The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.
On July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance which immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.
The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.
Now the USCIS says that “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”
The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”
These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well. For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.
The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan—the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer—comes to mind and is illustrative… Keep reading
Mark says
For Muslims a guarantee not to bear arms against the USA would be an advantage
particolor says
And for those not living in O Bozo La La Land a Bloody Miracle !!
voytech says
Everyone taking the oath should be forced to at least shave so as not to look like a scumbag
Jaladhi says
If this doesn’t show his Islamic agenda then I don’t know what else will do?? Its only the Muslims who have problems with US oath of allegiance since they already have their souls bought by Mo/allah. So then how can they be faithful to any country!!
voegelinian says
It’s funny that Obama would so sincerely respect the sensibilities of “conscientious objection” by modifying the Oath, when as long as 1971 —
In 1971, a U.S. Supreme Court decision broadened the criteria to include anyone who “has deeply held beliefs that cause them to oppose participation in war in any form.”
I.e., there already has been developed in American history a mechanism for conscientious objection to serving in the military; no need to reinvent the wheel — unless Obama is trying to grease it especially for Muslims.
mortimer says
Horrifying pandering. No one who will not support the country should be a citizen.
I can’t bear this level of stupidity. Why not just dispense with an oath of allegiance if it’s so meaningless?
ONE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE FOR ALL. Compulsory lie-detector tests should be given to all Muslims. Because of their doctrine of taqiyya, no Muslim may be taken at his word.
pdxnag says
I would exclude those who openly identify as Muslim. The lie detector is for Muslims who claim not to be Muslim.
Peggy says
Just wondering what new citizens are using to pledge their allegiance. Is it the Koran or Bible or nothing?
What about when they testify in court? Do they swear on the Koran?
I am not American so don’t know how it works over there. Are there any Muslim politicians in the US and if yes did they have to swear on the Bible?
I would imagine they would burn if they touched the Bible.
mortimer says
A man with a henna-dyed beard is a jihad fanatic. There’s someone who badly needs a lie-detector test. If they took the test while he reads the oath, the lie detector would EXPLODE!
When Donald Trump is president, he’ll change the oath back!
Manuel Paleologus says
Amen! Amen! Amen!
Galen Muhammad says
Donald “Dumbold” Trump, president of Trump Enterprises.
That’s all. He’s ALREADY as much of a president as he’ll ever be.
But as long as he’s flapping his yap and throwing a monkey wrench into the GOP’s works, it makes for a comical ride in the GOP Clown Bus!!
Cheers to Dumbold!!
gravenimage says
What is “Galen Muhammad” on about here? Of course he has nothing to say about the enabling of Muslim supremacism.
Manuel Paleologus says
This pro or Muslim president does a great hidden job to favor If not usher in all the Muslims and to accommodate our legal system to their sharia stupid law.
The next REAL President with love for America will have to undo all these anti-American changes this president did and still do.
And there still Americans who support this worst ever president.
Blitz2b says
For a Muslim, an oath to any kaffir or kaffir land means absolutely nothing, so why bother with changing it when taquiyya trumps any oaths of allegiance.
particolor says
Exactly !!
RonaldB says
“so why bother with changing it when taquiyya trumps any oaths of allegiance.”
Actually, the oath of allegiance can serve as a contract for citizenship. The new citizen has agreed to defend and support the Constitution and the US, in the military if necessary. Once we take the oath of allegiance seriously, any naturalized citizen can have their citizenship revoked if shown to be in violation of their oath.
Some Muslims claim to support the Constitution because they support the imposition of sharia through a peaceful constitutional process through amendments. I think any attempt to materially alter the US Constitution, even if through the amendment process, should be interpreted as a violation of their oath. Naturalized citizens will simply have to live with the idea that the country will remain substantially the same as when they entered it. If they want to change its identity, they do not belong here.
The entry requirements for citizens should be more strict, not less so. Naturalized citizens should be required to affirm their support for a secular society, including adherence to the bill of rights. This would give a solid legal basis to expel naturalized citizens who are observant Muslims.
mortimer says
If they can’t take the oath or break it, they will be deported. Don’t let them lose their original passports.
rubiconrest says
Agreed. This is why the oath is so important. It is a form of contract.
Lu says
As a candidate for the US citizenship sometime this year can’t agree more. You break the oath, you will be deported to the country of your origin. The oath is no joke. One has to bear responsibility for his/her deeds.
But I am European and the very idea of a secular society with Western liberties is to me like the air I breathe. Evidently we will have to fight AGAIN for freedom (of anything we enjoy now) as my grandparents had to … My naive conviction telling me that the Free World has won once and for all was just an illusion.
gravenimage says
We’ll be glad to have you, Lu!
RonaldB says
I second the notion.
Westman says
Those who won’t commit to at least “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” in wartime, do not deserve citizenship.
Our seditious government has created what would have been a Hell for the Founding Fathers of the United States; the invitation of pirates to share the bounty, disrespect the patriotic citizens, plunder the assistance programs, and set up mini-nations whose intent is to ultimately destroy the host.
Evil is assured when “good men” do the wrong thing.
gravenimage says
Very true, Westman–even total pacifists can do this. It is only Mohammedans who would have a problem with it…
Peter says
Why not just put in, “we will bear arms on behalf of jihad fi sabil allah”!?!
gravenimage says
The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.
On July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance which immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.
The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.
Now the USCIS says that “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”
…………………………….
*Deeply* disturbing. At this point, the only exception is for conscientious objection–that is, pacifism–which may be based on religious belief. Virtually all of these people are fine with performing noncombat support service.
But note the reference to “religious training and belief”–this wider reference, of course, would cover those who are all to happy to engage in violence, but never to protect the “filthy Kuffar”.
It’s bad enough that Muslims take this oath and then violate it immediately–but this would ensure that ravening Jihadists won’t have to worry about losing their citizenship or facing deportation. Suicidal madness.
RonaldB says
” Jihadists won’t have to worry about losing their citizenship or facing deportation. ..”
Exactly right, gravenimage. An oath of allegiance with teeth gives a legal foundation for revocation of citizenship if the naturalized citizen exhibits disloyalty for the country or its constitutional foundation.
Lu says
One “interesting” tooth of the “Oath of Allegiance” is this passage:
… that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic …
We all know what and who the said enemy is … noble fight for the flower of Enlightenment against her enemies. Worth bleeding for, even dying for – as many a man did.
TheBuffster says
“…but this would ensure that ravening Jihadists won’t have to worry about losing their citizenship or facing deportation. Suicidal madness.”
It wouldn’t exactly mean that “ravening jihadists” wouldn’t have to worry about losing their citizenship or facing deportation, since the change *doesn’t* mean that if they’re caught engaging in traitorous acts, such as supporting ISIS with donations or helping terrorists or doing terrorism, they still get to keep their citizenship.
What it does mean is that if Muslim citizens refuse to defend the USA in any way during a time when we’re under direct attack from other Muslims, they will face no penalty, while any other citizen who would refuse to defend the USA in some way against attackers – even attackers from their own religion – *would* face a penalty.
It means that the Obama administration is happy to welcome to citizenship members of a religion that forbids them to do anything to support their new country against attacks committed by enemy members of their religion. It means that Muslims, whose religion is a military enemy against all who refuse to submit to it, are welcome to become voters and neighbors who are obliged to put their religion above the security of the USA. It mean the Obama administration knows this, and is happy to accomodate Islam in its anti-kafir requirements.
Angemon says
Unless they’re Christians objecting to cater to a gay wedding.
TheBuffster says
Excellent point, Angemon.
Cecilia Ellis says
Nailed it, Angemon!
charleston says
Obama is one man……where is the congress and senate?
these ‘AMERICANS’ are allowing this to happen
Myxlplik says
It is safe to assume that this alteration wasn’t put in for actual pacifists (which I’d be fine with). Its true purpose is to allow for those who are less than loyal to being American citizens a free conscious while swearing in, because you can gaurentee it wasn’t altered for 7th Day Adventists or Menorites.
Tom says
Some do not even have to pass the English writing / speaking test or US history test. Some can file a waiver based upon traumatic experiences similar to PTSD or have a Muslim licensed physician sign that they have a medical disorder that prevents them from learning English. So they move on to obtaining medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, financial welfare assistance etc… oh yeah and can now vote even though they cant understand English.
RonaldB says
In my state, Texas, the ballots are printed in English and Spanish.
Is that not crazy? Someone who doesn’t read English has no business whatsoever voting.
AtomicIgor says
I actually think this is a good idea. I don’t want Muslims bearing arms alongside the rest of us; I’d be too afraid they’d shoot me in the back. And it’s unfair to them, as well, because it causes a conflict of interest within them: To whom do they owe their ultimate loyalty, the USA or to the Umma? No, keep them out of our Armed Forces.
Jay Boo says
Such cynicism!
Obama is just supporting Pacifist Quakers.
DP111 says
So lets be clear about this. A Muslim may not be required to swear to bear arms to defend America, but he can become the president of the USA., and thus the CinC of the armed forces.
Is there a precedent for such a situation?
Linda Rivera says
Absolutely disgraceful. This is no longer an oath of allegiance to the United States. Muslims can now enjoy all of the blessings, freedom and privileges of being American citizens without ANY of the responsibilities.
LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS NO LONGER REQUIRED BY THE OBAMA REGIME.
As Obama is bringing in hundreds of thousands of Muslims expect a lot more terror attacks from Muslims obeying Quran commands to wage violent jihad and expect a lot more lawsuits by Muslims demanding that hated, inferior American infidels OBEY Muslims.
Alissa says
Hopefully, whoever replaces obama will wipe the slate clean and reverse EVERYTHING that traitor did.
Also hope the new government launches a massive deportation campaign.
Ed says
It makes perfect sense coming from anyone whose middle-name is Hussein.
Cecilia Ellis says
“The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.”
A review of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) Policy Manual, Volume 12, Chapter 3 reveals a calculated wording that paves a taqiyya path for Muslim immigrants to easily acquire citizenship.
Here are some of the dangerous stipulations:
“Evidence Establishing Eligibility:
An applicant may provide, but is not required to provide, an attestation from a religious organization (or similar organization), witness statement, or any other evidence to establish eligibility. An applicant’s oral testimony or written statement may be sufficient to qualify for the modification.”
“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:
He or she is opposed to bearing arms in the armed forces or opposed to any type of Service in the armed forces; 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 his or her beliefs are sincere, meaningful, and deeply held.”
However, the applicant is not required to:
“Belong to a specific church or religious denomination; follow a particular theology or belief; or have religious training.”
Most significantly, “An officer must not question the validity of what an applicant believes or the existence or truth of the concepts in which the applicant believes. The validity of what he believes cannot be questioned. Some theologians, and indeed some examiners, might be tempted to question the existence of the registrant’s ‘Supreme Being’ or the truth of his concepts. But these are inquiries foreclosed to Government.”
http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartJ-Chapter3.html
With the current influx of Muslim immigrants, the timing of this policy change merits scrutiny. There appears to be no equivalent fast-track for Christian refugees. For example, Iraqi Chaldean Christian refugees have been languishing for six months at the Otay Detention Center in San Diego, California. These Christians have relatives and sponsors ready to take them in; yet, they remain in the custody of
U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Meanwhile, Muslims are being secretly transported to areas throughout the United States for resettlement. Apparently, Christian refugees, who are fleeing the blades of devout Muslims, have no safe-haven streamlining similar to those who adhere to an ideology that seeks to establish Sharia worldwide. Though it is recognized that resettlement does not in itself ensure naturalization, implicit in the policy change is a warning that no federal official can question a devout Muslim’s allegiance to his concepts, which do take precedence over U. S. Constitutional Law. There is no other reason for such a modification.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jul/30/Iraq-Chaldean-Christians-Refugees-ISIS/
For the policy change to occur at a time when Muslim immigration is at an all-time high suggests that Muslim lives matter above all others. This modification to established policy does not correlate with Christian principles or the numbers of Christians being allowed asylum in the United States. For the most part, it serves one religion: Islam. What an abuse of executive power!
James Allen says
Who actually changed this oath.The agency of what,does anyone have the authority to do this with out comments from elected officials,can staff do this,whats up