Without A CAIR - Guestpost by Harrison

An EB guestpost by Harrison at the Possum Bistro!

Thanks for helping - here's a lawsuit!

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper gets interviewed and defends his organisation's support for a bill that will allow CAIR to sue normal citizens ('John Does') for informing authorities or local law enforcement agencies of suspicious behaviour exhibited by any other person; to me, this is simply a blatant display of obstructionism of active citizens and their efforts to help the local law enforcement agencies to apprehend potentially dangerous members of the community. At worst, this is complicit behaviour by CAIR that is, unsurprisingly, typical of its protocol that condones the funding and institutional support of terrorist groups such as Hamas: in other words, a clear, unambiguous act of treason.

Hooper doesn't truly answer the question that is put forth to him, which concerns the shaky justification behind the decision to support such an audacious, self-serving move as to protect the rights of potential enemies of the state. As Tucker sums it up at the end of the clip, the position taken up by CAIR and the Democrats is utterly "indefensible": who truly determines whether something is done in "good faith"? Note that Hooper, when confronted with this pointed query by Tucker, jumps at the opportunity to invoke the "good faith" provision in order to obfuscate the unchanging fact that Tucker irrepressibly clings on to - that the lawsuit will be enacted before the obscure "good faith" detecting device that CAIR has managed to procure is applied to the accused.

Thus, the precedent is that of prosecuting normal citizens on the inaccurate, self-serving basis established by those at CAIR who undoubtedly already possess that raging strain of hypocrisy and anti-anti-Muslim prejudice. You know the Pillars of the Progressive: Muslims can insult other religions and their gods in cartoons, run anti-Semitic articles and basically spew venomous invective calling for the heads of their enemies - but when that type of behaviour is done unto them, it's 'racism', 'xenophobia' and 'anti-Islam'; cultural relativism which rationalises and legitimises suicide bombings, stoning and honour killings as 'natural', but condemns the incarceration of blood-thirsty terrorists as 'barbaric'; the Fairness Doctrine according fundamentalist and ideologically-charged commentaries that rant about 'Western imperialism' and 'oppression of Islam' equal value with rational analysis, while dismissing the need to respond to contradictions in their tirades by accusing critics of 'anti-Muslim bigotry' and the 'Western impulse to cow the inferior peoples'.

It doesn't take a large degree of agitation to expose the Pillars, because the average indoctrinated dhimmi at CAIR recites them like a knee-jerk response to any sign that may hint that you're not totally on their side with the jihadists, terrorists and apologists: Hooper displays this more than once in the clip, first referring rather ridiculously to the KKK, then snidely suggesting that the day when an entirely non-Muslim flight is possible isn't here yet, insinuating rather disrespectfully that Tucker is prejudiced against Muslims. This verbal insult being delivered in a manner so direct and without any prior knowledge of Tucker's own sensibilities or sentiments about the issue provides a clear carbon copy of every single investigation of any John Doe who is sued by CAIR: the assumption of anti-Muslim bias that would 'inevitably' lead to the prank call being made by John Doe is established as a 'truth' even before John Doe himself/herself receives the news that he or she has just been sued.

That is persecution sanctioned by CAIR and those Democrats who support the amendment, directed towards normal citizens who may or may not have been motivated by an inherent anti-Muslim bias, but certainly there is the possibility of their act of reporting being motivated by the observation of 'suspicious behaviour'. Yet on the surface Hooper masks it simply as an act of prosecution, though it is justified neither on a basis of evidence nor a past record of criminal behaviour/racial discrimination, but on an inherent prejudice that those who called in must be, without doubt, full of hatred towards Muslims. To judge and punish someone based on their race, religion or beliefs (supposed or otherwise) is persecution - it is no longer a clean, justifiable act of prosecution in the name of the law. In case CAIR needs to be reminded of the natural conclusion should persecution be allowed to manifest to its most extreme degree, look no further than the Holocaust. But I bet they denied that ever happened.

In short, Hooper is advocating the legalisation of prosecuting people not on grounds of 'suspicious behaviour', but by slapping such behaviour with the label of guilt sans evidence. Tucker is right in saying that this would surely disincentivise ordinary citizens from informing airport security about questionable behaviour, lest they find a lawsuit being issued against them by CAIR, which is more than adequately funded since it is seen as the legitimising ideological mouthpiece - a tool of the Islamists and jihadists with which to infiltrate our institutions and further drive the dichotomy between the believers and the kuffar in preparation for Judgement Day. However, I believe that a select few citizens will nevertheless risk the lawsuit and still do their duty to protect each other from potential danger and death - if there are lawyers who are willing to defend these brave souls in court, expose the persecutory, bigoted and irredeemably racist attitude of CAIR, rip the veneer and show the rest their intentions and the actions that point towards such loyalties which run counter to that of our nation - then perhaps there is hope for us all. The more citizens that stand up and refuse to be blackmailed and coerced by CAIR and the Democrats, the harder it will be for the amendment to be passed; if passed, the harder it will be for CAIR to justify its insidious acts of unmasked treason.

Hooper is also obviously attempting to invidiously widen the chasm between the citizen and the constitutional state. The American people opted for a republic rather than a democracy, and for good reason: the minimal state was desired, with a select body of personnel - collectively called the government - empowered by the citizenry with just enough authority, legitimacy and oversight to handle affairs of the state. There is a reason why the American people did not choose to bestow in the hands of government the monopoly of force and power to establish law and order, and that decision was manifested in the Second Amendment. Each citizen has individual sovereignty to preserve the sanctity and security of private life should various strata of law enforcement fail to intervene at the most dire of circumstances - and to survive as a society, each citizen must be willing to aid others in preserving that collective sanctity, minimising intrusions onto peace, willing to sacrifice blood and tears to protect what society holds dear - be it values, beliefs or customs.

The citizen has a part to play in the continuing provision of security of the state and its inhabitants, and Hooper is without doubt trying to deprive the government of its most useful ally in the weeding out of enemies of the state: the people who are the eyes and ears out there in the populace. What Hooper's intentions may be in instigating such a plot, I do not believe that they are for the betterment of the country. CAIR's support of the amendment reeks of betrayal and warranted suspicion - we, the people, should do well to sound this out to our peers and make out voices heard above the bigotry of the progressives.

Post-script: Flopping Aces posted on this today.