The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Transformation Complete, Charles Johnson Denounces Ronald Reagan

Posted on | December 8, 2013 | 106 Comments

So stunningly rapid was his descent into obscurity that every post about the Lizard King’s latest self-humiliation must be prefaced with a reminder that he actually used to be somebody — cited by Rush Limbaugh! a co-founder of PJ Media! — until that day in October 2007 when he decided that Pamela Geller’s attendance at an anti-jihad conference in Brussels was some kind of hate crime or something.

Blame the Jews? CJ’s unraveling happened slowly and quietly at first. Most people weren’t entirely sure whether this blog war was legitimate, so they ignored it as long as they could. Yet the attacks on creationists and “climate denialists” steadily escalated:

He believes his disagreements with some conservatives should have become obvious in the spring of 2008 when he slammed Ben Stein for his anti-evolution movie, “Expelled.” In numerous posts since, Johnson has derided what he sees as the right’s anti-science bent. “When they teach their children that,” Johnson said, “they are raising a generation of kids who aren’t going to be ready to deal with the world in which science is increasingly important.”


Science! Charles denounced Glenn Beck! Charles denounced Rush Limbaugh! Charles denounced the Tea Party as racist and the Great Purge began — ban! ban! ban! 

LGF exists now as a rancid festering cesspool of eccentric left-wing mania, filled with disgruntled trolls and mindless sycophants, a place where disagreement is disloyalty and opposition is hate.

Because . . . Science!

“Chuck Johnson: Race Detective” — this was it, you see? The same cut-and-paste guilt-by-association game he used against Pamela Geller was expanded: Everyone must denounce anybody or anything that offends Charles Johnson who, having appointed himself the Indisputable Arbiter of Acceptability, purges anyone who does not share his peculiar obsessions. How’s that working out for ya?


Blogs that did not even exist in 2007 — e.g., Professor William Jacobson’s Legal Insurrection — have zoomed to success, while Charles Johnson has made LGF the most spectacular failure in blog history.

OK, so what about CJ’s claim that Nelson Mandela “turned to communists like Fidel Castro” because “Reagan supported apartheid”? This bizarre ahistorical claim was called to my attention because Louise Mensch started talking back to Charles on Twitter:

The question to be answered, however, is not whether Reagan’s opposition to sanctions was tantamount to supporting apartheid.

Rather, the question is, “When did Mandela turn to communists?” And the answer is, long before Reagan became president.

Mandela was “appointed the leader of the newly formed Umkhonto we Sizwe guerrilla movement, an underground military arm of the ANC,” in 1961, to quote the Washington Post. “After raiding the ANC offices, police [found] documents outlining an armed campaign to overthrow the government. Mandela and nine others [were] charged with conspiracy. . . . After an eight-month trial, Mandela and seven others [were] sentenced to life in prison [in 1964] and taken to Robben Island.”

This happened when the presidents of the United States were John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. If JFK or LBJ (both Democrats) protested the arrest and imprisonment of Mandela, or did anything to end apartheid in South Africa, this has escaped my notice. But as to the wisdom of U.S. policy, either under JFK or LBJ or later under Reagan, it is important to remember that the chief object of our foreign policy was opposition to communism, especially Soviet-backed “wars of national liberation” in Third World countries. Charles Johnson will not let the evident fact that he doesn’t know a goddamned thing about Cold War history (or any other history, for that matter) impede the use of his “Race Detective” skills against Ronald Reagan.

Let the education begin. What do we know about the ANC and its military wing, the Umkhonto we Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”) guerrilla movement, known as MK? From The Diplomacy of Liberation: The Foreign Relations of the ANC since 1960 by Scott M. Thomas:

The less publicized support socialist states gave the ANC was the military training of its cadres. Before the Sino-Soviet split, key ANC personnel were trained in China at the Nanking Military Academy. Soviet bloc para-military training took place in Cuba, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. For more advanced training, recruits went to the Soviet Union.
Unkhonto training bases in Africa in the early 1960s were mainly in north Africa. By 1964, recruits were being trained in Egypt (about 25), in Algeria (about 50-70), and smaller numbers in Ethiopia, Ghana (organized by Ghana’s Bureau of African Affairs, but with Soviet instructors), in Morocco and Tanzania.
Chinese and Soviet training arrangements were made until the Umkhonto’s camps could be built in southern Africa. The first bases were in Tanzania, after independence in 1961, and in Zambia after independence in 1964. According to Anatoly A. Gromyko, the Director of the Institute of African Studies, arms, ammunition and some Soviet training personnel began arriving at these newly established Umkhonto bases after Zambia’s independence. . . .
The Soviet Union, Cuba, the Eastern bloc, particularly the GDR [German Democratic Republic, i.e., East Germany], and Angola trained cadres . . . North Korea and Bulgaria helping to a lesser extent. By the early 1980s, the ANC’s Chief Representative in [East Germany] acknowledged that an increasing number of ANC cadres were being trained there in various fields, particularly law, engineering, and natural science. This was a cover for military training since Umkhonto recruits in the Soviet Union were openly identified with the ANC and the SACP [South African Communist Party], but in [East Germany] they trained in civilian clothing under the guise of doing other courses.
For some Umkhonto recruits there was a country specialization in the progression of training: Mozambique … for political strategy, Angola for weapons training, the Soviet Union for general training, including a platoon commanders’ course in tactics and artillery and an advanced infantry course for officers. The best Umkhonto recruits were sent to [East Germany] for more advanced studies in communications, sabotage, topography, map reading, military engineering, and political theory. …
The [South African Communist Party] was instrumental in forming Umkhonto we Sizwe. …. While Mandela made the arrangements to set up training bases for Umkhonto cadres during his Africa tour in 1962, Arthur Goldreich, a member of the SACP and Umkhonto, went to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe for the same purpose. Although his trip was to obtain military assistance, including explosives for sabotage, Goldreich tried to convince the Soviets to directly intervene in South Africa, but they declined. They only promised military assistance and reportedly gave Goldreich $2.8 million.
Oliver Tambo has acknowledged he went to the Soviet Union for the first time in 1963. He was accompanied by Moses Kotane, Secretary-General of the SACP, and Duma Nokwe, Secretary-General of the ANC. …
The ANC’s main training bases were set up in northern Angola in 1977. … Five training camps were set up in northern Angola, holding between 2,000 and 8,000 Umkhonto combatants. … [T]he training was given by East German, Cuban and Soviet instructors. …
Developments in Angola were closely connected to the ANC’s relations with Cuba. Six months after military preparations began in northern Angola, in October 1977, Oliver Tambo went to Havana to discuss the role Cuba could play in the liberation struggle. The following year, Alex La Guma, a South African author who was also a key member of the SACP, established the ANC’s office in Havana. …

The fact is, the ANC was allied with the South African Communist Party and, for nearly two decades before Ronald Reagan became president of the United States, the ANC and its MK guerrilla movement were aligned with the Soviet-led communist bloc, including East Germany and Fidel Castro’s Cuba. Explain this however you wish, the immediately relevant point is, YOU CAN’T BLAME IT ON REAGAN, YOU IDIOT!

Permit me also to call to the reader’s attention two posts by Professor Donald Douglas at American Power:

Facts are very important to people who care about truth, a category from which Charles Johnson long ago excluded himself.





 

 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


Category: Charles Johnson

Comments

106 Responses to “Transformation Complete, Charles Johnson Denounces Ronald Reagan”

  1. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:07 am

    I’d say most of the guys here like women. A lot of us even married one.

    There are few that like them so much think they are women.

  2. Terrance_Char
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:08 am

    RT @ECHackett: It was complete a long time ago #douche “Transformation Complete, Charles Johnson Denounces Ronald Reagan” http://t.co/hGF9X…

  3. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:12 am

    I have no pity for self destructive idiots. I hold them in contempt.

  4. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:13 am

    Lock him in a room with a pistol with one round and, perhaps, he’ll do the decent thing.

  5. Art Deco
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:36 am

    In the interests of precision:

    The African National Congress co-operated with a much smaller (but affluent organization) called the Congress of Democrats from the latter’s foundation in 1952. The Congress of Democrats was a constitutionally white organization whose membership was largely derived from that of the Communist Party of South Africa, which had been banned in 1936. The co-operation pre-dated not only Ronald Reagan’s career in electoral politics, it also pre-dated Nelson Mandela’s turn as President of the African National Congress (though Mandela’s predecessor Albert Luthuli was not someone whose committment to democracy was considered suspect).

    As for Reagan, he never ‘supported apartheid’. Pat Buchanan had an oddly indulgent view of the South African republic, but that was peculiar among prominent Republicans at that time. Reagan just did not seek to incorporate peculiar measures to injure South Africa into the body of our foreign policy. The world as it was in 1985 included scores of governments which abused their publics unconscionably and the anti-apartheid agitators ignored nearly all of them (while elements of the Democratic Party and its foreign policy brain trust were invariably urging a more indulgent disposition toward Communist countries). “Sanctions” &c. need to be congruent with reasons of state, but the people getting arrested at embassies and what not were never willing to argue the point that they were, or delineate a generally applicable policy with regard to the imposition of sanctions. (Fads of the global chatterati are not a policy).

  6. McGehee
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:41 am

    More people have never heard of Ronald Reagan than have ever heard of Charles Johnson.

  7. Art Deco
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:51 am

    One of the curios of the democratization of communications in the last 18 years is that you get to be witness to some people’s psychological meltdowns. In the previous era, editors would have amended their prose or declined to publish it.

    I used to be an avid reader of the work of Henry Fairlie. I had no idea that at the time (1980-90) that he was a hopeless alcoholic who had never learned to manage his finances. Few of his readers knew until his death that he had immigrated to the United States in 1966 to frustrate the enforcement of civil judgments against him in British courts. His last five years were spent camping out in his office (with the permission of Martin Peretz) after he was evicted from the last apartment he had rented. I cannot imagine that blue pencils wielded by Leon Wieseltier, Hendrick Hertzberg, and Michael Kinsley were not protecting him (and Christopher Hitchens claimed retrospectively that he was showing some signs of dementia toward the end).

    Which brings me to the subject of Jeffrey Hart, Diane Ravitch, and Paul Craig Roberts. Radically changing your perspective on social and political questions in old age is certainly unusual. Going on bizarre and vitriolic whinges (Ravitch) and trading in conspirazoid tripe (Hart and Roberts) is doubly unusual.

    Charles Johnson is the better part of a generation younger than this crew, but he does seem similarly disturbed.

  8. Joe Dokes
    December 9th, 2013 @ 9:21 am

    “for the simple reason that stupid people don’t spend their spare time reading political commentary.”

    You weren’t monitoring the comments of the visiting trolls last night, were you. 😉 /jk

  9. Joe Dokes
    December 9th, 2013 @ 9:22 am

    Many of the best comments here are from the wimmenfolk. Truly.

  10. Joe Dokes
    December 9th, 2013 @ 9:26 am

    As one of the early LGF banned (actually before he went out of his way to slam creationism, which would have done me in anyway), I do not believe he was ever truly conservative. He ran a slick game for awhile but couldn’t keep up the charade once the shock and outrage of 9/11 wore off. But among lefties, he’s hardly alone in that.

  11. Joe Dokes
    December 9th, 2013 @ 9:29 am

    And in the distance, the cargo ships and tankers.

  12. Joe Dokes
    December 9th, 2013 @ 9:31 am

    Or, he may yet repent unto Christ. Uncommon, true, but harder cases than him have done so.

  13. JeffWeimer
    December 9th, 2013 @ 9:55 am

    This is what happens when you get your South African history lessons from Lethal Weapon II.

  14. Lemuel Vargas
    December 9th, 2013 @ 10:08 am

    Robert McCain, not that I condone Mandela for being a communist, but it might be that his imprisonment in Robben Island could have had a profound effect on him that it shifted his philosophy from being a communist to being a peacemaker. Long periods of incarceration sometimes do that because the person involved would have a long time to think and thinking has a tendency to soften a person’s stance.

  15. Lemuel Vargas
    December 9th, 2013 @ 10:08 am

    Are you really Charles Johnson?

  16. Lemuel Vargas
    December 9th, 2013 @ 10:11 am

    You cannot be Charles Johnson because you libs has no capacity to even acknowledge what you have become.

  17. JeffWeimer
    December 9th, 2013 @ 10:17 am

    The saddest for is is that I found many of my favorite blogs through LGF, back in the days shortly before he went truly around the bend, including this one. When I decided to check blogs out, I went there first because I remembered hearing about it because of Rathergate. From there, I found Hotair, Ace, Insty, PJM (of course), Redstate, and here. One day, I tried to log in and was banned out of hand. I hadn’t even written a comment recently. I guess it was a couple of downdings on Chucky’s posts the day before (I was rapidly tiring of the creationist tirades) or maybe my icon – A Bob Hope Fairey-style “Hope” picture. Whatever. Took him off my must check list and never went back.

  18. Art Deco
    December 9th, 2013 @ 10:25 am

    What is curious about Johnson’s alienation is that the starboard is an omnibus of people with varied and somewhat conflicting aims. At least among academics and opinion journalists, this has been true throughout the post-war period.

    That aside, the set of people from whom he is alienated is odd. Suspicion of the global warming pushers is the mode among people who follow public affairs, but the most notable voices articulating it – Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Willie Soon, and Richard Lindzen – are not known for any kind of political participation generally. Dr. Soon and Dr. Lindzen are academics and Mr. McIntyre came out of the mining industry.

    Same deal with ‘creationism’ or critiques of evolutionary theory spinning generally. The Discovery Institute has some prominent Republicans associated with it (and a number of irons in the fire aside from ID), but the researchers in question – Michael Denton, William Dembski, Michael Behe, David Berlinkski,&c. are generally academics or lapsed academics without involvement in partisan politics (or, in the case of Berlinski and Denton, religious observance).

    As for Pamela Gellar, she is a highly specialized political advocate. She’s never held a position in Republican circles nor has she published in starboard opinion outlets. She’s her own show (or a small revue with a few others like Robert Spencer and Hugh FitzGerald &c).

    Complaints like his are non sequitur.

  19. Joe Dokes
    December 9th, 2013 @ 10:30 am

    Naw, you still have Noam Sayin. Right? Or did you ban him too?

  20. librarygryffon
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:11 am

    I found LGF way, way back; Michelle Malkin mentioned the site very positively in one of her columns. So that was probably around 2002 or 2003. For years it was the one place I always checked after turning on the computer in the morning and grabbing my coffee.
    And then he started going after creationists. I’m not a creationist, but they vitriol he used against them was … offputting … especially since he seemed to have decided that every single practicing Christian was at best a closet creationist if they weren’t out there actively working to ban teaching evolution. His attacks on anyone who didn’t support his version of anti-jihad were also unnerving, especially as the “evidence” he used to classify some of the groups as “hate” groups didn’t seem to be founded on much reality other than left-wingers in Europe claiming it to be so.
    And as others have said, when you start being uncomfortable at a site, you stop going there, for me probably during ’08 because I really don’t remember reading a lot about the election from him.
    I went back a while ago to find that I was now banned, and I hadn’t even visited the site in years.
    I occasionally pop over to The Diary of Daedalus to see what he’s up to; I’d rather not actually give him any traffic.

  21. robertstacymccain
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:14 am

    Heh — “updings,” “downdings,” what a childish popularity game! What was Charles’s point in introducing that system at LGF? And then, having introduced it, to use it as a tool to sniff out dissent, so as to ban potentially disloyal commenters?

    Look: Are you running a blog, or are you running the Pretty and Popular Girls Club in third grade? This is what I mean in saying that Charles was basically captured by his commenters. When the first report on Geller’s attendance at the Brussels conference was published at LGF, a couple of trolls jumped into the comments to link left-wing sources saying that Geller’s European allies were all a bunch of crypto-fascists. CJ freaked out about that, and everything else ensued from there.

    Result? The commenters who originally smeared the Brussels conference are long gone, but the reeking stench of LGF’s failure remains.

    Charles Johnson never had any core values, and so he let himself be captured by trolls.

    (P.S.: Yeah, I updinged your comment. Irony.)

  22. robertstacymccain
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:16 am

    “[I]t might be that his imprisonment in Robben Island could have had a profound effect on him”

    No doubt. So let’s lock up ALL the Commies!

  23. robertstacymccain
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:26 am

    “Pat Buchanan had an oddly indulgent view of the South African republic . . .”

    Of course: This was his great value in GOP politics from the 1960s onward, that he had an intuitive sense of what “The Silent Majority” felt in its gut reaction to liberalism. Basically, if every prominent liberal voice is preaching that X is good (and you can insert a lot of values for X, everything from gay rights to “world peace”), you can bet that there are a lot of people who are annoyed by these pious liberal sermons. Furthermore, because liberalism is so reliably wrong about everything, it is usually both good policy and good politics to do pretty much the opposite of what liberals preach.

    Of course, you have to be careful about this. As I’ve said, there is a point beyond which you really can’t afford to go, and if you find yourself tempted to make an argument like, “Hey, Auschwitz wasn’t really so bad,” you might want to dial it back a notch or two.

  24. JeffWeimer
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:29 am

    And I “updinged” yours, of course, for your gracious reply. I find it interesting that he’s replaced “moonbats” with “wingnuts” as his Raison d’être (or is it de Guerre?).

  25. robertstacymccain
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:30 am

    Thanks, QM. It has been theorized that my judgment is occasionally wrong, but this is merely a theory, as no one has ever found any evidence to support it.

  26. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:41 am

    It’s not a theory. More like an hypothesis. We’re still gathering data. Hard to find so far. 🙂

  27. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:52 am

    Still don’t understand what pushed Roberts over the edge.

  28. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:56 am

    The stupid people were reading us. Hope some of the intelligence rubbed off. They were in pretty desperate need.

  29. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 11:57 am

    Only racists appointed black ambassadors to African countries. I’m shocked you don’t realize that.

  30. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 12:00 pm

    I could approve of that. Only problem is what where would we jail 160 million convicts? There’s only so much room in Area 51.

  31. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 12:05 pm

    The blogs that lead me to what are now my important blogs were two that are now off the air, Neptunus Lex and Castle Argghhh!. Lex was killed at Fallon almost 2 years ago, and the proprietor at Argghhh! got tired of getting spammed and fielding complaints about the measures he took to end it. There’s only 3 regulars now, 1 MilBlog, one MilSupportBlog, and this one.

  32. JeffWeimer
    December 9th, 2013 @ 12:18 pm

    I miss Lex, greatly. He was a Must Read, no matter what. I still have the last emails we exchanged, a couple weeks before he passed. It was a shock, and they shouldn’t have been flying that day.

    I moved to CDR Salamander (http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/) to get that kind of fix. Not the same, but it’ll do.

  33. The Osprey
    December 9th, 2013 @ 12:27 pm

    I was a long time “lizard”..I think I started reading LGF right after 9-11 and got the “ban stick” in 2009. I’d really become disenchanted with the place after the whole “Vlaams Belang” kerfluffle but I kept hoping against hope that Charles would realize he had been wrong. After the election of Obama and his subsequent harder turn to the left I couldn’t take it anymore. I found a lot of other good blogs through Charles and LGF commenters in the 2001-7 time period but after that I began to start using his denunciations as recommendations- that’s how I found your site, Stacy, and Andrea Shea King’s BTR show as well.

  34. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 12:31 pm

    I had left Phib’s place when he started talking about women in teh service and thought it was just peachy, no matter the evidence to the contrary. I had already started at Argghhh! when I learned that the Armorer knew Lex personally. Now Argghhh! is gone and I’m left with just XBradTC’s place, not that that’s bad. Phib, I can’t stand, even though there are a good many things he says that are good. The wimyn thing utterly turns me off, however.

  35. Kate_Stokes
    December 9th, 2013 @ 12:42 pm

    Best post ever.

  36. Art Deco
    December 9th, 2013 @ 1:55 pm

    IIRC, he was not being contrary about that. He actually adhered to some odd belief that the fate of the Afrikaners was some sort of civlizational bell-weather. I cannot recall the precise content and IIRC, his view was mostly delineated in intra-office memoranda. Supposedly, he wanted the position of Ambassador to South Africa, but Henry Kissinger and his subordinates would never have allowed that, for good reason.

    Actually, I tend to doubt any silent majorities had vigorous opinions about South Africa, though some of us on campuses found the protest poseurs vaguely amusing (and the two I knew well were not merely poseurs, to be sure). Now, urban crime, failing and comical schools, chronic currency erosion, and obstreperous and arrogant college students could get some juices flowing.

  37. rmnixondeceased
    December 9th, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

    I am saddened that my parody with teeth blog hasn’t made your list …

  38. Transformation Complete, Charles Johnson Denounces Ronald Reagan | Dead Citizen's Rights Society
    December 9th, 2013 @ 3:40 pm

    […] Read the rest … […]

  39. If You Like Your Death Panel-Assisted Suicide, You Can Keep… | Regular Right Guy
    December 9th, 2013 @ 5:12 pm

    […] Transformation Complete, Charles Johnson Denounces Ronald Reagan […]

  40. Bob Belvedere
    December 9th, 2013 @ 5:35 pm

    Not if you use the alien created wormhole generator we got from them.

  41. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    December 9th, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

    The secret world of LGF…

  42. Matthew W
    December 9th, 2013 @ 5:40 pm

    Chuckle’s asinine legal opinion of “separation of church and sate” is what did me in !!

  43. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 7:03 pm

    I do check regularly, but not daily. After teh first of the year I prolly won’t be coming here daily either as I will have some things crashing down on me. I will keep tabs on you personally.

  44. Quartermaster
    December 9th, 2013 @ 7:06 pm

    Fire up the Stargate. Be sure to warn Apophos that we have plenty of food headed his way!

  45. This Fascinating Week, Haters Gonna Hate Edition | Blackmailers Don't Shoot
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:07 pm

    […] In all fairness, when he was elected President of South Africa, the ensuing bloodbath didn’t happen, which is a rarity for any country in Africa. So, yes. A complicated legacy. Not the best person to use to make a cheap shot at Ronald Reagan. […]

  46. Gus_807
    December 9th, 2013 @ 8:36 pm

    History is not one of Charles @Green_Footballs’ strong suits, but being a #Rumpswab is. @rsmccain http://t.co/jQxagyzRrZ

  47. Bunk X
    December 9th, 2013 @ 10:00 pm

    Regarding Rathergate, “Buckhead” was the first to spot the fraud and posted it on Free Republic; Jeremy Chrysler took it a step further and posted the “Throbbing Memo” .gif on his blog Pacetown to illustrate it.

    Charles Johnson duplicated Chrysler’s animation, even using the same exact paragraphs, then took credit for it, after the fact.

    Google “Revisiting Rathergate” for links. Sure, Johnson helped publicize the hoax, but all he did was cut and paste the work of others and enjoy his five minutes of fame.

    I don’t recall who said it. “Charles Johnson is the guy who jumps in front the parade and pretends he’s leading it.”

  48. karridine
    December 10th, 2013 @ 12:01 am

    Charles? Mr Johnson? This is Reality calling, PLEASE come back! We miss your cogent self in its rational form!

  49. Yeah, sure Newt, because Mandela was JUST LIKE Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin | The Daley Gator
    December 10th, 2013 @ 12:05 am

    […] do not aid the truth or liberty. If you wish to bow to Mandela fine Newt, go right ahead, you and Charles Johnson can maybe get a drink or two and talk about how much y’all have in common. After all, Mandela ONLY turned to Communism AFTER those Conservatives refused to back him and […]

  50. Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog » Blog Archive » Little Green Footballs and DaTechGuy blog Two Blogs Two paths
    December 10th, 2013 @ 5:43 am

    […] have grown Charles’ have dropped. This week he reached what has to be his nadir as Stacy McCain caught John­son in state­ment so non­sen­si­cal, so mind blow­ingly igno­rant and so eas­ily dis­proved […]