Barbara Hartwell

My photo
Independent Investigator, Intelligence Analyst, Journalist. Former CIA (NOC, Psychological Operations) Black Ops Survivor. Sovereign Child of God. Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Ordained 1979, D.Div.) Exposing Government Lies, Crimes, Corruption, Conspiracies and Cover-ups.

Saturday, November 5, 2016


Globalism by Deception & Hypocrisy

This second part of the report covers material from previous reports, in which the misdeeds of several individuals are exposed. I find the most effective way to make my argument against the left-wing agitators who operate by deception and hypocrisy is to bring their own words into the spotlight. They are then easily refuted with facts, evidence, reason and principle.

But first, here is my analysis based on some of their typical tactics in their attempts at gaining influence for their totalitarian agenda.

Use of rhetoric comprised of noble-sounding (but deceptive) phrases.

Substitute emotional appeals for a narrative based on facts.

Projection: Accuse their ideological adversaries of what is actually true of themselves. Make assumptions based on a false premise that “We are all alike”, “We all want the same things”, or “We are all on the same team”.

Group think and herd mentality: Consensus that “We are all in this together”, or “We must all agree” in order to achieve “peace”, “justice”, “freedom”, etc.

Cite “divisiveness” as the root cause of conflicts, in attempts to reconcile irreconcilable differences, justify the unjustifiable, defend the indefensible.

Label any disagreement on issues as an “attack”.

Compromise: Rather than take a solid position based on immutable principles, weaken your stand, tainting it with incompatible ideologies.

Peace” at any price, whatever the sacrifice (justice, integrity, freedom, truth....)

Substitute “reconciliation” for justice, no matter how heinous the offense.

Replace moral absolutes with moral relativism, situational ethics and social engineering.

Attempt to negotiate on non-negotiable issues (justice, integrity, freedom, truth....)

Replace the unalienable rights of the individual with the “common good” of the collective.

The ends justify the means: Nothing is sacred, nothing matters, except that the desired schemes are implemented.

Replace equal rights for one and all with “special rights” of any of a number of designated groups.

Force “legislation” of morality, rather than allow the rule of law to prevail against actual criminals.

Cherry pick the Constitution to support certain of their views, while disregarding what does not serve their agenda.

Promote/support anyone, especially public figures, who are also advocates of the UN, globalism, regardless of their lack of honesty, integrity, or their detestable track record of abuses of power, human rights violations, criminality. “He's no angel, BUT...(fill in the blank with some rhetoric which supports their position), or, “Nobody's perfect”, BUT (more nonsensical rhetoric...)

The “sob sister” mentality: Manipulation by engendering guilt, wherever possible. It's “for the children”, “for the elderly”, “for the disabled”, “for the disenfranchised”, “for the poor”.

Use “opposites” to label their opponents (defenders of Liberty, unalienable rights of the individual). Label them “haters”, accuse them of malice, animus, whenever they protest against injustices or unconscionable actions of those who would steal their liberty, their property or insult their honor.

Demonize their opponents with false accusations, charges. Attribute false motives to any who oppose them.

Smugly claim the moral high ground against all who expose them or stand up against them, no matter the issue, or how well-proven by facts, evidence or principles by their opponents.

Pragmatism vs. Principle: Negate principles in favor of “pragmatic” solutions. No matter how unjust, how wrongful.

Use flattery to insinuate themselves into the good graces of those they can use for their own self-serving ends.

Seek publicity anywhere they can find it, form alliances with anyone who will have them, indiscriminately, and then exploit the credentials, the influence of others, as means and opportunity permit. These left-wing agitators are extremely aggressive and ambitious. They are nothing if not opportunists.

Exploit the suffering, the misfortunes of others, promote the cases of legitimate whistleblowers, Targets/Victims of government persecution, in order to gain “credibility” for themselves, which they then use to further their own agenda, which has nothing to do with the actual plight of those they exploit.

I will begin with a notice posted on a website called FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR AMERICA, run by one Chris Zucker.




How utterly bizarre. Mr. Zucker promotes left-wing agitator for globalism and advocate for the UN, Janet Phelan, on his website, and has done for many years. He has even listed her under the category of “HONEST HEROS” (misspelled by Zucker.)

I give this as just one example of a person so misguided that he not only fails to see the smallest glimmer of truth about the New World Order, but who has clearly been duped into believing that some of the very individuals he supports (not only “LIBERALS”, but those who have the mentality of communists) are his fellow PATRIOTS.

So, Mr. Zucker wants all LIBERALS to hang! And he and his trusty band of PATRIOTS will personally lead them to the gallows! That seems a bit over the top to me, but Zucker is clearly only posturing with sensationalism to gain attention. Well, he got some, but I doubt it will help his cause. One can hope not...

Now, let's take a look at a complaint Mr. Zucker launched against Barbara Hartwell (2012), which he sent to at least two people, Janet Phelan and Geral Sosbee.

Geral immediately forwarded the defamatory message to me, while Janet Phelan (whom at the time I considered a friend) withheld it.

Chris Zucker wrote:

"I am black listed by Ms. Hartwell, i find it humorous considering i have never had communication with her. At one time i had a blog on Geral's ning site. A problem broke out when Barbara discovered a link on my site under mind control. The link was to educate yourself. Keep in mind when i started the site, I did not know Barbara, Geral, or you. When Geral told me what the problem was with this link, i removed it from my site, Yes i have done shows with Heneghan and Webb.Does that make me a bad person? when some one asks me to do shows?

I am insulted to be listed as a bad person, by some one who has no clue of who i am or what i do. Being quick to put a label on some one is vicious and un caring. If this is the way she is i am relieved to have never had any thing to do with her, I am a real government- mob victim, regardless . And if Ms Hartwell does not recognize real patriots, perhaps she will one day look through all the hate,and the terrible things, she, like all of us are going through to find the real truth.

Chris Zucker"

Outraged, I published Zucker's message and refuted his false accusations and claims. But Janet Phelan took it upon herself to raise objections that I stood up in my own defense against this aggressive busybody, Chris Zucker, who had attempted for years to make contact with me through intermediaries (including Janet Phelan), despite the fact that I told the intermediaries I had no interest.

I do not know Chris Zucker, contrary to his claim in his message. Janet Phelan then continued to discuss me with Chris Zucker (behind my back), even though she had chosen not to share the message with me. And more to the point, it was none of Janet Phelan's business how I chose to deal with her fellow busybody, Chris Zucker.

Then I was told repeatedly by Janet Phelan that it was “divisiveness” in which Chris Zucker had been “caught up”, thus negating my right to defend myself against aggression by the likes of Chris Zucker.

She continued to badger me about this issue, also dragging in other third parties who were completely irrelevant. Leave it to a leftist to stir up trouble simply because someone dares to exercise her right to free speech, and to fend off unwanted advances from a gate-crasher.

Geral Sosbee, however, was outraged, as I was, and had this to say:

The following was written against the most noble and inspirational Freedom Fighter on earth, my best friend and closest ally, the wonderful Barbara Hartwell.”

Links to the verbal assaults on Barbara are found at:

freedom fighters for america dot com

(Chris Zucker promoting Ken Adachi & “Educate-Yourself”)

From Geral Sosbee


Please remove all of your material from the site [a NING site owned by Geral], or save it on a disc. You are not allowed to post here anymore because of your support for a person [Ken Adachi] who verbally assaulted me on line and who engages in vicious slander against my friend Barbara Hartwell.

Geral Sosbee (2012)

So much for the “freedom fighter”, Chris Zucker.

The following excerpts are taken from a report (2014).

THE PRICE OF LIBERTY: Retrospective on Political Persecution in America


I'm aware that this next section may shock some of my regular readers. Janet Phelan and I had a longstanding professional association and personal friendship (2005-2012), so it pains me to write this, but as I have reflected on developing events over the past few years, I find it necessary to address this issue openly and definitively, primarily because she was for such a long time a “known associate” of Barbara Hartwell.

As always, in all things, it is important to me to set the public record straight, once and for all. And unfortunately, I have good reason to believe that misunderstandings have arisen among some of those who are mutual acquaintance of mine and Janet Phelan's, especially those in the media. I realize I may lose friends over this, but the way I see it, those who are true friends will remain friends; others will fall by the wayside, which is to be expected –I long ago became accustomed to the loss of friendships for standing up for my principles.

I believe it is relevant to say that Janet Phelan, at least during the time I've known her, has been a far more prolific contributor of writings on the Internet than I, and no doubt a more “popular” one. Her work has been more widely published and distributed via various venues such as discussion groups, social media, and as a regular columnist on a number of high-traffic, commercial
publications, and also very active on the Internet radio circuit. As I've heard her remark in one of her recent broadcasts, she has gathered a large “following”.

My work, on the other hand, given that I don't seek publicity, don't engage in self-promotion, don't join groups, has been mainly limited to my own website, and a few highly selective others. I also believe that my writings appeal to a much smaller audience, given my “straight and narrow”, brutally blunt (considered offensive by many, I've been told), hard-line focus.

And then, there is the fact that as a government whistleblower, I have been targeted for a massive, organized, long-running libel/slander campaign, with the objective of discrediting my work, while assassinating my character and defaming my good name. (If you don't believe this, just put my name into any search engine and see what comes up. Or, see PART ONE of this report for just a small sample of the defamatory material.)

Most importantly, I have reached the point where, being a hard-core, uncompromising defender of God-given, unalienable INDIVIDUAL rights and liberties, a position I have steadfastly held for decades, I cannot afford to be silent about the hypocrisy of those persons who claim to be "protectors” or “defenders” of human rights; who complain bitterly about the loss of their own "constitutional rights", while doing nothing at all to defend those rights. Who claim to be adhering to "moral absolutes", while actually practicing moral relativism, social engineering and situational ethics. Who are operating on a double standard for self-serving, opportunistic goals, especially involving 'agenda politics', and specifically advocating left-wing agendas which are designed to destroy national sovereignty and "regulate" God-given unalienable rights (which can't be done!), through such godless communist institutions as the United Nations.

Where, pray tell, in the U.S. Constitution, does it say that any State of the Union, or any citizen of the several States, must submit to the authority or jurisdiction of the U.N.? Nowhere! The U.N. has NO jurisdiction, NO authority in these united States. Furthermore, no U.N. “treaties” have any lawful authority if they are countermanded, or their terms prohibited, by what is written in the Constitution.

This Cursed Beast, this Spawn of Satan, the U.N., didn't even exist in 1787, and these usurpers have no business whatsoever encroaching as much as a micro-millimeter into this Constitutional Republic, meddling in the affairs of this sovereign nation.

This Republic was founded as a "government of the people, by the people and for the people", strictly by the “consent of the governed." NOT to be ruled by global elitists, secret societies, international banking cartels, multi-national corporations, or by invasion of foreign busybodies into the body politic, with their diabolical scheme of locking down their New World Order, where all power is centralized in a One World government.

All genuine patriots who defend the Constitution, and the God-given unalienable rights protected therein, have been shouting at the top of their lungs for well over half a century, to get the U.S. the hell OUT of this bastion of vile communism, New Age secular humanism, and globalist totalitarianism aka the New World Order. (And I give the John Birch Society credit where it is due, for leading the charge, these many years.)

For those who are unaware of the truly sinister nature of the United Nations, its alliances with Luciferian/New Age cults (such as Lucis Trust, formerly “Lucifer” Trust), its flagrant anti-Christian doctrines and practices, its total disrespect for INDIVIDUAL rights and PRIVATE property (I could go on...and on....), I can only say BEWARE.

While many will continue to buy into the pervasive propaganda that the U.N. is benign and promotes peace, cooperation and justice, those who want the truth about the U.N. may easily find it by taking the time to do your own research. (There is no substitute!) And for those uninterested in the truth, you will, for declining to take personal responsibility in seeking truth, and failure to stand in defense of truth, get exactly what you asked for: slavery under globalist totalitarianism.

What here, is the relevance of the U.N.? Janet Phelan regularly has truck with the U.N., including attending and participating in their conventions, and supporting and advocating their policies and "treaties". She writes articles promoting the U.N., in which she attempts, using obviously deceptive left-wing rhetoric, to persuade the readers into agreement with their UN-American agenda. (Pun intended.)

But at the same time, she can be heard loudly complaining of the U.S. government's violations of “constitutional rights” and “unconstitutional” policies. Like many others of this ilk, she seems to think she can have it both ways. She can't have it both ways. She can't cherry pick the Constitution to support her leftist agenda, but seems hell-bent on doing exactly that. More on this later in this report...

In 2012 I broke off my association with Janet Phelan (to be clear, the decision was mutual), due to "irreconcilable differences". Speaking strictly for myself, this decision on my part followed a pattern of behavior by Janet Phelan, which by my observations and experience, had become increasingly presumptuous, manipulative, pushy and intrusive; and which displayed a profound disrespect of my privacy and personal boundaries; and which ultimately pushed me to the limits of what I was able and willing to tolerate from a person who called herself my friend.

But more than that, she insulted my honor, by accusing me of "misreporting" events (I did no such thing); of trying to "rationalize" in connection with events (I did no such thing); of "attacking" her in a public venue (I did no such thing), and most of all, by calling me a "faithless friend". That is a matter of subjective personal judgment, one with which I vehemently disagree. 

I must say, I will not allow these untruths to stand, but will speak up, for the public record, in defense of my honor, and of all that I stand for, all that I have worked for, fought for and sacrificed for, these many years. After all I have lost (between 2010 and 2013, in an unprecedented series of disasters, nearly all the personal property I owned, including my house), after all the massive damages inflicted on me by the government and their minions, in my battles for Liberty and Justice --the one thing I have left intact is my honor. And I will not stand by silently when someone (anyone) attempts to sully my honor with gratuitous and unwarranted allegations and insults which comprise a gross misrepresentation of my character –especially if that person's name has had a longstanding connection to mine in media, as a “known associate”.

As any person of spiritual/intellectual discernment should be able to perceive (whatever you may make of it), this is not solely a "personal" issue --far from it-- but rather a matter of principle, and an issue of widely divergent and seriously conflicting beliefs and standards, and of what it has become clear are diametrically opposed political ideologies and moral imperatives.

Of which those of Barbara Hartwell stand uncompromisingly for God-given unalienable INDIVIDUAL rights and liberties, as protected under the Constitution.

And of which those of Janet Phelan would subvert those individual rights and liberties, and further, dismiss the most fundamental principles of Liberty on which this nation was founded, in service to the New World Order/U.N. agenda of collectivism, a consensus-based 'herd' mentality, and the so-called "common good" (Nanny State) of globalist totalitarianism.

To sum it up, my level of "irreconcilable differences" with Janet Phelan's political ideology? Agitators for this left-wing agenda will conquer this nation, and trample MY rights, over my dead body. And as long as I have breath in my body, I will fight for those rights, against any and all who would attempt to mitigate or compromise them. Liberty or Death. Don't Tread on Me.

In short, Janet Phelan, I have come to believe after much reflection on events, circumstances, and the interactions I have participated in and/or observed over a period of years, is an agitator for globalist government. That is my considered professional opinion, for the public record.

Janet Phelan wrote:

The U.S. Senate yesterday rejected the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Although a majority voted in favor of ratification of this treaty, the vote fell short of the two thirds necessary.

The vote -- 61 to 38 -- divided closely on party lines, with Republicans calling the vote a victory for national sovereignty and parental rights.

Many Dems, including John Kerry, disagreed, however.

"It really isn't controversial," Kerry said. "What this treaty says is very simple. It just says that you can't discriminate against the disabled. It says that other countries have to do what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and passed the Americans with Disabilities Act."

While many were calling this a defeat for the internationalists and the NWO, I must question if this may be a knee-jerk response to a more complex situation."

"We have not affirmed our “sovereignty” by rejecting the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have, in fact, lost yet another opportunity to affirm our basic humanity."

Not “really” controversial? What could be more controversial than our national sovereignty, that which stands between us and subjugation to globalist totalitarianism. And using a quote from Kerry to bolster this lame argument, as if he might qualify as paragon of virtue where defending anyone's unalienable rights are concerned? I won't elaborate, but anyone may find the truth, the facts and the evidence about John Kerry by perusing his track record. (Barf bag alert!)

Janet Phelan's idea of a “knee-jerk response” is mere meaningless rhetoric, given that she is, as usual, in favor of allowing the U.N. to encroach ever further into the affairs of this sovereign nation. Does she even understand the true meaning of sovereignty? What the abdication of sovereignty would actually mean to every single American?

And does she understand that the Constitution would prohibit interference in the lives of individuals by an outside entity? Evidently not, on either count. Or, she does understand, but simply dismisses the facts, as they are inconvenient, and not to her liking. (From my observations, leftists don't have much use for facts, as they get in the way of their agenda.)

Furthermore, using U.N. muscle to force any policy on foreign nations is morally repugnant, just as are the endless (undeclared) wars of conquest and aggression against other countries. Countries who have not committed any acts of war against the U.S. Just one of many reasons why the U.S. should get the hell out of the U.N.!

And according to Janet Phelan, the flowery phrase “affirming our basic humanity” would be in line with allowing this outside entity to relegate the “rights” of the disabled, as a special category, to the discretion of the collective, to apportion them as they see fit. Wrong. These are nothing less than the God-given UNALIENABLE rights and liberties of the INDIVIDUAL, disabled or not.

Just as the U.N. is chomping at the bit to “regulate” the right to keep and bear arms (including in this country!), as enshrined in the Constitution, which “shall not be infringed”, the most basic right of all, the right to self-defense!

And let's not forget Agenda 21, the diabolical plot to steal private property from its rightful owners, in service to the globalist collective and its so-called “common good”. Where will it end? This string of usurpations will never end, not until the final lockdown of the New World Order. And not unless We the People (those of us who defend Liberty, that is) stand up and put a stop to it.

There are no “special rights” given, to any group of persons, in any category. Not by virtue of gender, ethnic origin, age, religious creed (or lack thereof), including those who are disabled. There are only EQUAL RIGHTS, bestowed by the Creator (thus unalienable) on each and every INDIVIDUAL. Equal individual rights are to be recognized, and respected, as a moral imperative. Meddling by the U.N. is not to be tolerated by any true defender of Liberty.

As for the issue of “humanity”?

The highest and most true definition of “humanity” toward our fellow persons is to RESPECT THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Which include their privacy, their personal boundaries (as determined by each one) and their liberty to live as they see fit, to make their own decisions about their own lives.


The following section of the report exposes yet another busybody, an extremely aggressive and ambitious amateur named Howard Nemaizer (using the pseudonym Howard Nema), who also promotes Janet Phelan and has described her as a “good friend”.

Howard Nemaizer, since the writing of this report (2014) has joined the massive libel campaign against Barbara Hartwell, promoting the most outrageous lies. 

Nemaizer has exploited my name, in attempts to make a name for himself, as well as misrepresenting my name and website by promotions of false information, and linking my name to those (such as Janet Phelan and Harry Link) I have publicly denounced, for cause. He has also made fraudulent promotions of my name in connection with psychopaths and criminals, including an arsonist named Keith Mutch, owner of a radio station where demonic icons are used to promote heavy-metal devil-worship.


Howard Nema has notices posted on his websites stating that he wants to restore constitutional government. Banners proclaiming: GET US OUT OF THE U.N.!

Why then does he so often engage in promotion of the flagrant left-wing ideology spouted by Janet Phelan?

I've been surprised more than once to see him nodding along while his guest holds forth, inveighing against the principles of Liberty on which this nation was founded.

On one program Janet Phelan spoke about Hugo Chavez, his “leadership”, how much “good” he had done for “his people”, how he was loved by them, etc. etc. Never a challenge from Howard, never the slightest disagreement. (Had there been, no doubt Janet Phelan would have labeled it an “attack”.)

On another program, in the same leftist vein, Janet Phelan spoke out against capitalism, and actually tried (unsuccessfully) to draw a parallel between capitalism and “attacks on First Amendment Rights”.

Here, the link posted by Janet Phelan:

How capitalism accommodates attacks on 1st Amendment Rights--Impromptu with Howard Nema

At one point, in explaining her complaint against capitalism, she makes the apparent disclaimer, “I'm not a socialist.” Really? Then what's her point?

Maybe Hugo Chavez can explain it:

"Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation. If you really want to look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ - who I think was the first socialist - only socialism can really create a genuine society." (2006)

Hogwash! Chavez clearly had not the slightest understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus was no socialist. Socialism is a system of forced compliance with the dictates of the state, an odious form of bondage. Jesus Christ proclaimed Liberty to the captives. Morality, spiritual discernment, love of God and your neighbor, true Christian charity, none of these can be legislated, they cannot be contrived, cannot be forced on a population at the point of a gun. Which, when you're dealing with leftists, is where it always, always ends up.

And irony upon irony, Howard Nema titles the program:


Howard has a guest whose political ideology supports the very “global totalitarianism” he claims to be dead set against. And he doesn't see this?


It's time to wrap up this segment. Just one quick anecdote regarding a discussion I had with Howard Nema (2013), regarding the nature of the political ideology espoused by Janet Phelan. As previously stated, I did not bring up Janet Phelan's name to Howard after I had broken off my association with her. I had said what I considered necessary, and had no reason to revisit the issue.

But one day I was having a discussion with Howard in which I outlined my strict dedication to the principles of Liberty and God-given unalienable individual rights. Howard's idea was that “everyone sees things in a different way”. True, but if the way they “see” things means that they will violate the unalienable rights of others, fail to respect the privacy, the personal boundaries of others, or try to force their viewpoints on others, then no true defender of Liberty will tolerate such behavior. They may “see” it as they will, but that right to “see” morphs into wrongdoing when they fail to respect the rights of others, or take action to trample the rights of others.

Howard brought up Janet Phelan, in an apparent attempt to persuade me of the value of what she had to offer in terms of defending human rights and related issues. My answer was as follows: You cannot claim to be a “defender” or “protector” of “rights” if you fail to acknowledge the ultimate supremacy of the God-given unalienable rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

Janet Phelan, by her own admission, and by her many statements advocating for the U.N. and “left-wing politics” (her own words) is in favor of compromising, modifying, adulterating the rights of the individual in service to the dictates of a collective.

And finally, in terms of a clear overview, I explained my position by asking Howard to consider this scenario:

One person (for example, in this case, Janet Phelan) decides that she will dedicate much time and effort in attempts to influence people (via her writings, radio appearances, etc.) to believe that left-wing ideology is not only acceptable, but preferable; that it has merit in that it contains solutions to various problems; will result in improving the lives of the citizens of a country, will “affirm our basic humanity”, and so on and so forth...

As a result of her efforts, some of the audience she is addressing (those who lack discernment and don't think for themselves) are actually influenced to join in and support what she is promoting. And remember, according to Janet, she already has a “large following”. (This statement was in fact made on Howard Nema's show.) Her work is posted on numerous large commercial sites on the Internet, spanning an entire spectrum from those who profess “conservatism” to those who are openly leftist, New Age, secular humanist.

(And remember, Janet Phelan is only one person. How many others are there, embracing and promoting the same ideology?)

Over time, more and more people jump on the Leftist Bandwagon, and soon they themselves are spouting the same ideology, and become agitators, not only by their words, but now by their actions. (For example, they get sucked in by the rhetoric, and join the 'Occupy' movement.)

Soon, as the mob of leftists gains momentum, U.N. Treaties gain signatories. Legislation that defies the Constitution is passed. A person's right to keep and bear arms is “signed away” by meddlers from the U.N. Now, the unconstitutional legislation becomes “law”.

What's next? The U.N. decides that they have the right to invade our sovereign republic with impunity, for the “common good”, to “protect human rights”, to “keep the peace”. (After all, the welcome mat has been rolled out, is ready and waiting for such an invasion.)

Meanwhile, the criminals run rampant, because criminals don't respect the law, nor anyone's unalienable rights (never have, never will) and they still have guns and ammo, which they will use in assaults against the citizenry. Robbery, rape, murder, mayhem, all at the point of THEIR guns.

But where are YOUR guns and ammo? Nowhere to be found, they've been confiscated by lawless men (or women) with badges and guns (operating under the color of law), who are “just following orders”, orders given by tyrants who themselves are “following orders”, the directives of even bigger tyrants at the top of the global food chain.

This is how totalitarianism is achieved, by recruiting one individual at a time, then groups of individuals, using propaganda (especially manipulation by engendering guilt: It's for the children, for the disenfranchised; for the elderly; for the disabled, etc. etc.), pressure tactics, and finally, threats.

At long last, a paramilitary team is standing on your doorstep, brandishing their weaponry, pointing guns in your face, in your wife's/husband's face, while your children or grandchildren huddle in fear in the background.

You will do what we say, or we will lock you up, or kill you.

How then, can you possibly stop them?

Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Chairman Mao did it...and on and on it goes....

The objectives of each of these tyrants (and many others throughout the course of history) were the same: TO STRIP YOU OF YOUR GOD-GIVEN, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, TO CONTROL EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE & DESTINY. And they gained this power because the people, AS INDIVIDUALS, failed to stand up and stop them.

Totalitarianism, courtesy of the New World Order.

Don't be fooled: The promotion and support of even one leftist opens the door, throws out the welcome mat, for more leftists, and their godforsaken globalist totalitarianism. And who is to be held accountable for all this?

Every single person who is a part of it, every person who encouraged it, who aided and abetted the mob of leftists (or just one) in any way, shape or form.

When I finished my little stump speech, Howard told me, “I never thought of it that way.” And apparently, he's decided to continue NOT to think of it that way. That is his prerogative, but at least I know that I did what I could in service to the truth. I can only offer the truth to anyone willing to listen, but I won't try to force it on anyone.

And with this, I conclude this report.

I implore all Liberty-loving Patriots, Defenders of Unalienable Rights, of the Sovereignty of this Constitutional Republic, to take a closer look, a hard look, at those claiming to be what they so clearly are not. Only a few are mentioned here, but they are legion.

You will find their propaganda on numerous high-traffic commercial websites. You will hear their deceptive rhetoric booming out on the airwaves.

But what of their actions? Who and what do they actually support?

Who do they attack with their libelous/slanderous falsehoods?

They are deceivers and hypocrites, merchants of false hope, masquerading as patriots, freedom fighters, opponents of the New World Order.

They are the enemies of Liberty, while claiming to champion it.

Barbara Hartwell Percival
November 5, 2016