the ACLU of Tennessee sent out a warning to schools in the state. The ACLU, which believes it has dictatorial powers, warned local schools

A couple of weeks ago, the ACLU of Tennessee sent out a warning to schools in the state.  The ACLU, which believes it has dictatorial powers, warned local schools
against Christmas celebrations. 

The ACLU letter warned that they should be referred to as “holiday” celebrations and not “Christmas.”  The warning from the ACLU was not well received by many Tennesseans, who do believe the holiday celebrated in December is Christmas.

But then, what happened next can only be described as hysterical.

Tennessee has something called the Tennessee Fusion Center.  The purpose of the center is to help state agencies pool data and analyze information about possible
terror attacks. 

The Tennessee Fusion Center listed the American Civil Liberties Union Chapter of Tennessee on its Internet map, listing it under “Terrorism and other suspicious activities.”

Anyone has been on the receiving end of the ALCU’s jackbooted assaults on American freedoms, they might well agree with the assessment. 

The ACLU, of course, immediately went nuts.   To their executive director, the listing was “deeply disturbing.”

Personally, I think it is very accurate.

The ACLU recently filed a lawsuit to enjoin the United States from killing Al-Qaida senior operative Anwar al-Awalki.   Despite the fact he wants to murder as many Americans as possible, the ACLU was “deeply disturbed” that we
might want to kill an enemy combatant.

ACLU lawyers took photographs of what were believed to be undercover CIA operatives to Cuba to see if their clients could identify them and thus reveal their identities.

The ACLU sued over eavesdropping of foreign phone calls by the National Security Agency. 

In short, the ACLU has done everything in its power to help damage American national security.

Officials with the Tennessee Fusion Center apologized for the “mistake.”

While what the center did may have been a mistake, classifying the ACLU as being connected with terrorism and suspicious activities is no mistake.   
 The ACLU now insists that
there be some type of oversight and transparency on this program.

In ACLU speak, oversight means crippling our ability to protect ourselves and transparency means letting our enemies know all of our secrets.

Meanwhile, I think the Tennessee Fusion Center was absolutely on target, even if by accident with its labeling of the ACLU

Defund the United Nations

Defund the United Nations

December 22nd, 2010

Neil Stevens,

The United States of America keeps the United Nations afloat. In 2009 we were assessed 22% of the budget of the UN, and paid out slightly under 24% of what was collected, thanks to the Tax Equalization Fund system. So in practice we paid about a quarter of the UN budget. Without us, the UN has to do some serious belt tightening.

So if we’re going to keep alive the UN as we know it, spending $598,292,101 in a direct assessment and surely more in other expenses, we’d best make sure we’re getting our money’s worth. The Obama deficit has gone through the roof and we simply cannot afford frivolous luxuries anymore. If the UN is not achieving its mission, it’s time we stopped paying for it.

This month I believe the UN has finally crossed the threshold of uselessness, and it’s time we defund it….

Read more.

Saudi Succession Threat

Saudi Succession Threat

By Ryan Mauro On December 21, 2010 @ 12:10 am In FrontPage | 16

Saudi Arabia has been a part-time
ally of the U.S., crushing Al-Qaeda
terrorists trying to overthrow the Royal Family in its own territory but
promoting radical Islam outside of it. The U.S. has made the largest
arms sale in history to the Saudis but these weapons could end up in dangerous
hands, especially if Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz al-Saud
becomes king.

King Abdullah
is 86 years old and in poor health. His designated successor, Crown Prince
Sultan, is 82 and widely thought to have cancer. Aware that he and his
successor could die in a short period of time, King Abdullah made Prince Nayef
the Second Deputy Prime Minister in March of 2009, a position which is viewed as being the slot
just below the successor. A cable from the U.S. embassy in Riyadh released by WikiLeaks
is dated May 2009 and reports
[1] that “Crown Prince Sultan has been incapacitated by illness for
at least (the) past year.” This means that Prince Nayef effectively becomes the
king when Abdullah passes.

Prince Nayef
is already extremely powerful. As Interior Minister, he oversees the security
forces including the religious police that enforce the Sharia law on the
country. He is also the chairman of the Supreme Committee on the Hajj, making
him the manager of the most important trip for Muslims all around the world. He
also exercises power over foreign policy, such as by leading [2] the delegation to the Gulf Cooperation
Council summit this month.

Nayef is
understood to be an ally of the Wahhabist clerics and an opponent of the more
reform-minded elements of the Royal Family like King Abdullah. His role in
promoting extremism is so deep that in 2003, Senator Chuck Schumer wrote a letter [3] to the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. requesting that Nayef
be sacked because of his “well-documented history of suborning terrorist
financing and ignoring the evidence when it comes to investigating terrorist
attacks on Americans.”

According to
former CIA case officer Robert Baer’s book, Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi
Nayef bluntly said shortly after the 9/11
attacks that “the great power that controls the earth, now is an enemy of Arabs
and Muslims.” He was also the head of the Saudi Committee for Support of the
Al-Quds Intifada and told [5] a Saudi newspaper on November 29, 2002 that “It is impossible that 19 youths carried
out the operation of September 11, or that Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda did that
alone…I think [the Zionists] are behind these events.” In May 2004, he reiterated
[6] this belief, saying “Al-Qaeda is backed by Israel and Zionism.”

In his
capacity as Interior Minister, Nayef has ruled with an iron fist. He is known
to jail activists for reform and has power over the clergy that regularly spews
radical Islamic doctrine. He is thought to be the one behind raids by the
religious police on shopping malls, resorts and other institutions that are
viewed as promoting moral corruption. On the other hand, there are some
encouraging things about Nayef. If for no other reason than self-preservation,
he has been effective in combating Al-Qaeda elements in the country. In
November 2002, he said
[7] “All our problems come from the Muslim Brotherhood.” And in
October 2008, he slammed [8] the clergy for not combating extremism,
saying “the imams have failed miserably.”

This limited
and self-serving support should not be mistaken for a genuine commitment
against terrorism and radical Islam as a whole. As a cable from Secretary of
State Clinton from December 30, 2009 states, [9] “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most
significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” She complains,
“It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat
terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic
priority.” This supply line could certainly be severed if Nayef wished.

Nayef’s past raises the question of what a Saudi
Arabia under King Nayef will act like. Dr.
Ali H. Alyami, the Executive Director of the Center for
Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia
[10], doesn’t
expect any changes to the relationship with the U.S

“No matter
what king rules Saudi Arabia, he will be obliged to
maintain close ties to the West, especially the U.S. Regardless of the Saudi
royals’ overt complaints and criticism of the U.S. and its policies, they
don’t trust any other country to protect them and defend their country,” Dr.
Alyami told FrontPage. He said that there is an increasing desire for freedom
and the U.S. preservation of ties
with the Royal Family at the people’s expense is causing anti-Americanism.

Schwartz, Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism [11], agreed that
there is a “conflict between the younger generation seeking reform and the
Wahhabi clerics.” He told FrontPage that Nayef’s ascent to the position of king
could spark “serious social upheaval” because of his opposition to reform and
hardline views. He also said that it is “probable” that Nayef would roll back
or eliminate current Saudi anti-terrorism programs.

“Nayef is an
extreme Wahhabi and it is hard to imagine his fanatical support for that
doctrine decreasing,” Schwartz said. “Saudi Arabia has ‘exported’
Al-Qaeda to Yemen. Nayef would likely
bring them home.”

Former CIA
case officer also foresees an increase in support for Wahhabism.

“One thing we
can count on is a resuming of funding to Wahhabists—the takfiris and the
attendant Sunni terrorism. It is taken as a fact among Arab governments that
Nayef is currently funding the takfiris in Lebanon and Iraq, as well as places
like Iranian Baluchistan,” Baer told FrontPage.

The sale of
$60 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia must not be done just
with King Abdullah or Iran in mind. It seems
likely that Prince Nayef will become king and as he promotes Wahhabism and
staffs his regime, groups like Al-Qaeda and other extremists will have a
growing number of sympathizers in the Saudi government and military. The U.S. must be aware that by
arming today’s part-time friend it may be arming tomorrow’s enemy.

Sarah Palin Jabs Michelle Obama’s Anti-Obesity Campaign With S’mores

Sarah Palin Jabs Michelle Obama’s Anti-Obesity Campaign With S’mores

The Huffington Post
|  Nick Wing
First Posted: 12-20-10 10:09 AM   |   Updated: 12-21-10 12:06 PM
Sarah Palin took a shot at Michelle Obama
during Sunday’s episode of her reality TV show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,”
jabbing the first lady’s anti-obesity campaign for attempting to deprive
Americans of dessert.
While searching for s’mores ingredients on a family camping trip, Palin remarked:
“Where are the s’mores ingredients? This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert.”
Michelle Obama has been a key proponent of an initiative to improve
children’s health by encouraging better diets and sufficient exercise.
In May she announced her “Let’s Move” program, which promoted dessert alternatives, among other dietary suggestions.
The Associated Press reported at the time:
One in 3 American children is overweight or obese, putting
them at higher risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol
and other illnesses. Obesity is even more prevalent among black and
Hispanic children. Some public health experts say today’s children are
on track to live shorter lives than their parents.
But Palin has maintained that Obama’s effort to combat child obesity — which was recently aided by the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
— is one that seeks to take away “God-given rights to make our own
decisions.” Some have since slammed that comment as Palin’s demanding that Americans cling to their “God-Given right to be fat.”
During an appearance on Laura Ingraham’s radio program last month, Palin complained:
“Instead of a government thinking that they need to take
over and make decisions for us according to some politician or
politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back.”
And CNN relays another incident in Pennsylvania last month, in which the former Alaska governor sought to criticize the first lady’s health plan:
Palin also hand-delivered cookies to a Pennsylvania school
last month before delivering a speech there, saying: “Who should be
deciding what I eat? Should it be government or should it be parents? It
should be the parents.”
WATCH (via Politico):

Internet Gets New Rules of the Road

Internet Gets New Rules of the Road

Consumers Guaranteed Right to View Content; Service
Providers Allowed to Sell Faster, Priority Speeds for Extra Money


WASHINGTON—Consumers for the first time got federally
approved rules guaranteeing their right to view what they want on the Internet.
The new framework could also result in tiered charges for web access and alter
how companies profit from the network.

The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday voted
3-2 to back Chairman Julius Genachowski’s plan for what is commonly known as
“net neutrality,” or rules prohibiting Internet providers from
interfering with legal web traffic. President Barack Obama said the FCC’s
action will “help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet.”

The move was prompted by worries that large phone and
cable firms were getting too powerful as Internet gatekeepers.

Most consumers haven’t had a problem viewing whatever
they want online; few instances have arisen of an Internet provider blocking or
slowing services.

Rather, the FCC rules are designed to prevent potential
future harms and they could shape how Americans access and use the Internet
years from now. In the future, the Internet industry will be increasingly
centered around the fastest-growing categories of Internet traffic—online
video, gaming and mobile services, analysts say. Cisco Systems Inc., the
broadband network provider, has forecast those services could quadruple by

FCC has approved rules that would give the federal government authority to
regulate Internet traffic and prevent broadband providers from selectively
blocking web traffic. WSJ’s Amy Schatz explains what the new rules really mean.

Comcast Corp. and other Internet providers have
experimented with ways to handle the growing problem of network congestion.
Recently, Mr. Genachowski suggested that instead of selectively slowing certain
traffic to cope with congestion, providers could consider charging consumers
for how much data they consume. That would be a departure from the flat monthly
fees consumers pay now for Web access. It’s something providers privately say
is one of the only ways to make a profit and fund network infrastructure.

Such a system could
pose a challenge to companies like Netflix Inc., which streams movies over
broadband networks to

Public Interest Groups Want Tighter Wireless Provisions

Access thousands of business sources not
available on the free web. Learn

The new rules will also allow phone and cable companies
to sell to Internet companies like Inc. faster data delivery for
extra money, particularly on wireless networks. That would let a company that
offers streaming video, like Google Inc.’s YouTube, pay a wireless company like
Verizon Communications Inc. a bonus for guaranteed delivery of its videos to
consumers’ smart phones.

But FCC officials said any such priority service must be
disclosed, and they said they would likely probe and reject such efforts. That
could prompt some of the many expected legal challenges to the new rules, since
it is not clear if the FCC has authority to enforce them.

Consumer groups and other organizations, including the
American Library Association, oppose such high-speed toll lanes, arguing all
Americans should have the same quality of Internet access.

  • The FCC’s decision is
    a mixed bag for consumers. The new rules—which haven’t been released in
    full—say that land-line broadband providers can’t block legal content from
    websites, or “unreasonably discriminate” against companies like Skype
    or Netflix that want to use broadband networks to provide video or voice
    services. They also require providers to give consumers

But the rules come with some wiggle room for the
industry. Service providers will be allowed to engage in “reasonable
network management” to cope with congestion on their systems.

Wireless companies are less restricted by the new rules—a
win for the industry because consumers are increasingly accessing the web using
hand-held devices such as iPhones or Blackberries. Mr. Genachowski said mobile
carriers faced more congestion issues than other companies and need more leeway
to manage their networks.

Wireless companies would be prohibited from blocking
Internet voice services but they could block access to many other applications,
citing congestion issues.

Reaction the FCC’s rules was mixed. AT&T Inc. said
the rules were “not ideal” but would bring some “market
certainty so that investment and job creation can go forward.” Verizon
said it was “deeply concerned” because it didn’t think the rules were
needed. A coalition of Internet companies including Google said the rules were
a good first step but stronger regulations on wireless networks were needed to
ensure the same rules apply to both wired and wireless Internet.

View Full Image

Bloomberg News

Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple Inc. and a staunch proponent of keeping the
Internet unregulated, after an FCC hearing on Tuesday.


Some venture capital firms that invest in innovative
applications and wireless technology expressed concern about how the rules will
impact the wireless business. “The problem is that there’s so much
ambiguity in the rules,” said Brad Burnham of Union Square Ventures, which
has invested in startups including Foursquare and Twitter Inc.

Internet Access is Not a “Civil Right”

Internet Access is Not a “Civil Right”

December 22nd, 2010

Michelle Malkin,

When bureaucrats talk about increasing our “access” to x, y or z,   what they’re really talking about is increasing exponentially their   control over our lives. As it is with the government health care   takeover, so it is with the newly approved government plan to “increase”   Internet “access.” Call it Webcare.

By a vote of 3-2, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday   adopted a controversial scheme to ensure “net neutrality” by turning   unaccountable Democratic appointees into meddling online traffic cops.   The panel will devise convoluted rules governing internet service   providers, bandwidth use, content, prices and even disclosure details on  internet speeds.

The “neutrality” is brazenly undermined by preferential treatment   toward wireless broadband networks. Moreover, the FCC’s scheme is widely   opposed by Congress — and has already been rejected once in the   courts. Demonized industry critics have warned that the regulations will   stifle innovation and result in less access, not more.

Sound familiar? The parallels with health care are striking. The architects of Obamacare promised to….

Read more.