GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....


Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF


Saturday, December 11, 2010

Orwell’s ‘1984’ Life for America’s Christmas Gift 2010

Spying On Your Neighbor

December 10, 2010 by Bob Livingston

Spying On Your Neighbor

With those children, he thought, that wretched woman must lead a life of terror. Another year, two years, and they would be watching her night and day for symptoms of unorthodoxy… It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for  hardly a week passed in which the Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak — ”child hero” was the phrase generally used — had overheard some compromising remark and had denounced his parents to the Thought Police.
1984, George Orwell

Big Brother — or more accurately in this case, Big Sister — is invading your local Wal-Mart, 9,000 Federal buildings, businesses, communities and sporting events with video message boards, or telescreens, right out of George Orwell’s 1984.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Monday announced the plan to expand the “If You See Something, Say Something” public awareness campaign to Wal-Mart stores nationwide. On Wednesday, DHS issued a press release announcing other partners taking part in the program were, “Mall of America, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, Amtrak, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the sports and general aviation industries, and state and local fusion centers across the country.” ("Fusion centers" refers to the 72 facilities that were created after the 9/11 attacks to allow for more pervasive and coordinated surveillance by governments.) And there are plans to expand the program in the coming months.

The message encourages people to watch for “suspicious” behavior and report it to the government. It’s right out of 1984, or Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. It’s totalitarian, police-state tactics designed to foster suspicion and create unease under the guise of keeping us safe.

It’s creepy enough that messages from Big Sister will be bombarding people standing in the checkout lines at the local Wal-Mart. But go to the website and then ask yourself, “Do I want someone like that watching me for suspicious activity?”

And then ponder whom the government considers terrorists. It’s not al-Qaida the government is concerned with. According to the DHS report from 2009, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, possible terrorists include people opposed to President Barack Obama, those upset by the high unemployment rate, supporters of gun rights, those who believe in conspiracy theories involving a coming martial law declaration and the creation of detention camps, those who stockpile food, ammunition and weapons in anticipation of a collapse, military veterans and Christians. And a report from the Missouri Information Analysis Center called libertarians, supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin and militia group members possible terrorists.

History has shown that programs like this are not designed to keep people safe. They are designed to quash dissenting views, stifle free speech and generate fear and suspicion. Programs like this are ripe for abuse, with neighbors reporting neighbors in order to avenge some slight or end a disagreement.

It’s the mark of the end of a free society.

December 10, 2010 by Bob Livingston


The Transportation Security Administration Gets Up Close And Personal

December 10, 2010 by Chip Wood

The Transportation Security Administration Gets Up Close And Personal

Trust Jay Leno, America’s humorist, to get a laugh out of it. The Tonight Showaudience howled when he said, “It was bad enough when the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents would go through your underwear in your luggage. Now they’re going through your underwear while you’re wearing it.”

A friend of mine also tried to make light of the situation. After a recent trip he remarked, “I was patted down so vigorously, I didn’t know whether to leave a tip or lodge a complaint.” But in truth, there’s nothing funny about the new and aggressive screening that many travelers have encountered at the airport this holiday season.

It all began when those wonderful folks at the TSA purchased the latest in full-body scanners. The machines — which require you to not only take off your shoes, but also remove your belt, empty your pockets and stand with an arms-over-the-head, “I surrender” posture — are so sophisticated that they can (and do) take photographs of what you would look like if you were standing there virtually naked.

This has led to some inappropriate comments on the part of security personnel. One male TSA screener was overheard saying to another, “Did you see the garbanzos on that lady?” His buddy replied, “No, but I’ll catch them on the rerun.”

While the TSA assures us that the powerful X-rays used in the new screeners are harmless, many medical authorities disagree. At least one expert says the radiation is 20 times more powerful than what the TSA claims. Apparently the radiation to your neck and face is strong enough to increase the danger of skin cancer. As a result, the pilots association advised its members to refuse to go through the machines.

So it comes as no surprise that there has been a huge outcry raised against the machines and the people who operate them. This led to the TSA to offer an alternative: If you refuse to go through a scanner, you will be subjected to a very aggressive, full-body pat-down. And by “aggressive,” I mean that your genitalia (and, if you’re a female, your breasts) will be touched. While trying to defend the agency, Senator Claire McCaskill had the audacity to refer to the TSA procedures as “love pats.” Hope that costs her some votes next election.

Let me interject what is definitely not a rhetorical question here for your consideration: What sort of person would want the job of being a TSA security watchdog? I don’t know what psychological screening they undergo — if you do, I wish you’d tell us. But just imagine the sort of person who would respond to the following advertisement:

“HELP WANTED: Must be willing to subject adults and children to all sorts of humiliating orders, including full-body pat-downs and invasive photography. If anyone resists, you must tell them, ‘You must comply or you won’t fly.’ Whatever happens, you will have the law — and numerous fellow employees — to back you up.”

I can’t imagine anything that would be a more overt appeal to perverts and petty tyrants. Can you? In fact, given the enormous possibility of abuse, I’m shocked we haven’t heard more complaints about over-zealous officials abusing their authority.

It’s no surprise that many Americans are resisting and protesting. One of the latest is a young man named John Tyner, who secretly recorded his encounter with security personnel at San Diego’s Lindbergh Field. When he discovered that the new, invasive, full-body scanners had been installed at the airport (despite the TSA’s Website saying they weren’t in use there), he refused to submit to the machine.

He was then told that a TSA agent would have to conduct a kind of “groin check.” His reply has delighted more than a million people who watched the encounter on the clip he posted afterwards on YouTube: “If you touch my junk, I’m going to have you arrested.”

Of course, in this day and age, it is far more likely that Tyner would be the one who was arrested. When he said that he’d refuse to fly and would go back home rather than submit to the new procedures, he was told that he would be “subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine” if he left the secured area.

Why is all of this necessary? Actually, as commentator Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, it’s not. “This has nothing to do with safety,” he declared. “95% of these inspections, searches, shoe removals, and pat-downs are ridiculously unnecessary. The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling.”


In the face of rapidly growing opposition to its measures, the TSA launched a massive public relations campaign of its own. Suddenly, TSA Administrator John Pistole was everywhere — the morning TV shows, the afternoon gabfests, a long editorial in USA Today, an even longer interview in the Wall Street Journal. In every case, the defense was the same: We’re doing this for your safety.

I was reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s famous observation that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

If the object is to prevent a suicide bomber from getting aboard a plane, here’s an idea for the TSA: For a fraction of the cost of one of those full-body scanners, how about hiring the local bomb squad to build one of those solid-steel containers they use to detonate suspected explosives? Make it large enough to hold a full-sized adult.

If you have even the remotest suspicion of someone in line, tell them they have to pass through the new security facility. Assure them that “It won’t take nude photographs of you. But it will detonate any explosives that are hidden on your person. Okay, sir or madam, please step this way.”

While we wait for such a common-sense approach to be adopted, here’s another idea to consider. Ron Paul, my favorite maverick representative, introduced legislation in the House of Representatives last month to affirm that “security screeners are not immune from any U.S. law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.”

Now there’s an interesting idea: Make our would-be masters subject to the same laws as you and I are.

Hmm. Next thing you know, someone will suggest that politicians be subject to the same security procedures we are. And maybe even the same retirement benefits.

Nah, we’ll never get that tough with them.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

h/t to Personal Liberty

S.510 “Hitched” A Ride On Massive Budget Bill, 1984 Is Here

December 9, 2010 by Alex\The Intel Hub

Democrats passed a massive budget bill late Wednesday night. The bill narrowly passed by a 212-206 vote.

“A widely backed food safety bill is hitching a ride on the legislation. The measure passed the Senate by a 73-25 vote last week but got caught in a snag because it contained revenue provisions that, under the Constitution, must originate in the House.” Yahoo News

That’s right, S.510 has apparently HITCHED a ride on the budget bill that was passed during a late night session. Our food freedom has possibly been destroyed by the lame duck congress and their big agriculture masters.

Our government is attempting to steal away our food freedom!

Completer Article and Videos Here

FCC commissioner wants to institute a “Public Value Test” on radio stations

DECEMBER 4, 2010

by Steve Dennis

  Big Brother is watching…..or is at least listening, if Michael Copps–the head of the FCC–has his way. What is the big deal you may be asking? After all, isn’t it the job of the FCC set broadcast standards and ensure that stations are living up to them? Yes, but this news should be a  little concerning to everybody; Michael Copps wants to set up a “Public Value Test” which a station must pass every four years in order for that station to keep its licence.

  This will be done under the guise of trying to save “traditional media” which Copps has declared is in “grave peril,” but it is nothing more than another way to pass a version of the Fairness Doctrine. Here is what Michael Copps had to say about this idea during a recent speech:

If a station passes the Public Value Test, it of course keeps the license it has earned to use the people’s airwaves,” Copps said. “If not, it goes on probation for a year, renewable for an additional year if it demonstrates measurable progress. If the station fails again, give the license to someone who will use it to serve the public interest

  The first question that came to my mind when I read that quote was this: who gets to decide whether a station is adequately serving the public interest? I think we all know the answer to this question, don’t we? This will give the government more control over the product that radio stations are allowed to broadcast, because if the product does not meet the government standard of the “public interest” the radio station will lose its license. But on top of that, if the government feels a radio station is making adequate progress towards airing content the government approves of, the licensing process will be sped up for those stations:

Copps said stations meeting certain benchmarks of progress would qualify for “expedited handling of their license renewals.”

  We already have a means to decide which radio stations are meeting the “public interest” and that standard is ratings and revenue. If a radio station is not serving up a product that the people want to listen to they will simply turn it off, as a result of this the station will lose advertising revenue and will either change formats or go out of business. This is a free market solution to a problem that only exists in the government’s mind, but this solution is not giving the government the results it wants so they must create another crisis which must be averted.

  This problem of the “grave peril” of traditional media is exactly the crisis the government is looking for, but it  is simply not what the  Public Value Test is about; the Public Value Test is a means to an end, it is not about saving “traditional media,” it is about letting the government have more control over the content of the radio stations, instead of letting the free market dictate the content of these stations. And I think the reason for this is pretty clear, the government does not like the content that is on the radio.

  What content could the government possibly be opposed to? I think we all know the answer to that question as well. Part of this  Public Value Test has its eyes on “localizing” the radio stations so that they are all not focusing on national stories, but more on the local community.

  This is what Michael Copps had to say about “community diversity:”

the goal is more localism in our program diet, more local news and information, and a lot less streamed-in homogenization and monotonous nationalized music at the expense of local and regional talent.  Homogenized music and entertainment from huge conglomerates constrains creativity, suppresses local talent, and detracts from the great tapestry of our nation’s cultural diversity

  There can be no doubt that this is an attempt at allowing the FCC and the federal government more direct influence on the content of radio stations. The government has no right to tell a radio station who they have to put on the air and what topics they can discuss–the free market should decide these issues–but that is exactly what they are trying to do.

  This is being done–much like everything else that liberals do–for the public good, or the greater good. The FCC wants to localize the radio stations because they do not like the message that is coming from the national radio figures, they feel that national radio hosts have too much influence over the people and they want to curb that influence.

  This will be portrayed as being for our own good, Jonah Goldberg called this type of government for your own good soft fascism and smiley face fascism, as well as liberal fascism, but the fact is; no matter what you want to call it, it is a type of controlling government. If the government controls the airwaves, and if the government controls which content is allowed on the airwaves, they control the argument. When the government controls the message, they control the people.

  The FCC is looking to become the Ministry of Propaganda. Separated at birth?:

  Michael Copps    Joseph Goebbels

Orwell’s Prophesy Begins… Team Obama’s Clandestine “Big Brother” Approach to Controlling Internet: So-Called “Government Licensing” for ‘Net Access

Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on October 7, 2010


On paper, this government licensing for computers must have seemed like a brilliant idea to our liberal, power-grabbing federal government — a way to open the door a bit and sneak in the beginning of insidious government control over the Internet. Freedom of speech is on the line. AGAIN.

Americans are paying attention, you statist asses.

Anyone see problems with this latest Big Brother proposal, conveniently proposed by *cough* Microsoft?

Serious problems?

Former Microsoft emperor Bill Gates is a flaming liberal (which is so bizarre and hypocritical, since free market principles and Bush tax breaks enabled Gates to become the multi-gazillionaire that he is) and he’s donated gazillions to Obama’s and other Democrats’ political campaigns over the years.

The same government that would be in control of this supposed “guarding” of the Internet, blocking home computers from access, just stupidly sent out aboatload of stimulus checks — 89,000, plus or minus — to DEAD PEOPLE.

Good grief.

This is the same government that thought it was a peachy idea last year forAmericans to rat fink on their neighbors to the White House via the Internet if they didn’t like or support ObamaCare.

The same government that tried to quietly ban undefined “controversial speech” on the Internet just this past July. They hastily dropped it once public outcry (and even produced outcry from some liberal reporters) soared… or so it appeared at the time.

The same government that’s tried on a number of occasions to silence free speech (translation: any speech that isn’t flattering to Barack Obama or his minions) and launched vicious character attacks and boycotts against private citizens/commentators/entertainers who are conservative, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

The same government that has been arrogantly cramming the trillion-dollar ObamaCare disaster (1 in 4 DEMOCRAT voters now want it repealed) and other taxpayer-funded programs and policies down the throats of unwilling Americans, the majority of whom object to the socialist-progressive agenda and want the spendthrift, power-hungry weasels in DC to STOP IT ALREADY and listen to “We The People.”

Author of 1984 George Orwell has been rolling over in his grave so much for the past 20 months, the bones of his corpse must be polished smooth like opals by now.

They say this is to “protect” cyberspace… yes, that’s the spin they’ve chosen. For now.

Gradualism in action.

From HealthMaybe, Government Licensing Internet – Microsoft’s Proposal Will Grant Access:

Government Licensing Internet Microsoft Proposal Will Grant Access. A brand new proposal by a top Microsoft executive would open the doorway for government licensing to access the internet, with authorities becoming empowered to block individual computers from connecting towards the world extensive internet under the pretext of stopping malware attacks.

Talking to the ISSE 2010 pc safety conference in Berlin yesterday, Scott Charney, Microsoft vice president of Trustworthy Computing, mentioned that cybersecurity ought to mirror public well being security laws, with contaminated PC’s being “quarantined” by government decree and prevented from accessing the web.

“If a gadget is known to become a danger to the web, the person ought to be notified and the device ought to be cleaned before it’s permitted unfettered entry to the web, minimizing the danger of the contaminated gadget contaminating other devices,” Charney mentioned.

Charney mentioned the program would be a “global collective defense” run by firms and authorities and would “track and control” people’s computers similar to how government well being bodies track diseases.

Invoking the risk of malware attacks as being a indicates of dissuading or blocking individuals from utilizing the internet is becoming a typical theme – but it is 1 tainted with political overtones.

On the launch with the Obama administration’s cybersecurity agenda previously this year, Democrats tried to claim that the independent news web site The Drudge Report was serving malware, an incident Senator Jim Inhofe described as a deliberate ploy “to discourage individuals from utilizing Drudge”.

Beneath the brand new proposals, not only would the authorities cite the risk of malware to prevent individuals from going to Drudge, they could be blocked from the entire world wide internet, creating a dangerous precedent by giving authorities the power to dictate whether individuals can use the web and effectively opening the doorway for a licensing system to become introduced.

From ZDNet, You must be at least this secure to ride on the Internet:

Microsoft’s Corporate VP of Trustworthy Computing, Scott Charney, has just suggested, that “Just as when an individual who is not vaccinated puts others’ health at risk, computers that are not protected or have been compromised with a bot put others at risk and pose a greater threat to society. In the physical world, international, national, and local health organizations identify, track and control the spread of disease which can include, where necessary, quarantining people to avoid the infection of others. Simply put, we need to improve and maintain the health of consumer devices connected to the Internet in order to avoid greater societal risk. To realize this vision, there are steps that can be taken by governments, the IT industry, Internet access providers, users and others to evaluate the health of consumer devices before granting them unfettered access to the Internet or other critical resources.”

In other words, if your device isn’t protected, sorry, you can’t go on the Internet. I find this more than a little ironic coming from a Microsoft executive. After all, Windows is the host for 99.4% of all malware according to G Data, a German IT security company. That’s sounds about right.

So, logically, the best thing to do would be to ban Windows from the Internet! OK, while I can get behind that idea, that’s not going to happen.

Warner Todd Houston, guest blogger at Gateway Pundit, has written extensively about the imminent Internet/freedom of speech takeover by Team Obama. Last week, Houston wrote about one of Obama’s latest tactics. Dear Leader pledged to preserve a “free and open Internet” and would call out nations that tried to censor content. Uh, but not really: As Obama Pretends at Its Freedom, His Gov’t Plans Takeover of Internet:

…Yet even as Obama stood giving high sounding words to a“free and open Internet” and scolding other nations that have oppressive controls on Internet access for their own citizens, Barack Obama’s own government has itself been quietly making plans to take over the Internet from private companies.

Obama’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Julius Genachowski, has been angling to use telephone regulations from the 1930s to try and take over full control of the Internet.

One wonders how Obama can have the gall to claim that he wants a “free and open” Internet when he is trying to take control of it himself? How long would the Internet stay “free and open” once the federal government takes hold of it and begins to decide what will be allowed and not allowed over it’s infrastructure?

As always, Barack Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth claiming all at once that he is for open access, and promoting new technologies and businesses while at the same time making plans for Bi Government to control it all from Washington.

Henry Waxman (D, CA), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also seems to be very confused about what is going on with the idea of the FCC grabbing control over the Internet.

On one day this week he wanted to introduce legislation that would put Congress in the driver’s seat on regulation thereby cutting out the FCC from regulating the Internet, but then the very next day he reversed himself 100% and decided it wouldn’t be a good idea. It is a bit hard to understand such a whiplash-inducing move but it has happened nonetheless.

Still, if Congress takes up a consideration of how to handle the Internet this should forestall the FCC’s attempts to forcibly take over the Internet via fiat regulation.

Anyone interested in keeping the government’s hands off the full control of the Internet should pressure Waxman to take up his original position.

Others that can put off the FCC’s power grab are Marsha Blackburn (R, TN) — who has come out in opposition to government control of the Internet — and Rep. Rick Boucher(D, VA), another member of Energy and Commerce Committee.

A good mode of pressure is to cite a new poll that says that the public is not in favor of the government take over of the Internet. has an interesting report about a survey made by Hart Research Associates that seems to indicate that there is “substantial opposition to government Internet regulation.”

The survey shows that 75 percent oppose government regulation with 55 percent saying that government should not regulate the Internet at all.

Excellent observations and questions posed at Death By 1000 Papercuts… Government Licensing Internet: Microsoft Blames Infected PC’s as Reason to License Internet Users:

Prison Planet’s Microsoft Proposal Opens Door For Government Licensing To Access Internet is a highly informative read including the report of Microsoft’s involvement in what looks to be a push to ‘license’ individual PC’s, PC’s that have been infected by a virus, blocked from using the internet until they’re ‘clean’. How ironic is that? Microsoft with their bug infested Windows operating systems which allow PC’s to become infected by computer viruses claiming the problem is ‘individual’ PC’s. Fixing the problem, individual PC’s regulated by the government and ‘corporations’. The PC dubbed dangerous, blocked from the internet until it’s ‘clean’. Really? Who will do the official checkup to ‘deter’ the PC is virus-free? The entity who will have free reign with your PC’s registry and the entire contents of your computers including searching each and every individual file for the ‘virus’.


What about Androids, IPads and IPhones, will these devices be included as ‘devices’ which could be ‘dangerous’ to the internet, registered with the ‘government’ then ‘monitored’ by the government and ‘corporations’ for ‘viruses’? Users forced to get a ‘license’ from the government before they can use them?

The business of a ‘quarantine’ on an individual PC. Since Microsoft is Windows with a history of bugs which have allowed PC’s to become infected, why hasn’t there been any discussions about Microsoft? Why is Microsoft blaming their PC Window operated victims including yours truly?

George Orwell's prophetic novel of government tyranny, 1984

WikiLeaks… the Revolution Has Begun

No comments:

Post a Comment