fascists" groups who attacked them are the ones who carried out all the violence as far as I can see.

Here is a full video of the protest.

So what even if Mr Spencer met with the EDL? Like Archonix, I've never heard of the English Defense League before a few weeks ago. Would someone please explain what is wrong with them? So far they seem only to protest the rising militant Islamicism in England. Is protesting the threat of militant Islam in your country automatically supposed to be a sign that one is an extreme right ring fascist?

It is a well known tactic of the far Left to brand any counter activity or counter philosophy to theirs as "right wing extremism", "racist", "fascists", etc in hopes of intimidating anyone from any association or even verbal support of those they would silence. Are the British and we supposed to fall for that nonsense?

For crying out loud... Just sue the bastard, Robert. We'll all chip in to have him dragged across hot coals. And this sort of libel is actionable in most countries; heck, in my fatherland to falsely accuse someone of this sort of thing would get you in more trouble than you could imagine.

Charles Johnson doesn't even try to tell the truth about the assorted people he attacks. The man is entirely without scruples. He has been entirely reduced to a daily Two Minute Hate session against Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, the Discovery Institute, Pamela Geller, FOX News, and other assorted "creationists", "right-wing extremists", and "anti-Islam bloggers". His blog is hardly distinguishable from the Daily Kos and the fact that he has been used as a source by CAIR to attack Robert Spencer shows just how low he has sunk.

Mr. Spencer, I would suggest that you don't need to respond to his vicious attacks, as your reputation speaks for itself. It wasn't Charles Johnson, after all, that came to the aid of a young girl in danger of losing her life.

Recall what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman: "Every word she says is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'"

It is thus with Sir Charles the Small.

If hate were a disease, then Charles Johnson is terminally ill with it.

Charlie's getting desperate!
He's always been a liar.
He suffers from penis envy.

Canto and Archonix,

I too had not known much of the EDL before this recent civil disturbance. It is clear now, however, that they represent a victory for the PC MCs, and that victory is reflected by the fact that Spencer and the person who posted above who signed as Adrian Morgan don't want to be associated with them (beyond "talking to them to find out what they're about"). I.e., Spencer et al. have no problem bravely supporting a Geert Wilders -- which is great --, but when it comes to the EDL, Vlaams Belang, or the BNP, Spencer et al. effectively take their orders from the PC MC as to who is a pariah non grata and who isn't, who is a career-destroyer and who isn't; or at least their independent determination of these groups as Untouchables dovetails a little too conveniently with the ostracization of these same Untouchables by the PC MC mainstream.

Effectively, Spencer et al. agree with Charles Johnson as to who is to be identified as an Untouchable "fascist" and "racist": Where they disagree is on the slanderous guilt-by-association tactic which Johnson exploits -- including against Spencer and others -- but to which Spencer himself does not stoop. But in denying Johnson's accusations of guilt-by-association (no matter that they are preposterously scurrilous in terms of evidence), Spencer is effectively agreeing with Johnson that the specific guilt in question -- viz., associating with the EDL -- is indeed an unacceptably bad thing.

In light of Johnson's attack on Robert Spencer, I decided to look into the English Defense League to see what they were all about. They are described relentlessly by the British press as "right-wing", but other then opposing the Islamisation of Britain, I fail to see what "right-wing" policies they advocate. On the other hand, the rag-tag group of violent Muslims and socialists that attacked EDL protesters in Birmingham were described as "anti-fascists" (certainly Johnson's sort of people).

The EDL describes itself as anti-racist and non-violent, and is open to people of all backgrounds that oppose the Islamisation of Britain. Of course, the indigenous white Anglo-Celtic people of Britain standing up to Islam will be denounced as "racist" by the dhimmi liberal-left (which includes Charles Johnson). From everything I've seen the English Defense League is a legitimate organisation with laudable aims, unless of course you believe, like Johnson and his "anti-fascist" friends, that white people don't have the right to defend and preserve their cultural and heritage from Islamisation.

The English Defense League, Vlaams Belang, Pro-Köln, and the Swedish Democrats are not "Euro-fascists" or any other such silly nonsense spread by the pro-Islam left, including Charles Johnson. If there is any fascism to be found in Europe it is among the far-left vermin that openly aid the cultural jihad against Europe. Johnson, on the other hand, with his campaign to undermine anti-jihad activists seems to be jockeying for this year's Dhimmi of the Year award.

Seriously, Virgil, you're on thin ice. Modern Britain is multi-racial---this is supposed to be about ideas, not about "indigenous white Anglo-Celtic people." I know plenty of good secular humanists from Pakistan and Bangladesh that stand with us. Don't confound ethnicity/race with ideologies.

The EDL are copycats at best---what do you get by replacing the 'E' in the acronym with a 'J'?

Amen, Family. Great thing about Britain is that to be British is to have a civic identity, not a race. Check out Daniel Hannan's excellent comments about this on youtube.

This is a time for internationalism and solidarity with infidels anywhere - and can I remind you, Virgil, that one of the few peoples with any success record of fighting off Islam are the Sikh of the Punjab?

I love the Sikhs. If I ever took a religion, it'd be Sikhism. As far as I'm concerned we can't have enough immigration of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Jains, Daoists, atheists, agnostics - hell, kaffirs of all stripes, shapes and colours. Just no more Muslim immigration.

Seriously, drop this bullshit stat.

Oh, have you noticed that the lizard-king has disabled the ability of people to write and tell him he's wrong?

Family Values,

"I know plenty of good secular humanists from Pakistan and Bangladesh that stand with us. "

I hope you don't mean good Muslim secular humanists from Pakistan and Bangladesh ...

Wow, all I said was that white Anglo-Celtic people in Britain standing up to Islam will be denounced as racists and that whites have the right to defend and preserve their culture and heritage. I never said anything against Sikhs or Hindus or secular humanists, nor did I say anything against cooperation between different groups with the goal of opposing Islamisation. Please, in the future, take the time to look at the context of my words before accusing me of advocating things I never suggested, nor implied.

Hesperado, that's a contradiction in terms, and you know it.

Now here's a reality check for you: Ibn Warraq. Remember him? Remember where he comes from?

Virgil, if that's true, please accept my profoundest apologies.

This job is tough because scum like the BNP pollute the water.

Fanusi Khiyal,

I know it's a contradiction in terms, and you know it's a contradiction in terms -- but does "Family Values" know it's a contradiction in terms?

Virgil, the same trigger-happy leap that Fanusi Khiyal made about your post may well be related to why he condemns the EDL and the BNP -- and more broadly, may reflect the reason why the EDL and the BNP remain each a sodalitas non grata among not only all the mainstream, but even among most of the anti-Jihad movement.

On a related note, and concerning the central issue here of the problem of guilt by association, it seems clear that in certain cases -- including not only in this specific case of the EDL, but also the BNP and Vlaams Belang (if not also the Pro-Cologne movement) -- Spencer agrees with the principle of guilt by association -- as long, of course, as that "association" is real, and really involves actual collusion and/or cooperation. The term guilt by association tends to connote, in colloquial parlance, the unfair and unproven accusation of association -- but the association itself, if real, and really involving
actual collusion and/or cooperation, is the point at issue here, which then would reasonably move to the separate matter (though often confused) of the determination of whether such an association is a bad thing, a neutral thing, or a good thing. Again, it seems clear that Spencer agrees with Johnson that an association with the EDL (or the BNP or possibly Vlaams Belang, if not also the Pro-Cologne movement) is a bad thing, not a neutral thing nor a good thing.

What Spencer does not agree with is the abuse of that principle, in smearing and slandering individuals with the unfounded (not to mention scurrilous) accusation that they are guilty of associations with these particular groups.

And if one wishes to defend the colloquial connotation of the term guilt by association in its tendentious truncation of the meaning of the word "association" into meaning the casual, insubstantial, and/or accidental juxtaposition of one individual with unsavory individuals, it might be useful to remind ourselves of the dictionary definition -- pace Hugh Fitzgerald's exhilarating freedom from such tethers by which the rest of us are bound -- of "associate" (upon which "association" depends):

1. To join with one, as a friend, companion, partner, or confederate...

Fanusi Khiyal:

Charles Johnson doesn't really block his e-mail. He sends dummy messages from his domain to make it seem that your messages are bouncing, but in fact he reads them all. I've done a little experiment to prove it---he complained to my e-mail provider about the content of a message to him that supposedly bounced, according to the pseudo-automated message I got.

Hesperado:

You're xenophobic and there's no place for that. Of course there's no such thing as a Muslim secular humanist. But there are plenty of ex-Muslim secular humanists. The pattern I really notice with those folks is the jump directly from Islam to rationalism---that is, the liberal, post-enlightenment faith option rarely exists for them. Perhaps because of bullying within Muslim communities, I don't know. But Muslims that see the light go right to scientific humanism, they never stop in between at something similar to liberal Protestant or Reform/Conservative Judaism. And so Islam goes, for the most part, unreconstructed.

As a footnote to my last post: I can think of one example, namely Winston, the Canadian from Iran who posts on LGF---if he's still there, that is, last time I saw him he was in a row with Sharmuta. He doesn't even seem to have a concept of liberal, post-enlightenment religion---it's either hard-line Islam or atheism for him. For example, it was inconceivable to him that a faith position could be compatible with evolution. I think this sort of dichotomous view must be true for many.

Virgil, I stand by my comments. No need to use that kind of nationalistic language. I can read the subtext, thank you very much.

Note how LGF characterized the riot in Birmingham, England, when the "English Defense League" marched through town. Charles calls it a riot caused by white fascists, but he overlooks these paras from the Daily Mail article on the incident:

Birmingham Central Mosque chairman Dr Mohammad Naseem encouraged Muslims to counter-demonstrate during Saturday's anti-Islamic protest by the English Defence League (EDL). The police had advised community leaders to stop people from attending, reported The Times. But Dr Naseem said it is not his place to discourage his followers from attending protests: 'The thing is, that is their right, I cannot say, "You don’t have this right."'

...

Sarah Edwards had to duck into a cafe to avoid being caught in the violence.

She said: 'We suddenly saw what seemed to be about 200 Asian men running down the street, throwing bricks.

'They had bandanas over their faces and were shouting and screaming. We were so scared, we feared for our lives and had to run into the cafe so we wouldn't get hurt. It is so shocking to see this on our streets.'

He also didn't link to the "fascists" who were carrying an Israeli flag(!!!).

Caption: English Defence League supporters hold aloft the flag of Israel and gesture to police as they are corralled into a subway following the demonstration.

stuiec,

Actually, in the comments field at LGF, a couple of followers of Charles, and then Charles himself, noted the Israeli flag incident -- however, of course, they characterized it as "Skinheads wave Israeli flags" and quickly interpreted it as a cynical use by the "skinheads", not really meaning any real support for Israel let alone a sign that they are not anti-Semitic. In one comment Charles even goes through the torturous logical yoga position of speculating that these "skinheads" might be waving an Israeli flag because they have become convinced by the prevailing PC MC culture that Israel is indeed a true fascist state, and therefore they, the "skinheads", have grown to support Israel!

Family Values,

"The pattern I really notice with those folks is the jump directly from Islam to rationalism...they never stop in between at something similar to liberal Protestant or Reform/Conservative Judaism."

"I can think of one example...He doesn't even seem to have a concept of liberal, post-enlightenment religion---it's either hard-line Islam or atheism for him."

"And so Islam goes, for the most part, unreconstructed."

For those types of ex-Muslims, I would say, more aptly, that the Islam rather remains un-deconstructed -- or better yet, un-destroyed. Insofar as Islam is a Satanic vortex of nihilism anyway, an anti-theology not a real theology, it's not that far from a specious atheism sought after by people culturally illiterate of the long history that has enriched modern atheism (that, by the way, includes quite a few white Western Leftists, too). In this respect, as far as I am concerned, such ex-Muslims remain a threat, as their Islam may be re-activated at any sudden-jihad moment whose long string of psychological triggers over time would likely remain invisible to most people.

Hesperado:

Let me know when Ibn Warraq, Taslima Nasreen or Salman Rushdie go jihad, okay?

Hesperado,

Drop this nonsense stat. This is ludicrous.

As regards the EDL, well, they certainly say they're fine with people of all races joining up against Islam. If that's true, then all the power to them. However, groups like the BNP, who are genuinely neo-Nazi (incidentally, could we please draw a distinction between Fascism and Nazism? They're quite different) have tried to camouflage themselves this way. On the other hand, Nick Griffin has attacked them for not being a "white english thing".

Anyway, we all know what this nonsense is caused by. Our politicos, our media are all so damn cowardly that legitimate outlets are blocked. And we know where that leads.

Virgil, I stand by my comments. No need to use that kind of nationalistic language. I can read the subtext, thank you very much.

And I stand by my comments. And why is nationalism a bad thing? It is the sort of liberal-left "we are the world" nonsense that allows for the progress of Islamisation in the first place. I believe that love for one's nation, people, history, and heritage is a proper and healthy thing, and I believe all those things are worth defending in the face of aggressive Islamisation and the nihilism of multiculturalism. I do not advocate any sort of racial supremacy or chauvinism, but I do recognise that there are unique differences between cultures, and that each unique group has a right to preserve its own culture and heritage. The liberal-left, on the other hand, thinks that Europeans (including European-Americans) are a blot on the face of the earth and that the faster that they disappear the better. I resent that and will resist that.

Fanusi Khiyal wrote:

"Anyway, we all know what this nonsense is caused by. Our politicos, our media are all so damn cowardly that legitimate outlets are blocked. And we know where that leads."

Very true. And this has as a further consequence that opponents of islamofascism who are motivated by liberal and pluralistic values are driven into ad hoc alliances with xenophobic populists and even more unsavory types. Our dilemma is that we cannot oppose the one evil without rubbing shoulders with some really nasty elements---and this is a consequence of the debate being relegated to the fringes of the acceptable public discourse.

Incidentally, Charles Johnson understands this predicament perfectly well and exploits it shamelessly. By smearing Robert and other anti-jihadists, by using them as a foil, he has sought to stake out a spurious anti-fascist position for his own blog. In effect, however, he manged to cut himself off from most of his erstwhile allies and scuttled his own boat.

Virgil, I understand you and I think you stand on a slippery slope that leads to racism. What we must defend about the West is its ideas, not its tribal identity---ideas that are there for all to embrace. This is about individual rights, pluralism, rationality, and so on. Ethnic nationalist language such as you used simply muddies the waters and opens the door to a Pandora's box of evils.

Incidentally, your oh-so-tolerant Anglo-Celtic English expelled all their Jews in 1290, burned and tortured supposed witches for centuries, and committed countless atrocities against the peoples they colonized in recent centuries. Their present tolerant values are the result of a long process of cultural development and are not intrinsic to their Englishness.

People choose your style of ethnic nationalism for personal, emotional reasons and I realize that nothing I could write would cause you to reexamine your position. So over and out, my friend.

Virgil, I understand you and I think you stand on a slippery slope that leads to racism.

That is because the liberal-left has spent the past few decades indoctrinating us that anyone who seeks to preserve his culture and heritage is a hero, unless he's (or she) is white, and then they become racists. There is nothing even remotely racist in what I have said in my posts.

What we must defend about the West is its ideas, not its tribal identity---ideas that are there for all to embrace.

Why must the two be mutually exclusive? We cannot we defend ideas, while at the same time defending our heritage and culture?

This is about individual rights, pluralism, rationality, and so on.

Yes, it is indeed, but it isn't solely about those things.

Ethnic nationalist language such as you used simply muddies the waters and opens the door to a Pandora's box of evils.

And ethnic self-hatred (which is a far larger problem then nearly non-existent out of control ethnic nationalism) and multiculturalism have opened the doors to their own evils: moral relativism and the Islamisation of Europe.

Incidentally, your oh-so-tolerant Anglo-Celtic English expelled all their Jews in 1290, burned and tortured supposed witches for centuries, and committed countless atrocities against the peoples they colonized in recent centuries.

I never said that the English don't have some dark chapters in their history. Nearly every culture does. But so what? Because a couple hundred years some Englishmen did some nasty things the English people of today don't have a right to preserve their unique cultural traditions? I do apologise, but your rhetoric in this instance does come across as decidedly leftist.

Their present tolerant values are the result of a long process of cultural development and are not intrinsic to their Englishness.

Again, you're countering an argument I never made.

People choose your style of ethnic nationalism for personal, emotional reasons and I realize that nothing I could write would cause you to reexamine your position. So over and out, my friend.

I resent the fact that you think me so emotionally shallow, and I wish you'd stop throwing the term "ethnic nationalism" around as if I'm sort of crypto-fascist. I have only spoken of the right to cultural preservation, not some chauvinist ethnic or racial supremacy program. When Israelis speak of maintaining their country as a Jewish nation, do we think of them as being on a slippery slop to racism or as dabbling in ethnic nationalism? So please be fair to me and stop trying to impose some nefarious agenda on me or accusing me of being some over-emotional hard head.

Virgil, well said. Doubtless your views may irk a few lemon faced Grauniad readers who see a threat of Nazism in the remotest pride in one's country, but frankly, they can take a running jump.

Anyone who associates with anti-Serb neoliberal-neocons such as the dastardly Michael Totten, degenerates this bad, this fast. This is why I keep speaking about the litmus double-test of loyalty to both Israel and Serbia. Whatever lip service neoliberal-neocons give to "supporting" Israel should be dismissed, because their actions work toward the opposite ends. And the Serbia test is instrumental in identifying those insidious degenerates and keeping them from infiltrating and polluting the ranks of the friends of Israel.
Glory to Zionism, down with the nn's.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Okay, simmer down...

Here's my two-cents. I see no reason not to take pride in your culture, when there's something to take pride in. However, we have the perfect reversal of this: it's axiomatic that the more time a group spends celebrating its culture, usually the less there is to it. At my Uni, we have few to no celebrations of the culture of China, India, not to mention the West. On the other hand, we get to put up with an "experience Islam week".

However, I resent any suggestion of insularism. I greatly enjoy, for example, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Conversely, look at how India is adopting the greatest cultural achievements of the West into its own.

Hence, I repeat, the need for internationalism and solidarity.

Charles Johnson’s ability to allow a good rumor and flat out lies to stand in the way of truth is just another example of his unprincipled journalistic rhetoric. As the Project Manager for Christian Action Network’s new documentary dealing with the radicalization of Europe we were elated to have had the opportunity in interviewing Robert Spencer in London. Being the individual responsible for Mr. Spencer’s schedule while in London, I can attest that Robert Spencer NEVER met with any members of the EDL.

Two days prior to Spencer’s arrival in London, Martin Mawyer and myself did interview three members of the EDL - While Spencer was still sitting cozy in the United States. This false allegation is just a jealous attempt for Charles Johnson to demonstrate his continued ability to report inaccurate information.

Furthermore, Charles Johnson’s decade old attempt to shame Martin Mawyer because of his personal and religious beliefs against homosexuality, intrigues me to believe that Mr. Johnson himself may actually be passing for both teams on his little green football field.

Jason Campbell
Christian Action Network

"Furthermore, Charles Johnson’s decade old attempt to shame Martin Mawyer because of his personal and religious beliefs against homosexuality, intrigues me to believe that Mr. Johnson himself may actually be passing for both teams on his little green football field.

Jason Campbell
Christian Action Network"

Mr. Campbell, I have many reasons to detest Charles Johnson, but his possible sexual orientation has never been among them. That kind of homophobic innuendo does you no credit, nor does it diminish Charles Johnson in the perception of civilised people.

Mr. Robert Spencer,

I for one want to thank you and your associates for the wonderful work that you are doing to expose the existential danger of radical Islam in our midst. Very few average people truly understand the threat, but you make it easy to understand, you are factual and capture and hold attention, all marks of a great journalist. I made my first donation to JW today, I am disabled and on a fixed income so it wasn't as much as I'd like, but I will keep doing my part to assist you in your endeavors to educate the free world, and particularly Americans.

Thanks for all you guys do.

Larry M

Charles Johnson has morphed into the left wing version of Rush, Hannity, Savage etc. Showmen all. Very well paid, highly influential, (why is beyond me) but in the end they are all showmen, not politicians, and the quality they all share is the old joke in the neighborhood I grew up in--if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with Bull..., you get the picture. (That was NYC if anyone is curious lol!)

Johnson is merely an old-before his time, worn out blogger who is bitter and knows he cannot compete on an intellectual level with Mr. Spencer so he must resort to slander and libel. What else could he use, other than smoke and mirrors? He loses in any real debate of issues. You almost have to feel sorry for him. Almost.