U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Why are ‘Conservatives’ Throwing Michelle Malkin Under the Bus?” a cautionary analysis by Jose Nino on Big League Politics asks. “Second Amendment Activists Would be Wise to Not Dismiss Michelle Malkin’s Immigration Discussions.”
Apparently, advocating America should place its interests ahead of any other country’s, including Israel’s, was enough for Gun Owners of America’s Director of Outreach to brag on Twitter about having Malkin excluded from speaking to a Republican group.
How did anyone get the impression that this equates with being anti-Semitic?
“Bethany Mandel, editor of the conservative website Ricochet, penned an article titled ‘The Fall of Michelle Malkin’, which questioned Malkin’s recent controversial statements on immigration and why U.S. taxpayers subsidize Israel to the tune of billions,” the article explains. Except, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, that depends upon what the meaning of the word “conservative” is.
Richochet describes itself as “center-right,” meaning, as we are constantly reminded, anyone to the right of Bill Kristol is ripe for being attacked as a “Nazi.” Taken to its logical conclusion, that means the Democratic Socialists get to be the ones defining the limits of acceptable opposition and discourse. And that becomes apparent holding the cursor over Mandel’s name, where a bio window appears and lets us know she is also a “columnist at the Jewish Daily Forward.”
You know, Zionist socialists. I guess they are “conservative,” just not for who we’re being led to think. Their emphasis on that and on the World Zionist Congress make it fair to ask if their interests will always be compatible with U.S. interests, and that’s where one of Mandel’s main “indictments” against Malkin raises another question:
What’s anti-Semitic about speculating that dual citizenship could raise legitimate competing loyalty questions?
The fact that he had also retained his Austrian citizenship was one of my concerns when Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for California governor. Why?
Because when he became a citizen, he made this promise to us:
“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.”
So is the citizenship oath “anti-Semitic”?
It is literally impossible to maintain allegiance to two countries. Any two countries. That’s just an observation of reality and has nothing to do with being anti-anything. And not to get too far off track, but just to mention it, our new citizens will no longer need to defend the country that took them in.
As for the charge that Malkin is a “holocaust denier,” the link Mandel provides to substantiate that claim results in a notice:
“This Tweet is unavailable.”
It would be helpful if a screenshot existed so we could judge for ourselves what was said and the context in which it was presented. Without knowing more, perhaps the most relevant takeaway comes from a comment under Mandel’s article:
“Watched the clip. It is inaccurate to say that she engaged in ‘Holocaust Denial’ as the Holocaust isn’t mentioned. Nor did she ‘indiscriminately’ throw around charges of dual loyalty. The only mention of dual loyalty was a rhetorical one that used as an example people operating as foreign agents. Do better Bethany.”
Nonetheless, that was enough for Antonia Okafor, the Director of Outreach for Gun Owners of America, to tweet:
“Glad I stopped a Republican group here in Colorado from almost hiring her to speak.”
“As controversial as Malkin’s ideas may be, they should still be engaged with,” Nino cautions. “Especially when considering how interconnected immigration is with Second Amendment policy. For example, BLP reported that Hispanics (both migrants and their children) hold solidly anti-gun views. Should these trends continue in motion, the right to bear arms in America could be in jeopardy.”
Bingo. That’s a point I’ve been making for years, that calculated demographic changes represent the greatest threat to gun owner rights that we face because we are dealing with incoming populations that are predisposed to be overwhelmingly Democrat/anti-gun. If “pathway to citizenship” Democrats and cheap-labor Republicans succeed in their “fundamental transformation” of the Republic, it will be game over as far as looking to legislatures and courts for relief.
If you want to argue with that, take the challenge, first.
Okafor’s employer understands this. I was on Mark Walters’ Armed American Radio with former GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt back in March 2015, when he responded to my question on scoring politicians for immigration votes that (@45:00 into the conversation):
“Well the answer you’re going to get from us at Gun Owners of America is ‘Absolutely should be part of the scoring,’ and it’s something that we plan on including in our rating of Congress this and next year, because, as we’ve already discussed, if we don’t block this amnesty move — now — before we get 5 … 8 million previously illegal aliens now voting, 85% of whom are, they tell pollsters, gonna vote for anti-gun Democrats, that’s the ball game. That’s it. We lose our Second Amendment, doesn’t matter whether it’s still in the Constitution in writing or not, the National Archives can’t protect it from this kind of assault. Seems pretty unequivocal. Seems pretty correct.”
More recently, I received a GOA political questionnaire from Texas Congressional candidate J. Ross Lacy that included this question:
It’s great that GOA is doing outreach to introduce the benefits of an armed citizenry to new potential allies. That said, it’s important that the outreach is done to educate on shared principles that transcend artificial divisions of age, race and the like. Such differences are being weaponized and used by smear groups to scare us away from even bringing up topics they want suppressed lest they accuse us of racism. The gun-grabbers are relying on that.
In her position of influence, it’s Okafor’s responsibility to know that. She owes Malkin a public apology. GOA should quietly encourage her to offer one.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.