Obama Changed U.S. Citizenship Oath Specifically To Accommodate Sharia And Islamic Law
Back in December, 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 online defined a “Fact” as:
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; 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 reported was “Mostly False.”
In December, JewsNews.co.il reported:
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has announced another change, courtesy of the Obama Administration.
“…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…”
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.
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…
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 the oath did not have any specific text or verbiage, and the only guidance was that the applicant themselves.
Post World War II, The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 set a number of guidelines 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:
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, and have even released a list of target cities, 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 already in existence alone.
Getting back to Merriam Webster’s definition of a “Fact…”
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, “President Obama and Hillary Clinton should be tried for treason & hung.” End of story.