Amazing subversion being carried out. I don't know who will carry the banner here, to many sold out in govt. Tancredo?
There's a substantive problem as well. It's the clause at the start of the fourth sentence: "Where and if lawfully required." What possible purpose do these words serve? It's not unreasonable to interpret them as meaning that people in "military, noncombatant, or civilian service" — i.e., working for the government — sometimes are not legally bound to defend the Constitution and U.S. laws. Several BCIS personnel have in fact raised alarms over this, but without effect. Isn't it obvious? Some far-thinking Globalist scum have designed it to limit the duties of citizenship to this sovereign, the United States. It facilitates dual citizenship. It provides for a higher law than U.S. law and the Constitution, as, for example, UN Treaties. This, of course, dovetails nicely with what the Ginsberg/Breyer minority on the Supreme Court has been flirting with. But will a single one of our craven politicians raise a word in protest?
Dear Friend,
I thought "political correctness" had gone too far when the Pledge of Allegiance was banned from schools. But today I've got a whopper for you.
The Oath of Allegiance - the pledge taken by immigrants in becoming U.S. citizens - will be changed on September 17 by the Department of Homeland Security. In an attempt to "simplify" language, the meaning of the oath is being altered. Our analysts are working right now with congressional leaders and the White House to preserve the oath and prevent its being watered down.
The new "oath" drops much of the great, old language about unconditionally supporting and defending the Constitution and the laws of the United States and instead commits our new citizens to defending the Constitution only "where and if lawfully required." This change undermines the absolute "true faith and allegiance" (deleted language) necessary to foster a new citizens' attachment to this country-a prerequisite for republican government.
So at a time when our national security AND our core beliefs as Americans are under attack around the world, the very department that is supposed to help protect us from these threats wants to dilute the requirement that new immigrants pledge to defend our nation and its beliefs before we grant them citizenship!
I don't blame you if you don't believe me. I didn't believe it myself at first. So take a look yourself ...
*The old Oath of Allegiance
http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/services/natz/oath.htm *The new Oath of Allegiance - cited in National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller090503.asp The Department of Homeland Security is in a big rush to implement the new oath as part of a ceremony on Citizenship Day, September 17. So they've used a bureaucratic procedure to avoid releasing the text of the oath for the standard 60-day comment period.
As always, The Heritage Foundation is pledged to defend our nation's principles and our foundation as a civil society against all enemies - foreign, domestic and bureaucratic. So help us get the word out on the Department of Homeland Security's misguided attempts to make U.S. citizenship more "user-friendly" for those who want the benefits of our country, but don't care to accept the responsibility.
Forward this email to everyone you know, and check in at www.heritage.org for new updates. As always, thank you for your support that makes our work possible.
God Bless America,
Ed Feulner
President