Obama and the New Shari’a Compliant Oath of Allegiance

August 6, 2015 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – According to a disturbing report just published by Middle East expert, Raymond Ibrahim, Team O has quietly, behind the scenes [the climate in which he is most comfortable, it appears] changed the Oath of Allegiance, required as part of gaining legal citizenship, materially altering it to accommodate the tens of thousands of fundamentalist Muslims with which he is flooding the country:

“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.” [source, Raymond Ibrahim, Obama ‘Modifies’ U.S. Oath of Allegiance According to Islamic Law , Islam Translated]

The effect of these changes are many, but two are of primary concern:

1. There can be no question that the modification in the Oath were made to allow Islamists free access to citizenship without [even if it is only with mere words, which we know in Islamic ideology mean nothing when dealing with kafir societies] having to declare some level of commitment to the defense of the United States.

2. It creates a two-tier system of citizenship where those completing the process of naturalization have all the rights but fewer responsibilities to their country than do native born.

That there has been no pushback and that it falls on people outside of the alleged opposition party to discuss these serious matters reflects the growing divide between official DC and what it must regard as the lumpenproletariat in flyover country.

Mr. Ibrahim explains some of the implications of this stealth move by the president using the example of jihadist Maj. Nidal Hassan:

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. A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life—American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night. However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” - to quote the original Oath of Allegiance—against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009. Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity. According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always.”

In doing a quick Google News search it seems that not a single legacy media source has run this story, as a matter of fact what has been published has largely been due to the efforts of Mr. Ibrahim, whose piece also appears in The American Thinker.

With the 2016 campaign kicking into high gear this evening with the first and highly anticipated Republican debate, the question remains as to whether any of the candidates will start addressing the existential threat which is looming due to Team Obama’s Blitzkrieg against traditional American culture.

Absent the realization that addressing what really threatens the future of America is not going to be found in policy wonkish legislative nipping and tucking but rather in a full-on frontal assault against those who seek to destroy the U.S. from within, the upcoming campaign rhetoric will prove of little probative worth and entirely hollow.

©2015 PipeLineNews.org LLC. A ll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.