Added 11/27/2007:
Click here for more articles about LGF

Declining Alexa stats for LGF

Click the above image for current Alexa stats for Little Green Footballs.

1389 was banned from Little Green Footballs as of November 24, 2007

No explanation was given, nor is any explanation needed

I could read the handwriting on the wall. Since the onset of the huge feud that Charles Johnson deliberately started with Gates of Vienna and the rest of the antijihadist blogosphere, which involved Charles hurling very thinly substantiated accusations of fascist links to European antijihadist organizations, I could see that LGF had changed, and not for the better.

Six or more degrees of politically incorrect = BANNED

Ever since then, no one has been free to speak his or her mind as a commenter on LGF without fear of being viciously ridiculed and then banned. Nor could anyone feel free to post links to other sites without having to worry about being banned for linking to something that is “six degrees of politically incorrect.”

Anybody who reads the comment threads can observe what the remaining members of LGF feel that they must do to prove their loyalty. They search constantly for any evidence of LGF members or ex-members expressing any support for, linking to, or communicating with anyone on Dear Leader’s ever-growing disapproved list.

The old sense of camaraderie at LGF has long since vanished, along with most of the people with whom I would have wanted to exchange messages. There is nothing left but paranoia and a competition for who can launch the most mean-spirited ridicule against Charles Johnson’s latest batch of officially-designated enemies.

Everyone who wants to remain an active member of LGF must fall in line, because if they don’t, sooner or later they’ll be banned too!

No Stalinist purges for 1389 Blog

I do a great deal of blogging and commenting that has nothing to do with LGF. Just for starters, I am primary admin for 1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech and for 1389 Message Blog. I post occasionally on Fort Hard Knox* and Screw the UN. I am a content creator on IMVU and am fairly active on Twitter. I have a gallery at deviantART. I comment regularly on many other sites.

To remain a member of LGF, I would have had to drop all of the officially designated “nonpersons,” especially banned former LGF members, from the blogrolls and link lists on my own blogs. I would have had to be careful not to link to news stories from any proscribed persons or organizations in my own blog posts. I would not have been able to review those stories or mention them on Twitter or other sites I frequent.

In other words, I would have had to surrender my own freedom of expression and association. This I was unwilling to do. True, I miss what LGF once was, or perhaps could have been, but I am realistic enough to see it for what it is. And it’s none of Charles Johnson’s business who else I cite or associate with.

Busted football

Why send LGF any more traffic?

The conflict still continues at LGF. The last few remaining dissenters on LGF are speaking up, though not for long. After this blog post has been up for a little while, no doubt someone will post snarky comments on LGF about the infamous banned user 1389, same as they do with everyone else. But I have no intention of lurking on LGF to ego-surf for remarks about me. I have also removed the LGF news feed reader widget from the sidebar. If you still want it, you can get it directly from them. But why send LGF that extra little bit of traffic?

LGF has joined the dark side

LGF is no longer an antijihadist site, if it ever was. Whether Charles Johnson is consciously aware of it or not, LGF has gone over to the other side, or perhaps it has always been there. It is covertly helping our enemies by sowing dissention and by muzzling genuine antijihadist voices everywhere.

LGF takes no part in activism against jihadism. Nor does it make any effort to help any other antijihadist sites or organizations. I have become convinced that LGF never had any intention of doing anything effective to begin with, and that this was the real reason for its boycott of Counterjihad Brussels 2007. LGF merely wishes to appear to be an antijihadist site, and to that end, it posts a sprinkling of terrorist news stories to draw readership. In other words, LGF is nothing more than a disguised version of Daily Kos or the ACLU. I don’t know who has bought out LGF, and I don’t even care at this point. Their declining traffic figures are already rendering them irrelevant.

Tragic irony: the censored has become the censor

The saddest thing of all is that, some months ago, I helped LGF by launching a campaign to get them, and other sites, unbanned from various “censorware” blacklists. Before that, I had worked hard to promote LGF stories on Digg, against the efforts of the infamous “Bury Brigade.” Now LGF has retaliated, if that’s the proper word, by banning me.

It is time to punt littlegreenfootballs, once and for all.


Addenda

Looking for former LGF members? Check out 2.0 The Blogmocracy.

We get hate mail! See Little Green Footballs – Hitting New Lows, One After Another.


*Update 11/26/07, by Jenn Sierra who is an author here and admin of the Ft. Hard Knox project, with the permission of 1389:

The opinions of our authors, expressed in their posts on FHK or elsewhere on the web, do not necessarily reflect the opinion of FHK. We do, however, thank our authors for their contributions and their widely-varying perspectives on an impressive variety of topics.

{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Ed Mahmoud November 24, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Welcome to the club!

2 John Schneider November 24, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Yeah, I got the ban stick just a couple of weeks ago. I don’t know the reason why, and I won’t email Chuckette, as I won’t have him twisting anything I have to say into his own version of the truth. Truth be known, the only ones remaining at LGF have turned it into an echo chamber. The remaining posters are either brown nosers or they are terrified of “being next.”

Chuckette has adopted Stalinist tactics. “Either tow the party line, or be removed,” is the MO now. Ed Mahmoud was banned because, in Chuckette’s own words:

“#142 Charles 11/23/07 11:34:38 am

I see that a commenter at GoV is still insisting that Ed was banned for a comment he left at LGF—that’s simply not true. As I’ve said before, Ed was banned when I learned that he was copying and pasting my comments at gcp, so all the creepy stalkers could make fun of them. In other words, he was banned for being a two-faced backstabber.”

Now that there is funny.

Chuckette posted something, and someone posted his post on another blog so people could make fun of him.

Wow. What a bleepin’ ego.

3 Stogie November 24, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Sorry to hear you were kicked off of LGF. It seems that CJ could have at least supplied an explanation. This purging of those with differing opinions is troublesome for me — and I am still a member of LGF.

4 Henrik Ræder Clausen November 24, 2007 at 5:13 pm

It’s sad when we see Stalinist methods reinvented right before our eyes. While I was never really fond of LGF myself, it has now dropped to a level where I simply cannot recommend people to go there. Today, there are many better places to read about the evils of Islamofascism, and with radically better commentary as well.

One of them is of course JihadWatch. For those interested, Spencer launched a thread about the LGF debacle, himself clearly a bit worried that Charles’ accusations might have merit:


http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018805.php

The tread became the longest yet on JW and apart from the commentary directly on the matter contains several pointers to relevant reference material.

And Spencer was clearly content with what came up.

5 CzechRebel November 24, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Two possibilities come to mind. Charles Johnson may have been a jihadist all along. He may have set up LGF as a ploy to flush out as many freedom-loving people, who do not want to live under the Shari’a law, as he could find. That way, we are all exposed for his jihadist friends to attack.

The other is that—like so many other people who try to make a living off the Internet—Charles Johnson is living from hand to mouth. The jihadists crossed his palm with some of the ultra-green jihadist dollar bills. Now he is singing their tune because they pay better.

So, it is not clear whether Charles Johnson is helping the jihadists wittingly or unwittingly. Either way, he would have done a lot less damage to those who love individual rights and liberties, had he merely strapped on a suicide belt and blown away some innocent people in the name of jihad, as many of his new friends are doing on a regular basis.

After all, spies and traitors do so much more damage than any combatant. Charles Johnson probably is a spy and certainly is a traitor.

6 Ed Mahmoud November 24, 2007 at 5:37 pm

I don’t thinks its money. Just a big, but delicate ego.

7 mom of girls November 24, 2007 at 5:40 pm

“Now that there is funny.”
got me banned.

8 Henrik Ræder Clausen November 24, 2007 at 5:52 pm

CzechRebel, I think it’s a conspiracy too far to consider Charles to be a closet Jihadist.

MeThinks:

1) He needed a new sensation. It’s been quite a while since LGF slammed Reuters for poor Photoshopping. Has to do with cash flow.

2) He fancies himself as the leader of the anti-Jihad movement. The star-stuffed CounterJihad Summit showed clearly that he isn’t (well, having one single leader is a bad idea, anyway, for obvious reasons).

Discrediting the main sponsor of the conference, as well as showing himself as smarter than the organizers in identifying neo-Nazi movements, looks like it could have been a viable plan to take back that crown.

Except for the annoying fact that the organizers did a fine job of weeding out potential extremists in the first place, which makes Charles’ whining pointless. And worse, discredits LGF heavily. Purging most intelligent life from his blog doesn’t exactly help him, either.

It’s a shame, all of this. Charles has carried a lot of good work through the times, and we certainly need him on board as a good friend, not as a runaway cannon.

The silver lining is that a lot of good documentation has come up concerning Vlaams Belang, and that is very useful towards dissolving the stigmata they’ve carried for a while. I think an independent Flanders would be a real gain for the anti-Jihad efforts.

9 CzechRebel November 24, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Henrik Ræder Clausen, all truly effective traitors do good works at first. Who was the most effective general early in America’s Revolutionary War? Benedict Arnold! He was so effective that, had he died in battle, we would have thought of him as the secular patron saint of the Revolutionary War.

Look at the Shakespearean version of the Julius Caesar assassination. “And you, Brutus?” Caesar is not too surprised that he has been stabbed, but he sure is surprised that Brutus was in on it.

So Charles Johnson used to do a few good things. Now his whole site is devoted to silencing those who fear Islamic extremism and expansionism. We need Charles Johnson about as much as we need more 9-11 attacks.

10 Robert D November 24, 2007 at 7:08 pm

#7 mom of girls

That got you banned? Incredible!

11 SwampWoman November 24, 2007 at 7:26 pm

A warm “welcome” extended to the latest person exiled forever from the land of Chaz for daring to demonstrate the capacity for independent thought.

/Just follow the yellow brick road.

12 John Schneider November 24, 2007 at 7:31 pm

And if you’re able to get over to LGF, check out the open threads. That’s where you’ll see the most vicious stuff about Ed. Until his banning, he was a buddy to everyone over there. Here’s his crime:

#107 Ed mahmoud abu al Kahoul 11/19/07 7:31:39 pm reply quote report 0

Considering that much of Europe doesn’t quite have the same constitutionally protected right to free speech, I’m not sure I blame Fjordman for staying anonymous.

I also recall the French teacher who had to go into hiding because of a single editorial he had written critical of Islam.

Not picking sides, jes sayin’.

Not exactly a banning offense, eh?

Chuckette has gone off the deep end. He has become dailyKos

13 Gramfan November 24, 2007 at 9:27 pm

1389 you certainly didn’t deserve this. I just hope it works out for the best for you. I am not a regular poster there as many would know and it took me a while to comprehend all the antics there.
However the best reason to not be there is freedom of thought.
I just hope all of us are able to keep this freedom as long as possible.

14 cbinflux November 24, 2007 at 10:13 pm

“and I won’t email Chuckette, as I won’t have him twisting anything I have to say into his own version of the truth.”

In his little world, to the delight of his gushing few, he won’t actually require your e-mails. He can make up his own.

15 Henrik Ræder Clausen November 25, 2007 at 4:23 am

CzechRebel, I get your point. Yet, somehow my feeling doesn’t ring with the idea of treason for what Charles is doing. I think in that case he’d have been more subtle.

The one interpretation that I find most credible is that he tried to ursurp the position as leader of the anti-Jihad movement. That’s not good, either.

One episode comes to my mind as similar, namely in Lord of the Rings where Boromir tried with force to take the ring from Frodo. Who promptly slipped away, leaving Boromir to be assaulted and fatally wounded by a gang of orcs.

I think LGF has become worthless. I don’t consider Charles part of the anti-Jihad movement any longer, and would stop linking to him. He doesn’t deserve it.

16 Kerry Lanaux November 25, 2007 at 6:35 am

Wolves in sheep’s clothing my brother. Many will seem to be a friend, but are. You did the right thing you just got stabbed in the back by someone who was unworthy of your friendship.

17 mom of girls November 25, 2007 at 8:12 am

Robert D.
Hey, haven’t seen your name in a while!
Yep, that got me banned as well as I voted negatively on a comment by one of his pets.

18 John Schneider November 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm

I’m sure that Chuckette will make up whatever he wants about me. What he won’t be able to find anywhere is my support for his target du jour, the Vlaams Belang. I don’t know anything about them, and before condemning a group, I want to know about them. Chuckette won’t find anything from me supporting them, cause it doesn’t exist. But because I dared to expose the three hags for what they are, I was banned. If Chuckette had any stones (he doesn’t) at all, he’d apologize, admit he was mistaken, and ask me and many others he’s banned back into the fold. Now that he’s been exposed as a liar and a vindictive little Stalinist, I doubt there would be much of a response.

19 ChenZhen November 25, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Every time I see a story like this, I feel even better about turning in my sockpuppet.

20 Ginro November 25, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Many thanks for adding me to the blogroll.

21 Kevin November 26, 2007 at 12:12 am

I was a big fan of lgf until he started attacking our friends in Europe. It’s a horrible move, and I can’t support it. I didn’t get banned, but he’s off my RSS list anyway because I don’t want to encourage a schism at such a critical juncture.

He’s been replaced with 1389, G of V, and Brussels Journal though, so I didn’t lose anything :).

22 Henrik Ræder Clausen November 26, 2007 at 3:14 am

John, I’ve worked with people from Vlaams Belang for a couple of years, and they’re just fine.Charles’ fickle evidence just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

They are rehashes of left-wing smear that have been brought against Vlaams Belang (and Vlaams Blok before) by their French-speaking opponents. They detest Vlaams Belang because their main purpose is dissolving Belgium.

You’ll find links to documentation at the JihadWatch thread I pointed out. It’s quite a mountain…

23 Witch-king of Angmar November 26, 2007 at 5:53 am

Imam al-Charles(peace be upon him) is getting ever more picky about who enters his little green mosque. A this rate we should be thankful he does not prescribe the death penalty for apostates from his religion…yet.

24 1389 November 26, 2007 at 6:18 am

There is a HUGE difference between these two types of beliefs:

(1): Belief in white supremacy (the belief espoused by such as Hitler, David Duke, or the KKK),

(2): Rejection of anti-white racism along with rejection of all other forms of racism (the belief espoused by people of white European ancestry who have no use for white supremacy, but who object to becoming a subjugated, disadvantaged, and powerless minority in their native land, or being forced into exile, as a result of de facto foreign conquest.

Charles Johnson, of course, claims that there is no such thing as anti-white racism, but he is WRONG. Such anti-white racism even be heard on al Qaeda recordings, which CJ ought to know about already!

Obviously, (1) is anathema, while (2) should be acceptable to any reasonable person. In fact, (2) should properly be termed patriotism, a word which is no longer popular or politically correct, but is still valid!

25 Elric66 November 26, 2007 at 9:22 am

I was banned back in Feb. This was before King Charles went off the deep end. It was an omen for things to come. It basically was over banning Islam in the West and of course I was attacked for it. I made an analogy that they twisted to get me banned. They said I was attacking an individual poster named Cartman. I was banned but the poster Cartman didnt want me banned and after an exchange of e-mails, he admitted that he knew I didnt mean what the others were saying. He claimed that he personally asked King Charles to un ban me. Of course seeing LGF now, why would I go back?

26 Goodbye Natalie November 26, 2007 at 12:24 pm

I can separate much of the LGF family from Charles Johnson. There’s still many good posters left at LGF and it is still a useful tool in the debate against radical Islam and the American hating crowd. For that, I give Charles Johnson kudos.

However, it seems the past 12-18 months that Johnson’s pre-9/11 slip is beginning to show. Now, it’s a prerequisite for admission to give all of your allegiance and praise to any issue he deems worthwhile and there is little room for disagreement. I don’t remember it being that way the first 18 months I was there.

Make no mistake that most of Johnson’s graces still lean way left. He disdains anything of any practicing religion, though he can’t say it publically for fear of losing most of his readership, and his true goal is seeking notoriety for his blogging, much like he attempted in a former life with a guitar.

27 ChenZhen November 26, 2007 at 10:57 pm

Goodbye Natalie-

You didn’t get banned, did you?

28 Elric66 November 27, 2007 at 8:10 am

Goodbye Natalie,

He had a great blog. I dont know why he decided to go off the deep end. I am glad he banned me before the purge. On the bright side, he finally has the echo chamber he always craved.

29 Ed Mahmoud November 27, 2007 at 8:41 am

G-Natalie indeed did get banned, and although Charles is awfully twitchy with the ban trigger, G-N’s post (which I otherwise had no problems with) about some Christian-bashing on the blog, ended with a question about why Charles didn’t permit ‘Jew bashing’, and a suggestion that Charles had personal reasons, sort of an implication that Johnson either received a ‘ZOG check’ or had a Jewish girlfriend or something.

I don’t think it was quite ban worthy, but is was in poor taste, IMHO.

Anyway, his blog, he can ban who he wants, and our eyes and typing fingers, we can avoid any blog we want.

30 Goodbye Natalie November 27, 2007 at 11:43 am

Out of respect for letting me use his board, I have taken the opportunity to defend Charles Johnson elsewhere when I thought him unfairly maligned and will admit it now makes me feel conflicted and disloyal that I’m now chastising him.

I had intended to be banned from LGF as I had announced to a few off the LGF board because I find Charles Johnson a pretentious bully and have for quite some time. For anyone interested, Ed has misconstrued the real meaning of my last LGF post which was intended to show Charles’ purpose behind his defense of Israel is not quite as altruistic as he would like the world to believe IMHO.

I believe it isn’t Charles’ great love for Israel but his need for notoriety that drives his threads. If Charles did indeed feel that the persecution of Jews in their ongoing fight with radical Islam was of utmost importance, he would have noted that it was Evangelical Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, that had made effort to provide support to Israel long before it became hip on LGF and long before 9/11. I had pointed this out many times but I was not a pet and wasn’t worthy of response. Being that Charles has done everything but publicly announce his disdain for Evangelicals, I attempted to point out, albeit in a rather clumsy fashion, that Charles would never allow anybody of importance in the Jewish religious circles to be criticized or mocked the way he had Christians.

I never responded to Charles’ final questions about my insinuation after my last post at LGF because he disgusts me and that left him no choice but to ban me which was my intent. The only cabal I think Charles is a part, which is what I was accused of doing from both Charles and above from Ed, is the same one Pat Robertson (the last thread to which I posted) is a part – seeking fame and fortune. In retrospect, I wish I had used the word “notoriety” rather than “opportunity” in my last post so that my meaning couldn’t be so easily parsed by folks like Ed.

I have hundreds of posts on record showing both my support and love of the Israeli people at LGF, if interested. If my last post makes me a “Jew basher” while pointing at a double standard, so be it. And thank you for letting me set the record straight 1389.

31 ZionistYoungster November 27, 2007 at 12:11 pm

You can “prove” (note the scare quotes), using the material gathered on sites like Daily Kos, Huffington Post and LGF Watch, that LGF is a racist, fascist, white supremacist, Neo-Nazi site (there’s even one website offering a quiz to find the difference between Little Green Footballs and the “Late German Fascists”).

The whole affair started with lifting quotes against the Sverigedemokraterna from Expo.se, which, judging from the information given by knowledgeable Swedes on GoV, is to Sweden what Haaretz is to Israel–a source unreliable because it takes the treasonous, Leftist point of view. In the light of the preceding paragraph, this whole exercise is a textbook case of throwing stones while living in a glass house. From one as well-versed in the MSM’s treachery as Charles (and who has had so many fine hours in exposing it), it’s simply amazing. We know that the Left/Islam alliance is perfectly comfortable with employing deception in order to sow doubt and discord among their enemies. Tarring CounterJihad members with the “Neo-Nazi” brush is a transparently Marxist/Muslim tactic, and to see LGF to have fallen for it is nothing short of distressing.

My highest recommendation is to keep in mind, always, that the words and ideas posted in cyberspace are in the service of organizing and acting in real life, and not the other way round. In the view of the cruel, immoral, unscrupulous enemy we face (just recall Beslan, as a single example!), petty cyberfeuds and placing certain measures (such as deportation) under a discussion ban are a luxury we cannot afford. As Sheikh Yer’Mami said, this war will not be won by cyber-warriors. It is good that we have blogs, as opposed to the monopoly of the MSM, which has led to such disaster at times (e.g. for Serbia in 1992-5, and for Israel in July-August 2006), but they are still just tools. The real war is in our streets, universities and halls of political power.

The silver lining in this teacup cloud is, in my opinion, the new focus gained from this stupid kerfuffle.

God bless.
ZY

32 Elric66 November 27, 2007 at 12:40 pm

“Anyway, his blog, he can ban who he wants”

True, but he is a hypocrit. He rails on Koz for their banning methods and whines if a software blocks his blog.

33 Elric66 November 27, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Am I getting deleted here?

34 Elric66 November 27, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Am I banned here?

35 Ed Mahmoud November 27, 2007 at 7:48 pm

If I misniterpreted what G-N wrote at LGF, I apologize. Although G-N may have intended a different meaning, it wasn’t as obvious as it could have been.

Elric- not banned, I don’t think. Sometimes my comments pop up instantly, sometimes I have to wait, and even when they show up, they have a disclaimer about moderation.

36 GoodbyeCharles November 27, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Charles hates it when people “take it to the streets.” He said he thinks it best not to “offend” people by staging demonstrations and stuff like that.

(But, lo! The next thread he posted after that was the pic of Pam flipping off Cindy Sheehan!)

37 Elric66 November 28, 2007 at 9:46 am

Thanks, I think I have it figured out.

38 Elric66 November 28, 2007 at 2:05 pm

CG,

King Charles is a hypocrit, through and through.

39 Spartacus November 28, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Your graph has an inverted Y axis. Looking at the numbers, traffic has increased over 6 months ago, certainly over the last year.

It will be interesting to see what happens in about 3 months.

40 Henrik Ræder Clausen November 28, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Spartacus, it’s a ranking graph, comparing LGF to the webosphere at large, not an absolute traffic graph.

LGF is plummeting, and the purge of intelligent life over the last month is already visible. Less intelligent comments lower reader interest.

41 1389 November 28, 2007 at 3:04 pm

The graph shows Alexa rank, which is a relative measure of site popularity, NOT total visits or page views. 1 appears at the top of the Y-axis, representing the highest ranking (most popular) site.

42 1389 December 12, 2007 at 12:04 pm
43 TinkersDamn June 25, 2008 at 2:45 am

June 2008. I’m pretty late to this party, I know. I am still a member at LGF and have not been banned, but I related to some of what I’ve read on this page. I’ve recently become rather disillusioned with LGF myself, starting back with some of the things you folks have posted about here. I was astounded by how Mr. Johnson went about banning people left and right, even over trivial reasons. But still, I remained an infrequent visitor to his blog, since I thought his coverage of Islamic atrocities was informative. I’m a Christian, and it seems to me that there is a very, very quiet bias against Christians at LGF, or at least what can be termed a lack of respect, and I’ve picked up on it more so this past couple of months, what with the recent trend of (anti) Intelligent Design threads at LGF. I find the LGF anti-Christian stuff sad, given that a lot of respect and sensitivity is shown to Judaism and to Jews. Why show such care and respect towards the one and not the other, especially since Christianity

44 Family Values December 25, 2008 at 6:12 am

I am both a Jew and a supporter of Israel, and it is my opinion that Charles HAS been getting paid for his advocacy. The bottom line for me is that his knowledge of Judaism and of Middle East affairs is too superficial for someone who would be championing the Jewish cause pro bono. He really displays little curiosity in this direction – it just seems to me the interest isn’t all that genuine.

It wouldn’t bother me at all if he had been receiving money from pro-Israel sources during the second Intifada, mind you. He did a good job of countering some of the anti-Israel spin in the media, and why shouldn’t he get paid for it?

Editor’s Reply:

I have absolutely no problem with Charles Johnson or anybody else advocating for the cause of Israel or the Jewish people. Nor do I have any problem with him or anybody else getting paid for speaking up on their behalf. I’m not Jewish myself, but I do have Jewish relatives, and I’m a heartfelt and long-time supporter of Israel.

My problem with CJ is with his unjustified attacking of other people in the counterjihad, and his leveling of unfounded allegations. If he’s getting paid to do that, or being intimidated or blackmailed to do that, that’s a problem.

– Blog Admin 1389

45 Yankee Sojourner December 30, 2008 at 3:18 am

I joined LGF in April of 2008 and was (proudly) banned on Halloween after dinging-down Charles Johnson’s and others’ comments about Robert Spencer @jihad watch. Not too astute perhaps, but I didn’t know CJ spied on his members like that…didn’t know he even cared or could tell who was doing the dinging. I never posted anything that was disrespectful to other members. Didn’t post anything worthy of censure. I expressed myself as a conservative Christian, a Republican, and one with a Western World view. I wouldn’t have it any other way…wouldn’t sell my soul and freedom of speech to remain in his autocratic good graces. Robert Spencer has earned my abiding deep respect. Czar Charles Johnson, on the other hand is someone I lost all respect for. He needs to be exposed for the egotistical, twisted hypocrite he is. He is a traitor to freedom of expression…a rotten apple fallen off the cart and rolling downhill in the market place of ideas.

46 GregInSeattle January 6, 2009 at 6:28 pm

Wow, I just got banned today. All I did was say that a parody of Charles (which I really didn’t think was insulting to Charles, but was a bit sharp-edged) was funny. Charles said the parody was “hateful”. A big stretch, Chuck!

Stalin city over there. Is there an Lizard-in-exile site somewhere?

Editor’s reply:

Many “Lizards-in-exile” have gone over to the Gulf Coast Pundits forum. I’ve been there on occasion myself, but not recently, on account of poor web connectivity (at my end), and lack of time due to other personal responsibilities.

– Blog admin 1389

47 Silas January 11, 2009 at 5:01 pm

I just got banned from little green football. All I did was comment on the new movie “The day the earth stood still”

Admin 1389 replies: Consider it an honor to be banned from that worthless site!

You might want to add your name to the banned list being maintained by Kirly.

48 Steve J. Nelson March 28, 2009 at 11:15 am

Thanks for posting about Charles Johnson. In addition to his jihad against all “creationists” and “closet fascists/racists” Johnson republished without allowing any critical comment lies written by Kim Zigfeld aka La Russophobe during the August 2008 Georgia War. Anyone who pointed out the truth that the Georgians struck first (regardless of how much they claimed to be provoked) or that at the very least Saakashvili had stupidly walked into a Russian trap and were trying to get us to bail them out was censored. Johnson’s lizardoids claimed that any comments critical of Johnson and/or Zigfeld were just KGB plants, as if no thinking free person in the West could possibly have a different opinion than that the August War was a straightforward example of Russian aggression and not the angry Bear finally saying “Enough!” after years of NATO expansion, pipelines bypassing Russia, and being presented with a convenient punching bag in Saako.

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: