“HuffPost was the first to report on the Hyatt Regency’s decision to host Act for America, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated a hate group,” and now the Huffington Post’s veteran pro-jihad smear merchant, Christopher Mathias, is spiking the football, 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. “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. 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.
“Hyatt Hotels To Stop Hosting Hate Groups, CEO Says,” by Christopher Mathias, Huffington Post, October 2, 2018:
Weeks after a Hyatt hotel in Virginia hosted the annual conference of an anti-Muslim organization, the CEO of Hyatt Hotels Corporation has announced that the hotel chain will no longer rent space to hate groups.
“If a group is primarily focused on disparaging a group by virtue of their identity… that’s really where we need to draw the line,” Mark Hoplamazian told an audience at a travel industry conference in New York on Sept. 27. “We’re going to apply our values to making these decisions along the way.”…
“On the heels of some guest and colleague feedback we received about groups, we decided it was the right time to take a fresh look at our practices around hate groups,” a Hyatt spokesperson said in a statement. “This is a complex and emotional issue, but what we’ve concluded is that we need to commit to a higher level of vetting such that groups using hate speech, primarily seeking to disparage or demean a particular group, are not welcome in our hotels.”
On Sept. 4 and 5, the Hyatt Regency in Crystal City, Virginia, hosted the annual conference of the anti-Muslim hate group Act for America.
HuffPost was the first to report on the Hyatt Regency’s decision to host Act for America, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated a hate group. A spokesperson for that hotel told HuffPost at the time that it would “not unlawfully discriminate against groups who wish to hold lawful meetings at the hotel.”
But the civil rights group Muslim Advocates argued that Hyatt would be breaking no laws by refusing to host Act for America, and pointed to other hospitality companies ― including Hilton, Airbnb, Sofitel (owned by AccorHotels) and the Willard Hotel (owned by IHG) ― that have declined to host white supremacist groups.
Muslim Advocates launched a petition calling on Hyatt Hotels Corp. to cancel on Act for America. The hotel company declined to do so, and the conference went ahead as scheduled.
Act for America claims a (likely exaggerated) membership of 750,000 people. 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.
Last year, the group held anti-Muslim protests across the country that attracted neo-Nazis, white supremacists and armed anti-government militia members.
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.” She has said that Muslims are a “natural threat to civilized people of the world, particularly Western society.”…
gravenimage says
Huffington Post does victory lap as Hyatt Hotels says it will stop hosting groups that oppose jihad terror
…………………..
Just disgusting. Opposing the horrors of Jihad is not “hate”.
mortimer says
BREAKING NEWS FOR HYATT HOTEL … ISLAM HAS A DOCTRINE OF HATE: ‘AL BARAA’ = Islamic Apartheid, Shunning and Hating the kafir
‘Baraa’ is HATRED towards Kafirs ‘for the sake of Allah’…Al Bughoud or Al Mu’adaat (hatred) is the opposite of Al Muwalaat (love towards Muslims). Baraa is:
– To Hate
– To keep distance from
– To be enemy to
– To desert
– To decline to help
– To disrespect
– To put down
– Not to ally with
– Not to support
Allah ordered Muslims to have Baraa (to be cleansed) from the dirty kufaar and from kufr and shirk.
-Imam Abdul-Latif ibn Abdur-Rahman Rahimullah said, “It is not possible for someone to realize Tawheed (Islamic faith) and act upon it, and yet not be HOSTILE against the mushrikeen (i.e. wrong worshippers). So anyone who isn’t HOSTILE against the mushrikeen, then it cannot be said that he acts upon Tawheed nor that he realizes it.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah 8/167]
-“The doctrine of al Walaa wal Baraa is the REAL IMAGE for the actual practice of this faith.” – source “Al Walaa wal Baraa According to the Aqeedah of the Salaf”, by Sheikh Muhammad Saeed al Qatani, authoritative Saudi Sharia lawyer and imam at the Abu Bakr and Al Furqan Mosques in Mecca. – https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/al-wala-wal-bara-according-to-the-aqeedah-of-the-salaf-parts-123/
-Shaykh Ahmad ibn ‘Atiq said:
“There isn’t in the Book of Allah the Exalted – after the issue concerning the obligation of tawheed and the forbiddance of its opposite (kufr=wrong belief)- any issue which has as so many proofs, nor so clearly explained, than the issue of al-walaa’ and al-baraa’.” (W-B is ‘Islamic apartheid’)
– from Sufi scholar Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): “The honour of Islam lies in INSULTING kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to HUMILIATE them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain TERRIFIED and TREMBLING. It is intended to hold them under CONTEMPT and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.”
– from ibn Taymiyya, “Book of Emaan”: “… true believers show ANIMOSITY and HATRED towards disbelievers and NEVER support them.”
– from Umar Sulayman ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ashqar, “Belief in Allah”: “The Muslim should regard the Kuffaar as ENEMIES and HATE them because of their kufr (wrong belief), just as he hates their kufr (disbelief) itself.”
– from [Chap.iv] “The Islaamic Concept of al-Walaa’ wal-Baraa’” by Khalid El-Gharib: “… to SHOW ENMITY to those who show enmity to Allaah and His Messenger”.
(Note: Muslims are to visibly demonstrate their ENMITY or HATRED towards the kufaar)
– from a lecture given by Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal (H.A.): “The implication of al-Baraa is that one HATES for the sake of Allah (SWT)…Al-Baraa means to recognize who your enemies are and to HATE them and EXTERMINATE them in their Endeavour to get rid of your Deen, al-Islam…Al-Baraa is to HATE the people who propagate Baatil (falsehood)—the Muslim should HATE them and (at least desire to) KILL them when the time comes.”
(Note: not ‘if the time comes’, but ‘WHEN the time comes.)
– “Killing a Kafir who is fighting you is OK. Killing a Kafir for any reason (i.e. criticism of Islam), you can say, it is OK – even if there is NO REASON for it. You can poison, ambush and kill non-believers. You must have a stand with your heart, with your tongue, with your money, with your hand, with your sword, with your Kalashnikov. Don’t ask shall I do this, just do it.”Abu Hamza al-Masri (Egyptian born British Cleric)
– “As a Muslim, I must have hatred for anything non-Islam” – Anjem Choudary.
– “The matter is clear on this issue. It is obligatory to disassociate and absolve oneself from the disbelievers and their religion. The issue of al-Walaa wal-Baraa is from among the greatest obligations in Islaam.” (Shaykh Salih Al-Fawzan, 2005, p. 308)
– Obligation to Hate Kufaar: “With regard to matters of love and hate in the heart, the Muslims’ attitude towards non-Muslims is based on the latter’s attitude towards Allaah. If they worship Allaah and do not associate anything in worship with Him, then they love them. If they associate others in worship with Him, or disbelieve in Him, or worship others alongside Him, or are hostile towards His religion and hate the truth, then it is obligatory to hate them in our hearts.” – Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
gravenimage says
+1
James says
So, this is the religion of peace.
I have looked at another religous view that asks a person to Love your enemy, and to not murder (kill). It also teaches; lying is wrong, adutlry is wrong, stealing is wrong.
mortimer says
Frank asked, ‘Why do (the lax Muslims) still call themselves Muslim.’ Because their relatives might kill them if they declared their apostasy. About 35% of Muslims are secret apostates.
Brian hoff says
Many muslim donot follow these teaching at all in the west.
Frank Anderson says
B.H. fi they do not follow the “final, perfect, complete, unchangeable” teachings that have been changed approximately 225 times, why do they still call themselves muslims?
gravenimage says
And many do. We see this every day with the horrors of Jihad terror here.
And even “Brian hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam”–has said that he wants brutal Shari’ah law imposed here in the West.
mortimer says
Let’s put the comment about Islamic loyalty by Brigitte Gabriel into a positive form, shall we?
A MUSLIM MUST IGNORE MANY DISCRIMINATORY ISLAMIC TEACHINGS IN ORDER TO SWEAR TO DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION.
The ‘consititution of Islam is found in the SHARIA LAW and much or most of Sharia contradicts American rights and freedoms found in the US constitution.
This is not opinion, but can be shown by comparing chapters and verses between Sharia law manuals and the US constitution.
A Muslim who takes the oath as an American is in conflict with Sharia law.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, I disagree with only 1 word that I believe you quote from the respected Ms. Gabriel. I think the word should be “violate” instead of “ignore”. According to my reading no law or promise that is contrary to Islamic law is allowed except as part of a lie to achieve advantage.
mortimer says
Then you are saying, Frank, that Muslim consciously take the American oath with ‘MENTAL RESERVATIONS’ and that Muslims taking the American oath do so in the knowledge that they are lying … they all realize that they have serious ‘MENTAL RESERVATIONS’.
The American constitution contradicts the Islamic constitution by saying that ‘All men are created equal’, whereas the Islamic constitution says Kafirs and women are NEVER equal to a Muslim male.
Since Islam doesn’t accept EQUALITY, Islam does not accept democracy either.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, in my opinion, you are entirely correct. It is impossible for a muslim to take any oath to uphold human law except as an act of deception to obtain advantage over non-mulsims. There is no such thing as a radical or moderate muslim. There are only muslims and former muslims, the latter being worthy of honor, consideration and protection as brave, insightful and gifts in the struggle for liberty. A mulsim is a muslim is a muslim, whether he is trying to kill or enslave you today, or is paying someone else to do it, or is waiting until he is strong enough later to finish the job. As long as he is a muslim he cannot be a friend to a non-muslim, nor an ally, nor make any promise that he considers binding when it becomes inconvenient.
CogitoErgoSum says
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Quran 9:29:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
To support the spread of Islam (Submission) in the United States is to support the repeal of the First Amendment and to refuse to stand in the fight against the Muslims who who have been commanded by their god to keep fighting until Submission is the state religion and Sharia the law of the land.
How can there be any other interpretation of either the Constitution or the Quran except to say that they stand in full contradiction of one another? The only possible result of trying to ignore this contradiction will be a house dividend against itself.
Wellington says
My take on your comment, CES, is that I don’t first and foremost care, including and most importantly Constitutionally, what Islam stands for, anymore than I don’t first and foremost care what Marxism and fascism stand for (I already know what they all stand for as should anyone by now who cherishes liberty).
What I do primarily care about is that a totalitarian ideology like Islam, a dire enemy of freedom if ever there were one, continues to be misidentified as something good. Herein lies the rub.
Yes indeed, characterizing something inimical to liberty as something beneficial, not injurious, to liberty is just about the worst thing one can do in order to insure the preservation of liberty. Every defense of Islam, EVERY last defense of Islam, comes foremost to mind here which sad-ass defense, I would vigorously contend, only validates my hypothesis and in no way refutes it.
CogitoErgoSum says
Yes, Wellington, I agree. If a person cares about the Constitution, especially about being free from the dictates of a state-sponsored and all-powerful religion that is dominant above all others, then one should not care one iota about defending Islam, the religion of Submission. I also agree with Brigitte Gabriel that a person cannot be a patriotic American devoted to freedom and at the same time be a Muslim devoted to following the words of the Quran. Those few Muslims who fight for the Constitution today are merely buying time for their children to grow (under the protection of the Constitution) in numbers and strength that will be sufficient eventually to tear apart the Constitution and at that point to make all other religions submit to the will of Allah as set forth in the Quran. For Muslims our Constitution is a means to an end …. an end totally opposed to the Constitution as it now exists.
Frank Anderson says
C.E.S. and Wellington, Is overthrowing the Constitution by unlawful means unlawful?
CogitoErgoSum says
Frank, Article V of the Constitution sets forth the lawful means for changing the constitution. Overthrowing or changing the Constitution by any other means would be unlawful …. and unconstitutional. Am I missing something?
Frank Anderson says
C.E.S. you miss nothing except connecting that illegality to the criminal conspiracy in substance masquerading in the form of a religion that is actively endeavoring to overthrow the Constitution.
I make no claim of my greatness or insight. I would really appreciate your seeing this connection and telling what you think. Substance always prevails over form. The elements of a criminal conspiracy are 1) An agreement of 2 or more people [islam claims more or less 1.5 Billion members] 2) An unlawful purpose [To overthrow the Constitution of the United States while murdering or enslaving all who do not join the conspiracy] 3) ANY overt Act by ANY member of the conspiracy in furtherance of its goals. Please read United States v, Gary Greenough, 609 F. Supp 1090 (S.D. Ala. 1985) for more complete summary of criminal conspiracy law. And, See. United States v. Greenough, 782 F.@d 1556 (5th Cir. 1986).
CogitoErgoSum says
Frank, I’m not as familiar with the law as you are so I’ll leave it up to you and others more learned in that area to decide whether Islam is a conspiracy or not. I am just going by what is supposedly the defining document concerning the beliefs, intents and purposes of the religion of Islam. Just as the Constitution is the guiding and defining document for U.S. law, I hold that the Quran is the guiding and defining document for the religion called Islam.
I find that the Constitution and the Quran are in conflict with each other. If I were a Muslim who believed that Allah’s laws must take precedence over the laws made by man, I would be working toward eventually either changing or, yes, even overthrowing the Constitution so that the laws of the U.S. come into alignment with the words of Allah in the Quran. I tend to think that people who belong to a certain religion do so because they believe that the scriptures of their religion are holy and should be followed. If a person does not like his religion, under the Constitution he is free to leave his religion.
My religion allows for men to be governed under laws they make for themselves and I like that. Under Islam all man-made laws must conform with the words of Allah in the Quran …. and I don’t like that. I will fight today so that my children will be able to live in freedom tomorrow. There may be some Muslims who will join me in that fight but, according to their Quran, only until the day that their children can gain the advantage over my children and turn my children into slaves. While I may find any help the Muslims temporarily offer to me to be acceptable, I find their longer-term intentions for my children to be totally dishonorable and unacceptable and would prefer that they all either remain childless or take their families elsewhere before they become more of a hindrance than a help to the survival of my country as a nation of people living in freedom …. and not enduring the humiliation of submission.
Frank Anderson says
C.E.S. I most assuredly am never trying to bully you or anyone else into conclusions. This is the point of my endeavor. I have now spent over 40 years either attending a fully accredited law school or being a licensed attorney, now retired. IN MY opinion, the law is meaningless unless non-lawyers can understand and apply it. I humbly appreciate your courteous deference. Again that is not my intent. If you can see where it is illegal to agree to actively seek, with daily overt acts, to destroy the Constitution of the United States, then you could also help others see the same thing and help get people off the fence of indecision. If non-lawyers cannot understand the law; how can they be expected to live by it and perform their DUTY to enforce it? There is no trick or hook in my question.
Some time ago a certain sheriff was being prosecuted for his efforts to enforce federal law. A certain US Supreme Court case, In re Quarles (1895) appeared and the prosecution ended. That case said it is not only the right but the DUTY of every citizen to aid in the enforcement of federal law. That case has been cited by the US Supreme Court approximately 24 times since, and remains good law.
Please see what makes sense to you. All cases that I cite are available online by name. There should be no need to go to a law library.
Wellington says
Yes, Frank, overthrowing the Constitution by unlawful means is unlawful (tautological too).
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, you are of course grammatically correct. My double use of the word “unlawful” is to emphasize the efforts to destroy the Constitution by means other than following the procedure for amendment.
Even if the procedure to amend were followed to the letter, I believe such an amendment would be ruled unconstitutional in an honest Supreme Court. I hope we never find that out from experience. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Just as states once admitted cannot secede (thereby depriving even a minority of Constitutional Rights), the Constitution once adopted cannot be destroyed (thereby depriving everyone their Constitutional Rights)..
I repeat the 3 elements of conspiracy for the point (#2) that either use of unlawful means for a lawful purpose, or the use of lawful means for an unlawful purpose is sufficient to constitute a criminal conspiracy (Substance) even if it has the Form of a religion.
My Constitutional Law professor would be amazed at my thinking and application of what she taught over 40 years ago. She did well; I wish I had studied more.
gravenimage says
Good exchange, CogitoErgoSum, Frank, and Wellington.
Indiana Tom says
Huffington Post does victory lap as Hyatt Hotels says it will stop hosting groups that oppose jihad terror
So it will host groups who promote jihad terror?
gravenimage says
Good question, Indiana Tom.
Indiana Tom says
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.”
So what is so bigoted about the above statement? Either you can be a great American or you can be a great Muslim; but you cannot be both.
gravenimage says
+1
mortimer says
Here’s the oath. Read it and see if Muslims can take this oath without ‘mental reservations or purpose of evasion.’
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Any Muslim who mentally refuses to fight other Muslims attacking the US is EVADING the oath. Pious Muslims would not be able to defend the US if they were required to kill Muslims. Such people could not take this oath without perjuring themselves.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, I think we both know that a pious muslim would have no reluctance to lying through his teeth to take that oath. Look at the parts of the koran where Mo allowed assassins to lie in order to obtain access to the targets. Oaths to infidels mean nothing to muslims.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, I wonder what oath(s) “Major” Nidal Hassan SOA took before his slaughter? They seem to have done a LOT of good!
mortimer says
Agree, Frank. Major Dr. Nidal, took a doctor’s oath to protect his patients (whom he murdered at the base medical clinic). He refuted his oath to his country to defend the US against all enemies and murdered fellow soldiers who were going to defend it abroad.
Nidal is a perfect case of CONFLICT OF INTEREST among Muslims. He had personal business cards with letters SoE following his name, meaning Soldier of Allah.
His oath to Allah ABROGATED his oath to the US.
Mohammed said, ‘”If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and make expiation for my oath.’
Major Dr Nidal must have known the hadith and quoted it to himself. I think that is what Muslims have to do … take the US oath and if they become serious about Islam they ‘EXPIATE’ their American oath of allegiance with a good conscience.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, they do it every day. Any oath taken by a muslim is meaningless. That is not a matter of opinion or impression but straight from the words of the koran, their “final, perfect, complete and unchangeable” guide which has been changed approximately 225 times..
FYI says
And of course the reference to God here is to the Judeo-Christian Biblical one,NOT “allah”:the Biblical God of the {10+2 chief} commandments,is a God who condemns the bearing of FALSE witness.
“allah” is NOT God.
“allah”,by koran 3:54, is quite happy to bear FALSE witness himself.
We know the islamic koranic “allah”,the champion deceiver k3:54, has no problem with muslims dissembling via taqqiya,tawriya,kitman,muruna etc;the god of islam does not condemn the bearing of FALSE witness especially since he is{..”the best of deceivers”…}the bearer of false witness himself!The koran also contains demonstrably false statements so its word cannot be accepted.
An oath by “allah” therefore is not an oath taken in respect of God’s revealed 10+2 laws.
It cannot be trusted.
Michael Copeland says
To mortimer and Frank Anderson re “mental reservation”in the oath of allegiance.
Faisal Hussein is the unsuccessful Times Square Bomber, currently in prison.
The judge reminded him that he had sworn the Oath.
“I sweared”, he said, “but I did not mean it”.
No muslim can be relied on in the Oath of Allegiance.
Frank Anderson says
M.C., It is clearly stated and illustrated a number of times in the Koran that any oath taken by a muslim is meaningless, ANY oath at all on any subject, the “final, perfect, complete, unchangeable” word of allah that has been changed approximately 225 times. So why bother with oaths?
Buzz says
Never stay at a Hyatt or associated Hyatt hotel again. Let them have their terrorist groups.
Eric says
I agree.
Frank Anderson says
Buzz, in my opinion, and only my opinion for what it is worth, that is the correct response at this time. As long as any alternative site exists for meetings, resources are better spent on those meetings than fighting collaborators until a clear victory is in sight. Unlike other organizations, where options would be lost by terminating relations, this is one where nothing is lost, for the time being.
Halal Bacon says
The Dim is strong with these Dhimmis
gravenimage says
Brilliant!
AT says
At my behest, our corporation has taken Hyatt at all levels off our corporate short list of hotels, motels providing residence to our sales and associate staff. This policy change is effective at the end of this month and cancellation of existing reservations are in process. Thank you for you service in providing us with this valuable information.
Elisha says
Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_peter/5-8.htm
Short Definition: slanderous, the Slanderer, the Devil
Definition: (adj. used often as a noun), slanderous; with the article: the Slanderer (par excellence), the Devil.
1228 diábolos (from 1225 /diabállō, “to slander, accuse, defame”) – properly, a slanderer; a false accuser; unjustly criticizing to hurt (malign) and condemn to sever a relationship.
[1228 (diábolos) is the root of the English word, “Devil” (see also Webster’s Dictionary).
1228 (diabolos) in secular Greek means “backbiter,” i.e. an accuser, calumniator (slanderer). 1228 (diábolos) is literally someone who “casts through,” i.e. making charges that bring down (destroy). Satan is used by God in this plan – as a predictable wind-up toy, playing out his evil nature.]
https://biblehub.com/greek/1228.htm
Are we learning yet?
Krishna says
Wow sanctions against critics of Islam
Aunty Podes says
The HYATT is permanently REMOVED from my list of places to stay …
Haztochek Acharon says
If so, why this article?
http://dcist.com/2018/08/despite_protest_crystal_city_hyatt.php
gravenimage says
Haztochek, it is now after September 5th. The Act for America conference took place before this ban.
Norger says
“Imagine how Mathias 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.”
That is precisely the point. Who the f*** appointed the SPLC as arbiters of who should and should not be permitted to travel, stay in hotels and host conferences?
And no doubt CAIR,ISNA etc are perpetually welcome at the Hyatt.
Garfield says
The decision makers at Hyatt need copies of Roberts latest book.
Frank Anderson says
Garfield, I Suggest there are 3 essential exclusive groups. Membership in one of those groups excludes membership in the others. There are those who support the conquest of islam (jihad), there are those who oppose jihad, and there are those who are not paying attention.
Mitt Romney was attacked regularly in the 2012 for simply telling the truth, whether the main threat to the US is Russia, or that more or less 40 some odd percent of voters oppose Republican goals, no matter what anyone says. The people at Hyatt would never read Spencer’s book any more than the mindless “liberals” will ever be bothered by the truth. It would be more productive to send books to the “undecided”.
During the Vietnam war the major reason for US presence was to prevent the Communist bloodbath that was sure to follow if and when the North conquered the South. There was ample demonstration of Communist slaughter all during the war. “Liberals” collaborating with the Communists got enough control of Congress so that when the time came to keep the promise of support made upon the exit of US troops. President Ford was prohibited from acting. As a result more or less 2,000,000 people in Vietnam were murdered by the Communists, who are now in charge.
I have heard the daughter of one of the prominent “liberal collaborators” speak. She avoided the bloodbath that her father helped bring about without shame, for his actions or for her avoidance. Jihad supporters and collaborators know they want us dead. They have no interest or motivation in changing their views.
Futile gestures accomplish nothing beneficial. They waste time and resources and distract from efforts that could produce positive benefits.