The Hyatt Hotel chain recently announced it would not host organizations that object to jihad violence as a result of the SPLC calling them “hate groups.” It’s amazing that the well known smear merchants at the Southern Poverty Law Center [1] still have the authority to poison the reputations of perfectly respectable organizations, but apparently they do.
Still, this has not been a good year for the SoPovs, since former jihadist Maajid Nawaz won a $3.375 million settlement and apology after the SPLC had listed him in their fake “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.” Calling a Muslim an EX-extremist can put a target on his back from the genuine bad guys, so the categorization was far worse than the SPLC’s everyday slander.
Below, Maajid Nawaz won a legal fight against the SPLC.
For more about thugs in suits, see my article in The Social Contract, In the War to Defend Western Civilization from Jihadist Islam, the SPLC Sides with the Enemy [2].
Even the Center’s devoted pals in the liberal media have begun to notice the accumulation of lies and arrogance. In August 2017, the New York Times asked, Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals? [3] That opinion piece was written by Somali reformer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was also included on the SPLC list of Anti-Muslim Extremists. Politico posed another question in a lengthy piece in July 2017 that revealed the big money: Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way? [4] The Week commented upon The Sad Hysteria of the Southern Poverty Law Center [5] about its attack on a variety of inappropriate targets, calling the SoPov “trigger happy.”
Keep in mind that some of us attend conferences about illegal immigration and other such touchy topics, where important connections are made. The internet is uniquely useful of course, but there’s nothing like a group meeting to move the agenda forward.
Back to the current Hyatt controversy, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.org has made some remarks on that subject.
His talk was largely taken from an earlier article:
Robert Spencer: HuffPo Ecstatic as Hyatt Hotels Ban Foes of Jihad Terror [6], By Robert Spencer, Geller Report, October 5, 2018
HuffPost was the first to report [7] on the Hyatt Regency’s decision to host Act for America, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated [8] a hate group,” and now the Huffington Post’s veteran pro-jihad smear merchant, Christopher Mathias, is spiking the football [9], as the Hyatt Hotel chain has announced that it will no longer host groups that oppose jihad terror.
Now wait a minute, Spencer, you’ll say. Hyatt said they were going to stop hosting “hate groups,” not “groups that oppose jihad terror.”
Indeed. But why has the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) designated Act for America (as well as Jihad Watch and other groups that oppose jihad terror) a “hate group”? Mathias sums it up with his usual vicious arrogance and tendentiousness: “Although it bills itself as the ‘NRA of national security,’ it mainly focuses on vilifying Muslims, spreading baseless conspiracy theories and lobbying legislators to pass discriminatory laws.” Mathias actually gives some examples of “vilifying Muslims,” which we will examine. “Spreading baseless conspiracy theories” likely refers to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum, which lays out its plan for “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” See how much of a “baseless conspiracy theory” that is here [10]. “Discriminatory laws” refers to anti-Sharia laws, but since Sharia denies the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims, it would be more accurate to say that Act is opposing, rather than lobbying for, discriminatory laws.
The fact is that Act, and Jihad Watch, and the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the Center for Security Policy are on the SPLC’s “hate group” list for opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression. The proof of this is the fact that there is no significant group that opposes jihad terror that isn’t on the SPLC’s list: in other words, they don’t identify some supposedly reasonable response to the jihad threat, and then claim that Act and AFDI and Jihad Watch et al have gone beyond reasonable bounds. Instead, they stigmatize and demonize anyone and everyone who dares mount the slightest and most tepid opposition to the global jihad as a “hate group” and as “anti-Muslim,” another smear — was it “anti-German” to oppose the Nazis? And there are, meanwhile, no Islamic jihad groups on the SPLC’s hate group list, no terror-tied Islamic charities, nothing.
Mathias claims that “Brigitte Gabriel, Act for America’s founder, has repeatedly made bigoted comments about Muslims. She has stated, incorrectly, that ‘practicing Muslims, who believe in the teachings of the Quran, cannot be loyal citizens of the United States of America.’”
“Incorrectly,” the imam Mathias assures us. But on what basis he does not say. The Qur’an says to beat a disobedient woman (4:34), that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man (2:282), to be ruthless to unbelievers (48:29), to behead unbelievers (47:4), and to make war against “the People of the Book” (i.e., Jews and Christians, and a few other groups) until they pay a special tax and submit to Islamic hegemony (9:29). There is much more, but even on the basis of those passages, there is a problem between the Qur’an and the Constitution. Mathias and his cohorts have never addressed this; instead, they’ve waved away those who point it out, defaming them as “Islamophobic.”
Mathias also claims that Gabriel “has said that Muslims are a ‘natural threat to civilized people of the world, particularly Western society.’” I very seriously doubt that Gabriel said this of all Muslims; that is almost certainly Mathias’ vicious misrepresentation. Meanwhile, would he himself deny that jihadis are a threat to civilized people? He is so clueless and compromised that maybe he would.
Ultimately, the SPLC/Mathias characterization of Act for America, as well as others that the SPLC smears as “hate groups,” is a matter of opinion, not of objective fact. Should Hyatt Hotels or any other business really be denying service to any group based on the judgment of a private organization about that group? The SPLC is anything but an objective or unbiased source [11]. Imagine how Mathias and the HuffPo would howl if the Hyatt chain started refusing to host groups based on the evaluation of, say, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, or the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The willingness of corporations to validate the SPLC and treat it as if it were a reliable arbiter of what constitutes a “hate group” and what doesn’t is short-sighted and unwise, and sets a dangerous precedent: if your group, or the favorite charity of Hyatt CEO Mark Hoplamazian, ends up on the SPLC’s list tomorrow, you’ll see what I mean.
As an Armenian, Hoplamazian should be ashamed of himself for caving to this pro-jihad intimidation, and setting this dangerous precedent, which will lead ultimately to the denial of hotel accommodations to all those whose political opinions are deemed unacceptable. That’s the kind of thing that happens in totalitarian states. And thanks to Mark Hoplamazian, Christopher Mathias, the Huffington Post, and above all the Southern Poverty Law Center, we’re well on the way there.
I’m sure Hoplamazian and the Hyatt brass will be glad to hear that I will never stay at a Hyatt again as long as this totalitarian policy is in place, and will recommend to everyone I know that they should boycott the Hyatt chain. They don’t want people who have been smeared by the SPLC around? That’s easy to arrange.