North American Freedom

Savage Banned in the UK! ......Why???????

2009-05-06T00:24:00.000-07:00

Hi Everyone,

Here are 4 big news links. I can not believe Michael Savage was banned yesterday in the UK. The world gets stranger by the day. What is going on with the Govt's around the world? Freedom of Speech is very important. Even if you do not agree with Michael Savage this is what free speech is all about. Protecting speech even if we do not agree with it.

Thanks,
Tom Brown
603-556-7385
thomaslbrown@yahoo.com
northamericanfreedom.blogspot.com
Laconia NH

*********************************************************************
Freedom of Speech Alert #1
UK ‘goes Napolitano’ on US radio host Michael Savage
5-6-09
Seattle Conservative Examiner
Bryan Myrick
Go to Bryan's Home Page

There’s something the Brits may not be revealing about why Michael Savage won’t be summering in Derbyshire.
I’ll give you a hint: you’re getting warmer.

Twitter was been… all atwitter over Tuesday’s report at Politics Daily that inflammatory radio talk show host Michael Savage has been named on the British governments list of sixteen undesirable individuals who are banned from entering the United Kingdom.

The British Home Secretary (the equivalent of the US Secretary of Homeland Security), Jacqui Smith, is given credit in the Politics Daily article for making the decision to make the names public. According to Tuesday’s World Net Daily, Smith appeared on Britain’s GMTV and dispensed with subtlety.

Smith explained to Britain’s GMTV that she believed it was “important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t be welcome in this country.”
“Coming to this country is a privilege,” she said. “If you can’t live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what’s more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-4295-Seattle-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m5d5-UK-goes-Napolitano-on-US-radio-host-Michael-Savage

**************************************************************************
Freedom of Speech Alert #2
between the lines Joseph Farah

Who's hunting Savage?
Posted: May 06, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

I don't believe for a minute that the United Kingdom decided to ban entry to U.S. talk-radio star Michael Savage on its own initiative.

First of all, Savage was not asking to enter the U.K.

Second of all, while Savage is a big fish in the U.S., his program is not widely known across the pond.

What would possess Home
Secretary Jacqui Smith to single out Savage on a short list of 16 people worldwide who would not be welcome?

I think I know the answer.

But first, you have to understand the backdrop to this story.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97198

*******************************************************************

Free Market Update #1
No, the Free Market Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis
The Daily Reckoning
5-5-09
By Thomas E. Woods

leadimage

05/05/09 Auburn, Alabama In March 2007 then-Treasury secretary Henry Paulson told Americans that the global economy was “as strong as I’ve seen it in my business career.” “Our financial institutions are strong,” he added in March 2008. “Our investment banks are strong. Our banks are strong. They’re going to be strong for many, many years.” Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said in May 2007, “We do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system.” In August 2008, Paulson and Bernanke assured the country that other than perhaps $25 billion in bailout money for Fannie and Freddie, the fundamentals of the economy were sound.

Paste in your browser for the rest of the story.

http://dailyreckoning.com/no-the-free-market-did-not-cause-the-financial-crisis/

*************************************************************************
Free Market Update #2

How Unions and Governments Destroy Businesses
The Daily Reckoning
5-4-09

By Bill Bonner

leadimage

05/04/09 London, England In the newspapers there is much discussion of what General Motors should do. This discussion has gone on for many years. Until now, it was a conversation carried on by serious analysts and auto industry experts. They all said the same thing: GM needed to clear out its management, dump much of its expensive, “legacy” overhead, and produce better cars. Why didn’t it do so?

And now, it’s broke. And even politicians think they know how to run an auto company. Just read the papers. “Obama insists on changes,” says one headline.

Paste in your browser for the rest of the story.

http://dailyreckoning.com/how-unions-and-governments-destroy-businesses/

**********************************************************************

Add me to the email list: thomaslbrown@yahoo.com
Take me off the email list: thomaslbrownjr@gmail.com

Read this and pass it on.

2009-05-02T00:18:00.000-07:00

Hi Everyone,

I picked a few stories to get your blood boiling. But we did have one good thing happen last week. Jeb Bradley won a NH Senate seat. Good Job Jed!
I will be on the Neil Young's Radio Show this morning. Please feel free to call in or email us at the show.

Thanks,
Tom Brown
603-556-7385
thomaslbrown@yahoo.com
northamericanfreedom.blogspot.com
Laconia NH

*******************************************************************
Freedom Alert #1
EDITORIAL: Thought crimes
Punishing people for what they think
Washington Times

By | Thursday, April 30, 2009

Democrats are making it illegal to think certain things. The House of Representatives passed legislation yesterday that extends federal so-called hate-crimes laws to include sexual orientation. This is a move to provide special status for specific groups. It is also unnecessary. If a miscreant kills or rapes somebody, he should be prosecuted for murder or rape. What he might have been thinking is beside the point.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/30/thought-crimes/

***********************************************************************
Economy Alert #1
Sapping America's Energy
Global-warming legislation would drive up the cost of everything.
Wall Street Journal

April 16, 2009

By Pete Du Pont

If Americans don't start paying attention to what Congress is up to, our nation's energy policy may seriously change for the worse. A bill styled the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, soon goes before the House. The enactment of laws to combat global warming is an established priority of the new administration and Congress, and their impact on the lives and opportunities of America's people would be substantial and detrimental.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123980462156321035.html

*********************************************************************
Gun Control Alert #1

Lou Dobbs on May 1st, 2009

A renewed effort, tonight, that could curtail our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms if President Obama has his way. He wants the Senate to ratify a little known treaty that would create a national registry for guns. Under that treaty other nations would be able to identify gun owners in the United States. Bill Tucker has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2009/05/01/ldt.tucker.gun.rights.cnn

BILL TUCKER, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Obama went to Mexico and brought back a 12-year-old treaty.

BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: I am urging the Senate in the united states to ratify an interamerican treaty known as SIFTA, to curb small arms trafficking that is a source of so many of the weapons used in this drug war.

TUCKER: The treaty, signed by President Clinton in 1997, was never ratified by the Senate. It calls for the institution of a regime of gun control never before seen in the United States, creating a gun registration system that would be open to international sharing. Offenders would be prosecuted under treaty law and they would be eligible for extradition.

Proponents, like Senator Dick Luger, are urging passage saying, "We should consider ratifying during this Congress the Inter-American Convention against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunitions, Explosives, and related materials." Gun rights activists are incensed.

LARRY PRATT, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA: It reflects a deep distrust that the government of the United States has had toward the people that somehow we need to be regulated because of other people's inability to have a peaceful and orderly society?

TUCKER: Which cuts to the deep distrust some gun owners have for government in general and specifically this administration. President Obama as a senator consistently supported gun control legislation. His attorney general, Eric Holder, is also in favor of gun control. But one strong supporter of the Second Amendment in the Senate is determined to see the president does not get his wish.

SEN JOHN BARRASSO (R), WYOMING: The president said it is a very high priority for him to get this treaty that takes away our Second Amendment rights ratified by the Senate. It is a very high priority for me to make sure this treaty never gets ratified by the United States Senate. And we will find the votes to defeat it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: Gun control is an issue the Democratic congressional leadership has not been eager to embrace just yet but that is what has gun rights groups concerned about this treaty. It isn't being presented as gun control. Instead, Lou, it's being presented as an international treaty that has been ratified by 29 other countries so therefore it must be right that we ratify it as well.

DOBBS: Well, I don't know who -- what do you mean, it must be right? Because 29 other countries don't have a Second Amendment or a constitution?

TUCKER: Correct. And that seems to be President Obama's logic. This is an international treaty.

DOBBS: Well, we're fools if we don't pay attention to what is being done before our very eyes. And that is what's taking place. And no one can blame President Obama. We have only ourselves to blame because he has made it very clear, as has his attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer in the country, they just want to do a few things with gun laws like take them away in large measure. Bill Tucker, thank you very much.

******************************************************************
The Advocates
Hosted by Neil Young

The principled conservative voice in the Lakes Region of NH, 14 years running!

Still the fastest four hours in radio on WEZS 1350 AM

The May 2nd, 2009 Show

8:05-8:40 *TOM BROWN* & *SCOTT WHEELER* (TOM STAYS UNTIL 9)
9:05-9:30 *BRAD O'LEARY* ("SHUT UP, AMERICA!" AUTHOR) P HOPFGARTEN-WM. SMITH
*PAUL & WILLIAM* REMAIN UNTIL NOON

- and perhaps others!

WEZS 1350AM
Every Saturday 8:05am - NOON
Call in at:603-524-6288
Call Toll Free at:1-800-830-8469
Listen live: http://www.wezs.com/advocates
Email during the show: advocates@wezs.com

Feel free to call in or email your comments
Listen to the podcast if you miss the show.
**************************************************************

Add me to the email list: thomaslbrown@yahoo.com

Take me off the email list: thomaslbrownjr@gmail.com

Sapping America's Energy

2009-04-30T00:26:00.000-07:00

Hi Everyone,

Here is a great essay from Pete du Pont. I voted for Pete back in 1988 when he ran for President. He had great ideas then and still does now. Read and tell me what you think.

Have a good one
Tom Brown.
***************************************************************

Sapping America's Energy
Global-warming legislation would drive up the cost of everything.

By Pete du Pont
Wall Street Journal
April 16, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123980462156321035.html

If Americans don't start paying attention to what Congress is up to, our nation's energy policy may seriously change for the worse. A bill styled the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, soon goes before the House. The enactment of laws to combat global warming is an established priority of the new administration and Congress, and their impact on the lives and opportunities of America's people would be substantial and detrimental.

As Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted last month, "Waxman-Markey would put big government in charge of how much energy people can use. It would be the biggest government intervention in people's lives since the second world war, which was the last time people had to have rationing coupons in order to buy a gallon of gas." And for what? According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth's average rate of warming in the 30 years from 1977 to 2007 was just 0.32 degree Fahrenheit per decade, and the global surface temperature has remained virtually flat since 1998.

The Waxman-Markey bill contains some serious mistakes. Slighting nuclear power is one. Nuclear plants generate no carbon dioxide or other pollution, and the 104 already in operation provide America with 73% of its CO2-free electricity generation. It is estimated that each new nuclear plant would employ some 2,000 workers to build and 500 to 600 people to operate. America could use some 40 more nuclear plants, but in the Waxman bill and the Obama administration's policies, additional nuclear power plants are likely nonexistent.

Cap-and-trade policies are another part of the bill intended to give the government more regulatory authority over the energy industry and a great deal more money--perhaps trillions of dollars--some of which would be available to grant to favored people and industries. The bill's outline does not say who would the energy allowances free, who would have to pay for them, and how much they would pay, but it does intend to make energy much more expensive and less available to consumers. Electricity, oil and large manufacturing businesses (which are jointly responsible for 85% of America's greenhouse emissions) would have to obtain at some price federal government pollution permits--"tradable federal permits," or "allowances," for each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. These permits would require reduced plant emissions over time, from a mandate of 3% below 2005 levels in 2012, to 20% in 2020, 42% in 2030, and 83% in 2050.

Another economic mistake at the core of the Waxman bill is the reinstatement of protectionism. Since America's energy restrictions would not apply to manufacturers of goods America imports, unregulated foreign companies could sell their goods in America at lower costs, and thus U.S. manufacturers could be "put at a disadvantage relative to overseas competitors." The Waxman bill would seek to remedy this by making companies eligible for rebates determined and allocated by Washington. If the president found that the rebates "do not substantially correct competitive imbalances" he could establish what Mr. Waxman calls a "border adjustment program" that would require foreign companies to pay for special allowances to "cover" the "carbon contained in U.S.-bound products."

In other words, America would add an international carbon tariff--a global energy tax--to imported goods (just as there was in the Boxer-Lieberman bill that was defeated last year). That would amount to strong protectionism and lead to matching tariffs on goods exported from America.

Not included in the Waxman discussion draft summary is the question of what will become of the cash the government would receive from selling the cap-and-trade allowances. In the Boxer-Lieberman bill, it was estimated that auctioning off half the permits would gain the government some $3.3 trillion by 2050, and that would be handed out by the government to pet projects like "environmental" job training, "wildlife adaptation," international aid, domestic mass transit and so on.

But rather than creating a new subsidy, wouldn't we be better off distributing those revenues to the American people, who would have to pay the carbon tax through higher-priced electricity and manufactured goods? Such an idea was recently offered by author Peter Barnes: send the trillions of dollars received from the companies buying the permits to people as a "cap-and-trade dividend" in the form of equal personal checks for all Americans. The Obama administration thinks the opposite--that a majority of the money raised by cap-and-trade should be sent only to taxpayers making under a certain amount as a part of his Making Work Pay credit.

The Waxman-Markey plan intends to give the federal government near-total control of America's energy supplies and usage. Depending upon how the allowances are organized, it may also create the largest redistribution of money from American families to the federal government since the creation of the American income tax. To keep America prospering, our economy growing, and jobs expanding, we need not less energy, but more of it; not higher energy prices but lower ones; and more energy generation through nuclear power, clean coal and offshore oil and gas as well as possible new energy sources. Waxman-Markey will take us in one direction, but to keep America prospering we need to go in the opposite one.

Ms.Napolitano should step down now!

2009-04-22T21:34:00.000-07:00

I can not believe what the Obama Administration is doing with Ms. Napolitano. As an American I am ashamed at treating Canada like this. Canada is America's best friend. Free Trade with Canada works unlike Mexico. We have the largest undefended border in the world and for Ms. Napolitano comparing it to Mexico is totally crazy. I believe President Obama should ask her to step down.

Below are two article that appeared in a Canadian Newspaper National Post. See what they say about her. I agree with them.

Tom Brown
North American Freedom

******************************************************************************
National Post editorial board
Published: Wednesday, April 22, 2009

"U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, in January 2009.

Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.

In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."

Just what does that mean, exactly?

Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Napolitano equated Canada's border to Mexico's, suggesting they deserved the same treatment. Mexico is engulfed in a drug war that left more than 5,000 dead last year, and which is spawning a spillover kidnapping epidemic in Arizona. So many Mexicans enter the United States illegally that a multi-billion-dollar barrier has been built from Texas to California to keep them out.

In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?

Story Link
http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=1520295

*********************************************************************

Don Martin: Napolitano makes Bush administration look well informed
Posted: April 21, 2009, 6:05 PM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Don Martin

Update: Chris Selley: Making the Bush administration look well-informed

This is borderline insanity.

The most worrisome American official confronting Canada today is a former Arizona governor who thinks the U.S. northern border, which she’s only flown over and never actually crossed on the ground, is a security threat on par with the drug-running, immigrant-smuggling, terrorist-sneaking border wall with Mexico.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is moving unapologetically forward on beefed-up border staffing and enhanced documentation requirements that will make Canadians and travelling Americans yearn for the security paranoia of the George W. Bush administration.

Ms. Napolitano’s brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we’re dealing with an irrational senior U.S. official who can’t differentiate between a secure border linking the world’s largest trading partners and one that’s a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what’s been described as an ‘invasion’ of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north.

She actually invoked the bogeyman of 9/11 terrorists sneaking into the United States from Canada to bolster the case for a crackdown, even though the most elementary research would have told her there’s no evidence to support that bogus claim.

When challenged on her concerns, she insisted still-secret data, undoubtedly buried with the aliens at Roswell, justifies her concern. She surely must know that only 12 of the 48 al-Qaeda operatives caught between 1993 and 2001 were illegal immigrants and none of those came from Canada.

And there’s simply no comparison between the illegal entry trickle from Canada and the alien immigrant wave and drug smuggling surge pouring into the U.S. from the south. Of the estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants who enter the U.S. each year, 57% come from Mexico. Just six per cent of those living illegally in the United States are Canadian.

Somebody should also warn the Secretary that recent statistics show 500,000 Canadians spent tourist dollars in her Mexican border state in 2006 and that Arizona rates Canada its second-largest trading partner with almost $3 billion in trade.

The infamous quote from early in her Homeland Security posting was to fret at Mexico’s hurt feelings. “If things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border,” she said.

What’s that precisely? Build another Texas wall? Does she have any concept that this 5,013-kilometre land border bisects towns and villages (heck, it even divides the stage from the seats in one Vermont-Quebec movie theatre)?

“The pattern at the Canadian border has been informality,” she went on to say. “The borders are going to be enabled with greater technology, but it’s not going to be going back and forth as if there’s no border anymore.”

Having crossed the border last week, let me assure you there’s nothing informal or lacking about it. When friends on an annual golf getaway crossed at the 1,000 Islands, we joined a bunch of others in getting a major passport shakedown by armed American guards casting a very suspicious eyes at our duty-free haul of booze sandwiched between the bags carrying our instruments of fairway destruction.

They called me forward and demanded to know if I’d ever been arrested. Yes, yes, I confessed, there was a minor drug possession charge when I was just 18 (and I still insist it was Bob Green’s pot), but it was wiped clean by a judge. It took a long discussion with border guards about the dangers of allowing in somebody never convicted of anything criminal before my born-in-the-U.S.A. birth certificate got me waved across.

I digress, but my point is that technology which can alert guards to a 34-year-old minor arrest that never resulted in a conviction shouldn’t have much trouble fingering a known terrorist.

The new Homeland Security boss has a well-known Monty Python fetish. Perhaps she’s decided to pattern herself after the black knight of Holy Grail movie fame, who declares “none shall pass,” only to have his arms and legs hacked off in a swordfight even while insisting the amputations are ‘but a scratch’.

If Janet Napolitano adopts a similarly defiant posture to squeeze her northern border into a business barrier, the United States will be cutting off the arms and legs of its integrated manufacturing base to block an enemy that doesn’t exist.
National Post
dmartin@nationalpost.com

Link to the story
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/21/don-martin-napolitano-s-makes-bush-administration-look-well-informed.aspx

www.nationalpost.com

*********************************************************************

Thomas More Law Center Files Suit

2009-04-16T23:45:00.000-07:00

This story DHS story is on the Thomas More Law Center website. Check it out.
Thanks
Tom

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Janet Napolitano Over Homeland Security’s Rightwing Extremism Policy

April 16, 200

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of the political beliefs. Click here to read the Law Center’s complaint.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc (CBR)), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “The Obama Administration has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution. The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’ Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”

Thompson added, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents.”

The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

Opposes restrictions on firearms
Opposes lax immigration
Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs
Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
Opposes same-sex marriage
Has paranoia of foreign regimes
Fear of Communist regimes
Opposes one world government
Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
. . . and the list goes on

The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.

Click here to read the Department of Homeland Security’s Report.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

What was DHS thinking?

2009-04-16T23:25:00.001-07:00

Hi Everyone,

Today, I am commenting about The DHS Report on right wing extremists. This report is very dangerous to our nation. It states that our own people need to be spied on. . The odd thing about it is that after we ended calling it “a war on terror” We have report going after the right wing citizens in this country. The report warms law enforcement to look out for this people. I do not see left wing groups on this list or anyone from the Presidents party.

From the Report- “It identified as potential terrorist threats people who collect guns, veterans, supporters of border control, and pro-life advocates.” These are Republicans not Democrats.

The question to ask you, is this the kind of Government we want? The paragraph down below is the telling law enforcement what to do if they see a Republican. This passage sounds like East German police state during the cold war.

“DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI. When available, each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.”

Ms. Napolitano stands by the report. In my view, Ms. Napolitano should step down. The American people are not going to trust DHS until she does.

Here is the link to the report

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf

Let me know me what you think.

Freedom Alert Story! 4-15-09

2009-04-15T01:07:00.000-07:00

This is a interesting blog from motherjones. There is a link with the whole bill in it. Please read it and let me know what you think.

-Tom Brown 4-15-09
*****************************************************************************
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet?t=1239779339

Should Obama Control the Internet?

A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.

—By Steve Aquino

181 Comments | Post Comment

—Photo from flickr user marcos papapopolus used under a Creative Commons license.

Thu April 2, 2009 12:33 PM PST

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.

"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."

But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.

"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."

The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.

"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."

Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."

North American Freedom's Top Stories Today

2009-04-07T21:44:00.000-07:00

Hi Everyone,

This is April 8th and I am adding 3 more stories from others to the blog. Remember to tell people about this and get your friends thinking. What kind of Government do you want? Obama give me enough things to talk about. He is wrong about the direction he is taking America. Free Markets and Freedom are still alive. Enjoy the information and have a good day.

Tom Brown
Editor Of North American Freedom

************************************************************

North American Freedom Newsletter
Issue 2 Vol 1.
April 8,2009

************************************************************************

Homeland Alert #1

HACKETT: Obama lowers our shield

As North Korea launches missiles into orbit

By James T. Hackett | Tuesday, April 7, 2009

www.washingtontimes.coim

COMMENTARY:

It is surprising that North Korea's testing of President Obama by firing a long-range missile should coincide with word from the administration that it plans to slow the major program defending this country against such threats.

When North Korea launched its missile, dozens of radars and other sensors followed it, confirming that its payload fell into the sea. Either its payload was not a satellite or it was one that failed to reach orbit.

For the rest of the story click below

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/07/obama-lowers-our-shield/

*****************************************************************************

Economic Alert #1

The Oil and Glory Interview: Paul Kennedy

Posted by: Steve LeVine on March 30

www.businessweek.com

Economic historian Paul Kennedy is arguably the West’s most influential scholar on the decline of great powers. When you hear or read someone talking about whether or how America is being eclipsed as the world’s pre-eminent power, you are almost always getting a derivation of Kennedy’s seminal 1987 work, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers.

Two narratives are currently going on. One is the global financial turmoil. The second is America’s place in the world now and going forward. To plumb those subjects and others, Oil and Glory caught up with Kennedy by phone at his New Haven, CT., home, where his grandchildren gave him a respite to talk. Here is a related story. And here is the edited interview:

Click on the link below for the rest of the story

http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/russia_oil_politics/archives/2009/03/the_oil_and_glo_2.htm

****************************************************************************************

Bailout Player Alert #1

Bailout Man Turns the Screws

By Deborah Solomon

USA Inc.

April 7, 2009

online.wsj.com

WASHINGTON -- Late on New Year's Eve, James Lambright, a Treasury Department official, sat waiting impatiently for documents to arrive from Citigroup Inc. He'd just been told by the bank's chief financial officer that Citigroup couldn't reach some executives who needed to sign the paperwork, including one woman whose husband was in the hospital with a heart attack.

"Well then, you know where to find her," Mr. Lambright replied to the finance chief, Gary Crittenden, according to three accounts of the call. "Put someone in one of your fancy black cars and get her to sign the document."

Associated Press

James Lambright (right), bailout deal maker, with ex-Treasury chief Henry Paulson in December.

As the government continues to pour cash into the economy, Mr. Lambright, 38 years old, has become one of the most powerful men in American finance. Unknown to most outside the Treasury building, he's an embodiment of how power in the economy has shifted -- for good or ill -- to Washington

Click on the link below for the rest of the story

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906145595395075.html

***************************************************************************
Copyright 2009 North American Freedom

First Newsletter Issue 1 Vul !

2009-04-06T23:01:00.000-07:00

North American Freedom
Issue #1 Vol.1
April 6, 2009

Editorial

Welcome to the first issue of North American Freedom.

This newsletter and blog is set up to teach people and let people know
about the issue you might have missed. We believe in Freedom for all of
North America. We are like the Minutemen from our Revolution from long
ago.*Warning* The State is coming! The State is coming and more laws and
rules passed into law. Tell your friends and let them know what is going
on. The voters need information for 2010. Be that information. We need
leaders who follow the bill of rights and who did not view it as legend on
a map.

The State and Federal Governments of the USA are passing all kinds of
Intolerable Acts. Just like is 1774. What are they thinking? New York State
is really asking for it with all the taxes they trying to pass.All of North
America should be free. Canada and Mexico need to keep Government out of
their noses as well. We are looking for stories about them.

The fight for your mind is at your doorstep. The State wants to control
your life. It is here. The time to defend the ideas of Liberty is now. You
can no longer ignore what is going on.The first step of defending Liberty
is education before you take any action. The second is to meet people who
feel the same and third is to take steps that work. We will do our best to
look for stories that let you make up your own mind. If you want to be
free, you have to be informed. Please let us know what you think.

Enjoy the newsletter and blog.

-Tom Brown Editor of North American Freedom

********************************************************
Freedom Alert #1

The American Spectator

Il Duce, Redux?

By Quin Hillyer

on 4.2.09 @ 6:09AM

Trying to handle the crisis, the Fascist government nationalized the
holdings of large banks which had accrued significant industrial
securities. The government also issued new securities to provide a source
of credit for the banks and began enlisting the help of various cartels….

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/02/il-duce-redux

*******************************************************

Interesting Ideas #1

Vanishing Republic

More than 200 years ago, Prof. Alexander Tyler mused that:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from
the public treasury.From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy…always
followed by a dictatorship.”

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of
history, has been about 200 years.

During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the
following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage"

He wrote this back in 1787 about fall of the Athenian Republic.

Do you find these words ring true today?

******************************************************
Freedom *Red Alert* of the day.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE HAS BEEN REPEALED
By Dick Morris
www.dickmorris.com
04.6.2009

On April 2, 2009, the work of July 4, 1776 was nullified at the meeting of the G-20 in London. The joint communiqué essentially announces a global economic union with uniform regulations and bylaws for all nations, including the United States. Henceforth, our SEC, Commodities Trading Commission, Federal Reserve Board and other regulators will have to march to the beat of drums pounded by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), a body of central bankers from each of the G-20 states and the European Union.

The mandate conferred on the FSB is remarkable for its scope and open-endedness. It is to set a “framework of internationally agreed high standards that a global financial system requires.” These standards are to include the extension of “regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments, and markets…[including] systemically important hedge funds.”

Note the key word: “all.” If the FSB, in its international wisdom, considers an institution or company “systemically important”, it may regulate and over see it. This provision extends and internationalizes the proposals of the Obama Administration to regulate all firms, in whatever sector of the economy that it deems to be “too big to fail.”

The FSB is also charged with “implementing…tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms.”

That means that the FSB will regulate how much executives are to be paid and will enforce its idea of corporate social responsibility at “all firms.”

The head of the Financial Stability Forum, the precursor to the new FSB, is Mario Draghi, Italy’s central bank president. In a speech on February 21, 2009, he gave us clues to his thinking. He noted that “the progress we have made in revising the global regulatory framework…would have been unthinkable just months ago.”

He said that “every financial institution capable of creating systemic risk will be subject to supervision.” He adds that “it is envisaged that, at international level, the governance of financial institutions, executive compensation, and the special duties of intermediaries to protect retail investors will be subject to explicit supervision.”

In remarks right before the London conference, Draghi said that while “I don’t see the FSF [now the FSB] as a global regulator at the present time…it should be a standard setter that coordinates national agencies.”

This “coordination of national agencies” and the “setting” of “standards” is an explicit statement of the mandate the FSB will have over our national regulatory agencies.

Obama, perhaps feeling guilty for the US role in triggering the international crisis, has, indeed, given away the store. Now we may no longer look to presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, to make policy for our economy. These decisions will be made internationally.

And Europe will dominate them. The FSF and, presumably, the FSB, is now composed of the central bankers of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States plus representatives of the World Bank, the European Union, the IMF, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Europe, in other words, has six of the twelve national members. The G-20 will enlarge the FSB to include all its member nations, but the pro-European bias will be clear. The United States, with a GDP three times that of the next largest G-20 member (Japan), will have one vote. So will Italy.

The Europeans have been trying to get their hands on our financial system for decades. It is essential to them that they rein in American free enterprise so that their socialist heaven will not be polluted by vices such as the profit motive. Now, with President Obama’s approval, they have done it.

**************************************************************

Copyright 2009
North American Freedom

Where do you begin?

2009-03-23T15:38:00.000-07:00

How many freedoms are being being tested by Obama? What we are seeing is the New Deal Plan where all the cards are being shuffled. This is not Clinton it is Carter but worst. I mean Bush was not a Freedom Republican like Steve Forbes but as least he knew what taxes to cut. Bush's problem was he never said no spending. Like a rich kid who was over the limit and kept spending. Obama on the other hand is trying to fix what he thinks is wrong and does not care what happens to the old way even if it bankrupts us. When the people find out what he is all about. He will not get voted back in 4 years. Pray we can last.

So I ask the question -where do we begin?

I state:

When you see a freedom being taken by the goverment you have to report it. Then take action and contact your representative. Put the pressure on them to vote the way you like. If that does not work. Report it! Tell people how they voted and get new people to run.

Speak about this stuff with your friends and people not engaged. People do not always know what is going on. Tell them what you know.

The time is now to stand up for what you believe in. No one likes to do it. We all have things we would rather do. If we believe in our freedom that our forefathers believed in when they fought the British Empire we will make North America the freedom continent of the world.

The big 3 United States, Canada, and Mexico all have different issues but one thing they all should be have in common that is freedom. The big 3 need to show the rest of world how you live in peace and have freedom. We do not have to join into one country like the EU. We can trade and still be have our way of life. What do you think?

Are you up to the task in making this happen? Please send me an email and let me know.

2009-02-17T23:05:00.000-08:00

On April 17th - beginning at midnight EST - supporters of the Campaign for Liberty and of the campaign to END THE FED will join together to trigger a first in a series of “bank runs” in hopes of overwhelming the Federal Reserve’s ability to continue it’s propping up of our nation’s bankrupt financial system.

The goal of this project is to highlight the need to pass Congressman Ron Paul’s recently reintroduced House Resolution 833 - a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve.

We wish to emphasize the need for sound money - backed by gold and or silver.

All supporters should remove all cash except $17.76 from any bank and withdraw maximum allowable funds from any money market accounts on that day.

We seek an “electronic run on the banks” in addition to traditional “bank runs.” Over time, we hope to build these events in order to topple the effectiveness of the Federal Reserve.

We are also asking all supporters to donate $100 to Congressman Paul’s Campaign for Liberty at

www.campaignforliberty.com

______________________________________________

This is interesting. They are calling for a run on the banks. This site will not be up long.

-Tom

Newsmax

2009-02-17T02:14:00.000-08:00

Steve Forbes: Stimulus Lacks Strategy

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:40 AM

By: Dan Weil

Article Font Size

Former presidential candidate and Forbes magazine publisher Steve Forbes lambasted the fiscal stimulus program working its way through Congress as a waste of money.

“It’s just a grab bag of every spending proposal that’s been banging around Congress for years,” the chief executive of Forbes Inc. told Bloomberg TV.

“They just threw in everything. There’s no coherence, no real strategy. There are some good parts — stimulus for small businesses to invest, the electric grid. But even there, they didn’t really follow through.”

What does Forbes recommend instead?

“If you want sustained economic growth, you need incentives,” he explains.

“If you want to throw around a lot of money, they should have reduced the payroll tax in half for two years.”

The benefit of that is that it gets money instantly into people’s hands, Forbes said. “If you’re low income, you have to wait until next year before you get money from this thing.”

And a payroll tax would instantly cut hiring expenses, making businesses more eager to expand their workforce.

Forbes also favors a business tax cut. “The U.S. has the second-highest business tax rate in the developed world,” he explains.

“Why not cut that from 35 percent to 20 percent? That’s the way to have businesses plan for the future.”

Forbes isn’t the only one criticizing the stimulus plan.

“The fiscal package now before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised,” Harvard economist Martin Feldstein wrote in The Washington Post.

“In its current form, it does too little to raise national spending and employment.”

Three Hats Off to Judd Gregg

2009-02-14T00:54:00.000-08:00

I like Larry Kudlow's view on this. Judd Gregg made the right choice. Check it out and see if you agree.

Tom Brown
North American Freedom

_______________________________________________________

Kudlow's Money Politics

Three Hats Off to Judd Gregg

Thursday, February 12, 2009
By Larry Kudlow

Three hats off to Judd Gregg for withdrawing his nomination for commerce secretary. And I mean three hats. I’ve never seen anything like this.

I say this not in a partisan-political sense, but in terms of Sen. Gregg’s extraordinary character and integrity. He would not compromise his beliefs.

Here’s the money paragraph:

However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census, there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

Judd Gregg has more backbone than anyone in politics today. He did his best to cross over and help Pres. Obama. But as Gregg and I discussed in a recent CNBC interview, the senator has a long and outstanding record as a tax-cutter, budget-cutter, deficit-cutter, and debt-cutter. All of these principles have been badly violated in the so-called stimulus package. And of course the White House move to steal the Census Bureau during a crucial political-reapportionment period was a low blow.

But how many major public figures would have simply drawn a line in the sand and said, No, I simply cannot cross that line? That’s what Gregg just did.

With so many weak-kneed leaders in business and politics today, Gregg has just provided an incredibly strong leadership example. If you can’t wake up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror in good conscience, then you’re doing something wrong. There’s a right way and a wrong way in life. Gregg chose the right way.

You know what? He ought to think very seriously about a presidential run. I mean it. This is an act of courage. That’s what we need.

Ralph Nader Lambasts Limbaugh in Ridiculous Rant

2009-02-13T15:51:00.000-08:00

This is a story I read in the radio blog I like to check out. Ralph Nader is way off base with this. He hates Rush and is telling the American people outright strange things. He has lost his mind if he believes this.

Two thumbs down for Ralph!

Tom Brown

North American Freedom

________________________________________________________________

Ralph Nader Lambasts Limbaugh in Ridiculous Rant

Feb 5 2009

By Corey Deitz, About.com

I almost didn't believe a story I read in The Washington Times. Ralph Nader, the consumer activist, was taunting Rush Limbaugh because of his multimillion-dollar income and said, "You are making this money on the public property of the American people for which you pay no rent.

You, Rush Limbaugh, are on welfare..." Nader also said Limbaugh should, "...set a capitalist example for his peers and pay rent to the American people for the very lucrative use of their property."

I don’t even know where to begin.

Inane. Idiotic. Absurd.

Why is Nader singling out Limbaugh? Why would his show be any different from what Randi Rhodes or Stephanie Miller do? What separates him from Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Glenn Beck, the "Kim Kommando Computer Show", "Into Tomorrow with Dave Graveline", or hundreds of syndicated personalities and shows which air weekdays and on the weekends? For that matter, what about the progressively-programmed Air America Media. It operates on radio stations owned by the public, too.

Look: talk show hosts and programs don’t just bully their way into stations and force themselves onto the air. They are contracted for, paid for, hired if you will by station "licensees" to work for them.

The station licensees are "licensed" by the Federal Communications Commission and responsible for operating the frequencies. They do so on behalf of the public who remain the true "owners" of AM and FM real estate. But, the licensees of commercial radio stations run them to make a profit – and they hire local or syndicated talent to generate listeners, ratings, and revenue.
Limbaugh is no more on the public dole than the park rangers at Yellowstone National Park. Both are paid for a service they provide to a publicly owned asset.

So, Ralph Nader – please shut up. Your personal politics are showing - not your understanding of commercial radio

_________________________________________________________________

I could not agree more.

-Tom

Judd Gregg made the right choice

2009-02-13T05:11:00.001-08:00

I am so glad Judd Gregg made the choice to return to the Senate. He would not have fit in with Obama's Team. He will serve NH much better in the Senate.
He was under pressure to leave after only 3 Republicans in Congress voted for the stimulus package.

The next pick for Commerce Secretary will be a back up type. One where the White House can pull the strings. They want to run the 2010 census from the White House plain and simple. Judd Gregg wanted no part of being Captain Dunsal.

2009-02-09T01:02:00.000-08:00

What's Not Wrong with Health Care in the U.S.

by Dr. Roger Stark
Health Care Policy Analyst
January 2009

Change is coming to the health care system in this country. At $2.1 trillion per year, or 17% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), cost should be the driver for this movement to reform our current system.

As the debate continues on in the next few months, however, a number of other arguments will be used to indict our present mix of public and private programs. Many of these arguments are based on a faulty presentation of the facts, so let’s look at the actual data and see what is not wrong with our health care system.

First of all, we hear a lot about how terrible the infant mortality rate is in the United States, with supposedly the worst in the civilized world. Is this true? Not really. U.S. health officials count all live births, while many other countries only count full-term births or infants who live at least 28 days. Obviously, premature infants, who are counted in the U.S., but not in other countries, have a much higher risk of mortality.

Second, it is repeatedly said that people in the U.S. do not live as long as in other countries. Again, this is true. However, deaths from homicide and accidents distort the picture. When the data is adjusted for these categories, life expectancy in the U.S. is as high as in other countries. Homicide and trauma certainly reflect a country’s social problems, but they tell us little about a country’s health care system.

Third, we hear that each year there are nearly 100,000 unnecessary hospital deaths in the U.S., a clear indictment of our health care quality. A panel of physicians reviewed the hospital data, however, and found that the great majority of these deaths occurred at the end of the patient’s natural life, when the outcome would have been the same regardless of what hospital staff did or did not do. In other countries, these older, desperately ill people might not even be sent to a hospital, dying instead at home, and are thus not included in national medical statistics.

A comparable study in Canada, adjusted for population size, found 200,000 “unnecessary” hospital deaths, even though political activists regularly push Canadian-style health care for the U.S.

Fourth, we hear people are often forced to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills. It turns out advocates count any bankruptcy case involving even a single medical bill, whether or not health costs had anything to do with causing the bankruptcy.

Also, people ages 55 to 65, who have more personal control over their health coverage, are less likely to declare bankruptcy, while people over 65, who are on government-run Medicare, have seen a doubling of their bankruptcy rate. In the case of the elderly, tax-funded health care has not reduced financial problems for older Americans.

Fifth, what about the 45.7 million uninsured? Who are they, and are medical costs and availability the reasons they don’t have health insurance? If we look at the actual numbers, it turns out that one-third of these people are eligible for existing government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, etc.) but haven’t applied. Half of this 45.7 million are transitioning between jobs, and nearly one-fourth of the total are not U.S. citizens.

It turns out advocates count anyone who was without health coverage at any time during a calendar year.

Out of the entire 45.7 million, only about 8 million are chronically uninsured. This represents less than 5% of our total population. While an important number, it is arguably not large enough to be the primary motivator for an entire government overhaul of our health care system that would impact the other 95% of our population.

Last we are told we rank 37th in health care compared to other countries. This figure comes from the U.N.’s World Health Organization. Three of the five criteria to rate nations were biased in favor of nationalized, single-payer systems, and the U.N. admitted they had an 80% uncertainty level in their data. Amazingly, none of the five criteria included actual health outcomes, such as cancer or heart attack survival rates.

Because the U.S. does not have total, nationalized health care, our system was severely disadvantaged before the study began. Any health study that ranks Greece (#14), Columbia (#22), and Morocco (#29) ahead of the U.S. clearly has serious methodological problems.

Any debate about how to improve health care needs serious research honestly presented, not skewed data or false comparisons with other countries. Using the arguments discussed above only serves to shift our focus away from the real problems - overregulation and high costs. Only when the system re-connects patients with control of their own health care dollars, and when decisions about care are made by doctors talking with patients, not by government program managers, will we be in a position to control costs and extend coverage to the chronically uninsured.

Dr. Roger Stark is a health care policy analyst with Washington Policy Center, a non-partisan independent policy research organization in Seattle and Olympia. You can reach Dr. Stark at rstark@washingtonpolicy.org.

____________________________________________________________________

I found this very interesting and wanted to share this with everyone who is searching for the truth about the USA Health Care System.

Tom Brown-North American Freedom

North American Freedom's First Blog

2009-02-06T19:48:00.000-08:00

Hi Everyone,

Here is the first blog of North American Freedom. This blog is my view on what is happening to freedom in North America. It will cover America first, with me being an American. But, I will include Canada and Mexico as well.

The first question I ask is:

Are you better off then you were 4 years ago with freedom?

My answer is to that is no. Every year it seems to me that the government grabs more and more of what should be decided by you and your family not the government.

What do you think?

Tom Brown
North American Freedom
Laconia, NH