It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abusers, and when powerful abusers are taken on, there's always a bad reaction. So we see that controversy, and we believe that is a good thing to engage in.
“You will always have partial points of view, and you'll always have the story behind the story that hasn't come out yet. And any form of journalism you're involved with is going to be up against a biased viewpoint and partial knowledge.”
The lowest form of popular culture - lack of information, misinformation, disinformation and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people's lives - has overrun real journalism.
This message is directed globally to all mainstream press, major network news organizations and affiliates and all other news outlets and reporters (including cbs, nbc, abc, cnn, towers productions and others) controlled/influenced by the fbi/cia, or any other government entity:
Each of you is in default of your duty to the world's population, to your profession, and to Humanity, for refusing to print/publish/air/report/investigate the atrocities being committed by the fbi/cia and other government agencies.
Specifically, you refuse to cover in your so-called work any mention (inter alia) of the ongoing terrorist practices of the fbi/cia that I and others report on this website (sosbeevfbi.com) regarding the United States government's unlawful targeting for death/torture of certain individuals; you also refuse to report on the growing evidence of United States' sponsored terrorism here at home and abroad, especially as such crimes (by the fbi/cia) involve the use of drugs, chemicals, biological agents, high tech electronic human experimentation and related war games (on some targets) and the widespread dehumanizing mind control efforts by this nation's government.
As a result of your fraud and deceit, you personally are responsible for the continuation of the unnecessary killing and the torturing by the fbi/cia of people who have no defense to the high-tech cut throats in our government to whom (by your subservience) you pay homage ; such thugs operate impliedly in silent association with you and threaten people everywhere on the planet.
The demise of your profession is in the making now and you know it; yet, you still refuse to honor your duty; further, your self-enrichment through obedience to the fbi/cia's terms of broadcasting is evident everywhere and you (each and everyone) are now seen in a historical perspective as the mirror reflection of a corrupt and sinister system which cannot ever be trusted again by the people of the world.
-Former FBI Agent Geral Sosbee (2002)
This report will address an important question: Is there intelligent life on the Internet?
I've worked as a journalist for a very long time. I've worked in the so-called mainstream media, as a radio, TV producer/host, and in print media, writing independently for periodicals, newspapers.
I've never been a “reporter”, rather, an advocacy journalist, with a focus on specific issues, and have done all my own investigations. I have maintained a policy of not allowing my work to be edited before publication, but only to be published with the proviso that it was a “hands off” deal, or no deal at all. (This was before the Internet, when self-publishing was not much of an option.)
To be very clear, I am not interested in “reporting the news” and I don't run a “news” site, rather an archive of my work, going back for more than two decades. Just in case any of my adversaries on the hard left (or more to the point, in the government) want to accuse me of being a purveyor of “fake news”, the latest craze.
I've not been an “employee” of any news organization, though I worked for a few years at one radio station in Greenwich, CT (WGCH), where I had a small salary which came in part from advertisers for my programs. As the producer of my own shows, I determined the content.
In 1990, I was arrested in Greenwich, with other activists, for protesting the torture of small animals for cosmetics testing. My photo appeared on the front page of The Greenwich Time, and the manager of the station called me into his office, expressing his concern that since I was a public figure, as representative of the station, maybe I should consider “toning down” my activities.
I refused, and told him, You do what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do.
(He was a very nice man and I'm sure he was only answering to the owners of the station and their interest in maintaining the “image” of the station. If you've ever lived in Greenwich, as I did for five years, you'll know exactly what I mean.)
The arrest was politically motivated, and the “mayor” (First Selectman) wanted me off the air, because my show had higher ratings than his, and thus a better time slot. Then, there was the Bush Family, who maintained a home there. Dorothy Walker Bush (Dubya's grandmother) was a regular listener to my show, and a "fan", I was told by a client of mine, who was Dorothy's nurse/caregiver, until she passed away in 1991. She may have put in a good word for me, as at that time there was no animosity (not openly, anyway) between my family and the Bush clan.
But what's the point of being a journalist if you don't stand up for what you believe in, for what matters? I don't think it's possible to be an advocacy journalist without being an activist. Anyway, I stayed at the station and received no further complaints about my activism for animals.
I have been formally trained as an investigator, but not as a journalist, did not go to journalism school. The one exception is that I was trained in TV production, and as a talk show host (“on camera talent”) by an anchorwoman (whom I will not name) from a mainstream TV network (sponsored by a CIA front), when I was expected to become a spokesperson for certain strains of CIA propaganda, on mainstream TV.
I didn't get that far, by my own choice. Despite lucrative offers of contracts made to me, I quit when I saw where things were heading and precisely how they were planning to exploit my talents. And the harm to the people, not only in the U.S., but the world, which would result from CIA's propaganda campaigns.
No way would I agree to be a part of that. I also did not want to become well-known in the mainstream media. I did not have common interests with the ilk of person involved, did not want the additional pressures, and would have totally lost my privacy, which I fiercely defend.
But here's the point: I know how the mainstream media works. And I learned long ago through experience that the government has taken over the mainstream media, has appropriated most “journalism”, at least since before I was born (1951).
CIA, in particular, has built a behemoth media empire, employing battalions of journalists for their propaganda war ministry. For those who have not been involved, they would likely be surprised to learn how many of the talk show hosts (and print journalists) are “on the job” as CIA operatives, assets under contract.
And for those they don't employ, per se, they still control, one way or another, by controlling the flow of information; by selective censorship; by trend-setting and special interest focus groups; by think tanks; by sponsoring pressure groups of agitators for left-wing ideology/causes; by promoting pop psychology, New Age doctrines, and by planting politically correct thought police in positions of influence in the culture at large. As always, the agenda focuses on co-opting hearts and minds, a specialty of CIA since the advent of the agency in 1947.
(Journalists working under CIA auspices would most likely be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and could be charged with a crime, if violated. That certainly puts the chill to the principles of journalistic integrity.)
What is the ultimate goal? The same goal which permeates the entire culture: A global totalitarian government, the New World Order.
The mainstream media is only one of the tentacles of the Octopus, but one of the most powerful. How to more easily enlist hearts and minds? And the targeted group (We the People) are, as usual, paying to be propagandized.
As a journalist in mainstream media, you don't have to be particularly bright, you don't have to care much about the subjects and issues being reported, nor even to engage in critical thinking, to employ logic, or use intellectual discernment to do your job. You don't even have to care if the “news” you report is true, or false. Who cares?
From my observations, you only have to look “presentable” by today's standards (if a woman, you are expected to be clad in flashy clothing, a short skirt, burdened with layers of makeup, at least for TV), and to follow the script handed to you from your superiors at the network. Don't ever stray from the official narrative given to you. Don't ask too many questions. And whatever you do, don't ever do any fact checking!
The “news” has become little more than entertainment, a circus to distract the viewers from the most important issues of our time, reported by vapid clowns.
(I remember the days when there were actually “fact-checkers” one could hire, to ensure accuracy. No more, they appear to have become extinct in the Brave New World of journalism as sensationalist entertainment.)
We don't need no stinkin' FACTS!...seems to have become their motto. As long as the money keeps rolling in, as long as the populace continues to be inculcated, distracted and mesmerized, that's all that matters.
And sadly, it has worked like a charm. “My people perish for lack of knowledge...”
THE WORLD WIDE WEB IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
Now that we have the Internet, although there is certainly more opportunity for independent media, and for journalists, there is more than equal opportunity for CIA-sponsored propaganda, which they have exploited, with a vengeance.
Real, professional journalism has, for the most part, died an ignominious death. It has been all but replaced by “bloggers” and social media, mostly populated by “anonymous” users hiding behind silly screen names.
As for the “news” they claim to be reporting, it is mostly recycled, or scavenged off the “alternative media” sites run by government propaganda pimps, the controlled opposition to government corruption, the official voice of “dissent”, orchestrated by counterintelligence operatives. Government stooges parroting the drivel of other government stooges.
Let the conspiracy theories fly! Meanwhile, actual conspiracies, like destroying this country from within, incrementally, and trampling the Constitution into the dust, continue apace.
And let's not forget the armies of trolls, paid by the government to infiltrate and disrupt message boards, chat rooms, the comments section of websites.
Where, in all this mayhem, can any truth possibly be found?
It is a sorry state of affairs. The Internet is now the only game in town, and a journalist cannot expect to be heard, even in the most limited circles, without using it. Which is the only reason I do.
Just recently, after the announcement that Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro (the Liar-in-Chief who has unconstitutionally usurped and occupied the Whore House for the past eight years) had turned over control of the Internet (ICANN) to the globalist tyrants at the United Nations, I found a notice popping up on my screen when I tried to post a report.
It was about the European Union, and some new “policies” for users. I can only say I was outraged, and for the record, NO, I do not agree to these “policies” if they in any way interfere with my freedom of speech or my complete autonomy in determining the content of my own website. How dare you!
Speaking for myself, I have developed an intense dislike for the Internet. But it's that or nothing if I want to keep publishing my reports. But I do have firm guidelines, to protect my privacy and security as best I can.
I don't use social media. Facebook, Twitter (and others) are government-sponsored surveillance operations, used to collect personal information and build permanent data bases which can be accessed at any time to target any person who might be deemed a “problem”.
And this does not even factor in the NSA (and others) spying on American citizens, though it is certainly connected by method and intent. (Those of us reporting on this long before the Snowden revelations were called “paranoid conspiracy theorists”, but now at least we have been vindicated. Thank you, Edward Snowden.)
This is unlawful and violates the Fourth Amendment and the Supreme Court's opinion of “the reasonable expectation of privacy.”
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You cannot be “secure” in your “persons, houses, papers, and effects”, when the long tentacles of government are reaching out to seize them without a by-your-leave.
But, you may say, people are providing their own information voluntarily. Yes, that holds true if they PUBLISH the information with the intent that it be made available to the general public. But what about using social media with “private” settings, in the naive belief that the information will be conveyed only to selected recipients?
About this (and much more) they have lied to you. And when challenged, they continue to lie. (Note their “privacy policies”, which are meaningless and offer no protection at all.)
What about private e-mail, sent to selected recipient(s)? No privacy, no security whatsoever there.
I've heard people say, Well, there's no privacy anymore, there's nothing we can do. So they simply resign themselves to illegal government spying, or worse, they become a part of the problem by embracing it, exploiting it, and encouraging others to do so.
And so, the government gets away with continuing violations, because so few people stand up to protest their reprehensible actions. That is always what it boils down to: No righteous anger, no outrage, no holding the perpetrators accountable.
And, more to the point: No support for defending the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.
Where are the crusading journalists (including whistleblowers), the champions of a free press, of free speech? I would venture to say that many have been silenced, one way or another.
Some have been subsumed into the “new media”, and are well compensated for their compliance.
Some have been driven to such poverty that they are hard pressed to continue working, having been forced into survival mode by the counterintelligence campaigns against them. (That would be me.)
Some have been murdered (or “suicided”), for caring too much about the truth, for their patriotism, for their refusal to back down. Danny Casolaro, Gary Webb, Steve Kangas, Mike Ruppert, Bill Cooper, just to name a few.
As my regular readers will know, I love my privacy, which is an integral part of my Liberty. I may be considered a dinosaur, but that's the way I like it. I still believe in the kind of communications where people actually talk to each other, such as a telephone.
Along with the Internet as media venue, I have come to dislike using e-mail, for a number of reasons. First of all, I find it impersonal. I prefer the post. You then actually have something (a card, a letter) that is palpable. You may save it, if it is of value. Or, you may burn it, preventing yourself from falling prey to prying eyes. For secret documents, you may stash them away, safe from the busybodies or the government.
With e-mail, you may never really know if it was delivered to the recipient, not unless you receive a response. E-mail is not reliable, at least it hasn't been for me. I've also had my confidence violated when recipients forwarded or published my private e-mail, or made my e-mail address public, intentionally or not.
But the way I see it, if someone (anyone) be they a friend, relative or the general public, wants to contact me for any reason, they may easily do so by post. My postal mailing address has always been prominently displayed at the top of my website. So, in answer to those who voice complaints that they “cannot” contact me, they are in error.
I've only asked that readers not send me legal briefs/testimony and requests for investigations, consultations and the like. I am not an attorney, nor do I offer any other professional services to the public, which is clearly stated on my website. I do not have the resources or the time.
For all other issues (personal or professional), if their communication to me is really important to them, then they will not mind the small inconvenience of contacting me by post. If that is too much trouble, then so be it. But the opportunity for contact is there, for those who wish to avail themselves of it.
I still have a large file of letters sent to me by readers of my website, whereas the e-mails sent to me by readers (in the days I had a public e-mail address) are mostly long gone, lost in computer crashes, courtesy of the U.S. Government's directed energy weaponry assaults and hacking. (Get behind me, Satan!)
And with a letter by post, you may at least know where it came from (the location), you are more likely to know the name of the sender, and it's less likely to be some anonymous coward, or some whackjob with time on his hands, sending drunken messages to strangers in the middle of the night. Postal mail also weeds out most of the busybodies, curiosity seekers, salesmen and tends to stop harassment, threats and hate mail.
For the most part, I actually enjoy hearing from readers of my website, as long as their communications are benign. It is only those of an intrusive, harassing or threatening nature to which I object.
Simply because I have declined to be a participant in the hectic free-for-all which the Internet has become, because I have guarded my privacy, I have been accused by my adversaries of all sorts of dastardly deeds.
I have been accused of being a “CIA disinfo agent”; a “sociopath”; a “coward”; a “con artist”....all because I keep to myself and have no interest in socializing on the Internet. How bizarre! But telling as to the common mindset of the denizens of the Internet.
I don't have a “comments” section on my website. Some websites do, others don't. But so what? This is a matter of individual choice. There is no benefit to me, I have nothing to gain by publishing the opinions of strangers. I don't run a forum for the public, I only publish reports. And I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in discussions, nor arguments. That is not the purpose of my website.
If someone wants to send a “letter to the editor”, by post, then I may choose to publish it, or not. That's the way it was done in the old days, to which I dearly wish I could return.
The prevailing mentality in the Internet culture is anathema to me. Just a hotbed of loud, vulgar, aggressive busybodies! All jockeying for position, all desperately seeking public attention, as if there were nothing else of any importance in their lives.
So no, I don't want to sign up, sign in, log in, join in the discussion, join up today! I don't want to “connect” or “follow”, or be a “member”.
I don't live in a virtual reality, strange as that may seem to the rabid cyber-junkies.
Anyone who is interested in my views, my politics, my information, anything I offer for the public record, may easily learn of them from my website. They may make of it what they will, using their own discernment.
Last I heard, it's still “legal” to be reclusive, to enjoy my unalienable rights, including to privacy...but maybe not for long.
Not if the Socialist/Marxist/United Nations/ New World Order/Busybody/ Control Freak/Surveillance State/Government Rat Bastards have their way.
Is there intelligent life on the Internet? By my standards, not much.
Barbara Hartwell Percival
December 15, 2016
Barbara Hartwell Percival
Legal Defense & Research Trust
PO Box 22
Rhinebeck, NY 12572
Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA
Legal Defense & Research Trust
PO Box 22
Rhinebeck, NY 12572
Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA