Friday, November 09, 2012

Follow In The Footsteps ...

Following in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers

by Guy Rodgers, Exec. Director

Would you do me the favor of taking a few minutes to read this email all the way to the end?

Yesterday we received an email in response to the email I sent out on Wednesday entitled “What now?”

The person emailing us expressed concern that the three fact statements in my Wednesday email regarding the Obama administration were “polarizing.” The person sending it urged that, instead of criticizing the Obama administration, we work with the administration to resolve these issues.

Without a doubt the person who emailed us was sincere and heartfelt, which I can understand, given how combative the presidential campaign was. It is a worthy aspiration to hope that somehow people can come together and work toward a mutually satisfactory resolution.

Unfortunately, for nearly four years, the Obama administration, in virtually every way possible, has made it clear that it has a perspective and position on radical Islam that it is unwilling to modify, even in the slightest.

Here are just a few examples:

1)  Attorney General Eric Holder’s exchange with House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith. Rep. Smith asked Holder repeatedly if “radical Islam” COULD have been a motive for many of the homegrown terrorists we had arrested. Holder literally tied himself in rhetorical knots trying to avoid answering.
2)  John Brennan, President Obama’s top counterterrorism advisor, has repeatedly dismissed any notion that “jihad” refers to violence against non-Muslims or that Muslims, who refer to themselves as “jihadists,” should be characterized that way. Brennan’s position is that jihad only refers to a personal striving to be a good Muslim. This may be appealing to Western sensibilities but it’s not the way jihad is characterized in the vast majority of passages in the Qur’an and the most authoritative hadith.
3)  In the 9/11 commission report, the terms “jihadist,” “jihad,” “Muslim,” and “Islam,” appeared a total of 625 times. In the Obama administration’s 2009 “National Intelligence Strategy” report, those terms did not appear once. They were completely stripped out of our intelligence assessment.
4)  The Pentagon report that examined the Ft. Hood massacre did not include a single reference to jihad, radical Islam, or any other related term in the body of the report. Instead, it characterized the attack as “workplace violence.” This in spite of the fact that Nidal Hasan’s behavior and words in the years leading up to the attack, as well as his shouting “Allahu Akbar” during the attack, leave no doubt he saw himself as a jihadist. To this day the Obama administration refuses to characterize this attack as a terrorist act. The stubborn refusal by the Obama administration to acknowledge what the vast majority of Americans know to be true is, frankly, breathtaking.
5)  Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley was publicly reprimanded by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after Muslim organizations, several of which are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, complained about a course Lt. Col. Dooley taught at the Joint Forces Staff College.
6)  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been actively leading the State Department support of UN Resolution 16/18, the latest effort by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to get the UN to support a ban on any speech deemed critical of Islam. This resolution is a direct assault on our first amendment right of free speech.
7)  As I stated in my Wednesday email, the Obama White House has opened its doors to numerous Muslims who are leaders of or connected to Muslim Brotherhood affiliated organizations.

I could provide many other examples, the most recent of which would be the Obama administration’s demonstrably false claim that an obscure film on YouTube triggered the assault on our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi.

The course set by this administration regarding radical Islam could not be clearer. It is a dangerous course that is compromising our national security and chilling American free speech. What’s more, the administration has rebuffed every effort to persuade it to change that course.

I wish this were not the case, but all the wishing in the world won’t change the reality.

What, then, should ACT! for America do? Should we be silent so as not to appear “polarizing?”

I can assure you of this. If a Republican administration had charted this course, and had shown no willingness to modify its course, we would be exposing it just as we are doing now with respect to the Obama administration.

The reason is that this is not a matter of political parties, Republican or Democrat. The intent is not to be “polarizing.” As Brigitte Gabriel says so often, national security is not a “Republican” issue or a “Democratic” issue, it’s an “American issue.”

Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to report the facts and the truth. America mustbecome aware of what the Obama administration is doing to compromise our national security and our right to free speech.

If we fail to expose this agenda, we are derelict in our duty as Americans and we are compromising the ACT! for America mission. What’s more, we would not be keeping faith with the countless Americans who have served and sacrificed in our Armed Forces so we could enjoy the blessings of safety and freedom.

We welcome Americans of all political stripes into ACT! for America. I can tell you that this is the most diverse coalition of people working for a common cause I’ve ever seen in my 25+ years in politics. For example, I have been in ACT! for America meetings where a lesbian and an evangelical Christian both spoke up about how they were supporting the ACT! for America effort. How often does that happen in the world of politics?

Having said that, if it’s “polarizing” to expose a truth as obvious and as dangerous as the Obama administration’s position on radical Islam, then we will choose to tell the truth. We will choose to follow in the footsteps of courageous founding fathers like John Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and Sam Adams, whose words and deeds in the cause of liberty were criticized by some as “polarizing.”

The stakes are too high, and the American landscape is too littered with political correctness, for us to choose any other path.

Yours for a safe and free America,

Guy Rodgers

No comments: