You often misunderstand even the simplest of ideas and concepts on this conservative website, BlankHead. You would have to start at that point in order to get so many things wrong, so often.

Of course, putting words into other people’s mouth is another cute little far Left debate trick you and your troll pals here like to play with.

The point, which you sidestep with a very large leap out-of reality, is that Hasan couldn’t –nor can any Muslim– take the oath and still believe that Islamic law is supreme to the US Constitution. There’s nothing wrong with Brit muslims thinking that Islamic law is supreme to the Magna Carta, for instance… but then, Brit soldiers swear an oath to Queen and country not to their founding documents.

There’s no straw man here, BlankHead. That’s another fiction you create over and over here without just application or merit.

It’s your thing, babe. You do it, girlfriend.

Ahh – so you weren’t just atheist baiting with your conclusory line … “so help me God” … to your post? Then I misunderstood your intent.

Instead you were just railing against strawmen, as usual, if your claim here is that others here could not swear or affirm their true faith and allegiance to the Constitution.

In fact, this accusation makes you a scoundrel of the lowest form.

BlankHead writes: “In his rush to offend others, Mi-GOPer once again shows himself incapable of fully researching the law before sticking his foot in his mouth”.

Not at all, BlankHead. Your distinction is one that has neither application nor merit. The oath is the oath which can be affirmed minus the last sentence. I wrote that true faith and allegiance to the Constitution was the critical part instructive for those who think Islamic Law trumps the oath.

I sometimes think you are more about divisiveness and spreading rancor than in honest, serious debate. Like other far Left trolls commneting on this conservative site, you’re mostly here to inflame and incite –not inform.

And that’s the best of your special contribution in life, I guess. The only mouth with a foot squarely placed in it is your mouth, BlankHead. Again, you neither advance the debate nor aid the discussion –just more heat, no light. It’s you in a nutshell.

I’m with you. And I don’t care if it’s the Gospels, the Talmud, or the Koran, or the books of Ayn Rand – once you take the oath, it trumps all else.

Meanwhile –
Army Regulation 601–210 Personnel Procurement Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program

6–18. Administration of oath of enlistment
A commissioned officer of any service will administer the Oath of Enlistment in DD Form 4 orally, in English, to each applicant. Make a suitable arrangement to ensure that the oath is administered in a dignified manner and in proper surroundings. Display the U.S. flag prominently near the officer giving the oath. The words “So help me God” may be omitted for persons who desire to affirm rather than to swear to the oath.

In his rush to offend others, Mi-GOPer once again shows himself incapable of fully researching the law before sticking his foot in his mouth.

US Armed Forces Oath

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

True faith and allegiance to the Constitution? I doubt some of the trolls on this site could even take that oath. So help me God.

you keep telling the lies; we’ll keep knocking them down.”

Independent, the facts and the truth are immaterial to balcones and his kind. He’s got the usual far Left hard-on for “Christianists” and Roeder was, to balcones twisted partisan mind, working for the far Right religious zealots. Nothing Roeder says matters. Of course, he wasn’t paid by any Christian fundamentalist groups, was he? Of course, he wasn’t screaming out Islamic prayers as he blasted away at innocent people, was he? He just killed a baby butcher in a Christian house of worship. For balcones, that constitutes an infringement on abortion rights in the US.

Of course, for a Party that believes in Death Panels, killing a few babies is a tolerable consequence in the fight to extend abortion “rights”.

Obama milked the Ft Hood event just like he milked the Dover event. Unfortunately, the military families at Ft Hood didn’t have the right to exercise their veto over Obama being there for political manipulation… like they did at Dover and stayed away in protest. It was the base commanders and the army corps leadership who allowed Obama to be there… it was those same leaders that allowed Hasan to foment his hateful message, promoted him and failed to kick his butt out because they feared the political repercussions of our pro-Muslim president in the White House.

Who said Obama’s WorldApologyTour wouldn’t undercut American troops? Oh yeah, our Village Idiot and the far Left trolls who populate this conservative site.

But Hasan was different.

Time Magazine has found witnesses who assert that Hasan was vocal about upholding the Islamic law of Sharia over the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1937334,00.html

No matter how tolerant we are, no matter how important the public relations of having Muslim-Americans in the army, we cannot allow such men to be army officers. A U.S. army officer swears to uphold the Constitution, without reservation.

If there are any more Muslim-Americans in the army who believe that their loyalty to Sharia overrides their loyalty to the Constitution, they have to be given the choice of resigning their commission or a dishonorable discharge. That’s mild, given the circumstances. In Afghanistan, it’s the Taliban who are far more faithful to Sharia than the U.S. An army officer who sides with Sharia is in effect, siding with the enemy.

Really? No talk of how that would be proof positive that a liberal is constitutionally incapable of being able to respond in a way that protects our nation at a time of a real threat? No greater extrapoliations to this representing a failure of liberalism and the Democratic Party to have nominated and elected someone this psychologically unprepared to respond without briefing and scripting to a new existential challenge to America?

I’ll take your word for it.