Saturday, November 14, 2009

The Rise and Fall of the CAIR Empire?

Two or three days ago I read a Gates of Vienna article referencing another online article claiming that CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is currently on a long-running, steep, irreversible decline, both in terms of membership and of donations received. Thus in terms of influence.

My initial, instinctive reaction to both articles was pure skepticism. Skepticism on the level of that I experienced a couple of weeks ago when the MSM was reporting that 'healthcare reform' lacked the support needed to pass it in the HoR. Though nothing could possibly be more satisfying to my mind than to witness the decline and fall of the CAIR empire. And the quicker the better.

Let us review what the basic foundational mission of the CAIR organization is, in CAIR's own words as attached to each and every article posted at its website. And as we read, let us recall the words generally attributed to William James (though I have it on good authority that he wasn't the first to say it) which state, "there is nothing so absurd than if you repeat something often enough people begin to believe it."

Here is the statement, quite literally plucked at random from an article currently posted at the site:

CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding. (bolded text added)

Before we move on, I want to re-emphasize the importance of the bolded statements above. Everything else in that statement, with the possible exception of the first sentence (and that's if we strike out the 'civil liberties' part), is just a flat-out bald-faced lie. Which, by the way, Islamists are particularly good and proficient at.

Muslims don't give two hoots about "enhancing understanding of Islam." Indeed, they know that to truly enhance understanding of Islam in Western society is counterproductive, thus destructive to their ultimate goal. Which is precisely why they exploit the freedoms afforded by our system to enhance misunderstanding of Islam(President Bush may well be their greatest success story to date.). But it ain't their fault that we're generally too stupid to understand this. Likewise, they could care less about "encouraging [real] dialogue." The only kind of 'dialogue' they care about 'encouraging' is the kind that conceals the true nature of their religion, passing it off to be "peaceful" and whatnot. Again, they can't be faulted for our collective lack of discernment on this point. Neither do they care anything for the 'protection of civil liberties,' except insofar as their ultimate mission to rule the world in the name of Allah is thereby advanced. After all, what Muslim country is there in existence today, or that has ever existed in the history of the world, which has at any time placed any kind of significance or import on the 'protection of civil liberties?' Take your time.

Anyway, getting back to the bolded text in CAIR's statements, what might be gained by the all-important, self-proclaimed, constantly repeated CAIR mission of empowering 'American Muslims?' Well, of course, and as I've pointed out numerous times before at this place and others, empowering 'American Muslims' means nothing less than disempowering American non-Muslims. It being a simple mathematical fact that the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts. If, therefore, 'American Muslims' are currently short on 'empowerment' by CAIR's estimation, then the only way to make up the deficit is to wrench power away from those who currently have it. Which is to say, again, to disempower non-Muslim Americans. The question then must be asked, at what point in the process of empowering 'American Muslims'/disempowering of American non-Muslims will CAIR and others be satisfied that 'American Muslims' are sufficiently empowered/American non-Muslims are sufficiently disempowered? Let us put the question to CAIR communications director Mr. Ibrahim Hooper. Mr. Hooper:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 1993. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education. [TM: You go girl! Every subversive, hostile organization in America needs a "communications director" just like you!]

Quite so. Well, we can't all be foot soldiers/would-be suicide-killers/assassins, now can we Mr. Hooper? Your job, by Allah, is to "educate" (i.e., promote misunderstanding of Islam) your way into a position to overthrow the U.S. government and our governing institutions and to replace it with Islamic Sharia Law, while the low-level, crazy-eyed, nutjob grunts like Hasan plan and carry out terrorist attacks on non-Muslim Americans as an integral part of the selfsame mission. Suicidal(istic) attacks that you, sir, and every last one of your co-conspirators secretly support, right? Right.

But I digress. The point of this entry is/was originally, and as indicated by the post title, to discuss whether or not CAIR is truly failing in its mission to empower 'American Muslims' via the process of enhancing misunderstanding of Islam, of encouraging self-serving, misleading, taqiyya consistent dialogue, of 'protecting' Muslim 'civil liberties' at the expense of all others, and of building liberty-destroying coalitions with the non-discerning among us, by way of all of these? World Net Daily has an article up this morning in which it discusses CAIR's post-Ft. Hood Massacre-boasting of its Muslim-favorable influence on the American media, otherwise known as the MSM. Yes, including Fox News.

My question is simply this: Is this a desparate attempt by CAIR to re-take some lost ground; to regain control over their ultimate destiny? Could it be that my initial, gut reaction to the story of CAIR's demise as reported at GoV was all wrong? Is it possible that we're seeing a resurgence of the spirit that ultimately prevented Flight 93 from hitting its intended target on that fateful day? One can only hope.


Anonymous said...

CAIR most likely is reaching the end of its usefulness as a front for promoting radical Islam. But, as I mention in my comment on the Gates of Vienna article, the real issue isn't CAIR. CAIR is just a front organization. The purpose of a separate front organization is that when people figure out what it's in front of, you can easily discard it and find a new front.

If the funding for CAIR is rapidly diminishing, that's too bad for the leaders of CAIR...but that money came from somewhere. Most of it came from foreign sponsors of CAIR's message. They didn't just wake up and decide CAIR is wrong on the issues...they looked at the alternative media chatter on CAIR and concluded that the jig was about up. Time to find a new front.

In a way, the same thing happened with the Obamacare bill. The debate over what was wrong with the bill kept shifting from issue to issue, each specific issue a front for the fact that the entire concept was totalitarian government control over who got health care. Immediately before passing the bill, the House diverted the opposition by 'giving in' on abortion provisions which they had before entirely denied were in the bill at all.

The Senate will no doubt do the same dance, switch from point to point, then finally give in on some specific issue and pass their version before the opposition can react. Then the committee 'reconciling' the two versions can pull out the unaltered original and send that to Obama to sign.

In the case of CAIR, the real target is Muslim extremism. You just need to start hunting down and killing everyone who participates in Islam sanctioned murders. Fighting their puppet organizations is pointless, it's a shell game. The ball isn't in any of the shells.

For Congress, it's pointless to dispute any given piece of legislation. You need to confront the fact that the Congress no longer has legitimate authority to make any laws under the Constitution. Getting you to argue over specific language is just a clever ploy to make you tacitly agree that what they pass will really be law.

It isn't. Senators and Representatives only have Constitutional authority as long as they follow the Constitution. You need to make it clear that, no matter what they pass, you have no intention of treating it as legitimate, because even if the law itself passes Constitutional muster, Congress itself does not.

Terry Morris said...

Thanks for reminding me about the abortion thing. I meant to write an entry about this but neglected to do so.

A few days ago I received an email from CitizenLink in which they were bragging about the organization's influence in getting the abortion funding removed from the House version of the 'healthcare' bill. The email was disgusting precisely because of its 'victorious' undertones. When in fact, and as you correctly point out, the removal of abortion funding from the initial House bill is not a victory in the cause of 'pro-lifers' at all, it is a defeat given that abortion funding will eventually find its way back into the 'universal healthcare' package which CitizenLink (and probably the pro-life lobby in general) is actually assisting in getting through Congress. How? By tacitly agreeing with the idea that Congress has authority to regulate healthcare in the first place.

Sometimes such organizations really do do more damage than they ever do good. The difference between CAIR and CitizenLink, however, is that the latter has no subversive intentions to overthrow our form of government in the name of anything. While CAIR of course does. In any event, the road to hell is said to be paved with "good intentions" not bad ones.

Terry Morris said...

I wrote above: is a defeat given that abortion funding will eventually find its way back into the 'universal healthcare' package...

I forgot to mention that something was said in the CitizenLink email about our needing to "remain ever-watchful and eternally vigilant", or some such, on this issue of abortion funding in the final bill, particularly as it moves through the next phases of the process.

But they're missing the point altogether, again. Read my lips -- abortion funding will be included in any federal healthcare initiative/package. Period. It will be added back in at some point, somewhere down the road.

If the folks at CitizenLink would direct their energies and resources to killing the whole bill on the basis that it's blatantly unconstitutional, their efforts (and their influence) would be much more effective and a lot less perverse. But I guess some people aren't satisfied until they've helped to create a situation in which they'll be perpetually engaged in a struggle that they cannot win, by their own devices. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but whatever.

Anonymous said...

I don't feel to speak to harshly of those who fall for an elaborate and intentional deception. Yes, it would be better to not fall for it. But...this isn't quite like falling for a street con. I think that most of these people really do have good intentions, they're just paving a road. They don't want the road to be paved with dead babies...and the effort to avoid that possibility has blinded them to the ultimate destination of the road they're busy paving.