*"well that's more than enough to piss off zionist xians and jews".*
It should be enough to piss off every American; and wake them the Hell Up! On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:45 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > 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> > --- > 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]> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> 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 • 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. > -- -- 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.
