Dougie Hooper is a tool.

[pre-deleted]

Why am I not surprised?

This just plain flat ass sucks. I really am taking a strong dislike to these people and I love just about everybody.

“good faith”?

from CAIR? there's an oxymoron if ever there was one

re: #3 Sharmuta

Why am I not surprised?

Hey! What are you doing later? How bout we get on the Jury?

Now about Voir Dire?

I feel sorry for Douglas' mother.

This is an interesting loophole. The John Doe amendment is worthless if they can sue anyways.

This action supports the idea that CAIR is against America.

Keep pushing Dougie boy. One day you'll find out we're not Europeans.

While Congree fiddles.

"Laws, smaws. We do what we want."

It's really important for the infidel to "feel themselves subdued."

:Know Voir Dire:

I can get us through Jury Selection.

No sweat!

If you didn't know better, you'd think Hooper and CAIR want to reduce America's chances of defending against another major attack.

Tucker Carlson later said one in three Muslims you see when you go to the airport in New York are "for jihad."

Sue me CAIR.. Sue me.....
May fleas live in your mothers moustaches.

On Tucker Carlson’s show, Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR talks about how they plan to use the “good faith” loophole of the “John Doe” amendment to continue suing Americans who report suspicious behavior.

Ibrahim Hooper - A Boy Named Sue

Hasn't CAIR's past record of winning these types of lawsuits been, shall we say, rather pathetic?

No kippa.

New PR rep, I suppose.

Did ya see the movie "Highlander"?

I am the guy (metaphorically speaking) driving around in the car looking to be a hero. In my case it is with words not (and for the trolls and feds), I repeat NOT with violence. And unlike our cinematic freak, my target is [bigoted word]s and dihmies.

In the store, mall, whereever I am, if I see anything suspicious I hit 911 on the mobile phone and report. Oh, how cool to be sued by CAIR! Then I could depose them!

GO RED SOX!

Tucker Carlson was actually quite good.

Is it possible to sue CAIR for supporting terrorism? I'm thinking like a victim of Hamas, for example, suing the unindicted co-conspirators for monetary damages.

our view : See Something, Say Something
Cairs view: See Something, try and blow it up, if you are unsuccessful, sue the person who stopped you

Intimidation on all fronts - that is how Islam evangelizes.

Counter Sue.

Discovery is a CAST IRON BITCH.

Here's my question: Did Tucker not get the memo?

/Why is he even talking to doogie?

re: #1 Hazmat

Dougie Hooper is a tool.

Couldn't we sue Hooper for being a dangerous tool? You know, like a faulty air bag or something?

A "good faith" clause? Thanks Congress. I'm guessing it's like the "the mother's health" loophole in abortion laws, which is usually big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

Let me be the first to say, "If I ever see suspicious behavior on a plane or on a train, in the mall or by a wall, near a house or near a mouse, I will shout it from the rooftops. I don't like CAIR and their ilk. I do not like them with chocolate milk. I do not like them, Sam I Am."

...and let's let them sue...we'll most likely bankrupt the organization.

Pssst, CAIR. This is a no-win situation here. The people, even liberals, support this law and the reporting of suspicious behavior at airports.

I would love an octagon for 3 minutes.

re: #8 Killgore Trout

This is an interesting loophole. The John Doe amendment is worthless if they can sue anyways.

Maybe the new legislation needs some REAL teeth to it. Something like triple damages and disbarment for any attorney that brings a suit which is subsequently rejected.

joking aside, would anyone here hesitate to report suspicious activity? or maybe consider withholding your name if you did report something?

He says muslim free flights like it's a bad thing.

Eventually CAIR will be out of the way, once the Feds get around to actually naming them as indicted co-conspirators in some case like the Holy Land Foundation case, or indicted for their own crimes.

" I almost didn't say anything because I didn't want to be called a racist"

Dude who turned in the Fort Dix 6.

no half respectabe judge would ever rule in favor of CAIR
the day we see something like that....we're in trouble

Perhaps we should do some test cases of our own. Be more bold in reporting suspicions, not less so.

I don't take to bullying well.

"There is a stubbornness about me that never can bear to be frightened at the will of others. My courage always rises at every attempt to intimidate me."

Hey CAIR,

I'll be on a domestic airline flight this coming Sunday, and if I see anything suspicious,
I will immediately report it.

See you in court @$$holes.

re: #5 bosforus

“good faith”?

from CAIR? there's an oxymoron if ever there was one

And Dougie is just a moron.

I too feel sorry for his mom. His, and Sherry Glaser's.

re: #29 Allahpalooza

It is obvious that dougie is a left handed tool like bill clinton and hildo.

It is about time that CAIR came in for a criminal investigation. It is a comfort to know that all of their foreign telephone calls are tapped and that they are a valuable source of intelligence for counter-terror operations. Someday Dougie will meet Bubba and it should be an unforgettable day for Dougie.

Of course one suspects that CAIR has yet to truly understand the meaning of "discovery" and "Examinations Before Trial" ("EBT's) where the defendant has the right to examine CAIRS book and records and question CAIR representatives, under oath, about lots of things I'm certain CAIR doesn't want made public.

Note: this video was posted at YouTube by CAIR themselves, who obviously want it to be known that they’re going to pursue lawsuits against passengers.

This resolves any question of the lawsuit's motive, and its abuse of our court system. It is not intended to address a grievance, but to intimidate non-parties. In other words, CAIR seeks to make use of the Constitution's "suicide pact" amendment.

Five dead, six wounded in IAF airstrikes in the Gaza Strip

Casualties include 2 Hamas operatives, 3 members of Islamic Jihad; 2 Kassams hit Negev; Palestinian in W. Bank killed in stabbing attempt.

And a partridge in a pear tree.

re: #35 bosforus,

I would report anything I saw that was suspicious. I might very well make my report anonymously, though. There's no percentage in making myself vulnerable to a lawsuit from the likes of CAIR.

re: #38 Ben Hur

" I almost didn't say anything because I didn't want to be called a racist"

Dude who turned in the Fort Dix 6.

I'm just replying because it bears reading again.

re: #39 Sizzlack

no half respectabe judge would ever rule in favor of CAIR
the day we see something like that....we're in trouble

You do realize that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Supreme Court Justice, was the ACLU's head of abortion rights law before she became a judge.

Never heard of the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals?

Do you know how many judges Jimmy Carter put on the bench who haven't died yet?

Figured they wouldn't back down for any reason - including some silly, pointless little John Doe statute. Could have a silver lining, as long as the defendents can obtain legal representation paid for by donations. We could then look forward to the information that comes out during discovery. The more the wider audience sees CAIR for what it really is, the more the uninformed will come to understand Islam and hopefully we will be better off for it.
At some point, the evidence of truth of CAIR's objectives should be overwhelming and their tactics and taqiyya will eventually fail to persuade, and CAIR too will fail.
One can only hope.

Is there anything in legislation about tackling a dummy, putting him into a full nelson and then hog tying him until proper authorities can be contacted?
/in say 2 or 3 hours.

I'm sure its just a mistake, but I just got deleted for quoting and responding to #22, and number #22 hasn't been deleted.

Hmmmmmm.....

Not to repeat #22, but Ibrahim Hooper is probably a US born revert to Islam.

re: #32 Dave the.....

Pssst, CAIR. This is a no-win situation here. The people, even liberals, support this law and the reporting of suspicious behavior at airports.

That's just it- they posted this video themselves. And this isn't the first time they've failed to realize their videos, in reality, make them look terrible.

But doogie said it- they plan to keep going with this route. We'd be wise to take them at their word on that.

CAIR will be lucky if they only get sued when the shit hits the fan

Black college slams UK boycott against Israel

The president of one of America's best known African-American colleges has added her voice to the chorus of condemnations coming from the US of the academic boycott against Israel being waged by Britain's main academic union, the University College Union (UCU).

In a letter sent this week to an American-Jewish leader, Marvalene Hughes said: "It has come to my attention that an effort is underway to boycott Israeli academics. We find such efforts antithetical to the values of academic freedom and civility. Dillard University is an historical Black University that unequivocally detests the effort to silence, isolate, discount and ignore academic values of free expression and open discourse."

Hughes's letter was addressed to Rabbi Marc Schneier, President of The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, who responded by saying: "We are encouraged by President Hughes' strong, principled position, similar to the one taken recently by Columbia University's President. We are certain that the ideologues behind this effort in the UK will think twice about their totally unacceptable initiative when they see where mainstream America, represented by Dillard University and others, stand on this issue."

re: #51 Ed Mahmoud's Sock Puppet

I am well aware of the extreme liberalness of the 9th circuit court...but this is very different than someones view on abortion
as liberal as a judge could possibly be...CAIRs little grievene theatre is mostly for show...they kick and whine but I really dont think they have much of a case

Where is Caliph Hooper's Mooslim hat?

I guess CAIR can shorten their name to CIR now, since they don't seem to quite grasp the concept behind the word American.

re: #35 bosforus

I'll lay aside the Dr. Seuss (#31) here:

-- I WILL SHOUT TO THE WORLD THAT I'M SEEING SOMETHING OUT OF ORDER. I WILL NOT STAY SILENT. I'VE DONE IT BEFORE AND WOULD NOT HESITATE TO DO IT AGAIN.

re: #56 Who Watches the Watchmen?

?
you feelin' alright today?

Today, all the good guys are Sparticus.

These muslims INTIMIDATE! They are cowards. They do NOT "do." If they can scare ya, you might as well stock up on Depends. And, change your undies as often as needed.

But this "suit" isn't going to go anywhere, soon. Not with the Net! Not with the ways information travels on the Net! And, not with good blogs. Who know how to "touch" good lawyers, when needed.

Because this "John Doe" threat ain't the only threat in town.

A good idea when someone threatens to sue you is to shrug. Choice "B" is to laugh.

Just because someone has small change, and is willing to spend time filling out the paperwork; and making some dumb attorney rich. You should remember this: In LAW, like in MEDICINE, quality counts.

IF CAIR went ahead and threatened they'd only use the British Health Care system, I'd laugh, too.

It's not a threat, folks. It's just the odd behaviors that we're getting now, from [bigoted word]s, that we used to get from the ruskies.

And, who knows? With all the attention paid these days to lousy lawyers (where Drudge has a red headline up that Nifong apologized and admitted there were NO CRIMES in the Lacrosse case), you're given HOPE.

Nifong used the Media. CAIR uses the media.

We use the Internet. And, if I saw suspicious behaviors I'd TELL! You'd be surprised. You're probably going to be in a familiar environment. While the turkeys committing the crimes? Flew in on a Saudi visa. I'd even keep my eyeballs on a burka covered moving tank if need be.

discovery will become interesting

Please! More, just in time for the elections!

re: #59 Sizzlack

re: #51 Ed Mahmoud's Sock Puppet

I am well aware of the extreme liberalness of the 9th circuit court...but this is very different than someones view on abortion
as liberal as a judge could possibly be...CAIRs little grievene theatre is mostly for show...they kick and whine but I really dont think they have much of a case

And they probably fear what would come up in discovery before trial, I'm just saying even apparently ridiculous cases aren't guaranteed to be struck down with Carter and Clinton appointees on the various courts.

These guys need to be tied up in litigation & counter suits.
There are groups like the Thomas Moore Foundation that would represent those that feel that they have been damaged by this group, pro bono.
You would not have to work hard to come up with viable legal theories.
Fire with more fire

re: #56 Who Watches the Watchmen?

d'ju see the Mainmost's notes of disdain yesterday?

re: #51 Ed Mahmoud's Sock Puppet

The same ACLU that sides with the "M" in NAMBLA.

Sue my colossal metal ass.

re: #51 Ed Mahmoud's Sock Puppet

Do you know how many judges Jimmy Carter put on the bench who haven't died yet?

they gotta be gettin up there in age at least

re: #65 dr. akim ullsheetbay

This language is not appropriate for LGF.

re: #73 Sizzlack Please see my #46; the damage that can be done to CAIR will occur not in front of any judge, but well before then.

re: #63 bosforus

Yeah- that might be too profane for a rotating title, imo.

Will Mr. Hooper be going in for his anal-cephalectomy procedure anytime soon?

re: #21 EC Marm

Tucker Carlson was actually quite good.

Tucker's dad is Richard Carlson, a former ambassador and one for the founders of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which was formed after 9/11.

I had dinner with Richard once (at an FDD thing - I got to sit next to him) and he is a class act. The guy is sharp and well connected, so Tucker's background is that of knowing the Washington scene and having endured quite a bit of BS.

Tucker is against the war in Iraq and was since the beginning, but has said that if it succeeds it will have been one of the boldest initiatives in American history and Bush will be regarded as one of the great presidents.

Anyway, there is some depth to the guy and he can surprise people with his views, which is refreshing. And he sees Islamists for what they are.

It seems to me that the only way they can prove "bad faith" (i.e. "racial or religious profiling") was if there were no actions by the accused to warrant a John Doe from making a phone call. Since there were in this case, shouldn't the judge throw their suit out? Are there any other ways to prove or disprove "Good Faith"?

/not a lawyer
//don't even play one on TV

Question: Is racial and/or religious profiling illegal? I know it's a "no-no" but is it illegal?

This is an interesting loophole. The John Doe amendment is worthless if they can sue anyways.

Wrong.

ALL immunity laws (for instance, for reporting suspected child abuse) have a "good faith" provision. It's not a "loophole." It means that someone reporting suspicious behavior in good faith cannot be punished just for reporting.

Sued? Sure. Sued successfully? No. That's the point.

And what happens in suits? We saw it in Boston. The plaintiff (CAIR) is subject to discovery, which means they have to answer a lot of questions they don't want to answer.

What happens then? They drop the suit. AFTER they're suitably embarrassed, maybe even damaged PR-wise.

If you didn't have a "good faith" clause, you'd have vengeance-motivated and intimidation-motivated legal activity.

re: #49 Iron Fist

re: #35 bosforus,

I would report anything I saw that was suspicious. I might very well make my report anonymously, though. There's no percentage in making myself vulnerable to a lawsuit from the likes of CAIR.

As I said before here, I stood all of 15 feet from one of the Ft. Dix Six that worked at a 7-11 less than 2,000 feet from where my daughter and her sons used to live. I saw him standing outside of the store, yelling into his cell phone in Arabic (maybe, I can't say for certain). When he noticed me staring him down he got into his Mercedes and rolled the windows up. I'm not a rascist; besides which islam is not a race. But I do know evil when I see it. There was nothing I could have reported to police, except a hunch, which would have been based on thousands of hours of research and viewing of jihadist videos. I doubt that my hunch would stand up in court. So we appear to be back to square one, again. Bet your house on a hunch?

Ibrahim Hooper: "Don't worry, one day you can have a Muslim-free flight".

What an asshole he is. I don't normally talk like that, but he is, and it fits.

CAIR has zero credibility. They are the enemy.

Wow. Tucker destroyed him. Everyone should see this clip. No idea why CAIR is spreading this.

Like I said the other day

#93 easy 7/25/2007 8:40:24 am PDT reply quote

the ‘John Doe’ amendment to protect Americans against lawsuits if they report suspicious behavior has been saved.

Better watch them, they are verwy, verwy twiky.

When Malkin announced the resurrection of John Doe protection on her blog, I mentioned that I wouldn't be cheering till I saw the catch.

"Good faith" loophole: bingo.

Close it, and can we finally send all these CAIR vermin to Gitmo?

cair is REALLY going to look like a bunch of terrorists when they start suing decent people for just trying to protect themselves and their neighbors.

i don't think cair really understands us. they're in for a surprise, imo.

"#13 Ginn 7/26/2007 10:01:25 am PDT reply quote

:Know Voir Dire:

I can get us through Jury Selection.

No sweat!"

"Madam, are you the infamous 'Ginn' of Little Green Footballs?

' No sir"

re: #84 Eri

Wow. Tucker destroyed him. Everyone should see this clip. No idea why CAIR is spreading this.

CAIR is spreading this because they want people to know they're going to get sued if they report suspicious behavior. Carlson did destroy Hooper, but to CAIR it doesn't matter. The important thing is to get the intimidation message out there.

I know we've got it bad over here in Blighty, but with first class scum, truly evil scum, like Hooper about I'm dreadfully pessimistic about America's future too.

Particularly as he seems to have most of the Democrats on board (apart from Lieberman, but he drinks babies' blood, harvests organs, is in charge of the federal reserve and controls the media, so he's too busy for all that...)

re: #81 nonic

Sued? Sure. Sued successfully? No. That's the point.

The problem is most people will be deterred simply at the thought of being sued. Lawyers cost money.

re: #89 Charles

all CAIR has is intimidation
their arguments are illogical
they are illogical
its like a really really bad SNL skit

Customs officer Jose Melendez-Perez stopped the 20th terrorist, who was supposed to be on Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. Probably because of the shorthanded muscle on that team, the passengers were able to overcome the terrorists.

Let me repeat that as well.

Probably because of the shorthanded muscle on that team, the passengers were able to overcome the terrorists.

Did intimadation almost prevent him from doing this good deed?

Yes.

Not direct threat of lawsuit by CAIR, no. Instead an overall PC culture, government policy, and peer pressure from his already intimidated co-workers.

Melendez-Perez did this at great personal risk, because his colleagues and his supervisors told him, "You can't do this. This guy is an Arab ethnic.

But he did it, thank God.

"You can't do this. This guy is an Arab ethnic. You're racially profiling. You're going to get in real trouble, because it's against Department of Transportation policy to racially profile." He said, "I don't care. This guy's a bad guy. I can see it in his eyes." As he sent this guy back out of the United States, the guy turned around to him and said, "I'll be back."

He saved lives by acting, even in the face of threats of "real trouble."

It is one thing to stop people only for being Arab. No one is arguing for that here.

But these threatened lawsuits causes a mirror-image injustice (where because of the person's group, one will NOT question suspicious actions) and the second injustice is the greater evil, since it can result in more than hurt feelings, but in death.

um...what I meant to say was...you can threaten to sue me but I will not be silent.

Hey, I like these spiffy new formatting buttons!

Look - CAIR can sue anyone for anything at anytime.

All they have to do is file a suit. That is it. A lawsuit.

What matters is whether the case is thrown out immediately or not. They have to show a judge that they have a case where they can demonstrate bad faith. They can't go fishing - trying to get the court to order disclosure of an identity of an informant simply to then see if any bad faith exists. They have to have some evidence showing basis for a claim, or it gets thrown out.

But in CAIRs case, that doesn't matter. They will sue and sue and sue again, each time getting publicity and getting ignorant people to think that they will "get sued anyway" if they inform.

That is how intimidation works in the courts, and you have to really abuse the filing of suits to get slapped around by a judge or disbarred.

re: #81 nonic

If you didn't have a "good faith" clause, you'd have vengeance-motivated and intimidation-motivated legal activity.

True. But frankly, too goddamned bad. This isn't like any other reporting issue, this is a weapon in the war against Islamist infiltrators. There needs to be no way that the enemy (CAIR) can counter that weapon.

Close the loophole.

re: #69 opnion

These guys need to be tied up in litigation & counter suits.
There are groups like the Thomas Moore Foundation that would represent those that feel that they have been damaged by this group, pro bono.
You would not have to work hard to come up with viable legal theories.
Fire with more fire

I don't know that the Thomas More Society would take this up, since they typically take religious liberty cases. I have a lawyer friend who was a TMS member; he's now gone back to school, to learn more Catholic theology, so that he can teach it at a university (at some place like Ave Maria).

re: #80 {littleoldlady} Hello there! Please see my #46 above.
This is truly nothing to sweat if you believe someone is about to engage in a terrorist activity. Whether or not it's written in the legislation, there has always been a "good faith" test of a lawsuit.
And trust me on this, CAIR will NOT want Discovery or EBT's.

Why does CAIR insist on suing the John Does?

The flying Imams were actually acting very suspiciously and were deliberately doing everything that the flying public were warned to watch out for.

That they were proved wrong is another issue. The public does not know that there was just a major peaceful Islamic meeting and that they are testing the watchfulness of the American people.

Note that one Arabic speaking flyer (I assume he was an Arab too) reported what he was hearing and was concerned.

I think many are unaware of the discovery mode of a lawsuit. Hooper was pretending that a lawsuit was the only way to determine good faith while counting on the general publics ignorance of the discovery phase. Many posters here have the right attitude about doing it anyway. Obviously, also, reporting could be anonymous on a pay phone or in person. Additionally, the jihaadists may do more dry runs to try to get people to report and sue, or to find out if they have been discouraged from reporting. Of course, it won't look good if they are suing hundreds of people all over the country. The interviewer was concerned that people would not report for fear of taking the time and money to hire a lawyer. Since there have been, and are unlikely to be, no cases of abuse of this kind of thing, I don't know how successful CAIR et al are going to be.

89 Charles

The important thing is to get the intimidation message out there.

Right on, Lizardmaster !

re: #100 legalpad
Indeed. Please see my #46 above.

re: #48 Ben Hur

Five dead, six wounded in IAF airstrikes in the Gaza Strip

Casualties include 2 Hamas operatives, 3 members of Islamic Jihad; 2 Kassams hit Negev; Palestinian in W. Bank killed in stabbing attempt.

And a partridge in a pear tree.

IAF must have reading my post at Strategypage.com:

[Link: www.strategypage.com...]

swhitebull

re: #82 EC Marm,

That is the problem. What do you actually see? I was thinking of the Six Imams situation where the suspicious behavior is really egregious. It is my understanding that one of the people who reported the Six Imams was himself a Muslim.

Less egregious examples do often boil down to a "hunch". It is hard to bet your house on a hunch, indeed. That is why I suggested that I might report what I saw anonymously. It doesn't sound like you had much to report. An Arabic guy yelling into his cell-phone in Arabic would raise my hackles, post-9-11, but there is really nothing illegal about it.

And this POS gets airtime because?

re: #18 Ginn

Ginn, the whole issue here is that if you are sued you have to provide a defense and this at minimum could be thousands of bucks. I for one don't have thousands just sitting around in case some terrorist-loving scum decides to sue me for turning in their sorry asses. The fact that they can even intimate they can and will chills any desire for hard working AMERICAN citizens to report suspicious activity. Frankly if I had been on that Northwest plane I would have been freaking too. Those imams (yes little i) are scum and deserve to be deported to the dung-heap of their choice.

/off the soap box

the "intimidation message" is so annoying. but sometimes that message can have the opposite effect: it can inspire and incite people to push back and some people will.

re: #89 Charles

re: #84 Eri

Wow. Tucker destroyed him. Everyone should see this clip. No idea why CAIR is spreading this.

CAIR is spreading this because they want people to know they're going to get sued if they report suspicious behavior. Carlson did destroy Hooper, but to CAIR it doesn't matter. The important thing is to get the intimidation message out there.

if i am not mistaken, they do obtain a very large amount of money outside of this country, from other countries wanting a stake at corrupting our form of government.

Having a medical background, I naturally avoid anything legal.

Would the funding, influence, and things as such have any relevance if they did bring a case against a John Doe?

re: #89 Charles

re: #84 Eri

Wow. Tucker destroyed him. Everyone should see this clip. No idea why CAIR is spreading this.

CAIR is spreading this because they want people to know they're going to get sued if they report suspicious behavior. Carlson did destroy Hooper, but to CAIR it doesn't matter. The important thing is to get the intimidation message out there.

Touché. But while they no doubt wish to use it to intimidate, this kind of MO can only backfire. The public will increasingly see CAIR for what it truly is, and as we all know, that can't be good for the likes of Hooper.

re: #103 swhitebull

re: #48 Ben Hur

Five dead, six wounded in IAF airstrikes in the Gaza Strip

Casualties include 2 Hamas operatives, 3 members of Islamic Jihad; 2 Kassams hit Negev; Palestinian in W. Bank killed in stabbing attempt.

And a partridge in a pear tree.

IAF must have reading my post at Strategypage.com:

[Link: www.strategypage.com...]

In the comments section of this thread

swhitebull

{realwest!}

Thanks! :-)

The "good faith" loophole is on the part of the accusers...ie, CAIR is literally going to accuse the passengers of not acting in good faith. It seems to me that CAIR's sole purpose is to identify these people and drag their names through the media mud. This will also open those people up to threats and jihad on the part of the terrorists already in our midst. CAIR is functioning as a spotter for the jihadis.

re: #102 realwest

Yes - and maybe if everyone was educated, obviously not through MSM, CAIR's bluff could be called, and they would be more at risk of exposure.

re: #80 littleoldlady

Usually the standard for good faith in this type of law is based on "reasonableness." Whether a reasonable person had reasonable cause to suspect that something bad was happening.

Unless the legislation is nit-picky specific, which it usually isn't, that's a very broad standard.

re: #39 Sizzlack

no half respectabe judge would ever rule in favor of CAIR
the day we see something like that....we're in trouble

Do you know how many less-than-half respectable judges there are out there?

I will report suspicious activity - no matter the cost. I owe that to my fellow citizens. But what ever happened to the word "justice?" I have such little faith in our own American legal system it is laughable. We allow law abiding citizens to be bullied and harassed while allowing thugs to walk. The threat of law suits silences the majority who refuse to speak up at the risk of exposure.

It is getting more and more difficult for me to control my urge to "take things into my own hands." The world should thank my wonderful wife who continues to reign me in because I for one have had about enough of this shit.

I think Mr. Carlson pwned Faux Imam Hooper on this one. Quite convincingly I might add.

...

nonic,

Thank you, too! So, is racial/religious profiling illegal?

Is there a remedy on the books if one does it?

re: #119 littleoldlady

nonic,

Thank you, too! So, is racial/religious profiling illegal?

Is there a remedy on the books if one does it?

For private citizens, I mean.

I like Tucker, I think he is doing a good job fighting the good fight, But I am starting to ask myself why his show is the only one this crackpot Hooper shows up on.

Do they see him as a pushover?

Thank you Charles for deleting #65.
The trolls come here to post tasteless comments that can be quoted as evidence against LGF.

Important question that Tucker did not ask Hooper: "Was the behavior suspicious?"

That's what the court must determine before piercing the Does' veil of anonymity. (Although, the "underlying crime" premise didn't seem to protect Scooter Libby.)

Anyhoo, I would love to see Ibby defend that the behavior wasn't suspicious, which can only be done in a conversation that includes listing all of the suspicious behavior. He can't admit the behavior wasn't suspicious, because there goes the good faith "loophole."

And by the way, can someone explain why the video can't be reposted to YouTube by someone that chooses NOT to turn off comments?

Oooh, threats now is it?

Baaaad move CAIR... the public backlash against you for this little song and dance is going to be severe. And the countersuits are going to cost you millions.

I foresee a huge and extremely painful legal asswhupping for CAIR in the form of counter-suits, and litigation for slander and harassement.

Know this, CAIRtards: Americans may tend to be somewhat apathetic about national security, but all Americans are motivated by money and very possessive about their own. When you go down to street level and threaten to rob their wallets and savage their lives and livelihoods, you're going to find out very swiftly where Americans draw the line. They are going to come out their corners swinging, and come after you with teeth bared and claws unsheathed. And they will have an army of supporters.

Up until now you've been taking on politicians and legislators. Now you're making it personal, and your threats to bully and intimidate Joe citizen face to face are going to resonate in a way that will cause you a LOT of pain.

If theres' one thing we have no shortage of here in the U.S. its' lawyers. And I'm certain that they can and will, form a huge coalition of U.S. attorneys who will gladly step forward to defend any and all of your targets pro-bono. And make no mistake... they will tear your organization to shreds.

So CAIR, you think you can extort the American public? Give it a go.

You will pay... very dearly.

There does not exist a profane word strong enough to describe these people.

re: #91 easy

The problem is most people will be deterred simply at the thought of being sued. Lawyers cost money.

True. But after a few publicized cases, where some legal organization provided legal services for free and CAIR lost, the ultimate lesson out of the whole thing will be that CAIR are the bad guys -- and they're losers.

You HAVE TO HAVE a good faith provision. Anything else would be just plain vigilantism.

re: #89 Charles

It would be better instead to get the message out not to be intimidated and that intimidation does not work on Americans.

re: #125 jill e

There does not exist a profane word strong enough to describe these people.

If there was, it'd be deleted anyway.

re: #74 Poitiers-Lepanto

i am surprised that words available in any major dictionary that are not out right curse words are commented on.

given that others outright tell others to f-off and even worse i am doubly surprised.

i have no problem being deleted by the proprietor but a comment from another poster seems ironic....

For some reason the quote function is not working for me. Anyways, someone above mentioned that if if these type of cases go to trial we will get to see CAIR open up and more people for seem them for what they are.

Not so sure that would be the case. Even if it didnt go well for them in court, the shills in the MSM would be so scared of reporting on it that they will spin their heads off trying to give CAIR a pass on anything unseemly that may arise.

Trials like these will do nothing but tie up the court system and force people like us to shell out money some of us dont have to fight them off.

If they can still sue, what is the point of the Jon Doe bill? Or does that not proctect these guys because it wasnt law at the time?

Every CAIR employee neesd to be investigated by the FBI, INS, etc. I bet Most of them would have done enough too be froged marched out of their office.

re: #128 JamesTKirk

Perhaps its time to create one--just 'specially for CAIR! How long has it been since the profanity lexicon has been expanded. A perfect opportunity...

CAIR IS A TERRORIST GROUP. WE SHOULD START A FUND FOR THE DEFENSE OF ANY JOHN DOES.

Loser pays is long overdue in the American court system.

Frivolous suits are a pox on the American public and no different than thieves that steal from our stores. One day, maybe average Joes will wake up and realize they are allowing themselves to be duped.

I would love to see Dougy and Rudy go at it!

Rudy should have a come back asking CAIR where the outrage is over all the Muslim killing!
And instead of attacking US, they should be attacking the fanatics who are out to kill us. I hope Rudy's people are listening! I'd like to hear Hooper's response to that!

And to CAIR....

BRING IT ON! Nothing on earth would stop me from reporting ANYTHING!
CAIR can threaten all they want!

I would use a lawsuit against me to educate the sheeple of the threat we're facing. I'd (hopefully) get some (pro-bono) high- powered, Palm Beach lawyer who'd be just itching to go after the Islamofascists and get some notoriety from it....and then go after THEM!

This would be an opportunity for me! I'd turn it around.

re: #122 Poitiers-Lepanto

one has to wonder over the selective sensitivity of posters like yourself.

post #1 suggests mr. hooper is a tool.

where i come from that may infer he is a penis or a dick...

where is your outrage? my post was hardly much more 'intense' than that.

What a great way for CAIR to improve relations between their members and non Arab, non Islamic Americans. Judging by the actions of most Arab countries, and all Arab groups in Israel, they certainly don't care what anyone thinks of them. Look at all the libs on their side! Poor, down trodden Arabs! Why are they in my country throwing their weight around? Every other week there is some article in my local news paper about how discriminated against they are, or someone painted graffiti on their buildings, or they want recognition of their freeking "Holidays", or how fast their numbers are growing, and a huge article about how appealing Islam is to Hispanic women!

If that is truly the case then we certainly should stop any Muslim or Hispanic immigration into the country least we end up like pitiful Europe and England. They only want to abide by our laws and Constitution when it is in their best intest, like the court system, otherwise it's all Sharia for them!

Tucker is a good guy. He's got his head on straight.

Mr. Hooper is a terrorist enabler.

re: #96 Pickle

If you didn't have a "good faith" clause, you'd have vengeance-motivated and intimidation-motivated legal activity.

True. But frankly, too goddamned bad. This isn't like any other reporting issue, this is a weapon in the war against Islamist infiltrators. There needs to be no way that the enemy (CAIR) can counter that weapon.

I cannot agree. And I'm not an idealist -- I'm very pragmatic.

There ARE racists out there who WOULD report every swarthy looking young male they saw as suspicious and planning terrorism.

It might get them some publicity personally, and make people who are worried about islam's war on the West feel good, temporarily, but what else would it do?

It would send law enforcement on hundreds or thousands of wild goose chases, making them less effective when and where they're actually needed.

It would bog down the courts, AND you'd end up with jury nullification type outcomes where juries decide to let the defendant off just because they think the case was unfair.

It would encourage racism, and that would only lead to a rebound affirmative-action kind of mentality IN FAVOR OF any swarthy looking young male.

Just watched out the video, and it is just amazing. This toolbag, Hooper, says that he has no problem with people reporting things in good faith, but has no answer when asked what good faith is.

Also, he says, the only way to determine good faith is to prove it in court. So following his logic, all those who report these acts should prove they are not racists in court.

F'ing unbelievable......

Somewhat O/T

So our government is still wishy-washing over whether or not to allow lawsuits to proceed.....interesting.

In the meantime, does it not seem like there have been a bunch of airport security issues in the past week(s)? Coincidence? I HOPE so.

that would only lead to a rebound affirmative-action kind of mentality IN FAVOR OF any swarthy looking young male.

Herein lies one of our major weaknesses.

CAIR is right up there with the ACLU and NAMBLA, yes NAMBLA, as being one of the most evil, anti-American and lawless organizations in the entire world! Right here in America too. :-(

re: #35 bosforus

joking aside, would anyone here hesitate to report suspicious activity? or maybe consider withholding your name if you did report something?

I would not hesitate a second. I would report suspicious activity, and then I would welcome the suit. I really really do not like bullies.

Leave it to the Democrats (Motto: No Tort Lawyer Left Behind) to find a big juicy loophole to insert into John Doe. And leave it to the Republicans (Motto: Duh) to not have a clue that they (and we) have been had.

CAIR is an absolutely repulsive degenerate organization.

They are the new KKK of America.

So many [delete] s, looks like a Jimmah Carter thread!

CAIR can try this, but sooner or later it will backfire on them.

EG, if I ever reported something suspicious and CAIR tried to sue me for acting not "in good faith" I'd countersue them for maliciously damaging my reputation.

I haven't read the thread so I don't know if other lawyers have entered the fray - but I'm a trial lawyer and if Mr. Hooper can be shown to be a person of sufficient authority in CAIR as to be able to speak for the organization this clip will be attached to an upcoming motion to dismiss and for sanctions filed on behalf of the John Does. In every jurisdiction in this country, state and federal, a lawyer's signature on a complaint is a sworn verification by that lawyer and the party he represents that there is a good-faith basis for suing each and every named defendant. Mr. Hooper is totally incorrect in his assertion that you can sue people based only on your desire to find out in the course of the suit whether you have a claim against them.

How ironic that "good faith" may be the thing here that bites CAIR in the ass! (See my post above)

A thought here. The John Doe Amendment has not yet been passed and signed. There is still time to correct this obvious flaw. If CAIR can continue to sue as a result of the "good faith" clause, that in itself serves as intimidation of potential witnesses, whether or not the resulting suits have any merit. CAIR understand perfectly that the implied threat alone is a huge weapon.

Get back to your PCs and re-start your engines. We MUST get that clause killed before it goes to the President for signature.

re: #142 nonic

re: #96 Pickle

If you didn't have a "good faith" clause, you'd have vengeance-motivated and intimidation-motivated legal activity.

True. But frankly, too goddamned bad. This isn't like any other reporting issue, this is a weapon in the war against Islamist infiltrators. There needs to be no way that the enemy (CAIR) can counter that weapon.

I cannot agree. And I'm not an idealist -- I'm very pragmatic.

There ARE racists out there who WOULD report every swarthy looking young male they saw as suspicious and planning terrorism.

It might get them some publicity personally, and make people who are worried about islam's war on the West feel good, temporarily, but what else would it do?

It would send law enforcement on hundreds or thousands of wild goose chases, making them less effective when and where they're actually needed.

It would bog down the courts, AND you'd end up with jury nullification type outcomes where juries decide to let the defendant off just because they think the case was unfair.

It would encourage racism, and that would only lead to a rebound affirmative-action kind of mentality IN FAVOR OF any swarthy looking young male.

Very true. This personhas every right to sue the passenger who targeted him just because he looked brown. So that's why the good faith clause is needed. CAIR can use every f***ing thing as a weapon, even our jury system. Does that mean we should scrap it just because it will take away a weapon they can use. Hell no. If anything, let this go to court, and I hope they have good lawyers. Because the defense can use discovery, and then the s*** will hit the fan.

Does anyone know whend dougie Hooper converted to Islam?
Hooper is not an islamic last name...

re: #119 littleoldlady

So, is racial/religious profiling illegal?
Is there a remedy on the books if one does it?

I can only respond in generalities, since I haven't followed the specifics on so-called racial/religious profiling.

Any kind of an organization that is an arm of the government in any fashion, and any organization/business that serves the public at large (hotels, transportation carriers), is not allowed to turn away patrons because of their race or religion. That applies to large employers, too. Or conversely, is not allowed to single out "suspects" based on race or religion (for instance, pulling drivers over or subjecting certain people to heightened security at airports).

There are exceptions. One I know of is in renting housing in New Jersey. If the owner lives in the house and is renting the apartment upstairs, for instance, the owner can refuse a tenant based on any reason whatsoever -- even a racist reason -- without any explanation. But the owner must live in the building, and probably the building has to have fewer than x number of units, something like that.

If you ask "is racial profiling illegal?," I would say, yeah, it's illegal, based on all kinds of applicable civil rights and non-discrimination laws.

But I think (I think) generally, racial profiling is more a "policy" matter than law, per se. In other words, where there is no controlling law, we (as a society) still don't like to discriminate based on race. I think that's were racial profiling gets its bad name -- if offends the general non-discrimination attitude prevalent in the country.

This could change. Oh, boy, could it ever. As I always say, it will depend on how much, how far, and how hard the islamists push us.

re: #120 littleoldlady

So, is racial/religious profiling illegal?
Is there a remedy on the books if one does it?
For private citizens, I mean.

Sure. Things are illegal when there are laws against them. And usually the laws also say what the remedy is and who may avail himself of it.

I think that if CAIR can sue the Airline and its patrons (John Does) then would it not be out of the question to sue CAIR and its patrons. Is there any precedent to sue organizations and their monetary backers? I'd love to see some Saudi Prince in American Court under discovery. >:)

It's almost comical. I've watched Mr. Hooper and other apologists for fundamentalist Islam on countless occasions. They are simply incapable of defending their positions without pulling out the bigot, "Islamophobic," or "racist" card. Utterly amazing. Hoop's last comment to Tucker was a complete disgrace and belies the true nature of his hate-filled organization. I give Tucker credit for not decking him right there on live television.

I say the American public must turn the tables on CAIR. Next time Hooper or his ilk imply that a person is racist or bigoted, that person should sue Hooper et. al. for slander and/or libel. A tough case for a public figure like Tucker to make, but private citizens, like the John Does, would have a greater chance of success. This would shut CAIR up real quick. After all, we know they fear the discovery process.

My point: Lawfare is a two way street. We can bury them in legal fees and paper just as easily as they can do us.

re: #126 nonic

You HAVE TO HAVE a good faith provision. Anything else would be just plain vigilantism.

I'll have to leave that up to you lawyer guys. My wifes family is full of them, so I'm cool.

What is Hooper's nationality? I can't place his accent.

I would consider it an honor to be sued by cair for reporting suspicious activity. If ever in a position to do so I would report it and send cair my name to save them the trouble of trying to find out who I am. They can just f-off.

Defend, Discover, Move for Dismissal, Counter Sue, and Execute Judgment for Big Bucks. Sounds good to me.

-S-

littleoldlady

Looks like we got ourselves a resident expert now -- jamgarr #152. :-)

Unfortunately, even the discovery process can be expensive. It would have been a lot better if the "good faith" loophole had been left out, as CAIR apparently intends to abuse it competely.

Looks like we're going to need a John Doe legal defense fund.

re: #151 looking closely

That's the point! Who has the time or the money to go thru all that. Perhaps you do. But what if the person is poor or otherwise unable to countersue or attend all the court proceedings?

ex: Some poor family from state X saves up for years so they can travel cross country or continent to vist Aunt Mabel. Then CAIR sues them because they reported a suspicious nap sack one of the Mo boys were wearing. They can't afford to countersue. Also Mr. Y the head of the family has to get back to work. He can't afford to spend time in a court house.

008.060
YUSUFALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Send in the lawyers!

they plan to use the “good faith” loophole of the “John Doe” amendment to continue suing Americans

CAIR is the litigation wing of the global jihad.

CUCK FAIR

Ratings are back on on this.

Nine ratings - one star. Not good, Mr. Hooper.

I posted the video as well, with comments enabled. Have at them.

The words "good faith" is a article for argument on both sides.

What gets me are comments are off. On youtube, half the fun is the comments! Besides, they can delete comments they don't like - in other words, they can stack the deck and just take comments they like, so why turn them off? Duh.

I enjoy the comments on my vid - mostly they are "awesome vid, dude," and "what's with the Russian jets"? etc.

Ceemack: True, but not all lawyers are in it for the money (or in the pocket of the ACLU). While many in my profession no doubt swoon over the chance to represent inmates in Guantanamo, I believe a silent majority (or at least not an insubstantial minority) would jump at the chance to represent the John Does on a pro bono basis in any defense (which could include a counterclaim of libel, slander, etc.).

In fact, I believe a well-respected lawyer from a well-respected Minneapolis firm signed on to represent the John Does.

What's the saying: Shine the light on the cockroaches and watch 'em scatter. I truly believe we must go on the offensive against CAIR. Behind all of their bluster, they are weak, insecure, and vulnerable to bad press.

re: #99 psaturn

AS they say, that whole incident could have been a trial run...

re: #142 nonic

I cannot agree. And I'm not an idealist -- I'm very pragmatic.

There ARE racists out there who WOULD report every swarthy looking young male they saw as suspicious and planning terrorism.

It might get them some publicity personally, and make people who are worried about islam's war on the West feel good, temporarily, but what else would it do?

It would send law enforcement on hundreds or thousands of wild goose chases, making them less effective when and where they're actually needed.

It would bog down the courts, AND you'd end up with jury nullification type outcomes where juries decide to let the defendant off just because they think the case was unfair.

I doubt it. There may be a few cases of this, but Americans are better people than you seem to believe. These instances would be exceedingly rare. The bottom line is that it would save more lives than it would cost by people no longer being afraid of CAIR's legal terrorism.

It would encourage racism, and that would only lead to a rebound affirmative-action kind of mentality IN FAVOR OF any swarthy looking young male.

Again, I don't believe that Americans are that stupid.

This is ridiculous-the John Does could have been called as witnesses-no basis for suing them personally.

#103

It dawned on me, after reading the link your post provides; to Strategy Page. That there are now, between gazoo and eygpt. A few rockets that went IN, but that didn't come out. Work accidents, perhaps, along the way? (You just never know what those eygptians could be up to, ya know?)

As to the rockets being built in gazoo, I think, like the sex lives these men over there, have, they're highly "overblown." And, not necessarily able to accomplish anything out side the wishful thinking of people stuck in their satanic koran. Queeran. Or f*ckIslam. Whatver it is they're yelling when they're yelling for Al-loo f*ckbar.

And, it's okay. As long as every day there's a missile-gram sent into gazoo by the IDF. Because, ya know what? Some of that "intelligence" that leaks TO the IDF, comes from INSIDE gazoo. Shows ya. Fear doesn't always accomplish what you want. Of course, Haniyeh keeps firing off all that charity money.

While over in Lebanon, the Lebanese Army got it about 100% right! They didn't take the crap from the "erupting palestinian camp." Instead, they took there time. The media lost hope that the army would win, so they went home.

And, every day another piece of the wall, falls.

IF this were a football game, by now you'd see the coach, on the winning team, hustling the water boy onto the field, to gain "some experience" while the other side got lost on their way to victory.

Some wrong turn, huh?

How about some American legal organization suing imams and organizations such as CAIR for islamic-terrorism?

#178 Gathering Storm...........I believe you are right. Now is the start taking these organizations to court and making them pay or go away.

re: #168 ploome hineni

Then Bush should get on national TV, bring this issue out in the open.
Mention CAIR by name and their intentions to countersue law-abiding Americans, and encourage everyone to continue to report anything of a suspicious terrorist nature.

Obviously just giving the list of witnesses to CAIR every time there's an incident of SJS or dry run behavior, as here, is intended to scare the crap out of people. Who in their right mind wants the world's most persistently angry religion and their crypto-jihadi legal attack beagles to have their home address?

re: #155 wrathofasma

Very true. This person has every right to sue the passenger who targeted him just because he looked brown.

I agree. Any suspicious activity should be reported to the flight crew but NO action should be taken by private citizens until the "suspect" has actually done something to cause harm. Had Mr Stein jumped out of his seat and rushed the cockpit or attempted to take a hostage, then the passengers would be within their rights to subdue and restrain him. In this case, the passenger who did restrain him should have been held on the plane and arrested once they reached their destination.

This is the strategy employed by scientologists to destroy their critics. They barrage the person with frivolous lawsuits that they don't expect to win, but the person goes broke from legal fees tyring to defend themselves. I think they now own the cult awareness network after driving it into bankruptcy.

CAIR's hard work to make this a racial issue, when it never was one to begin with, has succeeded even when evidence is presented that Muslims are often the victims of Islamist. That doesn't matter though, the cry of racism will persist. Victims are no longer victims, the murderer is the victim.

CAIR wins.

I ain't skeert. Whenever I fly I travel with both a garotte
that has never been detected, and my wife. They should fear my wife more than ligature of the airway. She's civil defense counsel with one succesful class action against a government agency, is 9 for 10 in Federal
Appelate Courts, and just loves to cut novel plantiffs and their counsel a new one.

[Link: pajamasmedia.com...]
A refresher on the circumstances. Several people were involved in reporting the problems posed by the m&ms. Could be difficult to prove they were all acting in bad faith. What about the guy doing the translating?
Since we all know by now, Islam is not a race. Why would this myth be perpetuated by asking whether racial profiling is legal in relation to this case? It only lends credibility to the whining, complaining, perpetually aggrieved groups.
I looked it up, the primary divisions of the human race are: Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, with many subdivisions in each group. As the belief system known as Islam is spread globally, it seems as though the legal argument could get a little difficult from a factual and scientific basis. For example, to what "race" would one assign someone who speaks Arabic, prays loudly, and dresses in and unconventional manner? I'm no lawyer, but I would think this could be an interesting point to use in defense of the John Does.

re: #186 Beagle

you just posted that, So™ you could get the word "beagle" in there....

re: #188 eastvillageinfidel

corporations do the same thing

#195 So?

Hey! I just told a worker at Starbucks he got my order wrong, he got it right and gave me a free beverage coupon. No suit!

"Muslim free flights".............Ah........if only.

Hope springs eternal

Video flagged as Hate Speech.

I hope everyone sees this video, because it would be GREAT if everybody in this country understood what CAIR really stands for. And this video needs to be pointed out as evidence of CAIR's bad faith in any lawsuit they ever support against a John Doe, or a public figure for that matter. This is a clear announcement of intent to harrass.

Hooper is CAIR's spokesman. CAIR is essentially a PR organization. So I would think that his public statements of CAIR's policy and intent could be taken as speaking officially for CAIR. Now, it is possible that he sometimes could say things at odds with CAIR's aims, but if he did so then any officials in CAIR who have authority over him have the responsibility to correct or clarify those things. If nobody contradicts Hooper, then that is evidence that his statement does indeed represent CAIR's position.

And if somebody contradicts Hooper, but then CAIR goes on a suing spree, well... then we know that Hooper's statement was CAIR's true position after all, and it can still be used as evidence of intent to harrass.

By the way, remember when CAIR sued Anti-CAIR, and then turned tail and ran after they saw what was going to be demanded of them during the discovery process? Daniel Pipes has posted the discovery document filed by the defendant's lawyer here: [Link: www.danielpipes.org...]

It was entertaining, in a legal sort of way. I like to imagine their reaction: "You mean truth is actually a valid legal defense against a slander or libel accusation?! How are we supposed to practice taqquiyah if the infidel can tell the truth about us?"

I don't think the Japanese would have gotten away with similar behavior in the eaely 1940's.

This will backfire badly on CAIR. By suing the John Does, they have exposed themselves for the bullies they are.

They can't sue Mr Average Joe, and claim victim status at the same time. Bad mistake, CAIR. The harder you push, the worse you'll look.

re: #156 arier_tzvi

i suggest we call him 'doggie hooper' from now on the islmo nazies really hate dogs

I couldn't listen to the entire thing because my audio died, but if you listen to hooper, he's saying basically that every time a muslims is reported, there will be a lawsuit to determine if the reporting was done in good faith. That's CLEARLY an attempt to get people to not report suspicious activity, because without even evidence of bad intent, they're going to sue "just to ask questions". Sounds like a legal fund needs to be started to defend John Does.

Man that guy looks like he'd be tons of fun at parties.

Myself, I'm getting really sick of his stony mug.

It's not gonna stop me from reporting suspicious behavior. Screw it, sue me CAIR. The alternative is dying like the people on 9/11 did. And to that I say HELL NO! Furthermore, the reason people are suspicious of Muslims is beacuse of Muslims themselves. They SHOULD know that, hello! Look around the world. Muslims killing and oppressing non-Muslims where they are able to. So, screw them, any bad feelings they revceive from non-Muslims is well-deserved, and as a matter of fact, many, many non-Muslims give them the benefit of the doubt and way more credit than the y deserve.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- if you use creative spellings to get around our filters on slurs, your comment is going to be deleted.

And if you post a comment advocating any sort of violence or even hinting at it, your comment will be deleted and your account will be blocked.

Posting comments here is a privilege, not a right, and I can and will take it away from those who abuse that privilege.

And that was before he said

"Don't worry, eventually we'll get to a day where you can have a Muslim-free flight, but today is not that day."

OK now I've officially had it with that guy.

Those are practically 'fighting words' -- that and calling us KKK -- Hmm, maybe he's right, maybe we will have not only Muslim-free flights, but a Muslim-free America -- when everybody gets done reacting to this typically smart-alecky, insolent, and unbelievably galling BS. He's really giving Muslims a bad name with that.

That little clip alone just destroyed about half of the sympathy I had for the problems of Muslims in America. Keep it up, Dougie.

Let 'em sue. The counterclaims will bankrupt them.

-jcr

OT: If anyone still has horrid visions from that "Breasts Not bombs" demonstration the other day, here are some more attractive nude demonstrators ;)

re: #36 bulwrk

He says muslim free flights like it's a bad thing.

Exactly what I was thinking. Hoppity all over the law Hooper is a joke.

"Muslim Free Flight?" Which airline? Do they have a frequent flyer program & how many miles to earn a trip to Maui?

And if #207 sounds like I'm a bit irritated, I am. I've spent way too much time keeping an eye on this thread today.

Why CAIR Dropped Its Lawsuit

In court, CAIR was asked to admit that "Hamas murdered innocent civilians" to which it replied: "Objection, calls for legal conclusion..." Questioned as to whether CAIR has had "one or more communications with Abu Musa Marzook?" The plaintiff's reply was, "To be subject to plaintiff's motion for Protective Order...," restricting the response to Whitehead's counsel. Called to confirm Article Seven of the Hamas Charter which states that "the Hamas has been looking forward to implementing Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews, until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" CAIR again refused to respond by stating: "CAIR objects because the Hamas Charter speaks for itself and because the Plainiff is without means to obtain current, accurate, and reliable copy of the Hamas Charter." ...

*CAIR: Prostitutes For Radical Islam

Awad, true to form and right from the CAIR playbook, immediately goes on the offensive to defend CAIR’s so-called “honor”. Awad denied the charges that CAIR has any links to terror groups and claims a “deliberate smear campaign” by individuals whom support Israel are behind efforts to smear the Muslim community and silence its voice ... we believe that the "fall in respect" by the average American for Islam as a religion can be directly tied to activities by CAIR to undermine our country, prepare North America for conversion to an Islamic thugocracy, and CAIR’s obvious ties to radical Islam ...

re: #210 Whammo

OT: If anyone still has horrid visions from that "Breasts Not bombs" demonstration the other day, here are some more attractive nude demonstrators ;)

What the heck is it with nude protesters?

*fails to see the point*

re: #213 Charles

i guess cair and hooper bring out the best worst in many of us.

i do apologize for my particular deletion.

re: #199 zonekeeper

It would be better to take this video. Re edit it into another version that you can subtitle or comment over. That would be fair use and would allow comments to be made.

    Their argument to continue the suit presupposes guilt, for if guilt was not presupposed, why push the suit?  There would be no reason.

    Since, by law, we are supposed to be considered to be innocent until PROVEN guilty, CAIR's position* is untenable.  I bet it falls apart.

    To expound further: notice how he likens every John Doe (sight unseen, totally undiscovered) to the Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan; by comparrison he is saying that all the John Does are guilty of great intolerance prior to that event, just as said high klansman of his analogy clearly would be.  Again, this is presupposition of guilt before trial, not innocence until proven guilty.  And, I think, defamation.

    I've been reading and acting in my involvement with this terrorism problem for a couple of years and I keep wondering two things:

    1.  When is someone going to write about the inherent bigotry of CAIR and groups like them, and by extension, of Islam itself?  Theirs is the greatest example of bigotted opinion, automatically presuming non-Muslims are inferior, malevolent, etc.  If you can't see this rolling off of them every time they blow air through their pieholes, you have to be on whatever Cindy Shehan is on.  Which leads me to the 2nd thing I wonder, given this:

    2.  When are we going to stop reacting and start acting?  By which I mean, at least, a monster class action suit or legal action of some kind to protest such bigotry applied to us?  My early training in gamesmanship gave me a rule that said that if you were acting, you were defining the battle, if you were reacting, you were letting someone else define your moves.  It's always better to make the decisions, not to have to scuttle to cover up, protect, etc.  Better to be offensive than defensive.  And since they're not going to like us anyway, I'm damn tired of being nice and easy in a futile hope of 'being liked'.  Fark that, I won't be liked no matter what I do, nor will any of my American copatriots.  If we aren't going to be liked anyway, might as well not give a fark and kick a little ass.  It may be the only chance we have.

    I am willing to contribute to legal fees, I'm willing to stand up and say I'm John Doe, I'm willing to get involved in legal countermeasures until the pigs fly.  And I'm willing to tell someone if I see something, and spit in the eye of the CAIR representative who attempts to track me down for punitive measures as a result.  I've got nothing to lose except my bravery and honor, and that's never in question.

    So, yeah, even if they're scurrying to tell us that they can press suit against us anyway (fetid air from their blowholes -- sounds like a 6-year-old screaming "Is NOT!") I'm still standing my ground and telling what I see.  I am John Doe, after all ...

}:)     [*On their knees, heads right up their own asses.]

The attys for US Air have filed a motion for dismissal this I have gleaned from the News Media-if that motion is dismissed then all other parties might have the motion dismissed against them.
If the motion for dismissal is not rewarded -
Then- as John Does were cited -if these John Does come forward, and they do not necessarily have to but should they, then their attys would argue the good faith article in the John Doe amendment. These attys would file a motion to dismiss based upon the John Doe Amendment.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PETITIONER-I.E. CAIR and the Imams-not the John Does.
All and all the John Doe Amendment only helps the John Does in this instant action.

219 Kulhwch
I am so pleased that I decided to peruse the blog tonight ... if just to read this wonderful post. (I think there are many 'John Does' here, btw.)
Thanks, Kulhwch

MUST READ POST AT 219 !

Check out the videos under the Playlist section of their video. I left them some Stuck Mojo. Also click on “mojo, London Mosques, or my top videos in the Playlist. Read the description for a laugh.

re: #221 ctrlL

219 Kulhwch
I am so pleased that I decided to peruse the blog tonight ... if just to read this wonderful post. (I think there are many 'John Does' here, btw.)
Thanks, Kulhwch

MUST READ POST AT 219 !

    Well, heck, you're welcome.  I wasn't saying anything most of us wouldn't have said.  One of the great saving graces of our society is that when the rubber meets the metal, we all seem to be able to hunker down together and get through things.  It's sad that it'll take something like Pearly Harbor or 9-11 to happen again to get a lot of folks out of their current snooze, but I know when push comes to shove we'll make it.

}:)     [Don't wake the sleeping giant ... ]

Here is an idea - why the hell don't people start to counter-sue these bastards? Emotional stress, lost time off work, inability to cope with psychological pressures incurred by frivolous lawsuits. Why are we so scared of these pansies? Bring it on - I'll sue the crap out of CAIR if they ever dream of coming after me. Loophole? Sounds like a good place to shove their anti-American a$$es.

#223
I'm a lot more cynical than you are. Look at what we're teaching our young people. I remember that idiot at BYU who convinced his students that our government was responsible for 911.
Then there are teachers in our elementary schools who think it's okay to teach our children to embrace Islamic culture, gender apartheid and all. I'm afraid we're going to raise a whole generation of Rachel Corries and Cindy Sheehans who wouldn't know the truth if a suicide-bomber detonated himself in the middle of an anti-war demonstration.
Post 911, we're still letting Saudi students into this country by the thousands with no means to conduct thorough background checks on each and every one. We're still sending our money to the Palestinians, and politicians seem intent on leaving our borders wide open.
Then we have the masses of people who can't understand why we're in the Middle East or the nature of the enemy we're facing. They criticize our military and our President for being in a country that 'never was a threat in the first place', yet they can't get it through their thick skulls that jihad doesn't originate in any one country. Try and tell them we're involved in a global war, and they can't comprehend it. No, they WON'T comprehend it. We have the mainstream media to thank for that.
If another 911 happens, I honestly don't think anything will change.

Truth in advertising demands that they should be forced to change their name to CITAR: "Council for Islamic Terrorists America Relations".

re: #216 irish rose

What the heck is it with nude protesters?

*fails to see the point*

Come for the nudity..stay for the moonbattery!

Well. there could a basis for that in a cross claim for a frivilous suit requesting atty's fees.
The phrase, "in good faith" wil lhelp not hurt, i nmy humble opinion, those who speak up.

re: #191 ploome hineni

re: #175 ploome hineni

Thanks Ploome.