Barbara Hartwell

My Photo
Independent Investigator, Intelligence Analyst, Journalist. Former CIA (NOC, Psychological Operations.) Black Ops Survivor. Sovereign Child of God. Believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Exposing Government Lies, Crimes, Corruption and Cover-ups.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Barbara Hartwell: CIA/ FBI Plant?


Here is a letter which arrived by post and I'll take this opportunity to answer it, especially since it addresses a particularly important issue: targeting whistleblowers and patriots for libel campaigns.
 
To protect the writer's privacy, I'll identitfy him only by an initial, S.
 
Dear Barbara,
 
I found your website while looking for some other research. I am inquiring if you might have a DVD testimonial shot live?
 
If so where can I get it and how much is it.
 
I see on the comments about you are very negative -most feel you are a CIA or FBI plant.
 
Being in the Patriot movement over 20 years I've found out if you have a lot of critics, you're probably on the right track.
 
Awaiting To Hear From You,
 
S.
 
Dear S,
 
Thank you for your letter. I see that it was mailed in September, but due to the mail being forwarded, I only received it last week.
 
No, I don't have any DVDs for sale. Mostly, I stick to writing reports, although I occasionally do a radio program, and if you're interested, you may find several of my broadcasts posted on my website.
 
Unfortunately, the only video I know of which contains any of my testimony  does not accurately  represent me, but has been posted on various Internet  sites by my enemies, along with malicious lies ("Barbara Hartwell, CIA plant", etc.) for the purpose of attempting to discredit me.
 
This particular video was made in 1998, at a conference in Daytona Beach, Florida. This was a bootleg copy of an interview taped for Chicago Health Televsion, which followed a seminar called Insider Secrets of Government Corruption, presented by four of the speakers at the conference, namely myself, former CIA agent Chip Tatum, former FBI chief Ted Gunderson, and Sue Ford aka Brice Taylor, a woman claiming to have been a "sex slave" to politicians in connection with the so-called "Monarch project". (Which, by the way, was never a CIA operation, nor a sub-project of MK Ultra, but a smokescreen used in attempts to obfuscate the truth being exposed by survivors of the real black operations.)
 
At the time, I was still working with Ted Gunderson and had not yet gone public exposing what I later learned: that Gunderson was still involved in counterintelligence operations, specifically targeting former intelligence agents/whistleblowers (including myself) for containment operations; disseminating disinformation, and running massive cover-ups of the very crimes he claims to be investigating and exposing.
 
This interview was simultaneously taped by one of Ted Gunderson's lackeys, Jon Gentry, and later incorporated into a video called Mind Control Goes Public, by Susan Ford. She and Gunderson raked in the cash, selling the pirated video through various venues, complete with copyright violations --as the only release I (or Chip Tatum) ever signed was from Chicago Health Television. They never aired the interview because the content was deemed too incendiary by the station, who received some kind of "friendly warnings" (read: threats) by the government.
 
And speaking of being a "CIA/FBI plant", yes, that seems to be the primary libelous falsehood  disseminated in the smear campaign against Barbara Hartwell. Ted Gunderson, my former friend and professional colleague, has had this to say about Barbara Hartwell:
 
"Once a CIA agent, always a CIA agent. If you attempt to get out, or expose them, you either go to jail or you die."
 
--from an open letter to Barbara Hartwell
 
This malicious lie, originating  with COINTELPRO Kingpin Ted Gunderson, has been promoted far and wide, and taken up by all sorts of loudmouthed, sleazy COINTELPRO minions and government stooges, many of whom are criminals, including blackmailers, extortionists, psycho stalkers, forgers, identity thieves, and child sex predators/porno freaks. (Which tells you exactly what kind of persons the government exploits to do their dirty work!)
 
But I certainly agree with you about the negative comments (by many critics) against those who are "on the right track".  The bad guys don't bother to engineer massive smear campaigns against their own kind --only against those who are exposing the truth about government crimes and corruption, and who defend Liberty and the God-given, unalienable rights of the Individual, are targeted.
 
Thanks again for your interest in my work and for taking the time to write to me by post.
 
Barbara Hartwell Percival
November 24, 2010
 
Barbara Hartwell Percival
Legal Defense & Research Trust
PO Box 22
Old Orchard Beach, Maine 04064
Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA 
 

 

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

HANNAFORD: Moronic Minions of the Police State


A lot has changed since 1883 – the year Arthur Hannaford began selling high-quality fruits & vegetables from a produce cart on the Portland, Maine, waterfront. That one-horse cart became Hannaford Supermarkets, a leading grocer serving customers throughout Northern New England and New York.

Times change, but our customers still expect the highest-quality produce, meat and deli products; good prices and great value; and first-class customer service.

-- Promotion from the Hannaford website

"First class customer service"? Say what? Far from it...

This is the second report I have found it necessary to write, exposing the moronic minions who are employees of the Hannaford supermarket in Saco, Maine, and for the same reason: targeting customers for the police state tactics of harassment and invasions of privacy.
 
The legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages in Maine is twenty-one (21). So, is there any reason at all why it should present a problem for a person who reached that age more than THIRTY-EIGHT (38) years ago, to make such a purchase?  
 
Not in the mind of any rational person. But according to the hirelings of  Hannaford, it is "company policy" to target any customer who "appears to be under the age of forty-five (45)" for harassment, in the form of demanding that the customer produce government-issued I.D.
 
Today, it happened once again, to me --a grandmother of three, just a few months shy of my sixtieth birthday.
 
At the Hannaford checkout, the groceries I placed on the conveyer belt included two bottles of wine. And, in the true fashion of idiocy run amok, it all went downhill from there.....
 
HANNAFORD CLERK: (squinting her eyes, scrutinizes me and announces in a smug tone) I need to see some I.D.
 
GRANDMA HARTWELL: For what reason?
 
HANNAFORD CLERK: I need to see your I.D. before I can ring up the wine.
 
GRANDMA HARTWELL: I don't care what you need, your demand is absurd and I won't be showing you any I.D., so please just ring up my purchases and I'll be on my way.
 
HANNAFORD CLERK: (crossing her arms, chin jutting out) I can't do that, not until I see some I.D.
 
GRANDMA HARTWELL: Can't, or won't?  What in the hell is wrong with you? Are you suggesting  that you actually believe I could be UNDER the age of twenty-one?  Since I am nearly 60 years old, your demand is not only absurd, but moronic. Please just ring up my purchases, you're wasting my time.
 
HANNAFORD CLERK: (with a panicked look, calls over a manager) We have a problem here. She (cocking her head in my direction) refuses to let me see her I.D.!
 
MANAGER: (training his eyes on me and giving me the once-over) Ma'am, we need to see some I.D. Anyone who appears to be under forty-five years of age needs to give us I.D. before they can purchase alcoholic beverages. It's company policy.
 
GRANDMA HARTWELL: Company policy?  In case you are not aware, the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages is twenty one, NOT forty-five.  And I don't give a damn about your 'company policy', I don't answer to you, and you're not going to get any I.D. from me. This is beyond ridiculous! You people have a hell of a nerve, trying to force your police state tactics on customers,  and I will not be harassed, nor will I allow you to invade my privacy.
 
MANAGER: (looking around nervously at others waiting on the line behind me) Well, unless we see some I.D., you won't be able to buy this wine. It's company policy.
 
CLERK: (chiming in and whining, now) We HAVE to check your I.D.! It's company policy!  I could lose my job!
 
GRANDMA HARTWELL: (to CLERK and MANAGER) I have been a customer of this store for almost twenty-five years.  I was shopping here --including for wine-- long before Hannaford took it over, and I must say this place has seen better days --especially as regards customer service. 
 
CLERK: But I could lose my job!
 
GRANDMA HARTWELL: (to CLERK) Your job is not my concern. My only concern here is my right to shop in peace, without being harassed because of idiotic policies.  If you choose to be a minion of the police state by harassing the customers, just because it is 'company policy', you will have to take the consequences.  I will defend my rights against anyone who attempts to violate them. That includes you.  And that is MY policy.
 
GRANDMA HARTWELL (to MANAGER): As for you, you have chosen to be an enforcer for the police state.  So enforce your idiotic 'company policy' when and where you can get away with it. But that will not be happening here, today, not with me.
 
Forget the wine. I'll buy it from a store that treats the customers with respect and appreciates their business. I will not be accosted by grocery clerks and treated as if I am a potential criminal. And you've just a lost a good customer, as this is the last time I'll be shopping here --for anything.
 
CLERK: (huffy now) So then, you don't want the wine?
 
GRANDMA HARTWELL: That's what I said. Please just ring up the other items. I just want to get out of here.
 
CLERK: (responding to me as I disdainfully tossed some bills on the counter) Don't throw the money at me!
 
GRANDMA HARTWELL: I did no such thing. There is the money, on the counter, right in front of you. Now, stop wasting my time with your nonsense. 
 
CLERK: Well, you don't have to be rude!
 
GRANDMA HARTWELL:  Rude? How dare you! If you consider it 'rude' for a customer to express her righteous outrage and disgust with your harassment, it's your problem, not mine.
 
CLERK: (handing me my change and a receipt, plastering on a phony smile) Have a nice day!
 
GRANDMA HARTWELL (to CLERK and MANAGER): Enjoy the police state! You earned it and you sure as hell deserve it!
 
As I wheeled my shopping cart out the door, I heard the idiot clerk whining to the next customer,  "Well, she didn't have to be rude, I was only doing my job......"
 
Only doing my job....just following orders....where have we heard all this before?
 
That's right.... if you want to keep your job, just become a mindless moronic  minion, and just do what you're told, no questions asked, no thinking allowed. Harass the customers and treat them like criminal suspects.  Don't worry, it's just 'company policy'.
 
As regards the preposterous 'policy' of  targeting anyone who "appears to be under the age of forty-five", that is a government police state policy which has been implemented in increments over a period of decades. I remember when they first started all this, some time around the mid-90s. A clerk would ask for I.D. from anyone who "appeared to be under thirty." Now, the age has been drastically raised by another fifteen years.
 
What will be next on the agenda?  Demanding I.D. from anyone who "appears" to be under the age of fifty? Under the age of seventy? Demanding proof of residence in a nursing home? Where will it end?
 
Hannaford and many other stores who sell alcoholic beverages have adopted this moronic  'policy'  but there is absolutely no law which requires them to do so.  As usual, it's all about Big Government Control.  Surveillance, invasions of privacy, interrogations, "Your papers, please"...
 
And who decides which persons will be targeted?  Who decides who "appears" to be under thirty, or under forty-five?  Are clerks given the discretionary power to decide?  Apparently, but certainly not under any law.  And what could possibly qualify these robotic hirelings to make such a judgment?
 
Should the subjective perceptions, beliefs, biases and opinions of a grocery store clerk, living in fear of losing a job, determine who shall --and who shall not-- be able to make a purchase? Hell, no!
 
The truth is, this is harassment, plain and simple.  Anyone who engages in such behavior --for whatever reason--should be confronted, told in no uncertain terms that their behavior is wrongful.   Their demands should be absolutely  refused.  No self-respecting person would tolerate such aggressive,  disrespectful and intrusive treatment.
 
Yet it amazes me how many people are simply willing to comply with these abominable policies, to allow their rights to be trampled, to 'go along to get along'.  As for those who do, they are only enabling the government violators and their moronic minions and should also be held accountable.
 
And remember this: No one can FORCE you to comply. These government minions can only get away with these violations of your rights if you allow it. It is very simple: JUST SAY NO!
 
If everyone adopted a ZERO TOLERANCE policy and refused to be harassed,  refused to patronize businesses whose 'company policy' involves such  violations of a person's rights, these minions of the police state would be stopped dead in their tracks.
 
And that is the ONLY way to stop them.
 
Make them sweat. Refuse to spend your hard-earned money at any store whose 'company policy' involves police state tactics, invasions of privacy and  harassment of customers. Give your business instead to establishments who value the customers and treat them with respect.
 
But don't stop there. Take a stand and make your outrage public. Tell your family, friends and neighbors. Hold a demonstration outside of the offending establishments, or pass out flyers to shoppers.
 
Shame on you, Hannaford Minions of the Police State.
 
Barbara Hartwell Percival
aka GRANDMA HARTWELL
Mad as Hell and Boycotting Hannaford
November 15, 2010
 
ADDENDUM:
 
Hannaford faced a lawsuit for discriminating against the handicapped. In 1999, employees of the store in Gardiner, Maine, mistook a man with a disability for being drunk, refusing him the sale of alcohol. The court found that Hannaford's policy of not allowing management to countermand the initial decision of the sales clerk, even in the light of credible evidence of disability, was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the company was ordered to pay damages.
 
Hannaford
532 Main Street
Saco, ME 04072-1526
(207) 282-4152
 
********************
Barbara Hartwell Percival
Legal Defense & Research Trust
PO Box 22
Old Orchard Beach, Maine 04064
Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA 
 

 

Friday, November 5, 2010

Response to a Needy Reader: Setting the Record Straight


From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
-- Communist ideology of Karl Marx
 
Recently I received a letter (given below) from a reader of my website. Although he seemed to attribute some degree of value/credibility to the site, his attitude was presumptuous in the extreme. Specifically, it was all about his  "need", which he was clearly and inappropriately projecting onto me (and possibly others), and which he  mistakenly believed it was my obligation to accomodate. 
 
So, it's that time again...time to set the record straight in regard to the misguided notions and opinions of certain of my readers: about my professional background and work, and the purpose of my website, Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA.
 
For the past fifteen (15) years, I have been publishing my reports on the World Wide Web. For most of that time, I have had my own websites. I have always posted prominent "disclaimer" notices which clearly state that all reports, articles, radio broadcasts, etc. published on my sites are FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
 
That is a very simple phrase which, at least to me, says exactly what it means. But just to be certain I make my position crystal clear (once again), let me  define my use of the phrase, FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. On my website, I reserve all rights to determine the content. Material is posted for my own reasons (personal, professional or otherwise); this is my prerogative, and I owe no one an explanation. What is there, is posted there by me, at my discretion, and that is all there is. FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. Period. Case closed. 
 
Again, it is all very simple: the readers may make of the information what they will. They may agree or disagree, they may like or dislike, they may love or hate, they may be totally indifferent, they may decide to dismiss it all, they may find the information credible --or not. Each person is free to use his own intellectual and/or spiritual  discernment (to the extent of his capabilities), make his own assessments, draw his own conclusions. I bear no responsibility for the opinions, feelings or "need" of others, nor does it concern me what the readers think, what they believe, or what they may THINK they know, about Barbara Hartwell, the issues I address, or the material published on my site.
 
My position has always been, when addressing my readers: Please, don't take it from me. I do not present myself as the "authority" for anyone, on any subject.  The only way to get to the truth about any issue is to do your own research, use your own discernment, make your own assessments, draw your own conclusions. Think for yourself! If you won't do that, you have no one but yourself to blame for being misguided or ignorant.
 
There is no charge to view my website. If people do not like what I publish, they are free to simply hit the DELETE button and opt out. No loss, no problem, for them, or for me.
 
In fact, the only time I would be concerned about the beliefs, opinions or "need" of others is when, as a result of those beliefs, opinions, or "need", they try to force their views on ME, violate MY Individual God-given rights, obstruct  MY Liberty, invade MY privacy or threaten MY life. In that case, I will defend myself (and mine) by any and every lawful means necessary. That is the nature of Individual Liberty: No one has the right to deprive another of his Unalienable Rights. Amen and amen.
 
There is also another important issue: I have been targeted for a massive  smear/neutralization campaign by agents of the U.S. government and their minions and stooges, in attempts to discredit me; so, if someone chooses to PUBLISH a commentary about me, I may well become concerned, depending on its nature. In fact, the libelous falsehoods about Barbara Hartwell are so pervasive on the Internet that it would be a full time job just attempting to refute them all. 
 
So I do the best I can. When I find articles containing wild speculation,  misinformation, disinformation, malicious lies, forgery, identity theft (any or all of such), I will refute the false information in as many cases as possible,  for the public record, and expose the author of the smear piece as a busybody, an ignoramus, a liar, a government stooge, a pretentious fool, etc. etc.
 
(Please see my reports exposing names of malicious liars, character assassins,  government stooges, etc.) 
 
I have also clearly and repeatedly stated in notices on my sites that I am not interested in "feedback" from readers in the form of comments, suggestions/unsolicited advice or questions. I do not wish to engage in  discussions, arguments or debates. I realize that many others (whistleblowers, journalists, expositors of government crimes/corruption) may hold a different view, being that they welcome interactions with their reading/listening audiences. That is their decision, their prerogative, these individuals are entitled to do as they wish --but it has nothing whatsoever to do with me.
 
So, I am hard-pressed to understand why so many readers of my website persist in disregarding my clearly stated wishes and policies. What is wrong with these people?! Have they no respect for the rights and personal boundaries of others?  Apparently not.  These individuals seem to believe that just because I have a public website, I am "obligated" to accomodate them in various ways:  answer their questions (some of which are extremely intrusive); respond to their comments; offer pro bono professional services; provide  assistance for their problems, etc. etc. Wrong!
 
Although there was a time when I had a public e-mail address, and regularly  published selected  "letters to the editor", that time is long gone. Most of the letters I received from readers were benign and sincere, complimenting my work; thanking me for my truthful, accurate information, for exposing criminals in government, for my  activism for Liberty, human rights, etc., or expressing their support. I did not have the time to answer them all, but I appreciated each and every one of them. 
 
A smaller portion of the e-mails consisted of hate mail, harassment, and in some cases, threats. To those, I did not respond. However, rather than posting the supportive letters, my tendency was to publish the hate mail  --which I saw as an opportunity to expose the ignorance, foolishness and malice of my adversaries. Aside from that, the letters were often so absurd that they had a certain entertainment value. But when it came to the threats,  my policy was to publish them all, along with the names of the criminals who  made the threats. I also reported all threats to the appropriate  authorities.
 
Then, there were many persons who e-mailed me with their personal testimony about various abuses, harassment  or persecution by the government, who  requested that I investigate their cases. Others requested that I take on their legal cases, pro bono, in the mistaken idea that I am an attorney. I am no such thing, nor have ever claimed to be.
 
All this, once again, despite the fact that I had clearly and repeatedly stated in notices on my website: 
 
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME YOUR PERSONAL TESTIMONY OR INFORMATION REGARDING LEGAL CASES. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. AS FOR OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, I AM NOT AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATIONS. I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME, THE RESOURCES, OR THE WHEREWITHAL TO ASSIST YOU.
 
Could I have made it any more clear? 
 
Yet, to this day, no matter how many notices I publish, I am still receiving this type of mail, by post, on a regular basis. Unbelievable.
 
I no longer have a public e-mail address, for what by now should be obvious reasons. Additionally, I am a true recluse.  As such, I have no interest in corresponding or interacting with the general public, nor in any form of socializing or "networking."  I do not wish to receive unsolicited e-mail from strangers. As well, I don't have the time or inclination to sort through hundreds of e-mails a week, much less read and answer them. 
 
But of greatest concern to me was stopping the criminal harassment, by e-mail,  for which I have been targeted. Until I finally expunged the last e-mail address by which these perps could send harassing and threatening e-mail, I was assaulted with their trash mail on a daily basis. 
 
(See numerous reports on this site which expose names of these criminal  offenders and their accomplices.) 
 
Having said all this, having once again made my position crystal clear, now  back to the issue of the misguided notions of some of my readers, and one in particular. A few days ago I received a letter by post from a Canadian reader of my website. I don't often publish or comment on letters I receive,  but  occasionally I make an exception, especially, as in this case, if it presents an opportunity to address important issues and to set the record straight. 
 
Out of respect for the writer's privacy, I will not give his name. Here is the letter in its entirety. My response follows.
 
[NOTE: The original letter was handwritten, in all capital letters. I have copied it exactly.]
 
BARBARA,
 
I CAME ACROSS YOUR INFORMATION THESE LAST COUPLE WEEKS AND WAS AMAZED.
 
FIRST OF ALL, I AM A VICTIM OF "ABUSE". (I HATE CALLNG IT THAT BECAUSE I AM A SINNER SAVED BY GOD'S GRACE AND DESERVING HELL.) I KNOW ALL THE SYMPTOMS AND YOU HAVE THEM. I KNOW ABOUT MIND CONTROL, SEXUAL ABUSE, SATANIC ABUSE, ETC. WE HAVE A LOT IN COMMON AND EVEN MORE THAN MOST PEOPLE BECAUSE A FEW YEARS (15 YEARS AGO) I MADE THE DECISION NEVER TO DEPEND ON THE GOVERNMENT. WOW!  IN CANADA? PEOPLE THINK I'M ON DRUGS OR FROM MARS. THEY CAN'T BELIEVE SOMEONE WOULD PAY FOR THEIR OWN MEDICARE IN A FREE SYSTEM. I HAVE FELT VERY ALONE.
 
UNTIL I CAME ACROSS YOUR WEBSITE. WOW!
 
I COULD HARDLY BELIEVE IT.
 
AFTER READING YOUR STUFF THOUGH I NEED TO ASK YOU TO DO SOMETHING ON YOUR WEBSITE. GIVE EVIDENCE. YOU NEED TO DO THIS. YOU SAID YOU DID BLACK OPS --WHERE? DID YOU RUN DRUGS, NEARLY KILL NORIEGA, INFILTRATE THE KREMLIN -WHAT? WERE YOU A SEX SLAVE -TO WHOM? DON'T GET SALACIOUS BUT WE NEED EVIDENCE, NAMES, PLACES, ARMY BASES.
 
PLEASE.
 
I WANT TO SEND MONEY BUT I MUST MAKE SURE. IT NEEDS TO BE ON YOUR WEBSITE.
 
[READER]
IN CHRIST
 
BARBARA HARTWELL RESPONDS TO READER
 
Dear Reader,
 
I must begin with this: You have made several assumptions about me which have absolutely no basis in fact, and which could not be further from the truth. Perhaps you are engaging in wild  speculation, and/or accepting as truth the disinformation promoted by those who wish to discredit Barbara Hartwell. Possibly, you have confused my identity with that of someone else.
 
But whatever the case may be, if you have in fact taken the time to peruse the information on my website, you would know that I have never, at any time, in any of my writings, stated that I was a victim of "sexual abuse" or "satanic abuse."  On the contrary, you would have seen that I have found it necessary to repeatedly REFUTE these falsehoods when they were promoted by ignorant and/or malicious individuals, in their attempts to misrepresent me, my professional background and my experiences, and to lump me into a category where I do not belong. So I will state, once again, for the public record, that I have never been a victim of, nor involved in any way, shape or form in, such abuses as described in your letter.
 
As for your statement, "I know all the symptoms and you have them", where in hell does that come from?  I have no idea to what "symptoms" you refer, since you don't specify. Symptoms?  In relation to what?  Again, you don't make your meaning clear.  And if, as seems obvious, you have started with false premises, you will certainly end up drawing false conclusions.  In any case, since you do not know me, you would have no reasonable way of arriving at any such  conclusions. How could you, a total stranger to me, possibly presume to offer  any such "diagnosis"?
 
To put it bluntly, you don't know what you are talking about, and it is clear you know little or nothing about Barbara Hartwell.
 
But the most presumptuous comments in your letter relate to your repeated use of the word "need".
 
"I need"..."YOU need"..."WE need"..."IT needs".....
 
Let's start with what you say YOU "need". Why you believe that your personal "need" would be any concern of mine, I have no idea. Contrary to your  misguided notion, I am not required to accomodate you, or your "need", in any way.
 
But then, as if this is not intrusive enough, you have the audacity to tell me what I "need"?  Aside from God Almighty, I am the ONLY one who knows that, or has the right to decide it. And that is nobody's business but my own.
 
Next, you move on to stating what WE "need." Who, pray tell, is "WE"?  For whom do you presume to speak? A collective of some sort? The general public?  Since you don't specify, I am once again left to wonder. But then again, it is not my concern, as I don't answer to you, nor to any group or collective.   
 
Lastly, you insist that IT "needs". By whose decree? YOURS?  The unidentified persons described as "WE"?  Who, then? And again, why would it be of any concern to me? 
 
You finish your letter with: "I want to send money, but I must make sure. It needs to be on your website."  
 
So apparently, you have yet another mistaken and misguided notion: That I will accept a donation from someone who thinks it is his prerogative to make demands, tell me what I "need" to do, and thus attach conditions to his donation. Wrong! 
 
It may surprise you to learn that I do not accept donations with any strings attached. A donation does not "buy" the donor any special favors or consideration; there is no quid pro quo. But unfortunately (for me), you are not alone in subscribing to this misguided notion. Certain others (thankfully only a few) have attempted to meddle in my personal/professional business, invade my privacy, make demands, in the false and unwarranted belief that this is the "price" a recipient of their donations must pay. Wrong! 
 
FYI: I accept ONLY donations given with no conditions attached, no questions asked, given in the spirit of "Christian charity" or "love gifts".  People have donated for all sorts of reasons, but most often because they value my work, because they stand with me in the causes for which I fight,  because they love their Liberty more than their lives, because they want to defeat the bad guys, the evildoers who are destroying this country.
 
To these wonderful and honorable supporters, I say: God bless you, each and every one! 
 
Believe me, I don't want your money. Please, send it to a truly worthy cause, or to someone who is willing to jump through hoops to comply with your conditions and to serve your "need".
 
Because the truth is, the purpose of my website is not to cater to the "need" of the readers, the general public or anyone else. The purpose of my website is not to seek approval, to please the  people reading it, nor to win a popularity contest. It is certainly not to solicit donations by telling the readers what they want to hear.
 
In fact, the most important information presented on this website is not "all about Barbara Hartwell." It is not about my personal or professional background, nor the related details. It is not about "proving" anything to anyone. 
 
My website, first and foremost, is about DEFENDING LIBERTY AND THE GOD-GIVEN  UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  That is by far the most important issue I address, not only in my own writings, but also in the material I publish which is written/broadcasted by other authors/talk show hosts who share my principles and my passion for Individual Liberty.
 
If in fact you have found some value in my website, which you seemed to indicate, then I can be glad for that. But please, take it (or leave it) for what it is, and don't expect or demand that it serve your  "need."
 
May God give you a Love of the Truth.
 
Barbara Hartwell Percival
November 5, 2010
 
Barbara Hartwell Percival
Legal Defense & Research Trust
PO Box 22
Old Orchard Beach, Maine 04064
Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA
http://www.barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com