Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

SOLDIER JAILED FOR ANGRY RAP SONG

Thanks to webmaster Mitch, who happens to be a marine who served in both Somalia, Kenya, Zaire, and Albania for sending this one in. Apparently, Spc. Marc A. Hall was somewhat less than enchanted at the prospect of being told that he would have to continue serving in the army as a consequence of the Stop/Loss policy, which allows the army to extend their length of service. Hall channeled his anger into a rap song and is now in jail according to the Military's WEBSITE:
Angry that the military planned to send him back to Iraq past his date to leave the military, a Soldier recorded a hip-hop song that blasts the Army and describes going on a shooting spree, an act that led his commanders to decide that the Soldier posed a threat to his unit.

The infantry Soldier, Spc. Marc A. Hall, has been jailed on criminal charges in Georgia, for the past month for a song and other statements that one of his lawyers insists were simply a form of protest.

"They're saying it's a threat. We're saying it's a fantasy," said Jim Klimaski, a Washington civilian attorney who has talked to Hall about the case. "He's mad, but he's not stupid. He's not violent."

Charges filed against Hall, of South Carolina, on Dec. 17, a week after he was jailed, say his threats weren't just confined to his rap recording. The charging document said he also told Soldiers he would "go on a rampage" and that he "was planning on shooting the brigade and battalion commanders."
If you'd like to hear the song, click HERE and it will play automatically when you go to that site. Not having served in the military, I thought webmaster Mitch's take on this story would be better to post here:
WOW … what an idiot. Comes from upbringing. Parents are probably idiots too.

Seriously, what happened to him (being extended beyond his EAS – “End of Active Service”) has been going on in the military since LONG BEFORE I was ever part of it. AND … joining the military during a time of war, what the hell did he expect? Stupid. Just f’n stupid.

He needs to be jailed for a LONG TIME for what he did. He needs to be made an example of and let the rest of the military know that there will be NO TOLERANCE of this kind of s***. And then go after Maj Hasan. No more of this pu$$yfooting around.

The real laugher is the civilian attorney acting like his client should be facing any charges at all. LOL, there is no Constitution governing the US Military. It’s ALL the UCMJ. And yes, verbal threats are DEFINITELY punishable under the UCMJ and that Art 134 reference as the “catch all” … phhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt. There’s a reason for it, the US Military is held to a HIGHER standard than civilians. Period. Basically, if this idiot had not violated 3 or 4 other articles under the UCMJ … there most likely would have been no violation of Art 134.
Here is the ARTICLE.

IS RAND CORPORATION TALKING NATIONAL POLICE FORCE?

Look, forget conspiracy theories for a minute and simply look at very basic facts. In July of 2008, while on the campaign trail, Barack Obama called for a Civilian National Security force "just as strong, just as powerful, and just as well funded" as our military.

Now it's learned that RAND Corporation wrote a book about a hypothetical entity that comes eerily close to that definition. RAND referred to it as a "Stability Police Force".
The SPF would be able to deploy in 30 days. The cost for this option would be $637.3 million annually, in FY2007 dollars.
The best detractors can say about this infamous clip of Obama calling for this kind of thing is that they need more information.



h/t to FR

GAME CHANGE BOOK NOT KIND TO HILLARY

This book, "Game Change" is not only unkind to Harry Reid and Bill Clinton in the arena of the racism debate but it is extremely unkind to that other Clinton - Hillary. There have been similar claims about her in the past but as Ben Smith at POLITICO points out, the one difference between then and now is the absence of a cadre of Clinton insiders always ready to defend them.

Most notable among them may be one of the most squirrelley Clinton weasels every, Howard Wolfson, who is quite out of character by demuring about the book's revelations:
“Haven't read the book,” wrote Howard Wolfson, once Clinton’s communications director and fiercest defender — with a specialty in killing unflattering books at birth — in an e-mail. “Working for Secretary Clinton was a privilege that I will always be grateful for.”
Oh, and go figure, the book also claims Hillary had an affinity for "f" word during the presidential campaign.

Read the whole THING.

VIDEO: DAVID GERGEN PUNK'D BY SCOTT BROWN

David Gergen got utterly embarrassed for voicing the disturbing and, until he uttered the words, unspoken paradigm that the seat held by Ted Kennedy belonged to Kennedy himself. Massachusetts Republican senatorial candidate Scott Brown was more than mildly assertive as he corrected Gergen, telling him it's the "people's seat".



h/t to DRUDGE

BILL O'REILLY AND COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS

What is it with Bill O'Reilly? No, seriously. He continues to have people on his show like Marc Lamont Hill, who is a known supporter of at least two cop killers, despite his boss Rupert Murdoch firing Hill as a Fox News contributor over the revelations. Then last week, O'Reilly had CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper on his program to debate the profiling issue.

I addressed this on my January 10th SHOW. Personally, I don't have a problem with O'Reilly having Hooper on the show and while he debated him vigorously, he didn't get to the heart of the issue by challenging Hooper on his group's affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. By keeping the debate in the arena of profiling exclusively, O'Reilly was able to appear confrontational and challenging while being anything but.

WND is addressing the issue of O'Reilly calling Hooper a "Stand-up guy" after the segment, along with the larger issue of why Fox News is giving CAIR a pass:
Long a reliably patriotic media source in the war on terror, Fox News may now be among news outlets who have fallen under the spell of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' propaganda machine.

"We own the media," CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper privately brags, according to a source currently working inside the aggressive Islamist lobby group.

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly last week invited the TV-savvy Hooper on his show to debate passenger profiling, the second guest appearance by the CAIR spokesman in a month. At the end of the segment, O'Reilly thanked Hooper and called him a "stand-up guy," sending shockwaves through the conservative blogosphere.
As a sidebar here, I have personal first hand knowledge that former Muslim terrorist Walid Shoebat is not being allowed to appear on O'Reilly's program despite several attempts to do so. The question is, why would someone leading a group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic terrorism be allowed on the top-rated cable news show while not being challenged on those affiliations when a man who would offer an opposing view is basically being shunned? WND makes a good case for the reason being Saudi Arabian money.
Given CAIR's proven ties to terrorism – which O'Reilly failed to mention – why would Fox offer the group's top executives a virtually uncritical forum on prime-time cable TV? Saudi Arabian money may be a factor.

It turns out that the same billionaire Saudi prince who owns a major stake in Fox's parent company also bankrolls Washington-based CAIR. And sensitive State Department records reveal Hooper – despite his repeated public denials – has personally solicited cash from the prince and other members of the ruling Saudi royal family during recent trips to the kingdom.
Playing a big role in exposing CAIR has been the blockbuster book, Muslim Mafia, which WND also features in the story.

I realize that the issue of CAIR getting both a forum and a pass on O'Reilly's program may be bigger than O'Reilly himself but based on these indisputable facts, O'Reilly should do one of two things.

1.) Resign
2.) Stop saying he's "looking out for the folks"

Read the entire WND piece - SHOCKING.
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Breitbart
Doug Ross
Drudge
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Mediaite
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
NewsBusters
Newsmax
News Real
Pajamas Media
Politico
Powerline
Rasmussen
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive