Back in December, JewsNews.co.il
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:
– 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; 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.”
1) WHAT WAS REPORTED:
In December, JewsNews.co.il
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, 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 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:
(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. This is where the Obama lackeys at “fact checker” sites like to play games and tilt to the left. The federal code 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 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 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:
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, 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...”
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, “President Obama and Hillary Clinton should be tried for treason & hung.” End of story.
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.” 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 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.
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
Laura J Alcorn