US Citizens: Three Ways to Tell Your Legislator “NO REFUGEES”


This is a timely message from ACT! for America:

Our 300,000 grassroots advocates have been very vocal in opposing the resettlement of Syrian refugees to the U.S. We are being heard, but we must do more. President Obama has been clear that he still intends to bring hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees to our towns and communities — irrespective of the roar of disapproval from American citizens, the strong public disapproval of over half of U.S Governors, the passage of legislation by the U.S. Congress, and — of course — even after the Paris attack, where we now know that at least one of the terrorists arrived in Europe as a Syrian refugee.

This is unacceptable and ACT for America is taking action, but we need your help.

We have three important and time-sensitive ACTION ALERTS currently underway. Please be sure to take action on each of them, and to forward this e-mail to everyone you know. This is a critical time, both in our nation and worldwide, and we need all hands on deck.


1. We are gathering tens of thousands of signatures on an Open Letter to the leadership in the House and Senate voicing strong opposition to the Obama Administration’s plans to bring Syrian refugees to the U.S. The letter will be hand-delivered to the U.S. Congress by our Director of Government Relations. If you haven’t yet added your name, pleaseclick HERE to do so.

2. We are actively supporting H.R. 3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act of 2015 introduced by Rep Brian Babin (R-TX). The bill would immediately suspend the U.N.-run refugee program to provide Congress time to fully assess the national security risks and investigate its financial burden on federal, state and local taxpayers.

As of this writing, the bill has 78 cosponsors. Is your House Representative one of them? Click HERE to find out. If not, please send your House Representative an e-mail asking for cosponsorship, by clicking HERE. If your Representative HAS cosponsored the bill, please send a quick note to say thank you. It goes a long way.

(Several weeks ago, before the Paris attack, Representative Babin spoke on the Floor of the U.S. House of Representatives about the grave threat associated with the U.N.-run refugee program. Click HERE to watch it.)

3. We are actively registering our opposition to any federal funding for U.S. Refugee resettlement actions to be included in the U.S. Congress’s end of year spending bill. This is our most time-sensitive activity right now! Please click HERE to e-mail or call your federal legislators TODAY to express your opposition to any federal funding going to refugee resettlement.

[NOTE: When calling your legislator’s office, it’s fine to merge Actions 2 and 3 together. Express your support for Rep. Babin’s bill and ask for cosponsorship; and express your opposition for any refugee resettlement funding in the fiscal year 2016 budget bill.]

The Paris attack is but a foreshadowing of what can and will take place in our nation soon. We cannot allow unvetted refugees from Syria (or elsewhere) to be settled in our towns and communities. This is a high priority national security matter. Please take action today and pass this e-mail on to everyone you know. Remember, if each of us does just a little, together we can accomplish a lot.

Thank you for all that you do.

ACT for America accepts no funding from any governmental agency, any foreign influence peddlers, or political institutions. Your support of ACT for America is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate. ACT for America education is a recognized 501(c)3 organization.


Rapport, Connection and Thanksgiving


In the United States, (and for some in the UK) almost everyone is anticipating a Thanksgiving feast later this week. Most people will spend the day with their family. For many of us, our families have been the most difficult people to educate about Islam, and it is a painful fact that in many ways some of our own family members are "aiding and abetting" the enemy (without knowing it, of course).

Family get-togethers on Thanksgiving (or any holiday) may seem like a good opportunity to make your case, but I caution you against it. First of all, talking politics in those circumstances can easily ruin the event for everyone. And an argument certainly will. Second, persuading someone in a group situation is much more difficult than one-on-one (unless most of the people there are on your side of the argument). And third, many of your fellow infidels may be drinking alcohol, and that doesn't help with good listening or clear thinking.

The family gathering can, however, help our cause. You can use the occasion to observe and gain rapport. I suggest you focus this Thanksgiving on one person. Who is the most likely to be open to understanding Islam who will be attending the feast? Who is the most undecided? Pick one person.

During your family occasion, try to discover which representational system the person favors (click here if you don't know what that means).

And second, use your body to gain and maintain rapport throughout the day with everyone there, especially the person you picked (click here to find out how to do that). I suggest you do this at family gatherings of any kind.

These things will set you up beautifully for future one-on-one conversations with the person — conversations where you'll have a good chance of bringing them to a new understanding of Islam. In many ways, your task is half done when you are in strong rapport. Sometimes taking your focus off convincing and persuading can make you more convincing and persuasive. Sometimes not approaching something directly improves your ability.

I have seen a demonstration that perfectly illustrates this principle. In fact, I've done the demonstration myself several times after seeing it in a seminar. Here's how it goes: I toss something to someone, and they miss it. And they say something like, "I'm terrible at catching." So I tell them I'm going to test something. "I'm going to toss you this ball," I say, "but this time don't try to catch it. Instead, I want you to tell me which way the ball is spinning." Then I toss the ball, and to their great surprise, they catch it easily.

How does this work? They take their attention off trying to catch the ball, and instead pay close attention to the ball itself, and their body responds naturally and easily and catches it.

In the same way, if you take your attention off making people believe you, and instead pay close attention to their favored representational system and pay close attention to their body posture and match it, you have a good chance of making them believe you — easily and naturally — without even trying.

These two tasks are not time-consuming, difficult, upsetting, or conflict-creating. You can do them both and still fully enjoy the day too. Have a happy Thanksgiving.


The Facts of Islam Alone Can Open Someone's Eyes


Damon Whitsell, the creator of The Religion of Conquest, published an interesting article about his own experiences trying to convince a friend's son that Islam is not a religion of peace. Whitsell admits he didn't do a very good persuasion job, and when you read their exchange, you have to agree with him. He's hard on the kid and too self-righteous, among other things.

However, he gets in some good points, gets a few facts to penetrate, and after the kid stopped talking to Whitsell for eight months, he came back after he looked into Islam on his own, and had to admit Whitsell was right. It's a triumph of the facts.

And it illustrates the point that you don't really have to convince someone Islam is a dangerous ideology. You only have to convince someone to look into it. The true nature of Islamic doctrine speaks for itself without any emphasis or embellishment on your part. This is good news. It means your mission is easier than you thought.

Read the blow-by-blow transcript of Whitsell's interaction with his friend's son here: With Facts I Helped Open Someone's Eyes to the Dangers of Islam (You Can Too).


Inflammatory Rhetoric


I was talking to a friend of mine about Islam. The latest attack in Paris (on Friday 13th, 2015) was fresh on everyone's mind, and we were talking about it. He doesn't like it when I say negative things about Islam, although he doesn't really argue with me too much.

I told him to think about it this way: Jehovah's Witnesses go door to door to promote their religion. I know not all of them do this, but they are supposed to. It's part of their religious practice.

He said, "Yeah, I know."

"Well," I said, "jihad is part of Islam. Not all of them do it, but they are all supposed to. It's part of their religious practice."

He just looked at me with a face that said, "I can't listen to you say such things!"

"I don't like it when Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door," I said, "but I don't hate people who are Jehovah's Witnesses. In high school, one of my good friends was a Jehovah's Witness. So you can dislike a religious practice or dislike an ideology, and not have any hatred of any particular person who is a member of that religion or ideology."

"I know you're not a hateful person," he admitted, while still holding a facial expression that said, "I still don't like any of this."

"Schindler was a Nazi," I said.

He blurted out, "I know, I know, but I guess I'm just afraid of inflammatory rhetoric, not from you, but from other people who are on the same track, talking about the same topic."

Finally, we were getting somewhere. "But don't you see," I said, following my own advice, "that's exactly why we need to be talking about this now — before a Muslim sets off a nuclear bomb in the middle of New York City. Can you imagine the inflammatory rhetoric you'd get then? When most people are still ignorant of the real situation? People need to talk about this now, while everyone is relatively calm."

Then I had a thought. I said, "I've been learning about this topic for a long time, and I have rarely come across inflammatory rhetoric. Every once in awhile someone will say something hateful or crazy on a comment on a Facebook page or blog, but that's about it. But contrast that with the truly inflammatory rhetoric that is on Middle East television every day. Are you concerned about that? They have people on their national TV urging Muslims to stab Israelis to death!"

He said, "I read about that..."

"And they're doing it!" I said a little too loudly. "But that's just one example. They talk about destroying Israel and the United States. They talk about how we are the most evil people on earth and need to be annihilated. This is far beyond inflammatory rhetoric. Some of their people carry it out. And many of the rest support it. That is a very big difference from a comment on Facebook. Their comments are televised and broadcast and their message carries authority just by virtue of being broadcast."

It looked like this point sunk in, and I felt I should kind of wind it down, so I said, "I am also afraid of inflammatory rhetoric on our side. But you can err on the other side — not speaking about it enough. This is a very serious topic that affects all of us and we should all be talking about it and learning about it. Sensibly. Rationally, for sure. But we should talk about it. And see if something can be humanely done about our predicament."

I never try to get anyone to admit they were wrong. That would be foolish. It's enough to make a good point and move on, waiting for the next opportunity, and preparing in the meanwhile, gaining knowledge and skills. I feel he will come around. But I'm taking it slow. I could tell he really didn't like this whole thing. I made a good point using his own words, his own concern, and he couldn't rationally deny that if he's worried about the inflammatory rhetoric of counterjihadists, it would be logically inconsistent to be unconcerned about the inflammatory rhetoric of those who want to destroy us.

He said, "I just don't want..." and he hesitated, trying to find the right words.

But before he could finish his sentence, I finished it for him: "You don't want it to be true."

To which he immediately replied, nodding his head, "Yes, I really don't want it to be true."

"I know, man," I said sympathetically. "I don't either." And we left it at that. I'm going to give him a little time to let it all settle in his mind before I pull him further into this subject. It's a big, bitter pill to swallow, and when you really understand it, your life will never be the same. I think on some level, people recognize this, and that's one of the reasons they resist. They will throw every argument at you they can because, at the bottom of it all, they just don't want it to be true, and I can't blame them.


Islam is Forcing Us to Resolve an Important Ethical Conflict

I saw a video (which you can see here) where a man and a woman were walking together in a public park, and he slaps her face. Bystanders immediately stopped him.

Then she dresses in a hijab and they do the same thing: They walk along talking, this time in Arabic, and then he stops and slaps her. You could see that other people in the park were disturbed by it, but only one man eventually intervened. Everyone else looked on, didn't like it, but didn't do anything or even say anything.

The creators of the video implied that this meant the non-Muslims didn't care as much about Muslim women as they do about non-Muslim women. But I think that conclusion is off-base.

The video illustrates a deep conflict in our culture. And our increasing contact with Muslims is bringing this conflict more and more to the forefront. We will have to resolve it. We have rarely had to confront this conflict in the past, but Islam is exceedingly good at putting non-Muslims in double binds.

This ability to put us in double binds is, I believe, one of their most effective strategic ploys, and they are exploiting it wherever they can.

In case you didn't know exactly what a double bind was, I looked up a good definition to add the link above, but I also found this telling statement in the explanation: "Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion — the use of confusion makes them both difficult to respond to as well as to resist."

Islam is not strong enough and Muslims in most non-Muslim countries are not numerous enough to control non-Muslims through open coercion as they would in a Muslim country. So they use double binds to exert control.

What is the conflict illustrated in the video? One the one hand we want to be open, tolerant people. We don't want to be bigoted or narrow-minded. We don't want to be arrogant and insulting toward another's culture just because it's different. This is basic etiquette and manners, and for most of us, it is an important part of who we are.

On the other hand, what if the other culture is actually morally wrong? What if the other culture harms people? What if it interferes with others' freedoms?

Most cultural differences are very easy for us to accept. If someone wants to put a mark on their forehead or wear a cross or dress in a traditional dress from the old country or eat salted mackerel or pray in some way you are unfamiliar with, most of us don't think, "Look at those freaky foreigners. They are strange and therefore wrong and bad." We think, "That's their culture, and they have every right to live the way they want to."

The co-creator of the movie, Borat, (Dan Mazer) said he found most Americans "incredibly polite," even when the Borat character pushed them far beyond the limits of tolerance. We are the great melting pot. And one of the main reasons that people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds interact and work together with very little friction is that for the most part, we accept each other's differences. Some even embrace and celebrate those differences.

But the cultural-difference-acceptance ethic described above is being challenged more than Borat ever dreamed of. Islam puts our desire to accept cultural differences in direct conflict with our own humanity. In the video I mentioned above, the woman was slapped by a man. But when she dressed and talked like a Muslim, this created a conflict for onlookers. She was clearly a Muslim and a husband hitting a wife is a fairly common practice in Muslim culture (because the practice is encouraged in these Islamic doctrines).

For the onlookers, which ethical principle overrides which? It's wrong for a man to hit a woman. And it's wrong to condemn the practices of a different culture. We don't normally have to choose between them. But Islam is forcing us to choose, and doing their best to convince us to choose cultural acceptance.

What about FGM? Some girls have had this done to them in America. Should we accept this cultural difference, or impose our own morals on people with different cultural beliefs? What about segregation of men and women? What about nurses washing their hands? What about wearing a burka for a drivers licence photo? What about polygamy?

Orthodox Muslims keep putting us to the test. And they aren't doing it passively or accidentally. One of the core principles of Islamic doctrine is that Islam is a better political system and a better religion than any other, and that Muslims are better people than any other, and that ultimately the Islamic system of rules and law should override and supersede all others on earth. It is a pushy, domineering, assertive religion. It keeps pushing us into our double binds and most people don't know what to do about it. And to make matters worse, orthodox Muslims keep trying to prevent non-Muslims from even talking about Islam, so we're having a difficult time working it out and resolving it among ourselves. The issue is getting more and more tense and uncomfortable.

We will have to decide. When the principle of cultural inclusion and acceptance comes into conflict with the principles of women's rights, human rights, safety, freedom of speech, etc., which do we choose?



All writing on is copyright © 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.

Citizen Warrior Heroes

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior Heroes.

No More Concessions to Islam

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP