Obama Changes Oath of Allegiance for New Americans

a reply to: neo96

Especially when they lead with idiocy

a reply to: neo96

First ACA and now the 2nd.

Can you bring up bankers so we can have all the bases covered?

Funny how so many are not defending the first, you know freedom of expression.

You are allowed to speak out against the state right?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96

Funny how you managed to bring the ACA into this.

No both sides spin, and should be called out when do so.

Oh but taking pot shot's at the 'right' is perfectly acceptable.

Funny how some people are clearly defending, an assault on the second.

Albeit in a round about way.

So are you saying that no one here should take "pot shots" at the other political side???

Just curious. I'm wondering if I had a stroke and suddenly read the opposite of what people really mean.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I must just do my puns subconsciously, that one was not intentional

originally posted by: neo96
Hmmm indeed.

The oath includes the clauses to bear arms on behalf of the United States and to perform noncombatant service in the U.S. armed forces when required by law. 1

Guess the potus hates guns so much he took that one out for the newbies.

Once us old folks who believe in the RIGHT to bear arms dies off.

Only the newbie brainwashed will be left.

Sure is one hell of a machination by the anti gunners, and you can bet that 'policy' change came down from the White House.

Wondering about the last shooting had anything to do with it.

He was a 'naturalized' citizen too.

I actually agree with you. I think things have been watered down so much over the years, maybe nobody will have guns in the future? Maybe more places will not allow you to wear your gun openly. Maybe in 40 years it'll be illegal to hunt. They'll find ways to restrict it. More and more restrictions. Less and less people will be familiar with guns from a young age. It's a slippery slope. There's so much reliance on law enforcement too. People aren't as independent as they used to be. They're weak.

I remember reading a story about a homesteader family. They lived miles from anyone when they first came to the west coast of the US. There were no police nearby to protect them. There were not miles of concrete highway and every luxury we have today. Even if there were lawmen nearby, it would have been too far away. They had a gun or two for protection. The wife learned how to shoot it and actually used it on predatorss now and then. She was 17 or 18. She first started using guns when she was younger. She was riding horses and herding animals too. These homesteaders were tough and hard working. Danger was a daily thing. Yet they didn't live in fear. They couldn't. There were too many things to do.

Those same people brought into the modern world would be shocked at how helpless and reliant we're on our system.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I don't think it does carry legal recourse.

What kind of recourse were you thinking.

Plenty of natural born citizens refuse as well, so seems they want to be like every one else in that matter.

Not everyone in the states would agree to that 'oath'

An oath ceases to have any meaning if all aren't held to the same one. If some take that oath, to become citizens, then all should. I do see what you are saying, but this bothers me. Maybe it's just me.

a reply to: xuenchen

Jadehelm?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

But citizens have the same option, this is just an extension on an option that is already there.

Citizens can opt out just the same.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Jadehelm?

!!!!!!!!

it could be a DRILL Exercise

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yeah ... but there's *got to be* something more to it than that ... I mean ... Obama.

So what do we know? Well we know this oath is changed all the time. We know the defending the US part was added in the 1950's just like Under God was added to pledge when communist fears were running wild. We know that do to court cases that is has been modified over time and do to another recent court case it has been altered again. We also know this does not remove the requirement to register with Selective Service but, like any American they can request conscientious objector status and be placed in non combat or even service outside the military if drafted just like anybody else.

So in summery outside a few words, that they change on regular basis anyway, what real change has been made? The answer would be none.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh ya, it is totally a obama psy op.

Probably the first step into fema camps.

Jon Stewart reminded him last night that he doesn't have much time to make it happen.

The entire naturalization pledge is pointless. It's a meaningless statement for show as a ceremony of completion of the process and being officially naturalized. As meaningless as a high school graduation/diploma, where the official transcripts are all that are of actual importance.

It's words spoken during a celebration with no legal power or backing. Why not get rid of the swearing in completely?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

But citizens have the same option, this is just an extension on an option that is already there.

Citizens can opt out just the same.

Sort of, sometimes. The CO thing, isn't there some burden of proof required? Been awhile since I looked at that stuff, to be honest.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
It seems to be an antiquated pledge to make and aligns more with conscription than the freedom to choose in the case of pacifists etc

Sure, as soon as they stop making men 18 yrs old not have to sign up for selective service .........

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

But 18 years olds have rhe same option.

And I can't find anything that says that have to produce anything either.

so, basically they can`t be drafted into the military, ever. citizens who are born here don`t have that luxury, even though they never take an oath they are compelled through threats of imprisonment to serve in the military during times of conscription.
immigrants who don`t have to swear an oath to defend the country can`t be threatened with imprisonment for refusing forced conscription into the military services.

a reply to: Tardacus

Pretty much wrong on all three claims.

They can be drafted, citizens can do the same and who said that they can't get imprisoned for refusing a draft?

originally posted by: Tardacus
so, basically they can`t be drafted into the military, ever. citizens who are born here don`t have that luxury, even though they never take an oath they are compelled through threats of imprisonment to serve in the military during times of conscription.
immigrants who don`t have to swear an oath to defend the country can`t be threatened with imprisonment for refusing forced conscription into the military services.

No, where do you get that from. It has zero to do with the draft. They like any citizen can if drafted claim conciseness objector status by going through whatever process they have in place. If you are born in the US you do not take an oath to defend the nation. And that does not mean you can not be drafted. If you become a US citizen and do not swear and oath to defend to country then you are in exactly the same category as everybody else. Although it should be noted the new citizens are more likely to volunteer for military service than citizens born here.

a reply to: Sremmos80

under what legal grounds can they be convicted? they never swore an oath to defend the country.

Prosecutor: your honor he refused to register for the draft and be conscripted to defend the country.
defense attorney: your honor he isn`t from this country and never swore an oath to defend this country.

Judge: not guilty