Obama Changed U.S. Citizenship Oath Specifically To Accommodate Sharia And Islamic Law <http://americac2c.com/forum/topics/obama-changed-u-s-citizenship-oath-specifically-to-accommodate-sh?xg_source=msg_mes_network> --- well that's more than enough to piss off zionist xians and jews.
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 9:43:04 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Obama Changed U.S. Citizenship Oath Specifically To Accommodate Sharia > And Islamic Law > <http://americac2c.com/forum/topics/obama-changed-u-s-citizenship-oath-specifically-to-accommodate-sh?xg_source=msg_mes_network> > > ... > <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/InfiltratedNation/~3/yZglLu_x4zE/obama-changed-us-citizenship-oath.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email> > > Posted: 26 Jun 2016 03:12 PM PDT > > > <http://thelastgreatstand.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Sharia-768x319.jpg> > > LastGreatStand > <http://thelastgreatstand.com/2016/06/26/obama-changed-u-s-citizenship-oath-specifically-to-accommodate-sharia-and-islamic-law/> > > > > Infiltrated Nation <http://www.infiltratednation.com/>. > > > > *Back in December, **JewsNews.co.il* <http://jewsnews.co.il/>* reported > that Obama changed the U.S. Citizenship Oath specifically to accommodate > Sharia and Islamic Law, and as one might expect, all the usual alleged > “fact checker” sites ran to Obama’s aid reporting that such a claim was > “Mostly False.” * > > Some of the aforementioned alleged “fact checker” sites (I won’t name > names here, but you can figure it out) don’t like to be called out on the > carpet for having a leftist tilt to their “fact checking,” so I’ll ask the > reader, what exactly does “Mostly False” mean? If I say the sky is purple, > is that True, False, or “Mostly False?” > > Merriam Webster <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact> online > defined a “Fact” as: > > > – something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual > existence > > – a true piece of information > > > We'll come back to the definition of "Fact" in a moment. As I mentioned, > some of the alleged “fact checker” sites don’t like to be called out on the > carpet for having a leftist tilt to their “fact checking,” and one in > particular even had their “legal department” send me cease and desist > letters to take down a previous post of mine calling them out on the > carpet. > > One would think the “legal department” of a “fact checker” site would have > at least known the requirements to prove the elements of the claim they > were making, or perhaps even the statute of limitations on the claim, but > not so much. I'm sure it's one heck of a “legal department” though. > > Despite the fact that this well informed “legal department” has no claim > to speak of, I have enough headaches in my life. Since the post had been up > for several years anyway, I just removed it to avoid the hassle. Sometimes > a person needs to ask themselves, "Which do I want more? Do I want to be > right, or do I want to be happy?" It wasn't worth my time or effort. > > THIS POST WILL REVIEW: 1) What was reported by JewsNews.co.il > <http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://jewsnews.co.il/>; 2) Review the > changes made to the U.S. Citizenship Oath (by going directly to government > websites); and 3) Explain the tortured reasoning “fact checker” sites use > to justify their claim that what JewsNews.co.il > <http://beforeitsnews.com/r2/?url=http://jewsnews.co.il/> reported was > “Mostly False.” > > > *1) WHAT WAS REPORTED:* > > > In December, JewsNews.co.il <http://jewsnews.co.il/> reported: > > > Obama has pledged to fundamentally change the United States, and has found > success over the years by ramming through laws that nobody has read, > creating laws through regulation, and ignoring the Constitution through > executive orders. > > > The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has > announced another change > <http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Updates/20150721-OathModifications.pdf>, > courtesy of the Obama Administration. > > Those that are requesting to become US citizens, through naturalization, > are required to take an Oath of Allegiance. Part of that oath reads, > > > *“...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 services in the Armed Forces of the United States when > required by the law...” * > > The Obama Administration is changing that wording to exempt people from > combat, and non-combat services in support of the United States if, a > person can demonstrate opposition to the clause, > > *“...based on religious training and belief or deeply held moral or > ethical code.”* > > > Major beneficiaries to this clause are those that follow the Muslim > teachings, more specifically Sharia Law, that allow for any practicing > Muslim to lie about their allegiance to any organization or country as long > as it furthers the Muslim faith. The teachings also restrict a practicing > Muslim from bearing arms against another practicing Muslims. > > > As the United States is currently at war with radical Muslims throughout > the world who use Sharia Law as an excuse to slaughter hundreds of > thousands of innocent men, women, and children who do not share their > fascist beliefs, it is somewhat peculiar that the Obama Administration > would add a change to the Oath of Allegiance that specifically benefits > Muslims who follow Shariah Law. > > > Before reviewing the changes made to the U.S. Citizenship Oath, please > take a look at the video below, which has been viewed over 10,000,000 > times, because it’s directly relevant to the conversation about the changes > made to the Citizenship Oath. > > Also, please note that the video is dated one month prior to the changes > made to the Oath, which makes it painfully clear that everyone else on the > planet (other than Obama and his merry band of liberal clapping seals) > recognized the inherent danger being faced... > > > *2) WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE OATH:* > > > Taking an Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America is not a new > phenomena by any means. New naturalized citizens have been taking an oath > since the country’s founding, but prior to the Naturalization Act of 1906 > <http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/timeline.html> the oath did not > have any specific text or verbiage, and the only guidance > <http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america> > > was that the applicant themselves. > > Post World War II, The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 set a > number of guidelines > <http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-10309.html> > > for the Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, but it still > didn’t spell out the oath’s text. Some of the guidelines were as follows: > > > (1) To support the Constitution of the United States; > > (2) To renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and > fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or > which the applicant was before a subject or citizen; > > (3) To support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United > States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; > > (4) To bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and > > (5) (A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the > law, or > > (B) To perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United > States when required by the law, or > > (C) To perform work of national importance under civilian direction when > required by the law. > > > > Fast forward to today. Today, the text of the Oath of Allegiance can be > found here in federal codes > <http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-32547/0-0-0-32553.html>. > > *This* is where the Obama lackeys at “fact checker” sites like to play > games and tilt to the left. The federal code > <http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-32547/0-0-0-32553.html> > > states: > > > "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." > > > > *Prior to the “Obama administration’s” changes (BTW: that is the > difference to a “fact checker” site; more on that below), the **federal > code* > <http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-32547/0-0-0-32553.html>* > > already stated:* > > > "(b) Alteration of form of oath; affirmation in lieu of oath. In those > cases in which a petitioner or applicant for naturalization is exempt from > taking the oath prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section in its > entirety, the inapplicable clauses shall be deleted and the oath shall be > taken in such altered form. When a petitioner or applicant for > naturalization, by reason of religious training and belief (or individual > interpretation thereof), or for other reasons of good conscience, cannot > take the oath prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section with the words > “on oath” and “so help me God” included, the words “and solemnly affirm” > shall be substituted for the words “on oath,” the words “so help me God” > shall be deleted, and the oath shall be taken in such modified form. Any > reference to “oath of allegiance” in this chapter is understood to mean > equally “affirmation of allegiance” as described in this paragraph." > > > > So, since the federal code > <http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-32547/0-0-0-32553.html> > > alrady said the alternate oath, President Obama has not "changed" the Oath > of Allegiance for new Americans. Naturalized citizens were already able to > omit portions of the oath based on “religious training and belief, or for > other reasons of good conscience.” What DID happen under the “Obama > administration” (which certainly cannot be attributed to President Obama > himself as per “fact checking” websites), the U.S. Citizenship and > Immigration Services clarified the requirements necessary to be eligible to > take the modified oath. They did so by creating a three-part test that > reads as follows: > <http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartJ-Chapter3.html#S-A> > > > In order for an applicant to qualify for a modification based on his or > her “religious training and belief,” the applicant must satisfy a > three-part test. An applicant must establish that: > > (1) He or she is opposed to bearing arms in the armed forces or opposed to > any type of Service in the armed forces; > > (2) The objection is grounded in his or her religious principles, to > include other belief systems similar to traditional religion or a deeply > held moral or ethical code; and > > (3) His or her beliefs are sincere, meaningful, and deeply held. > > > > The applicant is not eligible for a modified oath when he or she is > opposed to a specific war. Religious training or belief does not include > essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views. An applicant > whose objection to war is based upon opinions or beliefs about public > policy and the practicality or desirability of combat, or whose beliefs are > not deeply held, does not qualify for the modification of the oath. > > > > > > *3) THE LEFT LEANING TORTURED REASONING OF "FACT CHECKER" WEBSITES* > > > > If you pay attention to the news and what is happening in Europe, or you > watched the video above, you know the danger posed to civilized Western > society by radical Muslim extremists. Why then, would “President Obama’s > administration” (not to be confused with President Obama as per the “fact > checker” websites), make a point to “clarify” the already existing statute > to make CERTAIN that anyone with total allegiance to Sharia Law could opt > for the alternate oath? > > Virtually all U.S. laws or statutes are given some room for interpretation > otherwise there would be no courts, right? Very little of “reality” (a > place Obama doesn’t visit often) exists in pure black and white. Reality > tends to be more grey, and in court both side makes the argument for why > their side is correct, and either a judge or a jury decides. > > In the nuclear era, when radical groups like ISIS have made the claim they > have every intention of infiltrating groups coming to America, have plans > to nuke a U.S. city > <http://thelastgreatstand.com/2016/02/02/ex-isis-fighter-reveals-plans-to-nuke-4-major-cities-video/>, > > and have even released a list of target cities > <http://thelastgreatstand.com/2016/02/25/isis-releases-kill-list-of-us-cities-did-your-city-make-the-kill-list/>, > > why would “President Obama’s administration” (not to be confused with > President Obama of course), deliberately handcuff national security > efforts? They could have just as easily left the federal code > <http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-32547/0-0-0-32553.html> > > already in existence alone. > > Getting back to Merriam Webster’s > <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact> definition of a > “Fact...” > > > Is it, or is it not a fact, that Obama is the Chief Law Enforcement > officer of this country? Saying that Obama wasn’t responsible for the > changes made to the oath that pave the way for radical extremists to gain > citizenship is like saying Obama is not responsible for the Justice > Department that will not indict Hillary Clinton, or that Obama wasn’t > responsible for the IRS targeting conservatives. > > > > Give me a break. The buck stops with Obama. If you honestly think that > someone as narcissistic at Barack Hussein Obama would allow major policy > decisions or issues of national security to be made without his consent... > then I suppose you’ll say it was the “Obama administration” that is > responsible, just like the “fact checker” websites do. > For the rest of us who live in "reality," I submit to you that Obama’s > intent of clarifying the statute was in keeping with all the links > presented at the bottom confirming his treasonous activity. Furthermore, > Obama's comments just his week about how he doesn’t care what the Supreme > Court says, he’s still not following immigration law only serve to further > solidify that argument. > > To quote Ted Nugent earlier this year > <http://thelastgreatstand.com/2016/06/24/ted-nugent-wants-obama-executed-hes-the-enemy-of-america-video/>, > > “President Obama and Hillary Clinton should be tried for treason & hung > <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/01/20/nra-board-member-ted-nugent-calls-for-clinton-a/208062>.” > > End of story. > > > > > Obama Tells 18 Million Immigrants They Can Skip Pledge To Defend America > <http://americac2c.com/forum/topics/obama-tells-18-million-immigrants-they-can-skip-pledge-to-defend-?xg_source=msg_mes_network> > > by Geoffrey Grider <http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/?author=1274> > Under the Obama administration’s expansive interpretation of executive > authority, legal immigrants seeking citizenship through the nation’s > Naturalization process are now exempt from a key part of the Oath of > Allegiance. > > *Immigrants seeking to become citizens no longer have to pledge* to “bear > arms on behalf of the United States > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/22/new-citizens-can-now-skip-pledge-to-bear-arms-and-/>.” > > They can opt out of that part of the Oath. Nor do they have to cite any > specific religious belief that forbids them to perform military service. > > According to the Naturalization Fact Sheet > <https://www.uscis.gov/archive/archive-news/naturalization-fact-sheet> on > the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) website, In the fiscal > year ending June 30, 2015, the nation welcomed 729,995 Legal Permanent > Residents into full citizenship. > > - Over the past decade 6.6 million have been naturalized through a > process that ends with the *Oath of Allegiance*. > - In the decade 1980-1990, the average number completing > Naturalization was only 220,000 annually, but from 1990 to 2000 that > number > jumped to over 500,000 annually. > - 1,050,399 new citizens were welcomed in the year 2008. > - 18.7 million immigrants are eligible to eventually become citizens, > and 8.8 million already meet the 5-year residency requirement. > > *The pledge to help defend America* was good enough for the 6.6 million > immigrants naturalized since 2005 and good enough for the over 15 million > naturalized since 1980, but Obama’s appointees at the USCIS think that is > too much to ask of the 18.7 million estimated legal immigrants eligible > today for eventual naturalization or the 750,000 who will be naturalized in > the coming year. > > *This radical change was announced a year ago, in July of 2015.* Congress > did not enact the change in new legislation. There was no congressional > debate, no filibuster in the US Senate, and no sit-in in the House to > demand that a bill to repeal the USCIS action be brought to a vote. > > *No, this radical change was implemented while Congress slept.* Like > other Obama actions to undermine our immigration laws, the > Republican-controlled Congress has not used its constitutional powers to > reverse the administrative action. Thank God many states are stepping up to > fill that void. > This week, the US Supreme Court let stand a federal district court ruling > invalidating Obama’s unconstitutional “DAPA” amnesty. > > By a 4-4 tie vote, the Supreme Court declined to review the Circuit > Court’s ruling upholding the Houston district court decision. Therefore, it > is now the law and Obama’s DAPA amnesty is voided. If Justice Scalia were > still alive and participating in the case, it would have been a 5-4 ruling > because the “swing vote,” Associate Justice Kennedy, voted with Justices > Alito, Roberts and Thomas. > > *Where was Congress?* Why did it take a lawsuit by the Governors and > Attorneys General of 26 states to overturn Obama’s unconstitutional actions? > > It’s true that other Presidents have made changes in the Naturalization > process by administrative decree and without congressional approval. In > 2002, in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attack, President George Bush by > executive order expedited the naturalization process for 89,000 immigrants > serving in the armed forces. While many will agree with Bush’s action and > even applaud, that change should have been done by act of Congress, not a > presidential executive order. > > In fact, most Americans will think it extremely odd that the USCIS action > with regard to the *Oath of Allegiance* is not illegal. But the fact is, > unelected bureaucrats at the USCIS can change the wording of the Oath > without approval of the people’s representatives in Congress. Strange as it > sounds, the law as it stands today allows USCIS bureaucrats great leeway in > managing the Naturalization process, so Obama’s actions will not be > challenged in federal court. > > Yet, in view of Obama’s actions, why doesn’t Congress change the law and > take control of the *Oath of Allegiance*? So far, there is no indication > that the Republican leadership will do so. If they won’t even bar Islamic > terrorists from the refugee program, why should we expect them to protect > the *Oath of Allegiance*? Some members of Congress will grumble, make > speeches and issue press releases, but the Republican leadership will do > nothing. > > Such is the state of the nation as we approach this 240th anniversary of > the Declaration of Independence. Some Americans see great irony in the > British declaring their independence from the tyranny of Brussels while > Americans quietly accept the new tyranny of Washington, DC. source > <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/25/obama-invites-18-7-million-immigrants-avoid-oath-allegiance-pledge-defend-america/> > > *Geoffrey Grider <http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/?author=1274>* | June > 25, 2016 URL: http://wp.me/p1kFP6-bxs > > > > > > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOWhibmxtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjcxMTcxMjI-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc3BsNWpnBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NzExNzEyMg--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
