Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34

Thread: Hillary supports Obama and Obama hates America

  1. #1

    Hillary supports Obama and Obama hates America

    Obama Invites 18.7 Million Immigrants to Avoid Oath of Allegiance, Pledge to Defend America

    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.
    Obama and Hillary are joined at the hip. Voting for Hillary is voting for another Obama term in the White House.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliPsy View Post
    Obama and Hillary are joined at the hip. Voting for Hillary is voting for another Obama term in the White House.

  4. #3
    A vote for anyone besides Trump means you want to give sexual pleasure to Hillary and Obama.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliPsy View Post

    Obama and Hillary are joined at the hip. Voting for Hillary is voting for another Obama term in the White House.
    Not a fan of dronegangsta but his masters are pretty much same as those of Hillary.

    Pastor: Obama a puppet of bankers


    Bcause of her convicted support for Iraqi Freedom war, her close ties to Wall Street/wars lobbies/Benghazi/emails, disgraced DGP/John Lewis... she cannot win Presidential election.

  6. #5
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliPsy View Post
    Obama Invites 18.7 Million Immigrants to Avoid Oath of Allegiance, Pledge to Defend America


    Obama and Hillary are joined at the hip. Voting for Hillary is voting for another Obama term in the White House.
    Of course this is easy for anyone who was born here to complain about, since they can be citizens without having to make any such promise.

    If my livelihood depended on me taking such an oath, the only way I could take it would be by taking consolation in my own heart that I wasn't really promising anything, since I was be forced to make the promise under duress.

    Do you really think that citizenship should require that people promise to take up arms? Is that not something that every citizen has a right to refuse to do?

  8. #7
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  9. #8
    I'm pretty sure that I would take a third Obama term over either Hillary or Trump.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliPsy View Post
    Obama Invites 18.7 Million Immigrants to Avoid Oath of Allegiance, Pledge to Defend America


    Obama and Hillary are joined at the hip. Voting for Hillary is voting for another Obama term in the White House.
    https://www.truthorfiction.com/obama...new-americans/

    Obama Changes Oath of Allegiance for New Americans-Mostly Fiction!

    Summary of eRumor:

    President Obama has changed the Oath of Allegiance so that new naturalized citizens don’t have to pledge to take up arms to defend the U.S.

    The Truth:

    President Obama hasn’t changed the Oath of Allegiance, but proposed guidance has been issued to clarify who can take an alternate oath under current law.

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has long allowed exceptions and accommodations for naturalized citizens who take the Oath of Allegiance.

    In July 2015, USCIS issued new guidance that said a three-part test should be used to determine who qualifies for these exceptions based on “religious training and belief, or for other reasons of good conscience.”

    That led to viral reports that President Obama had changed the Oath of Allegiance so new naturalized citizens wouldn’t have to pledge to take up arms to defend the U.S. But in reality, current law already provides those exemptions.

    New naturalized citizens have been taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America since the country was founded. Before 1906, however, there wasn’t a specific text for the oath, and the only guidance was that the applicant:

    “…shall…declare, on oath…that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; and, particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.
    Today, the text of the Oath of Allegiance can be found in federal codes:

    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.

    These federal codes also outline the alternate version that Obama has been incorrectly attributed to Obama:

    (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 presc ribed 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, President Obama has not changed the Oath of Allegiance for new Americans. Naturalized citizens were already able under law to omit portions of the oath based on “religious training and belief, or for other reasons of good conscience.”

    USCIS did, however, issue new guidance that “clarifies the eligibility requirements for modifications” of the oath under current law with a three-part test:

    Three-part Test

    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.


    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.

    Applicant is Not Required to Belong to a Church or Religion

    In addition, qualification for the exemption is not dependent upon membership in a particular religious group, nor does membership in a specific religious group provide an automatic modification to the oath. The applicant is not required to:

    -Belong to a specific church or religious denomination;

    -Follow a particular theology or belief; or

    -Have religious training.

    However, the applicant must have a sincere and meaningful belief that has a place in the applicant’s life that is equivalent to that of a religious belief. Because of this belief, for example, the applicant’s conscience may not rest or be at peace if allowed to become an instrument of war.

    So, in conclusion, Obama hasn’t changed the Oath of Allegiance. Immigration Services has issued guidance to clarify who is eligible to take an alternate oath.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 06-27-2016 at 12:36 AM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I'm pretty sure that I would take a third Obama term

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Of course this is easy for anyone who was born here to complain about, since they can be citizens without having to make any such promise.

    If my livelihood depended on me taking such an oath, the only way I could take it would be by taking consolation in my own heart that I wasn't really promising anything, since I was be forced to make the promise under duress.

    Do you really think that citizenship should require that people promise to take up arms? Is that not something that every citizen has a right to refuse to do?

    Not yet it doesn't. Didn't you register for the draft? If not you could be convicted as a felon.

    Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same penalties.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by libertyjam View Post
    Not yet it doesn't. Didn't you register for the draft? If not you could be convicted as a felon.

    Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same penalties.
    Yes. I registered.

    Do you honestly support that law?

    If you do, then you're wrong.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I'm pretty sure that I would take a third Obama term over either Hillary or Trump.
    Another one outs himself.

    What is it three now?

    Edit: nvm. Need to learn to read.
    Last edited by silverhandorder; 06-27-2016 at 09:30 AM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by silverhandorder View Post
    Another one outs himself.

    What is it three now?
    I would be interested in hearing where Ron Paul would stand on that choice. I admit, it's a tough one. Do you think Trump is much better than Obama or something?

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I would be interested in hearing where Ron Paul would stand on that choice. I admit, it's a tough one. Do you think Trump is much better than Obama or something?
    Absolutely hands down.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by silverhandorder View Post
    Absolutely hands down.
    I rest my case.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I would be interested in hearing where Ron Paul would stand on that choice. I admit, it's a tough one. Do you think Trump is much better than Obama or something?
    I've heard Ron Paul say that Hillary, as bad as she is, may actually be preferable to Trump because she would have an opposition party fighting her. Whereas, "Art of the Deal" Trump would give away anything the left wanted in order to get whatever political trinket would provide more power to himself. (paraphrasing, of course) Remember, it's the deal-making that costs Americans liberties and money.

    So, it would be interesting if he thinks the disaster that is Obama is better than the disaster that would be Hillary. My guess is that it's like asking if you preferred Hurricane Andrew to Katrina.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    I've heard Ron Paul say that Hillary, as bad as she is, may actually be preferable to Trump because she would have an opposition party fighting her. Whereas, "Art of the Deal" Trump would give away anything the left wanted in order to get whatever political trinket would provide more power to himself. (paraphrasing, of course) Remember, it's the deal-making that costs Americans liberties and money.

    So, it would be interesting if he thinks the disaster that is Obama is better than the disaster that would be Hillary. My guess is that it's like asking if you preferred Hurricane Andrew to Katrina.
    Thanks for the input. +rep
    @silverhandorder, please share your thoughts about Ron Paul. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would like to see them.

  22. #19
    Ron Paul is an awesome dude. Brought me to voluntarism. Met him in NH once and his family.

    I respect him as a statesman and agree philosophically with everything he says.

  23. #20
    Clinton supports Obummer and Obummer hates America. That rings true. Question is , do Johnson and Trump really love Liberty ??

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Question is , do Johnson and Trump really love Liberty ??
    Answer: No.

    But Johnson likes efficiency and that usually translates into liberty since it's usually most efficient to just let things be. Trump just likes Trump.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Answer: No.

    But Johnson likes efficiency and that usually translates into liberty since it's usually most efficient to just let things be. Trump just likes Trump.
    Sounds about right to me.

  26. #23
    They seem to get more aggressive when Trump is sliding in the polls.
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    So, it would be interesting if he thinks the disaster that is Obama is better than the disaster that would be Hillary. My guess is that it's like asking if you preferred Hurricane Andrew to Katrina.
    I think Hillary would be more effective at implementing her policies than Obama has been, and therefore worse.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Clinton supports Obummer and Obummer hates America. That rings true. Question is , do Johnson and Trump really love Liberty ??
    No Trump is an authoritarian! Better question is, can Trump see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch?

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I think Hillary would be more effective at implementing her policies than Obama has been, and therefore worse.
    I tend to agree with this. The truth is, thanks to his ineffectiveness, we haven't done as badly under Obama, at least in his 2nd term, as we have under most presidents.

    A point in favor of Trump might be that, as terrible as his policies are, he may be even more ineffective than Obama. Unfortunately, that's hard to predict.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    No Trump is an authoritarian! Better question is, can Trump see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch?
    I doubt trump knows cereal , but clinton probably eats ground up babies.

  32. #28
    I think I can predict that Clinton will try to finish the destruction of america .

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    I think I can predict that Clinton will try to finish the destruction of america .
    If "America" is the federal government, then that's a point in her favor.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I think Hillary would be more effective at implementing her policies than Obama has been, and therefore worse.
    I've gone back and forth over this question. I think you can make a compelling case for both.

    Ron's take was that Hillary would be constantly fighting a GOP congress and they'd be fundraising off of their opposition to her. Therefore, they'd have every incentive to obstruct her agenda. Meanwhile, if Trump should win, he'll be doing everything in his power to "make a deal". Which means increasing government on one side to increase government on the other side. And he could easily get the votes.

    Alternatively, if Trump fails so miserably that he gives Hillary a Dem congress, then there'd be no stopping her. It would be worse than Obama in the first term. And if Trump wins, but pisses off the entire congress, they may work together to undermine his power at home and abroad.


    Lol... so which scenario do you prefer?! I've been saying over and over that it's like asking if you want the cyanide or arsenic.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •