CAIR tool and libelblogger Charles Johnson sides with his masters, throws Rifqa Bary to the wolves

Chuckles is a fool. He seems to have gone up around the bend. Shame. Used to be a great blog a couple years ago. Everyone with a brain has been banned.

Tell it to Sarah and Amina and Aqsa, Chuck.

At this point what is the difference between Little Green Footballs and the Daily Kos? Johnson is now no different then Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, and the other liberal-left "moonbats" that he at one time scorned. He'd put this young girl's life in jeapordy just so he can score a few points against Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.

All of these liberals are too stupid to realize the Muslims are just using them to present a false image of themselves as tolerant and freedom loving. When the Muslims no longer need the liberals, they will throw them away like so much garbage.

He is a very unstable narcissist. In fact, he is much like Arianna Huffington. She was not making much on being a conservative, so she went hard left. I suspect that neither of them have very set views, and simply respond to the level of adoration they receive.

Is any of this true?

Announcement time: I [Charles Johnson] am no longer affiliated with Pajamas Media in a management position. There's nothing gossip-worthy here, though; I enjoyed helping to found and start PJ Media, and this is a completely amicable departure. We mutually decided that my energy and resources are best focused right here on Little Green Footballs. LGF will continue to be part of the Pajamas Media network, and we'll continue to run PJ Media's well-monitored advertisements.
http://dennisthepeasant.typepad.com/dennis_the_peasant/2007/12/and-then-there.html

My guess is that Johnson got the boot.

And yet the King of Guilt by Association doesn't see anything wrong with Obama.

I was never a "lizard" at LGF, and I never spent much time reading articles or browsing through the comments. Most of the comments in its Golden Age (or Greening Age) were more like pot shots with attempted zing, but little substance.

One thing that impressed me, however, about that site was the roiling participation of an incredible number of people, in the comments sections of nearly every article -- far more than I see on most forums and blogs. At the time, I considered LGF to be a potential reservoir for galvanizing a veritable community to help forge what was then -- and alas, what continues to be -- a still inchoate and amorphous Anti-Islam Movement. Even then, I noticed that Charles was apparently unmindful of the sociological potential he had at his disposal to rally. In the last year, of course, he has destroyed that potential by corrupting its sap and marrow, from the roots up through the trunk, branches, shoots and fruits. I'm not so sure, however, that Spencer's characterization of LGF currently as "almost completely irrelevant now, as his influence has melted away" (by metonymy from the Green Giant to his Kingdom), is accurate. I hope Spencer is right, since whatever sociological potential to rally that LGF might still enjoy -- with all his green parrots lip-synching their sycophancy to their Puppetmaster -- would surely be put to grievously counter-productive use.

Okay, everyone, let's get ready to do the Johnson Limbo. "How low can you go..."

I was so stunned I immediately commented here on a different thread the other day. We all know Charles is unhinged, obsessing over the creationist "threat" and other sociologically irrelevant tripe. But it appears he's completely forgotten whatever "enlightenment" he had discovered after 9-11, which had apparently transformed his thinking and put his blog on the map. He never refers to Islam or Jihad anymore, and reserves his invective exclusively for conservatives.

He was a Liberal...then, a conservative...now, a Liberal again. Wonder how long before he makes another about-face? He's become the poster boy of political schizophrenia. My guess is that his personal life is as unstable as his politics.

One gets the feeling that - deep down - whatever his honest opinion of Rifqa Bary's prospects, Charles HAD to come out on the side of her parents as an expression of his spite for Pamela and Robert, petulant adolescent that he is. And if Rifqa IS returned...and she DOES suffer consequences, undoubtedly, he will no doubt absolve himself of any and all responsibility.

Rifqa Bary is a litmus test. Looks like the tiny emerald pigskins have failed.

Someone must have given Charles Johnson a lobotomy while he was sleeping. That, or he's gone nuts.

I used to stop by LGF occasionally to see what was happening, but haven't done for a while - until I made a few visits recently.

This is a site in complete reversal. It's as if CJ's thinking has done a 360-degree turn on everything he used to think.

There are referrals to 'anti-islam sites', right-wing sites', pro-Obama articles, rubbishing of counterjihad sites and liberal helpings of ad-hom for his former contemporaries.

It looks more like the Daily Kos than the Daily Kos.

His Agree-O-Thon readers appear to have either left, or adapted to the new mindset. It's like watching a slo-mo plane crash.

"the only people who think Rifqa Bary, the girl who converted from Islam to Christianity and says her father threatened to kill her, is in danger are "bigots."

If this is the case than all Islam is "bigoted"

Rifqa must not go home, she is in mortal danger in Florida where she is now. I cant even imagion if she is sent home to Idaho or where ever her parents reside. She will be dead with in a week.

Islam, and the liberal athiest media, is "bigoted" when it comes to Christianity. No spin there.

Rifqa's story is amazing she needs to be protected from the monsters that be, if she is sent back home to Muslemland the rest of her story will read like this...

There once was a beautiful young girl, who decided that she wanted to believe in God. But she was betrayed and sent to her death.

The end.

who will be the last to get the banning stick at LGF? I found LGF through Jihad Watch and it seemed like a good consevative site. I woke up one morning and found out I was banned.
Mark 13:13
13(AB) And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.(AC) But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

I actually agree with Charles on probably 80% of his views. Nonetheless, he has become completely unhinged in his narcissism. The commenter above who compared him to Ariana Huffington was right on the money.

I have been banned from LGF twice for - very respectfully - disagreeing with Charles. One of those times I didn't even say anything, I just linked to an editorial by Mark Steyn presenting a view different from the one Charles was promulgating. If Mark Steyn is not welcome at LGF, which only became relevant as a counter-jihad site (before which it was a rather inane blog about bicycles and cameras) how relevant can it be?

I note too that the LGF discussion threads used to be a very lively forum of debate. Look at any thread now and you will see a bunch of sycophantic agreement with whatever it is Charles says, and a bunch of deleted comments from banned users.

It's quite sad. I had held out hope that the rift between Charles and Robert might be healed someday but that ship has clearly sailed, and Charles' obstinacy has forever damaged his ties with those who made him a relevant commentator.

Charles the admitted Liberal had his moral compass reset on 2001 9 11 but time seems to have eroded whatever wisdom he gained on that day. He has gone from a vanguard for western freedoms and human rights to a myopic seer of invented boogie men all because he misread one man. And now It seems all this time sitting on his blister has completely relieved him of his facilities.

What Krazy Kafir wrote -- Charles the admitted Liberal had his moral compass reset on 2001 9 11 but time seems to have eroded whatever wisdom he gained on that day -- expresses succinctly what I notice many here think about Charles. But I think it's subtly, yet significantly, different. And I think the phenomenon of Charles is actually representative of a few other Leftists as well. What Krazy Kafir described is what appears to be the case on the surface. In my estimation, what actually happened is that Charles probably for his whole adult life pre-9/11 was chugging along as a devout Leftist, fired up and enthused about all the Leftist issues of the day, which energize the Leftist with feelings of righteous fervor and indignation at what they consider to be evil people -- racists, misogynists, people who abuse the environment, evangelical Christians and their many attempts to subvert the sociopolitico-cultural dominance of agnostic secularism; etc. Then 9/11 happened. For the majority of Leftists, 9/11 only strengthened their customary Leftist position: they only redoubled their criticism of their own West and dovetailed this with increasing sympathy for Muslims and for Islam. During these years, Bushbashing proved to be an enormously inspiring and galvanizing focal point for this response to 9/11. A tiny minority of Leftists, however, responded to 9/11 by actually becoming dismayed by Islam and then learning more about it. Many of them have not graduated along the full learning curve even now (e.g., Jamie Glazov). This tiny minority, in turn, can be subdivided into three, adumbrated as two subcategories with one of those having two flavors:

1)

a) those who continue to be critical of Islam and have continued in the direction of full condemnation, even if they never get there (Christopher Hitchens, Paul Berman)

b) those who continue to be critical of Islam but who find elaborate ways to shrink back from the logical conclusion that all Muslims are the enemy insofar as all Muslims continue to advance Islam, either passively enabling it or actively supporting it, with a vast spectrum in between (and this is not even counting the problem of taqiyya which has shown time and time again previously seemingly harmless and moderate Muslims to be hissing snakes when you uncover them)

2) those who for certain psychological reasons found in the criticism of Islam and of certain Muslims an expression of their liberal values but who always had deep misgivings about that, and finally cannot continue any longer, but must revert back: and when they do snap back, it's usually with a bang. This is what could be called "SLS" (Sudden Leftist Syndrome), akin to the "SJS" (Sudden Jihad Syndrome) of those Muslims who seemed to be "not religious" but who suddenly got religion back in spades and went out to fulfill Koran 9:111 (e.g., the Seattle Muslim who went to a Jewish center and started shooting people -- he had stopped going to mosque for a few months prior to that and people noted he seemed to be drifting away from Islam). Charles has had "SLS" -- and what it shows is that he never really became truly critical of Islam: Islamocriticism was only a vehicle for his Leftism, and over the past year, his Leftism, always struggling inside of him these post-9/11 years, finally won out. Now that Charles sees clearly that to be anti-Islam is precisely to be the bête noire of all his righteous Leftism in the past, it is no surprise that he becomes vituperative and venomous -- for that is what a good and ethical person does when they confront major evils. And how can the sincerely fanatical Leftist ever doubt that he is a good and ethical person, and his tendentiously defined enemies are evil?

Further to my earlier post, I wrote a very civil (and I thought well-reasoned) comment on LGF this afternoon (Rifqa thread), outlining why I thought it was perverse that a man who knew well the consequences for young, female Muslim apostates, should be advocating her return home.

I pointed out that whilst I too had some minor alarm bells ringing about this case, the central point was not at issue - that her return to 'the fold' carried a high risk of her being killed - either by her family or other Muslims.

It was to be my last at LGF after several years. My post was promptly deleted and I have been banned.

No big loss - the site is a shadow of its former self - and I never really liked the rabid compliance of the commenter community there, anyway.

It is, however, a shame - along with Robert, Charles Johnson was one of the reasons I became a counterjihadist and blogger in the first place. To see him acting in this way is highly disappointing.

Now where can I get my 'I've been banned by LGF' banner? ;)

I used to be a lizard but never posted due to the futility of it, with 700 average comments. As a lady, it grew increasingly disturbing to me how often "babe photos" got linked as a topic, followed by puerile comments. Then he got all worked up about anti-islam movements in Europe, while all the while I had thought his site was supposed to be anti-islamic. I guess it was a matter of nuance to him.

Maybe Islam became attractive to him because he had a natural propensity to denigrate women.

"... If you lie down with dogs" ... . Johnson lied down with an anti-Serb neocon Michael Totten, and woke up with C.A.I.R. Islamists, a total neocon himself now. Serbia is the litmus test to recognize neoliberals and neocons, incidious vermin who pretend to be pro-Israel, but consistently play into the hands of its enemies.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Double wow. I've stayed out of the war with Charles Johnson, largely because I think that the entire thing is a misunderstanding. Anyway, I went on LGF and tried to talk to Johnson in a reasoned way about the issue - and he promptly deleted my comments, leaving up an accusation of bigotry, which his fortuitous deletions and my banning leave me unable to answer.

Charles, I expect you read this site from time to time. I'm trying genuine outreach here. What's the problem?

GeoffP

Un:dhimmi - I just had the same experience. I was polite, reasoned and fair. Essentially, I was myself. And: comments deleted, account removed. This is absurd. The reason given was presumably some allusion to my linking to the FBI guy's site; they were saying bad things about Charles and he was upset.

Good god: in my little business against extremism, I've been called lots of horrible things too. What in the hell has gone wrong with Charles Johnson?

Charles, if you're reading this, you can contact me at my email address, which you no doubt have. This certainly doesn't have to be this way. Then again, if everyone else on the site supports you uncritically - ironically, I noted a few "kill all the muslims" comments which went undeleted - I suppose you would have no reason to do so.

Best of luck,

GeoffP

Worry01

Nice piece of analysis.

Geoff and Un:dhimmi

You can go to Kirly's site to be added to the LGF banned roll and participate in live chat. There is also a good outlet for LGF analysis and emotional venting for ex-lizards at LGF2

http://kirls.blogspot.com/2009/05/banned-monium.html

http://www.littlegreenfootballs2.com/

Mikeymike: You're wasting electrons arguing with a guy who is just looking to pick ethnic fights and who lapses from time to time in language that would earn him instant acceptance on Stormfront. This guy is into hate for the sake of hate.

Family: thanks for the links.

This, just for context, was my post:

Dear Charles,

Thanks for responding.

But: you misunderstand me. I don't want to convict them [the Barys] of anything. I raised two points in the post: i) the investigation as set by the FDLE couldn't possibly detect any real threat to Ms. Bary, as it doesn't appear to be any kind of case of conventional abuse. Emotional abuse, possibly, although I'd be interested to see how that would be detectable? Bruised psyche, perhaps? ;)

My second point was that CAIR itself was supervising the investigation. This is on a level with getting the fox to supervise the chicken inspection. I'm not alone in this position, if you'll pardon the link:

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18176.xml?media=print

We might well disagree on the scriptural basis for evaluating a threat to Ms. Bary, but it's not readily dismissable, and the author has a point. He raises the same issues I do, and which proceed pretty naturally from the investigation: "The investigators in this matter offer this opinion void of any knowable fact." This would seem to be pretty reasonable.

But on your points: I agree that the situation doesn't appear fair to Mr. and Mrs. Bary either. (Then again, it's also unfair to say that the case is being used to make out that all muslim parents are demons, etc, etc: this is an example of a single case of litigation, not a general indictment of all muslims any more than anyone else being accused of any crime is necessarily a general indictment of that group. Or: baby with the bathwater, if you will.) I think the entire situation is unfair. But the supervision and interpretation of the investigation is suspect, and there is precedent for some concern in this case on basis of Ms. Bary's statements and cases that fit a similar initial profile. If you think that saying CAIR "supervised" the investigation is an exaggeration, then fair enough: I'm as interested as anyone in seeing what specific role they were playing and what they had to say. Although, what in the hell legitimate role they could be playing there in the first place baffles me.

Best regards,

GeoffP

mikeymike:

Nazis were only 50 years old. They had no history beyond that. Muslims have 1400 years of history, and far more millions they have slaughtered, enslaved, raped, pillaged, and oppressed in far more lands than Nazis were ever able to. Muslims are far more fanatical. I agree that not all Muslims are dangerous. However, as Spencer himself has said many times, we cannot tell with sufficient reliability which Muslims are lying and which ones aren't. The risks are too high to assimilate into any of our policy decisions a magical Muslim majority that is harmless. The only rational way to proceed is to operate on the pragmatic basis that all Muslims are dangerous. Give me a counter-argument.