Immigrant Who Found Refuge in U.S. from Mugabe Terror Disparages Oath Keepers
Smearing “white gun nuts” in general and Oath Keepers in particular, Charles Mudede manages to fabricate all kinds of falsehoods while covering for his own ignorance and hypocrisy in a Friday hit piece being passed off as informed commentary on The Stranger blog.
In typical “progressive” Opposite Day fashion, Mudede presents a group with the purpose of honoring its oath to the Constitution, and to rule of law – as opposed to rule of men — as “anti-government.” As for being a “militia,” we addressed that the last time a lying leftist bore false witness against Oath Keepers by citing editor Elias Alias:
The reason Oath Keepers is not a Militia is simple — among other considerations, we do not have a command structure, do not assign Militia rank designations or titles, and we are not a division of any State Militia Office, since to the best of my knowledge those no longer exist in modern America. Oath Keepers loves the name “Militia”, but Oath Keepers is not a Militia. We would, however, love to see every State have its Office of the Militia, for we do honor out Oath to the Constitution which requires the Militia. Why else would the SPLC and DHS hate our guts, eh?
“But what the white conservatives of today forget … is that when the Black Panther Party … brazenly open carried to protect themselves and their community, it was none other than Ronald Reagan (the GOD of the GOP) who as governor of California not only signed a bill against open carrying (Mulford Act) but justified his position in the same language that the left of our times use against the NRA,” Mudede assures his readers.
How wonderful for him that he’s just getting around to informing himself — and them — of this. How telling that he just presumes this isn’t something many of us have been pointing out for years. Case in point, on the occasion of Reagan’s death, I conducted a poll citing his anti-gun actions, but concealed who I was talking about. The results:
[T]he nearly 80% of you who voted based solely on his actions deemed them “traitorous,” and the vast majority of the balance deemed them “misguided.”
Just because Mudede is unaware of things doesn’t mean anyone else has forgotten anything.
So what do we know about this character, other than the fact that his biases are showing and he’s guilty of journalistic malpractice?
This is where I generally invite Gomer to comment.
Rather than organizing and taking up arms to fight oppression by the government of fellow collectivist Robert Mugabe in his native Zimbabwe, Mudede found it a lot easier (and safer) to abandon his country and bring his “values” to the United States. Talk about someone with cause to be anti-government, at least anti- some governments. And in order to become a citizen here, he took an oath, which at the time, still included a requirement “to bear arms in defense of the United States.”
It’s telling that instead of working for freedom and justice in his homeland, Mudede wants to focus on making the country that took him in more like the one he fled. And as we’ve seen, there are plenty in power who agree with that, in case you’re wondering why anyone thinks it’s to this nation’s advantage to bring in Third World populations inimical to founding principles.
They don’t. They think it’s to their advantage.
And if you don’t agree with that, you must be a “white anti-government gun nut.”