Why CAIR Dropped Its Lawsuit

This is a great victory, folks. Ibrahim Hooper, I hope you suffer endlessly of sleep deprivation due to your guilty conscience which keeps you awake at night, and I will posture that if you have a conscience, you are already suffering. Via FrontPageMagazine:

Andrew Whitehead, a former serviceman with the U.S. Navy has a website named Anti-CAIR on which Whitehead accused CAIR of partially funding terrorist organizations. CAIR routinely tries to intimidate the likes of Whitehead in the hope of stifling any criticisms and/or allegations made against it.

On March 31, 2004 CAIR filed a lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead in the Virginia Beach Circuit Court demanding $1 million in damages from Whitehead for what it called “libelous defamation.” The lawsuit, scheduled to begin in the summer of 2006 was dismissed in April 2006.

Click here to read why but I'll cut to the chase to save you some reading time:

Why did CAIR drop its lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead? Apparently, it feared exposure that would reveal its leaders connections to terrorist groups like Hamas. If that is the case, namely CAIR's fear of exposure, why has the media been silent on this matter? Rubinstein [of the Washington, DC-based law firm of Greenberg Taurig] explained, "CAIR is protected by the mainstream media," which he said, "has studiously ignored a decade of evidence, and has, instead, adopted a 'see no evil, speak no evil' stance."

Although CAIR is legal under the constitution, it is important to remember that the Communist party and the neo-Nazi parties in America were legal too. The activities of these organizations, including CAIR, however, is not necessarily sanctioned by the constitution, especially since CAIR represents a "profoundly anti-Semitic and anti-Christian ideology, and relies for its existence and activities on foreign Arab money." As Rubinstein has put it, "In another time (before the onset of a PC culture), activities such as those CAIR is involved in would have been labeled as subversive."