“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
“Workingmen of all countries unite!”
“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
--Karl Marx, Author of the Communist Manifesto, practicing Satanist
"You are the father of the revolutions on this continent, you are our father."
--Hugo Chavez to Fidel Castro (2007)
"Let's save the human race, let's finish off the U.S. Empire."
--Hugo Chavez: On teaming up with with Iran to take down America
--Janet Phelan, excerpt from Hugo Chavez, World Leaders and Cancer Deaths—Indications that the Cure Exists (For a Chosen Few)
“What is it, Barbara? Do you need a new enemy? Have you decided to nominate me? You see, in my book, what you have done by reporting, or should I say, misreporting, all this publicly utterly violates the tenets of friendship. Friends resolve issues between themselves...”
It is what is commonly called vocation: an irrational factor that destines a man to emancipate himself from the herd and from its well-worn paths. … Anyone with a vocation hears the voice of the inner man: he is called."
--Carl Jung, The Development of Personality
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
--Dietrich Bonhoeffer, ETHICS
Please read PART ONE before continuing with PART TWO. They are parts of a series and not meant to stand alone.
More to come on God-given, unalienable individual rights, the defenders of those rights for all and sundry, and those who, for one reason or another, refuse to respect those rights, including those who would stand in opposition to us by agitating for left-wing mob rule and globalist totalitarianism, masked as "human rights".
But before I go further, as referenced in PART ONE, I find it necessary to explain some additional important points, regarding my personal lifestyle and professional standards and policies.
POSITION STATEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
First of all, I am completely independent in all my professional work. I am not an "employee" of any person or entity. I don't work for any publications, nor am I a columnist or contributor who has agreed to observe a set of 'rules' for posting my reports. I don't get paid for my work, nor would allow anyone to edit or 'moderate' my commentaries, or dictate the content of my reports.
For the most part, I work alone, except for occasional collaborations with other journalists, whistleblowers and activists, most notably my friend, former FBI agent/whistleblower Geral Sosbee (since 2001, and counting...)
I don't join groups and I am not a team player. I don't work with amateurs. I have no interest in receiving "feedback" or "suggestions" from the general public, nor engaging in 'networking' via social media. I do not seek publicity (outside my own website) and do not engage in self-promotion via advertising, or by seeking radio interviews, etc. I have always been extremely selective about radio interviews, and most often decline an invitation, unless I know the host(s).
Having been an independent journalist for well over 30 years, I have found the “alternative media” to be just as unprincipled and self-serving, just as contaminated by the operations of intelligence services, as the mainstream media.
My reports are published on my own website, for INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. The readers may make of them what they will. Period.
For the same reasons, I do not have a public e-mail address posted on my website, nor any other contact information, except a postal mailing address (P.O. Box).
The way I see it, anyone who is serious about wanting to contact me, for any reason, may easily do so, by taking the time to fold paper and attach a stamp to an envelope, the old fashioned way. If it's not worth that small effort, then it's not someone I would want to hear from. I have also found that limiting contact info to postal mail serves my purposes well. It eliminates most of the curiosity seekers, salesmen, political hacks, and busybodies, asking intrusive questions or dishing out unsolicited opinions/advice. It also stops most of the harassment and threats. Most criminals are not stupid enough to provide the Target with evidence that can be used against them. I haven't received a death threat by post in many years.
And there's more. On my website I have clearly posted, prominently placed, permanent notices, regarding what I have stated here. It is clearly explained that I do not wish to receive personal requests to investigate cases of government harassment, mind control, etc., subjects which are often covered on my site.
As I clearly state: I do not offer professional services/consultations to the public. I do not have the resources, nor the time, nor any staff. I don't run an organization. It is only me, working alone, struggling to make ends meet. I am unable to assist you, so please do not make such requests.
(In fact, I have often been shut down, for weeks or even months at a time, by a total lack of resources, for the expenses of maintaining a computer, related
equipment, and a website. I am not 'mobile'. I work solely from my home. Without a quiet, private environment I cannot work at all. I have lived, for many years, under the overhanging threat of having utilities disconnected and/or Internet access. I am also disabled and suffer painful chronic illnesses for which I cannot afford the medical care I need, which greatly reduces my capabilities. I am not seeking sympathy for these hardships, but only stating the simple truth.)
Have my notices been honored? In a word, no. People continue to write to me by post, month after month, imploring me to assist them, pro bono. They send me large legal case files and reams of personal testimony. They provide e-mail addresses and phone numbers, asking me to contact them. Quite a few have the mistaken notion that I am a lawyer, addressing their correspondence to "Attorney Hartwell". I am not an attorney, nor have ever made such a claim.
But at least, not having a public e-mail address, I am spared the deluge of such requests from readers. And for the record, it's not that I "don't care" about the people being persecuted or victimized by corruption. I DO CARE, and have done all in my power to expose, to protest and to STOP the atrocities and crimes against persons (in both specific cases and in general), which is one reason I am in this line of work, thankless and unprofitable as it may be.
But I know my limits --I am only one person, I can only do so much, and as I have repeatedly stated, the only thing I am able to offer is the material contained in my reports, which is available to the general public at no cost. I have nothing to sell and am not engaged in any form of commerce. And since donations to support my work are a thing of the past, the limitations on what I can do are tighter than ever before.
Politically, I am a hard-line conservative (in the true, original and 'purist' meaning of the term), a defender of the Constitution, and a fierce defender of God-given, unalienable individual rights. I have never belonged to any political party. I consider myself a patriot, that meaning one who loves my country and the principles, the original intent, on which it was founded. But there is no love lost between me and the government, which has never been anything but a tyrannical and destructive force in my life.
To get even more personal, I am a true recluse, by nature and by choice. I am as introverted as anyone I have ever known. My few and selective relationships are limited to my friends (real friends, not facebook “friends"--what idiocy), family, professional colleagues, and Christian fellowship (at church and with Brothers and Sisters in Christ around the world). I am a devout Christian, a believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As for the rest, that is between me and God.
I cannot abide crowds. Such as, Times Square on New Year's Eve --been there, done that, hated every minute of it, lucky to escape in one piece. Then, there was the Woodstock Festival, 1969: I was there too (I was a college student studying Fine Arts in NYC at the time, and naively believed the advertisements that the Woodstock event had anything to do with “the Arts”.) Again, hated every minute of it, the crowds, the mud, the unseemly behavior (to put it mildly) of the attendees, and though I was only 18 years old, vowed never again to seek “the Arts” outside a gallery or museum. Got the T-shirt, threw it away many moons ago.
Nor can I bear to be in a contained environment, indoors, where large groups of people congregate. The only exceptions, the only places in which I would ever set foot, which contain more than 50 people, would be a museum, a classical concert hall or opera house, a gun show, a martial arts tournament, or a church. (And I never fail to check access to all the exits before walking in the door.)
I avoid cities and congested urban areas like the plague. I refuse to enter any high-rise building, and have not set foot in an elevator for decades. I detest noise pollution, including that generated by heavy traffic, motorcycle clubs, 'heavy metal' “music” (if it could be called that) and loud, aggressive people.
I must live in a quiet, peaceful environment, preferably near the beach, in the mountains, or in a secluded rural area, never in an apartment building, but in a freestanding structure, even if it is only a shack. When I look out my windows at night, or walk out into the yard, I want to see the moon and stars, burning brightly in the heavens, not the offensive glare of neon signs and street lights.
I have a love for extreme weather, including nor'easters, but especially thunderstorms, the more violent, the better. I love a full moon, and to walk the beach with the crashing breakers of high tide. I am a tree hugger (not a 'tree-spiker' or 'radical environmentalist'), a lover of the great outdoors, wide open spaces, pine forests, mountain streams, babbling brooks, crashing waterfalls and fresh, cool air, from way back. I hate the climate of the tropics and the desert, and cloying heat (whether dry or humid) paralyzes my nervous system and knocks me down for the count. As do the cloying attentions of people who invade my personal space.
I enjoy solitude, and vastly prefer the company of animals to most of the people I have ever known (most, not all.) I would much rather quietly enjoy the luxurious purring of a cat (in my opinion God's most beautiful and wondrous creature), thrill to the howling of wolves or coyotes, or listen to the calls of wild birds, singing for the joy of being alive, for the glory of God's creation, than suffer the banal chatter which emanates from all too many human beings.
"Bless me Father, for I have sinned". Such was my confession to the Priest at my church in Maine: "I have willfully destroyed property belonging to the Episcopal Church, Diocese of Maine. I removed a mouse trap I found on the windowsill in the ladies' room, broke it in pieces, and threw it in the trash bin."
I then implored him (he listened, with concern, as he always does) to replace the cruel devices with live-capture traps so that the creatures could be released outside. Yes, I knew they would come back, but so what? God sees it all, from On High, every sparrow that falls, every one of His creatures who suffers, when, with a little effort, it would be so easy to replace callous disregard with kindness and compassion. And for the record, I was unrepentant of my sin.
In another time, another century, no doubt I would be living in a cloister, high on a mountaintop, or an ancient monastery on a rugged cliff above the sea, a fantasy which often haunts me, but which, alas, I know would not be viable in my current life. But I can dream...
In keeping with my love of peace, I scrupulously avoid "conflicts with people", whenever possible. For me, there is no need for conflict, since my principles are well-established, solid as rock, and non-negotiable. Nobody is going to pressure me into changing my mind, or into shifting my position, nobody is going to force me into compromise.
I know my rights, which I fiercely defend. I know what I believe. I know what, and whom, I support, and what, and whom, I do not support. If I want advice, I'll ask for it, from the professional(s) of my choice; otherwise I don't want it foisted on me, unsolicited, which is a sign of great disrespect for my personal boundaries.
To be clear, I speak strictly for myself. I don't presume to speak for others, nor to foist my own beliefs/viewpoints on them. I respect the privacy, the personal boundaries and the God-given unalienable rights of others, as a matter of principle, and as required by my code of honor. And by the same token, I expect others to respect mine.
But unfortunately, in today's society, the world is overflowing with a surfeit of aggressive busybodies, misguided people who just won't leave others alone to live in peace. They seem to be under a compulsion to 'monitor', 'organize', 'administer', 'regulate' and control other people's lives, or in cases of extreme ambition, to orchestrate the fate of nations. This of course, is the nature of a fallen world. True, we must all live IN the world, but those of us who choose not to be OF the world certainly have the right to expect that others will honor our wishes.
Those who try to draw me into a conflict of wills, or to foist their own subjective standards/worldviews on me by applying pressure, by dishing out unsolicited advice, by meddling in my business, by appointing themselves as unwanted intermediaries, spokespersons, matchmakers, etc. or by trying to engage me in arguments about politics, religion, scripture, ethics, philosophy, etc. will find my response to be one of the following:
If possible, let's agree to disagree, and we can remain friends.
Please, mind your own business, and leave me alone to tend to mine.
We obviously have irreconcilable differences, and so have come to a parting of the ways. I wish you well, go in peace.
(The silent version of “irreconcilable differences” in some cases, is quietly walking away, withdrawing from contact, without a word.)
Or, if the aggression becomes insufferable: You can bloody well go straight to hell! (That may be un-Christian, but I can only take so much; and although I aspire to sainthood, I'm nowhere near having achieved it.)
By now, you may be wondering, why am I telling you all this? Likely more than you ever wanted to know, and forgive me if I have put you to sleep, or bored you to tears. (If such is the case, just click out. It's a free country...well, sort of.)
It is because I want to make it abundantly clear that anyone who gets to know me well enough to call me a friend (and assuming they have been listening during our conversations), will most certainly be well aware of my fundamental nature, of the principles I uphold, and of my personal and professional standards and policies.
The question is, will they RESPECT my right to exclusively determine all of the above, without interference? In all too many cases, the answer is: Not a chance.
It is once again time for me to set the record straight, as I do from time to time, given my concern with what remains on the public record, and with correcting any falsehoods or misunderstandings which may occur in connection with my name, my work, or my position on vital issues.
JANET PHELAN: LEFT-WING AGITATOR FOR GLOBALIST GOVERNMENT
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.
As you read on, I will provide a number of examples, along with the evidence, to support my position. And as always, the readers may make of it what they will.
I first came into contact with Janet Phelan in late 2005. Janet arranged to contact me through a mutual acquaintance (a man who was a Target of COINTELPRO, by the same crew of fed snitches/stooges), after she had read my reports exposing this criminal network run by FBI chief Ted Gunderson.
Since by that time I did not have a public e-mail address (I removed contact info from my website in 2003, due to harassment, cyber-stalking, threats, and to protect my privacy), the mutual acquaintance e-mailed me, saying that Janet Phelan was interested in contacting me, in connection with being targeted for stalking/threats by predicate felon Tim White.
(Janet Phelan was one of many persons to contact me regarding this psycho stalker, the seemingly ubiquitous Tim White, all seeking a way to put this criminal menace out of business. No one has yet succeeded...years and years of White's relentless crime sprees against persons, and counting...)
I agreed to allow my private e-mail address to be given to Janet Phelan. We exchanged information about members of the criminal syndicate run by COINTELPRO, as well as documentary evidence we had each separately compiled. And although I had some reservations about her political ideology (at least what little I knew of it then), and certain of her affiliations, at that time I saw no insurmountable obstacles in the way of developing a friendship or professional association. But that was to change drastically by 2012.
In the Spring of 2012, Janet and I decided to collaborate by doing a series of radio programs on Nazi propagandists in the "patriot" community, those promoting hatred and bigotry against the Jews. This was an issue which had been of great concern to me for many years, especially considering the fact that Nazi war criminals from Operation Paperclip (including the infamous Angel of Death, Dr. Josef Mengele) had been instrumental in CIA's MK Ultra program, under which I was trained and groomed as an intelligence agent, beginning in early childhood.
Unlike many others (Jews or not) who rightly denounce the Nazis and all they stand for, my experiences had been up close and personal. I had also debriefed concentration camp survivors, both inside and outside of CIA, and I had direct interactions with authentic Nazis, from early childhood. And, for the record, I am not Jewish, by religion or blood.
Here are the opening paragraphs from a report I wrote (June 2012), which addressed these issues:
Nazi Infestation & Infiltration: What's Next?
Over the past couple of months, investigative journalist Janet Phelan and I have been doing a series of radio programs exposing hatred and bigotry against "the Jews", and Nazi propagandists in the "patriot" movement. The more I have heard, and the more I have reflected on some of the trash emanating from these so-called "patriots", who host talk shows and/or who write articles for some of the high-traffic websites, the more I have become appalled and disgusted.
These flagrant bigots, racists and Nazi pimps are assaulting their audiences with an in-your-face propaganda campaign, blaming ALL the ills and evils of the world on the state of Israel, the Zionists and "the Jews", and condemning an entire race of people in the process.
And I find it amazing how many people are allowing themselves to be indoctrinated by these mountebanks, swallowing their black propaganda, hook line and sinker.
However, Janet and I have thankfully found a number of decent, honorable talk show hosts who've been willing to have us on the air to address this topic.
Thanks (so far) to:
James Arthur Jancik
I published the report on my website in mid-June, 2012, but removed it within a few days. This was mainly because Janet Phelan expressed a strong objection to my naming one of the hosts on the list as "decent and honorable". Since the report was largely outlining the harassment and bigotry for which Janet herself had been targeted in the alternative media, herself being Jewish, I thought it best to remove the report, though she didn't ask me to. I didn't agree with her position, but I did respect her wishes, and did not want to be responsible for misrepresenting her in any way.
The host about whom Janet raised an objection was Barry Chamish.
Janet and I had been invited to appear on the Barry Chamish Show to discuss the Nazi propaganda issue, which we did. Barry had also invited me to do a separate show, about a week later, on another topic, COINTELPRO, which is an area of my expertise.
However, during one program where Janet was on the air with Barry Chamish and another guest, she had a disagreement with Barry, and the discussion became heated. Janet obviously took Barry's disagreement as a personal affront, and became very agitated (including on the air) by what she considered his 'ill-treatment' of her.
Having heard the show, I did not agree with her assessment. Firstly, Janet was stridently insistent on having her own point of view heard, not waiting for the host to finish his statements, but interrupting when others were speaking, which I saw as poor manners and a lack of self-control. It is the host's place to run the show, not the guest's, which Barry pointed out. And it was a talk show, for heaven's sake --there are going to be disagreements. (Anyone who is that thin-skinned and so quick to take personal offense might be better off eschewing that venue, and sticking to print journalism.)
But Janet was adamant, also complaining about Barry's subsequent "off air" treatment of her. I don't remember now what the "off air" issue was, but even if I did, I wouldn't report it here; I see it as a private matter between Barry and Janet. But the gist of it was that Janet Phelan decided that Barry Chamish was persona non grata, and said she wanted nothing further to do with him.
(See excerpts from Janet Phelan's letter to me, published in 2012, by her request, below. A link is also provided for the letter in its entirety, in a separate report.)
I told Janet that her problem with Chamish was her business, not mine, but let her know that she had made her position very clear, and that I respected her right to determine it.
But Janet wouldn't let the issue go. She kept on complaining about Barry Chamish to me in our conversations via skype, and writing e-mails (copied to me) to the other guest on the show where the disagreement occurred, clearly trying to win his support. I thought at the time that she was placing him in an uncomfortable position, as to my knowledge, he himself did not have any such "issues" with Barry Chamish. To be very clear, all “issues” regarding Chamish were Janet Phelan's, and hers alone.
She also tried (she did not come out with it directly, but it was clear to me what she was angling for) to dissuade me from appearing on the scheduled show about COINTELPRO. She asked me several times if I was “still” going to be on Chamish's program. But I had given my word to Barry, and I personally had no problem with him; he had never treated me with anything but courtesy, and even if we didn't agree on every issue, as a veteran broadcaster, I can handle disagreements on the air. But the bottom line was that Janet's "problem" with Barry Chamish had absolutely nothing to do with me.
Janet wrote in one of several e-mails to the other guest (copied to me), while complaining about Barry Chamish, that she didn't know if Barbara Hartwell would go back on the air on Barry's show, as "she is rather fiercely loyal". Fiercely loyal? A far cry from the "faithless friend" she shortly thereafter accused me of being.
And aside from trying to pressure me to cancel my upcoming radio show with Barry Chamish, what was she doing dragging my name into her private conflicts, especially by discussing it with a third party? The more I thought about all this, the more uncomfortable I became with this behavior.
As any real friend I have ever had would know, it is true that I am "fiercely loyal" to my friends, especially if they are being attacked without cause. But firstly, by any reasonable standards, Janet Phelan had not been attacked (certainly not on the air); and secondly, my first loyalty is to principles, not persons. Always has been, always will be.
As seems to be the case with Janet Phelan, I am not ruled by my emotions, but rather by reason and principle. And I don't allow myself to get in the middle of other people's disputes, whether they are my friends, or not. I tried to explain that to Janet, but apparently she felt offended that I would not "take her side" against a person with whom I personally had no complaint.
In the same time period, during the Spring of 2012, several other issues arose.
The first of these (which preceded the Barry Chamish 'incident') was that an acquaintance of Janet's, named Chris Zucker, had written a defamatory message against Barbara Hartwell, addressed to Janet, but also copied to my friend Geral Sosbee. I have no evidence that the message was sent to others (as I have reason to believe), but Zucker did send it to at least two people, who happened to be among my “known associates”.
At that time, Zucker was a member of Geral's online group, FBI & CIA are Terrorists. Geral immediately forwarded the defamatory message to me, on principle, as by our shared standards of loyalty and integrity, he had no doubt I had the right to know that my name was being defamed. Geral was also outraged by it.
Janet Phelan did not forward the message to me, which was certainly her prerogative; however, the fact that she withheld this defamatory missive from me, rather than alerting me to it, as Geral did, was cause for considerable concern to me.
By launching his complaint against me, it seemed Zucker had hoped to enlist Janet and Geral as intermediaries to influence me, or possibly to influence them to turn against me. He didn't understand that I would also be on the receiving end of his complaint. And not knowing me, Zucker would not have been aware that I am not the least bit susceptible to "influence" by others, or that the loyalty and integrity of at least one of my friends (Geral Sosbee) would take precedence over anything else.
It is important to state the fact that I DO NOT KNOW Chris Zucker. I had never heard of him until he began to try to contact me using intermediaries (mutual acquaintances, which included Geral Sosbee and Janet Phelan). In each case, I told the "intermediary" that I had no interest in communicating with Zucker. I thought that would be the end of it, but Zucker persisted with his unwanted communications, over a period of years. And I have to wonder, what part of “no interest” Zucker failed to understand?
Apparently he wanted me to get involved with a group he runs, called 'Freedom Fighters for America' (another misnomer, in the same vein as Ken Adachi 's 'Educate -Yourself', inter alia). I've been solicited by many such groups over the years, but I don't join groups, and I had no interest in Zucker's group, nor in any of his other activities, whatever they may have been.
(I am not even a member of Geral's online group, FBI & CIA are Terrorists, though of course he invited me to join. But Geral has never been offended by that, as he knows I am not a "joiner", and have no interest in interacting with people online, it is all that simple.)
But there was another issue involving Zucker, a very large issue. Zucker was promoting Ken Adachi on his website. Ken Adachi, the malicious liar, the diabolical calumniator, the government shill, with the morals of a sewer rat, whose objective was to destroy Barbara Hartwell, come hell or high water. The link to 'Educate-Yourself', Adachi's site, was prominently posted under the topic of "MIND CONTROL" on Zucker's site.
I happened to notice this when I was working on a report exposing Ken Adachi's massive disinformation on government "mind control". Adachi promotes the usual crew of "Monarch" charlatans, including Susan Ford (aka Brice Taylor); Fritz Springmeier (aka Arthur Alexander Jr. aka Victor E. Schoof); Alma Ott (aka "True" Ott); Henry Makow et al, all of whom falsely claim that ALL mind control victims are "totally mind controlled slaves"; that they are all subjected to "satanic ritual abuse", and that they are all sexually abused, as part of trauma-based mind control....and other such rubbish.
[Note: 'Monarch' was never a CIA operation, nor a sub-project of MK Ultra, as these peddlers of disinformation claim. I know this as well as anyone could, because I was there, in the thick of it all, since 1951, the year I was born into an intergenerational CIA/Military Intel family. And I have exposed all of these characters many times in my reports, and refuted their malicious lies, including those defaming Barbara Hartwell.]
When Geral Sosbee learned of Zucker's promotion of Adachi and these other shills, liars and charlatans, he was deeply concerned, because at the time Geral had a link on his website to Zucker's site, 'Freedom Fighters for America'.
As government whistleblowers and persons of integrity and honor, Geral and I both hold the firm and non-negotiable position that we refuse to be associated with anyone promoting, or aligning themselves with, liars, charlatans, criminals, purveyors of disinformation, and especially government shills like Ken Adachi, who are running massive smear campaigns against genuine, legitimate journalists and whistleblowers. These unscrupulous individuals are the enemies of Truth, of Freedom, of Liberty and Justice for All. Very simply, good vs. evil and never the twain shall meet.
Sosbee's and Hartwell's reports are based on facts, backed with solid evidence, and written from direct personal knowledge and professional expertise on the subjects we cover. And we will not allow our work to be compromised, nor our names tainted by association, via persons who would undermine our efforts.
Geral informed Zucker that he did not intend to keep a link to a site ('Freedom
Fighters for America') that promoted Ken Adachi, who had been running a hideous smear campaign against Barbara Hartwell for well over a decade, and also had been libeling Geral. And Geral certainly did not want any member of his group promoting Ken Adachi or his loathsome website, on HIS message board, which he sponsors, entirely at his own expense.
According to Geral, Zucker casually remarked that he would "think about it", but did not bother to respond to Geral's several subsequent messages, and Zucker chose not to remove the link to Adachi's New Age/occultist/government disinformation site, which was his prerogative. Just as it was Geral's prerogative to disassociate himself from Zucker as a result of his promotion of Adachi et al.
I had placed Zucker's name in my HALL OF SHAME, as I would the name of anyone promoting one of my worst enemies, as every time someone clicked the link from Zucker's site to Adachi's site, they would then be faced with Adachi's hideous propaganda against me, in a special section dedicated to libeling Barbara Hartwell, titled 'Barbara Hartwell Founder & CEO of Liars, Inc.'
(How very ironic. Ken Adachi is one of the most prolific and venomous liars ever to appear on the Internet, as any Target of his vile slanders is well aware.)
Adachi's trash was (and still is) prominently displayed as a permanent 'feature' in the sidebar on his site, where he also libels Geral Sosbee, and others among my friends and colleagues, including the late Michael Ruppert and investigative journalists, Dr. Len Horowitz and Sherri Kane.
Adachi is a lowlife criminal who supports and promotes, aids and abets, the very "terrorism" of FBI & CIA, which Geral and I have long risked our lives to fight against. Unlike the self-designated "Freedom Fighter", Chris Zucker, or his associate, the leftist promoter of the U.N. and secular humanism, Janet Phelan.
(I find it important to add that Ken Adachi has been promoting Janet Phelan on his government-disinfo website since 2007, in a permanent 'feature' listing where he has also publicly expressed his support of her; this, without a word of protest from Janet, despite the fact that she was well aware of Adachi's flagrant, massive black propaganda campaign against Hartwell and Sosbee, both of whom she called her “friends”. As you read on, more to come on this...)
When Zucker learned that his name was listed in the HALL OF SHAME on my website, he penned the defamatory note, addressed to Janet Phelan and copied to Geral Sosbee.
Having received a copy of the defamatory missive, I was naturally outraged. And since Zucker chose to run his mouth about a person who had never done anything wrongful to him, in fact, a person he did not even know (contrary to his claims in the note), as per my usual policy, I decided to publish it on my website.
See Zucker's handiwork here:
"Freedom Fighter" Chris Zucker Launches Complaint Against Barbara Hartwell
Meanwhile, Geral informed Zucker that his posting privileges had been revoked, and removed the link for 'Freedom Fighters for America' from his own site.
(Thank you, Geral, for your honor and integrity, and for defending mine.)
I wrote a report (see link above), setting the record straight, as is my policy for defamation of my good name which comes to my attention. I saw no reason to discuss this with the (known) recipients of Zucker's note beforehand, neither Janet nor Geral, as this was strictly my business. I was defending myself against slurs by a misguided and ignorant individual, a presumptuous gate-crasher named Chris Zucker, who had tried to horn in on my professional work, and who, for some obscure reason, as stated in his message, apparently thought he was entitled to be "recognized" by me as a "real patriot". (Why my recognition would be of any concern to him, I haven't a clue.)
I simply stated the facts and the truth and refuted the falsehoods promoted by Zucker. Out of respect for her privacy, I did not name Janet Phelan as the recipient in the first report (others followed, but I don't want to get ahead of myself), as she had chosen not to forward the message to me.
But when Janet Phelan read the report on my website exposing Zucker's intrusive, disrespectful behavior, she made it clear to me that she did not approve of this. I had not asked for her opinion, and it was not any of her business; nor did I care about her approval, one way or another; and not that I owed her an explanation, either; but considering the fact that she was my friend, when she raised the subject I made the effort to explain my position to her.
I suspect that her 'disapproval' of my report had something to do with Chris Zucker continuing his efforts at using Janet as an intermediary, but I have no evidence of that.
However, though I had made my position very clear, Janet would not let it go. She kept bringing it up in conversations, and I told her, Look, you chose not to forward the message to me, and I made no complaint about that, as that was your prerogative. Further, I told her that I would not have seen the need to discuss it with her, had she not continued to raise the issue.
Because she kept on in her dogged pursuit of this, I finally asked her what communications she had had with Zucker, after he sent her his defamatory message. She told me that she had responded to him by saying that she was "sorry" that he had become "caught up" in the "divisiveness" so pervasive among people, as she saw it. She also told me (though she later contradicted herself in writing) that she had continued to discuss the matter with Zucker, as he had sent additional such messages to her about Barbara Hartwell, which she also chose not to share with me. Unlike the first message, these were not copied to Geral Sosbee (from whom Zucker had NOT received a sympathetic ear to his defamatory remarks about Barbara Hartwell, unlike with Janet Phelan), so I do not know what was said.
I never asked Janet to share these messages with me, as I had no interest in anything Zucker had to say. I had dismissed him as a misguided, presumptuous busybody, I had publicly refuted his false claims about me in a report, and as far as I was concerned, that was the end of it. I had no intention of wasting any more of my precious time on such foolishness.
But I was getting very tired of hearing about Zucker, whom Janet brought up again and again and again.....in connection with a number of other totally unrelated issues. Such as, her problem with Barry Chamish, which I had refused to get in the middle of. And which, more to the point, had absolutely nothing to do with Chris Zucker.
I had explained to Janet, more than once, that her comments to Zucker about "divisiveness" had nothing to do with me, and thus had no validity. As in:
I do not know Chris Zucker and he does not know me. I have never had any communication with Zucker, by my own choice, nor do I wish to have any dealings with him. I am not, and never at any time, have been involved, in any group or organization in common with Zucker, and that I personally had absolutely NOTHING in common with Zucker, except perhaps, like roughly 6 or 7 billion others, being a resident of Planet Earth. And finally, for these reasons, there was NO "divisiveness". In a case involving two such totally disparate and separate individuals, who have never been connected in any way, such a claim defies logic.
Furthermore, Chris Zucker was solely responsible for his own actions and was not "caught up" in anything, except perhaps his own foolishness and willful ignorance, in promoting false information from malicious liars and charlatans like Ken Adachi, and in his misguided attempts at unwanted communications aimed at Barbara Hartwell. And lastly, by claiming to Zucker (and later to me) that "divisiveness" was the issue, Janet was making excuses for Zucker's intrusive behavior, at my expense, and worse, disregarding my personal boundaries by trying to impose her own standards on me.
For some odd reason, Janet Phelan would simply not accept my clearly stated position, in defense of my own boundaries and my own rights. She just kept pushing..... and I was becoming increasingly disturbed by, and intolerant of, this totally unnecessary brouhaha, created out of thin air, and which served no good purpose.
THE PLOT THICKENS: PSYCHO STALKER MICHELLE WOLVEN ON THE WARPATH AGAINST BARBARA HARTWELL
But shortly thereafter, another issue arose, involving yet another busybody trying to stick her nose in my business, to stir up as much trouble as possible. This was a woman named Michelle Wolven, who was not only a busybody, but a hideous psycho-stalker, along the lines of Brenda Negri, Tim White, Todd Brendan Fahey, and The Beast of the Brownsville Library. (See PART ONE for details on these criminals.)
This extremely aggressive lowlife, Michelle Wolven, targeted me when I began an association with Dr. Antonella Carpenter, a brilliant physicist who had developed a laser technology for cancer, which, according to their own testimony, saved the lives of many of Dr. Carpenter's patients. I first started to appear as a regular guest on Dr. Carpenter's radio show, The Medical Conspiracy, in early 2012, to discuss counterintelligence operations, for which Dr. Carpenter, her staff, and family had been targeted.
Wolven had been harassing, stalking, libeling/slandering Dr. Carpenter and her family for years, as a lackey/hireling of the Medical Mafia/Big Pharma, whose goal was to destroy Dr. Carpenter and shut down her professional practice, Lase Med Inc. Tragically, they succeeded, with the help of the likes of the loathsome liar, Michelle Wolven.
As the issue relates to Michelle Wolven, as is the unscrupulous practice of all such busybody-stalkers, Wolven made aggressive approaches to every single person she could find, any who were "known associates" of Barbara Hartwell, in an attempt to spread her outrageous lies about Dr. Carpenter, and about me (a person she does not know), as Dr. Carpenter's friend and supporter.
Every single "known associate" of mine who was targeted by Wolven (there were at least 5 or 6, that I knew of) did NOT respond in any manner to this psycho-stalker's e-mails and/or phone calls, did NOT allow themselves to be exploited as conduits for Wolven's ends. They simply apprised me of the harassment by Wolven in connection with MY name, and left me to handle it as I saw fit.
With the exception of one “known associate” of Barbara Hartwell --Janet Phelan.
One day, shortly after the Chamish 'incident', I received an e-mail from Janet. It stated: "Michelle Wolven called me. Get back to me when you can."
Because I had been ill, and not online the day it was sent, I didn't get Janet's message until the following day. I responded to the e-mail, asking the obvious questions about Wolven's phone call, and asking Janet to please call me, but got back only a terse e-mail response from her, stating that I should “disregard” her previous message, since she "went ahead" and called Wolven back. But oddly enough, there was no further information, no explanation, and no answers to my questions about Wolven.
I then tried to reach Janet by skype, the usual way of communication, other than e-mail. I was unable to reach her, so I wrote another e-mail, inquiring once again about the stalker, Wolven, and asking Janet to call me when she was able. In response to this, I received another terse e-mail, stating only that she had "called Michelle Wolven back yesterday". Again, no further information, no explanation, no answers as to WHY she had contacted me regarding Wolven's call to her. And no call from Janet.
(I never did find out exactly what happened, or precisely what this stalker, Wolven, said to Janet about me in her phone message, or exactly what Janet's response was when she called Wolven back. I also don't know if Janet Phelan ever spoke directly to Wolven, or discussed me with her. I don't know, because Janet declined to discuss it directly with me via a phone or skype call, as per my request. Janet was also aware—as were all my friends/colleagues that I have a dislike of using e-mail, and rarely use it except for brief messages or sending documents. And since it had become clear to me that Janet was behaving evasively, I reached a point where I wouldn't have trusted her to tell me the specifics of what was said, even were she willing to speak with me.)
By this time, I knew something was very wrong. I was disturbed by Janet Phelan's recent attitude toward me, with her increasingly pushy behavior; her attempts to drag me into her private disputes with others; to try to influence me to act against my clearly stated principles and policies, and her refusal to respect my privacy and personal boundaries --by dragging in third parties and citing "connections" between persons and events that simply did not exist, at least not in my world.
I decided the only thing I could do was outline my concerns in writing. I politely and respectfully asked her to please, in future, as a professional courtesy, and as a friend, NOT discuss me with anyone like Michelle Wolven, a busybody/stalker, who was aggressively attempting to get in my business by contacting my “known associates”.
I also tried (once again) to make my position crystal clear about the other busybody, Chris Zucker, and the fact that "divisiveness" was NOT the issue. I explained that I did NOT want to be the subject of any such discussions in future, as it was solely MY prerogative to deal with aggressors in my own way, if they tried to use a “known associate” as an intermediary.
And I added (once again) that I understood her position as regarded Barry Chamish, and that now that I knew the extent of her feelings (as she had repeatedly stated in phone conversations), that I would be sure, were I to have any future dealings with Chamish, not to discuss Janet with him (which I had not done even at the time of her "issues" with him.)
I made every effort to resolve these issues with Janet, not only because she was my friend, but I also knew that if things went on in this vein, without my making my position on privacy and personal boundaries crystal clear (though I had already done so, more than once, in phone/skype conversations), I would have to sever ties with her, as the issues were not just private, between me and Janet, but very public, since they involved a number of other people in the media, as well as those who were publicly defaming my name, harassing me, and attempting to sabotage my work.
Janet's response to my letter seemed cordial (on the surface anyway), but rather than simply being willing to honor my very reasonable request to respect my privacy and personal boundaries, where stalkers and busybodies were hell-bent on trespassing into MY life, using her as a willing intermediary, she tried to justify her position, a position which by my standards, was indefensible.
Finally, I saw the truth, writ large. It became clear to me that Janet Phelan was not going to even acknowledge my RIGHT to defend my own privacy and boundaries. I had never asked for her opinion on any of these matters; but that didn't stop her from trying to foist it on me, unsolicited.
Instead of simply respecting my wishes about my personal boundaries, she brought forth various irrelevant arguments, dragging in yet more third parties, who were completely unconnected, and commingling issues which were completely unrelated. And she continued to blather on about “divisiveness”, going so far as sending me a dictionary definition (insulting my intelligence, AS IF I wouldn't know the meaning of the word?), and saying that her “take” on “divisiveness” was different than mine. So what? That, of course, was irrelevant. It did not matter what her “take” was. The only issue of concern to me was MY RIGHT to defend MY privacy and personal boundaries against any and all aggressors, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from self-appointed intermediaries!
Judging from her attitude and behavior, it seemed clear that Janet Phelan considered her own life (and her work as a journalist) to be a sort of 'free-for-all', where anything goes (except that which personally displeased her, or did not serve her own agenda); where any and all parties, including busybodies, stalkers, gate-crashers, charlatans, saboteurs, criminals, were welcome, the more the merrier. And, according to her views, there are to be endless debates, arguments and discussions, ad infinitum... Which is her right, if that is the way SHE wants to conduct her personal/professional business.
But to aggressively project her own subjective standards and beliefs (which were unacceptable, even downright offensive to me) onto MY life (and my work as a journalist), and to try to drag in these unwanted individuals, where I was concerned, was not only inappropriate, but also unprincipled. No such individuals are welcome to intrude in MY life or my work.
I do not involve myself with such characters in any way. If they display aggression against me, it is my policy to either ignore them or expose them, as I see fit, or, in certain cases, to seek justice under the law. As far as I am concerned, they can “tell it to the judge”. I do not personally engage them, or allow them to bait me into discussions or arguments. Nor am I required to explain myself to anyone. I certainly will not tolerate anyone stepping in as an unwanted, uninvited intermediary. And that is solely my prerogative.
It seemed that Janet Phelan wanted to "make her world, my world", a very perceptive statement made by another mutual acquaintance some years ago, when Janet was treating him in a similar manner. Placing herself at the center, as if all others were mere satellites, revolving around her and her subjective, self-serving concerns.
I also observed such patterns of behavior regarding other mutual acquaintances, who were pushed to the limits of their tolerance by Janet's persistence in making unreasonable demands and overstepping her bounds. Some were provoked into angry responses (righteous anger, as I see it), and were then blamed by Janet for 'mistreating' her, while she smugly claimed she had taken the “moral high ground”.
This was a comment I had personally heard her make repeatedly in cases where she had a disagreement in a public venue. Rather than stand up for herself, right out in the open, and make her position clear, she would seek out allies privately, and complain about the behavior of those by whom she felt offended, trying to drag others into her personal conflicts, even though the issues had nothing to do with them.
And/or, she would approach editors of websites, managers of radio networks, “reporting” the behavior of associated persons (talk hosts, staff writers, moderators of discussion groups), which she found personally offensive, and apparently expecting them to take disciplinary action against the “offender”. This behavior is that of a tattletale, a tale-bearer, where there is no moral high ground to be found. (And reminiscent of 'See Something, Say Something', the government's program to recruit citizen snoops and snitches.)
No, the moral high ground consists, first and foremost, of having RESPECT for the privacy, personal boundaries, and the God-given unalienable rights of others; of leaving them in peace to live and work as they see fit, without interference. And where there is a disagreement, assuming you want to resolve it honorably, the moral high ground also compels honesty and forthrightness, letting others know exactly where you stand, privately, or publicly, as the case may be. If a disagreement cannot be resolved due to “irreconcilable differences”, there is always the option of simply walking away.
Frankly, I felt like screaming with frustration! I had been subjected to similar treatment and attitudes by those who were also not willing to respect, or even acknowledge, my RIGHT to delineate my own personal boundaries, but insisted on trying to force their subjective personal viewpoints and standards on me, and I recognized all the signs of such a mindset. The mindset of a collectivist and a busybody.
I was having none of it, but rather than allow myself to be provoked, I remained calm and refused to get embroiled in such a conflict.
At this point, I wrote back a short note to Janet:
"It seems the disagreements are more serious than I thought. I hope they can be resolved, if only in agreeing to disagree, or in reaching a mutual understanding of one another's position. I'd rather not continue a discussion by e-mail, as it's too time-consuming, and for me, not the best way to communicate. I haven't been well today and unless I feel better will be going offline, but hopefully we can talk soon."
To which I got this response:
"I am getting ready to leave the country so I am not very available right now. I will be on and offline and my schedule is not too predictable at this juncture. Hope you feel better soon."
This response appeared to me to be evasive, as were the others, but most significantly, there was no indication given that she would be willing to discuss these issues with me --just as with the earlier e-mails re Michelle Wolven, there were no direct answers to my questions.
I saw where this was all heading, and I found it necessary to set the record straight, publicly, even if I could not resolve it with Janet, as Michelle Wolven was on the warpath in a very PUBLIC way, including targeting the radio station where I had been on the program with Dr. Carpenter, sending out numerous libelous e-mails, posting defamatory comments, and making harassing phone calls, invading my privacy and doing her damnedest to stir up a world of trouble.
I was not about to keep silent or stand down, ON PRINCIPLE, as the issue was MY privacy, MY personal boundaries, and MY RIGHT to stand up in my own defense.
For many years, I had taken the trouble, and gone to great lengths to protect my privacy by NOT having a public e-mail address. By always having UNLISTED phone numbers and an UNLISTED, PRIVATE street address. And I was not about to allow such intruders as Michelle Wolven to invade my privacy and breach my security, by exploiting people who were “known associates” of Barbara Hartwell. Nor was I about to tolerate anyone abusing the privileges of friendship by overstepping their bounds and engaging these characters in discussions of ME or MY business.
I wrote another report, this time exposing Wolven (once again) as a busybody/stalker who was now aggressively contacting, and in most cases, harassing, my friends and colleagues, any "known associates" of Barbara Hartwell whom Wolven, like a noxious hound of hell, could manage to track down via their public contact info.
I also found it necessary to make it crystal clear, for the record, that I would NOT appreciate anyone who might be similarly targeted, responding to this stalker, in connection with MY name, and acting as an enabler/conduit for Wolven's unscrupulous agenda regarding ME. As I clearly stated, no true friend of mine would do such a thing.
At the first publication I did not use Janet Phelan's name, as I was still hoping not to have this issue blown up into a huge brouhaha. But subsequently, considering the next messages I received from Janet, I had no choice, in defense of my principles and of my fundamental rights.
For the Record: A Message on Privacy & Sovereignty
I unfortunately received a somewhat arrogant response [from Janet Phelan] which showed that there was no understanding whatsoever of my concerns, and that apparently this individual [Janet Phelan] has no respect for my privacy or personal boundaries. All other associates/friends of mine who were the recipients of such intrusive and defamatory messages against Barbara Hartwell refused, on principle, to respond or to discuss me or my business. Rather, they forwarded me the messages and and left me alone to handle it as I saw fit.
So I find it important to state for the public record:
I am not a team player. My business is nobody's business, except my own. I am not a socialist, a communist, nor a collectivist. I am not a secular humanist, nor do I tolerate the psycho-babble which negates the sovereign rights of the INDIVIDUAL. I do not make my decisions by consensus, nor do I allow anyone else a "say" in the decisions I make.
There is no "divisiveness" in my life, very simply because I do not traffick with the devil, for any reason, at any time.
I am a Sovereign Child of God. And as such, I do not allow busybodies to meddle in my business. Ever. Period. Case closed.
Subsequent to the publication of this report, Janet continued to e-mail me (though I had not responded after my last e-mail, given above), obviously trying to goad me into a point-counterpoint argument. I did not respond to any of these e-mails, simply because I refused to get embroiled in any further "discussion" (especially by e-mail) with a person who refused to respect my privacy/personal boundaries; nor to become a willing player in this melodrama staged by Janet Phelan. I had stated my position, which it was made clear, was non-negotiable.
The "final e-mail" (as she titled it) from Janet arrived a few days after I posted the above report. This e-mail was later published in its entirety (at Janet Phelan's specific request) here:
Trafficking with the Devil (2)
Janet Phelan: "When I wrote my initial e-mail to you, after viewing your report yesterday, I had not noticed that your report went on to discuss my response to Wolven's call. You are now calling me a busybody and a meddler?"
Well, all I can say is, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Having been pushed to the limits of my tolerance, I finally stated the obvious truth. Janet Phelan showed her true colors as a person who simply refused to respect the privacy and personal boundaries of others. A busybody, and a meddler, no doubt about it, pushy as hell. As well as a gossip, discussing MY business with anyone who sought her out, as a “known associate” of Barbara Hartwell.
"What is it, Barbara? Do you need a new enemy? Have you decided to nominate me? You see, in my book, what you have done by reporting, or should I say, misreporting, all this publicly utterly violates the tenets of friendship. Friends resolve issues between themselves."
How rude, how insulting, and how self-righteous, to lay the blame on me for her own indiscretions, while projecting her own very subjective standards on me! This is certainly not the behavior of a “friend”, but rather that of a person with a self-serving agenda.
For anyone who has read this far, you might see that it is very simply a matter of Janet Phelan's viewpoints and standards in opposition to mine. I have told the truth, upon information and belief, and from my own experience and observations. I have not "misreported" anything, but only stated the facts, the evidence for those facts, and my position regarding those facts.
Furthermore, I at no time tried to foist my own standards on Janet Phelan. I
only, quite reasonably, asked her to respect mine, which she refused to do, apparently only because she does not “like” or “agree” with those standards. That may have been her problem, but I wasn't about to let her make it mine.
According to Janet Phelan, as a “friend”, I should have allowed this nonsense to go on and on, waiting around, at her convenience, for her to make herself “available”, to give me straight answers --and deferring to her whims....even after I recognized that it would not be possible to resolve it between Janet and myself. I tried, I made every effort to resolve it with her, but it was a public issue, right from the beginning, from the moment the first busybody (Chris Zucker) entered from stage left. And it had continued on from there with no end in sight, with more characters being dragged in at every turn.
"I tried repeatedly to call you about this and you responded that you were sick and also busy writing reports and doing radio. No time to return my call. When pressures began to build in my life, I let you know I would get back in touch with you when I could. You chose to attack me publicly; named or nameless, you still chose to attack me in a public venue rather than deal with this privately."
I received no such calls, only a last terse e-mail message about Janet "not being very available right now". I repeat: not one call. And no, she did NOT let me know she would get back in touch with me, nor said even one word about having a discussion. I take a person at her word, and don't make assumptions. I had previously tried to call her, on skype, but there was no answer.
As for "attacking" her publicly? No, the fact that I found it necessary to DEFEND MY OWN PRIVACY, PERSONAL BOUNDARIES & RIGHTS against stalkers and busybodies, is NOT any kind of "attack", not in my world, nor is stating my position publicly in a disagreement. A disagreement is not an attack, except perhaps in the mind of Janet Phelan.
I don't need a "consensus" with anyone, including my putative "friends", to make my own decisions about my own life. I don't answer to Janet Phelan, nor am I required to explain myself. How arrogant, and how utterly absurd!
"I refuse to become your enemy. I am, however, clearly no longer your friend. What you have done, by declining to deal with this with me and instead attacking me in a public venue, has been to sever the chords of friendship. I still hold a deep affection for you and this remains intact, even in the face of your faithlessness as a friend."
"Declining" to deal with this? Not even close. The only thing I "declined" to do was to allow myself to become embroiled in a dispute with a person who would not give me straight answers, who made unreasonable demands, and whose position, it was abundantly clear, was diametrically opposed to mine.
As for her supposed “deep affection” for me? No thanks, I have no use for any such rhetorical (and in my opinion, insincere) sentiment, and I consider that sort of condescending attitude, along with a total lack of respect, unworthy of further comment.
As for the worst insult to my honor, the "faithless friend", for more on that, you'll need to read on.
"If you wish to make this public, which given your obvious animus towards me you may well decide to do, I request that you fully reveal this and the e-mail of last night."
Considering the nature of the situation, I most certainly did see the necessity to make my position crystal clear, for the public record. But that had absolutely nothing to do with having "animus" towards Janet Phelan. No animus at all, only (by this time) righteous outrage at her intrusive, presumptuous and disrespectful behavior. The only thing of concern to me at this point was to put an end to this whole debacle, resolve it on my own terms, and be free of ever having to consider it again.
And because Janet had asked me to include her e-mails to me (evidently so her position would be clearly stated, and memorialized), I saw no problem with honoring her request. This way, I was able to address her own words (as I am doing here), rather than just repeating or paraphrasing what had been said in conversations.
More excerpts from e-mails from Janet Phelan.
"I will deal first with the Wolven situation. She called me and I immediately emailed you. I did not get a reply (you wrote me later that you were sick) and so I returned the call and left her a voicemail which I was sure would result in her never, ever calling me again. As she contacted me, it was my decision to return her call.
Just as, apparently, it is your decision to promote Barry Chamish, which is pretty much what you have de facto done by listing him as a talk show host whom you describe as decent and honorable. You were well aware of the distress he caused me by his on air behavior followed up by his off air behavior. So you made a decision relevant to Chamish and I made a decision relevant to Wolven.
My decision did not result in any sort of public promotion of her, however. I dealt with her swiftly and definitively and am fairly sure she will never darken my door again. But for some reason, you feel that I am not to return her call in deference to your wishes but feel free to promote Chamish, even in the face of all the distress he caused me."
So now, Janet decides that making a call to the psycho-stalker, Michelle Wolven, a KNOWN PUBLIC ENEMY of Barbara Hartwell, who has libeled, slandered, harassed and stalked me, and who had contacted Janet Phelan ONLY for the purpose of invading MY privacy and defaming MY name, is somehow "connected" (and to be compared) to a PRIVATE matter between herself and Barry Chamish, which had absolutely nothing to do with me.
As for Michelle Wolven being “publicly” promoted? Damn right! I myself have very publicly “promoted” the wrongdoing, the invasions of privacy, the stalking and harassment of this psycho freak, Wolven. The only thing I ever see the need to “promote” is the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
And unlike Janet Phelan, I make a clear distinction between a perp like Wolven and the Target of such a perp, and I make sure the perp is EXPOSED in a very public manner, rather than trying to cover it all up, and keep it hush-hush, as it seems she wants to do.
What's more, I view this as the absurdly petty and childish behavior of a spoiled junior high school girl, who, when she didn't get what she wanted from a friend, decided to 'retaliate'. Tit for tat, with no concern for any form of relevancy nor ethics.
As in: YOU "promoted" Barry Chamish, how could you do that to ME! So I called Michelle Wolven! So there! Nah nah nah nah nah nah....
This is also, in my view, passive-aggressive behavior. The need to justify what she wants to do --'get back' at Barbara Hartwell for not "taking her side" against the “not decent and honorable” (in her mind) Barry Chamish --while trying to make it appear as if she is doing nothing wrong.
But wait, it gets better (or depending on your viewpoint, worse...)
I now need to move forward in time, from 2012 to 2014.
Here is a notice posted on Janet Phelan's website, dated May 20, 2014:
Barry Chamish Radio 5/20/2014
This show probes the revelations in my recently published book, EXILE, as they pertain not only to domestic policy but to the US's actions in the Middle East. The show aired on First Amendment Radio.
What hypocrisy is this? Should I be surprised, or should this have been predictable...
Evidently, Janet Phelan has now decided that Barry Chamish, the cause of so much terrible "distress", with whom she vowed she would have no further dealings, and from which she tried to create a soap opera, trying to drag everyone she could into the melodrama, and soliciting them for her "defense", while maligning Chamish's name behind his back, will be given 'amnesty', and she will graciously deign to resume her dealings with him? She will now make a 180 turn and “promote” him herself, simply because it serves her own ends. “Decent and honorable” be damned! Is this what she considers to be taking the “moral high ground”?
Maybe it's only that she has a new book to promote, and wants all the publicity she can get. Maybe the book sales are not what she had hoped for, and she's not receiving the public attention and recognition she thinks she deserves. No matter that the host of the program, according to Janet Phelan, is NOT "decent and honorable". No matter that she was willing to repay her so-called "friend", Barbara Hartwell, with unjust behavior, because I dared to stand up for my principles.
And there's one other point I need to make. In the original report in which the letter from Janet Phelan was included, at her request, I did NOT name Barry Chamish, as she did. I replaced his name with X, as I did others she named, because I saw no reason to name them. My only purpose was to state the truth and stand in my own defense. But after this stunning display of hypocrisy from Janet Phelan, I have left the names in, just as she intended to make them public when she requested I publish her letter.
And for the record, as previously stated, I've never had any problem with Barry Chamish. He has contributed some of his work to my website and kindly sent me copies of his books and videos for my own research. I think he has a right to know how his name has been maligned, behind his back, and how I was treated by Janet Phelan, simply for refusing to become a part of it, and for calling him, along with other talk show hosts, "decent and honorable".
Also from Janet Phelan's letter:
“There is enormous divisiveness among people now. The way I generally work is in a more or less hands off manner. In other words, if , for example, Len Horowitz behaves in a suspect manner towards me but is good to you, I don't try to insist that you d.c. your contact with him or check with me before communicating with him!!!.
Here we go again, with the secular humanist psychobabble about "divisiveness"....she just won't let it go. And for the record, Dr. Len Horowitz, who is my good friend, never had anything whatsoever to do with the issues I
have covered here. Until Janet decided he too had to be dragged into the mix.
And why would I ever think she would try to insist that I "d.c." (whatever that means) my contact with him? Or check with HER before communicating with him? Such a thought never occurred to me. I have to wonder where these ill-conceived notions come from. Who does Janet Phelan think she is? My dealings with Len Horowitz were none of her business, and more to the point, it was never an issue, except in the mind of Janet Phelan, where every separate person and every separate issue are mixed up in a convoluted maze of connectedness, even where there are no connections whatsoever...
However, now that the names are out in the open (as she clearly intended them to be when she asked me to publish the letter), it should be noted that Janet Phelan also did not "approve" of my working with Dr. Horowitz and his partner, Sherri Kane.
After Janet had a "problem" with them (again, just as with others, I don't remember exactly what it was), and broke off contact, because she felt they had mistreated her (are you beginning to see a pattern here?), she tried to dissuade ME from continuing to work with them. I was on the receiving end of a string of comments and complaints, none of which had anything whatsoever to do with me. Again, I had no problem with them. And again, I refused to get in the middle of whatever "problem" she had, nor to “take her side” against them.
Len Horowitz and Sherri Kane are my good friends. They are among very few people I have known who stand up for the unvarnished truth, with no compromises, no matter the consequences.
And, unlike Janet Phelan, they have consistently respected my privacy and my personal boundaries; they have also stood up for me when I was attacked by criminals, liars and other assorted wrongdoers, and solidly supported my work, in exposing criminals, scamsters and charlatans (common enemies), like Ted Gunderson, “True” Ott, Alex Studer, Ken Adachi et al, when very few others would.
What's more, Len and Sherri have been instrumental, as has former FBI agent Geral Sosbee, in exposing COINTELPRO in a depth and breadth which is, in my opinion, unprecedented, and it is my pleasure to always give credit where it is due.
Now, back to Janet Phelan's continued harping on the old bogeyman, "divisiveness":
"In terms of the divisiveness, there are people you are in touch with, whom you are apparently allied with, whom I consider to be highly suspect. In terms of a hands off policy, that is your right and I don't really try to intervene. If you want to promote Chamish, it is your right. But when you ask for my input, then please don't try to rationalize away what you have asked for from me. The situations you describe, you and Zucker, me and Chamish, they are really not all that different. Some of the details, perhaps, but in broad sweeps, not really."
Why would I give a tinker's damn whom Janet Phelan considers “highly suspect”? Again, whom I associate with is none of her business.
And she claims to have a "hands off policy"? Please. Then why did she continue to attempt to persuade me who I should, or should not, be associating with? Why did she appoint herself an unwanted intermediary in my personal and professional business? Why was she apparently so eager to discuss me with all and sundry (there are others I haven't mentioned), including those she knew, beyond any doubt, were my enemies?
She doesn't “really” try to intervene? Is she serious? Then why would she keep trying to drag third parties into issues that have nothing to do with them? And I think "intervene" is a euphemism, for plain old fashioned meddling, which she has absolutely no right to do, especially knowing full well that I cannot abide it. But more to the point, I have every right to protest against it.
And when someone habitually uses the phrase, “not really”, what it means to me is that they are trying to deny or mask what they ARE “really” doing, by watering it down with a modifier. “Not really”? For me, my yes is yes, and my no is no. I mean exactly what I say, and say exactly what I mean. What is “really” true, is true, and what is “really” false, is false. No one (assuming they are actually listening) ever has a reason to be in doubt about exactly where I stand, on any issue, whether they agree with me, or not.
As regards asking for her "input"? I most certainly did NOT at any time ask for her "input" about any of these issues, except ONLY in the case of the ONE report I wrote about Nazi propagandists (referenced above). When she gave me the requested “input” about the report, strongly protesting my calling Barry Chamish "decent and honorable", in connection with her name, I removed the report from my website, and that was the end of it.
Again, for the record (how tiresome it gets....), I DO NOT EVEN KNOW CHRIS ZUCKER, nor have ever had any communication with him. There is no such thing as “You and Zucker”, thus it is a non-issue, a nonentity which only exists as a convenient contrivance in the mind of Janet Phelan. What's more, Chris Zucker defamed my name PUBLICLY, and I stood up in my own defense (as did Geral Sosbee) to set the record straight and refute Zucker's falsehoods.
On the other hand, Janet Phelan has known Barry Chamish for a number of years, has appeared on his radio shows, has engaged in communications with him. She has, of her own volition, engaged in various dealings with him. He is, at the very least, an acquaintance, even if not a friend or colleague. And her "problem" with him was PRIVATE in nature, though she could never seem to recognize that.
And I was not ever the one to "describe" such situations, nor compare them, when they are totally unconnected and unrelated. Janet Phelan was the one; these are solely HER issues, and she just can't seem to stop projecting and imposing her subjective viewpoints on others.
Furthermore, I do not deal in "broad sweeps", nor in vague, nebulous, subjective notions, which, it has become clear, are the domain of Janet Phelan. I deal in specifics, in hard facts, and yes, details. Furthermore, to me, each person is a separate and distinct individual, not part of some amorphous collective, to be dragged in and mixed up, just because it is convenient for a particular agenda.
By the same token, my relationships with people (no matter if they are professional, personal or a combination of both) are relationships with INDIVIDUALS, each one separate and distinct. And I don't allow anyone to interfere in my relationships, nor pressure me as to whom I should, or should not, be associating with.
So, if Janet Phelan is so concerned about "divisiveness", maybe it would behoove her to work at developing some modicum of discernment, to learn to MIND HER OWN BUSINESS, and stop trying to insert herself in the middle of everyone else's! It seems to me that she herself is the source of the very “divisiveness” she continually bemoans.
And of course, this is the 'herd' mentality. Group think. The hive, full of buzzing drones. Conformity to consensus/collectivist thought and decision-making, so prevalent among advocates of left-wing political ideology. So I guess I shouldn't have been surprised when the Leftist Beast reared its ugly head in an assault on INDIVIDUAL rights and liberties, including MY privacy and personal boundaries.
JANET PHELAN & KEN ADACHI: STRANGE BEDFELLOWS?
But now (as distasteful as it is), I must return to one of my most despicable enemies, Ken Adachi.
Here is an excerpt from Trafficking with the Devil (2)
KEN ADACHI & EDUCATE-YOURSELF: PERMANENT FEATURE PROMOTING WATER AS A WEAPON BY JANET PHELAN
But there is another issue here, one that after much deliberation, I find it necessary to address. Note that Adachi, while running his hideous libel campaign against Barbara Hartwell, later adding certain of my associates, including ex-FBI agent Geral Sosbee, Dr. Len Horowitz and Sherri Kane, (all of whom, "coincidentally" have exposed Ted Gunderson as COINTELPRO) is strangely enough, promoting Janet Phelan, in a permanent section as a feature, which has been prominently displayed, front and center page of his website, since 2007.
SOURCE: Water Supply Sabotage
From Ken Adachi
June 19, 2007
June 19, 2007
Janet Phalen has been trying to get out this story for over three years. Her first expose on water supply sabotage was titled "Public ExterminationProject"
(http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/115676.php). Simply stated, cities such as Los Angeles are installing special valves and extra delivery piping into residential water supply systems. If you read Janet's first expose story, you will see how thoroughly the operation is being concealed and held in secrecy under a hush, hush "Homeland Security" cover. Her more recent story linked below includes more info and photos not seen in the earlier expose. I do not doubt the story she is trying to get out. It fits perfectly with the overall Illuminati depopulation agenda, especially their intent to depopulate America, the biggest stumbling block to the installation of a One World government. .
You have no idea what Janet has gone through in the past 3 years and the difficult conditions she has tried to survive through! That could be a book in and of itself. I've saw a great deal of roads adjacent to residential homes being torn up and new water piping being installed all around Irvine California in 2005 and 2006. Practically every major street throughout Irvine had new piping installed. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Water as a Weapon by Janet Phalen May 4, 2007
As previously stated, Janet Phelan KNEW all about Ken Adachi's longterm (since 2001) massive libel/slander campaign against Barbara Hartwell. She KNEW that Ken Adachi was a PR shill for FBI Chief/COINTELPRO Kingpin Ted Gunderson --a man she had claimed, in public reports (published by Barbara Hartwell and Sherri Kane, with her permission), had tried to murder her!
And yet, she never said a word about Adachi's many crimes against persons. Never a word in defense of her so-called “friends”, Hartwell and Sosbee, whom she KNEW were being relentlessly assaulted by Adachi's calumny, not privately, but PUBLICLY.
Not only that, but Janet Phelan continued, over a period of years (at least, from 2007-2012, to my knowledge, which I've documented) to have truck with Adachi, apparently only because it served her own agenda. She sought Adachi's “help” when she was being stalked and threatened by career criminal, predicate felon Tim White (one of Adachi's longtime accomplices in crimes against persons, including targeting Barbara Hartwell), and she even posted comments about this on public message boards, directed at Tim White, letting him know of Adachi's support for her.
Like seeking Count Dracula's “support” to stop robberies at the blood bank! Trying to use one bad guy to help get another bad guy off her case. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...and so on, and so forth, in this ill-conceived and unprincipled line of reasoning. (Which smacks of the sort of “protection racket” run by Gunderson and his cronies...)
But make no mistake: Janet Phelan clearly had no problem with Adachi's promotion of her, and his “support”; what's more, she was the one who had approached him to ask for it.
Moreover, she had the audacity and total lack of discretion, to discuss Barbara Hartwell with Adachi, herself being the one to bring my name up, when Adachi called her to ask her for “information” about Tim White, once Adachi had reversed his position and turned against White. Adachi went from one extreme, that of supporting –including, by his own admission, financially-- promoting, and defending this career criminal, to being hell-bent on “exposing” White. This, for the very SAME civil and criminal offenses these two perps had been in collusion for years to commit! Both of these perps are still at it, still in service to the same evil ends, still attacking the same Targets (including Barbara Hartwell), only now they're operating separately.
In a telephone conversation with Ken Adachi, Janet Phelan made the preposterous suggestion that Adachi could get “information” about Tim White from Barbara Hartwell! Unbelievably, in relating this to me, she actually laughed about it, apparently oblivious (and certainly unconcerned) to the massive damages caused by Adachi to every area of my life.
Janet Phelan falsely accuses me of “misreporting” events, of trying to “rationalize”, and calls me a “faithless friend”. I was criticized for “promoting” Barry Chamish, in light of all the “distress” she claims to have suffered because of his treatment of her? But it clearly did not matter to her at all about the very real, very extreme, severe distress caused by Ken Adachi, whose targeting of Barbara Hartwell is in fact part of a long-running counterintelligence operation meant to result in the total destruction of my life.
In point of fact, the massive damages caused by Adachi & co. are legally actionable due to numerous and ongoing civil and criminal offenses. The reasons I have not filed a lawsuit against this odious sonofabitch long ago are: that I lack the resources; that I have never been able to get any backup, any support for such an action; that I cannot afford to hire a licensed attorney; and that “Adachi” is using a false identity, possibly more than one pseudonym under which he does his dirty work. And all of this, sanctioned by corrupt and lawless government officials (like the late Ted L. Gunderson).
But despite the fact that I have been prevented from dealing with Adachi using the legal system, I hold him personally accountable for his many and varied injurious actions, and will continue to expose him (and anyone aiding and abetting him), if that's the best I can do. Like his former pal, Tim White, Adachi has been operating with impunity for many years, and no one has succeeded, thus far, in putting this criminal scamster out of business, once and for all.
Yet Janet Phelan laughed, and treated all this as if it were a game. Maybe it is, to her. But I don't play any such games, nor do I have truck with demonic characters like Adachi, so she would be well-advised to leave my name the hell out of it when conversing with this despicable character.
Lest it be forgotten, Adachi was (and is) in collusion with a criminal network whose civil offenses include organized libel/slander campaigns and monstrous invasions of privacy (posting PRIVATE/UNLISTED street addresses of Targets on the Internet), as well as criminal offenses, including stalking, soliciting crimes against Targets, sex predation & distribution of pornography (including targeting children), drug-trafficking, blackmail, extortion, death threats, aggravated harassment and criminal menacing. These criminals engage in racketeering galore, the methodology of ongoing COINTELPRO operations initiated by J.Edgar Hoover (1956), and continued for well over half a century by Hoover's protege', Ted Gunderson, until his death in 2011 --and is the current legacy of those survivors of Gunderson's criminal network, still operating to this very day.
I have documented the offenses perpetrated by COINTELPRO in detail in my reports (as well as in electronic media) for well over 20 years, and have developed the evidence against many of these criminals and furnished such, where possible. I have contacted the proper authorities and filed criminal complaints. I have compiled a list of witnesses, whose testimony I have collected, some of which has been made public. And yet, nothing –absolutely nothing-- has ever been done to stop these crimes against persons. It should be remembered that my reports exposing this criminal network were the original reason (at least the one given to me) for Janet Phelan's interest in establishing contact with me. She was the one who approached me, who evidently found some value in my work.
Yet clearly, having truck with this notorious criminal perp, this malicious liar-for-hire, this charlatan and scamster, Ken Adachi (exposed in detail since 2001, by Barbara Hartwell) posed no ethical concerns for Janet Phelan. Does anyone wonder, by this time, WHY?
(See reports on this site for names of perps promoted and supported by Ken Adachi, the details of their crimes against persons, and the outrageous, libelous falsehoods promoted against Barbara Hartwell, Geral Sosbee and others.)
Again, it seems likely that Janet Phelan's primary motive was self-serving ambition. She wanted the publicity Adachi could provide, given that he has a high-traffic commercial website, about which he regularly boasts of his millions in 'hit counts'.
No matter that Adachi's site is chock-full of New Age/occultist gobbeldygook and government-sponsored disinformation, as part of the controlled opposition, and thereby lacks any credibility among intelligent, educated, discerning people. No matter that she KNEW who and what Adachi is, and had openly admitted to me that she knew he was a “bad guy”. No matter that he was a flunkey of Ted Gunderson (whom she claimed had tried to murder her!) No matter the grievous harm Adachi has done to many legitimate whistleblowers –an assault on truth itself!-- with his outrageous lies and diabolical calumny. No matter at all, as long as she was able to take advantage of the “support” and promotion offered by Ken Adachi. Some “moral high ground”.
LEFT-WING IDEOLOGY: A GRIEVOUS ASSAULT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES
As mentioned earlier in this report, when I first began an association with Janet Phelan, I knew very little about her politics. Had I known then what I have since learned, I would not have wanted any involvement with her, being that her beliefs and viewpoints could not be construed as anything but antithetical to everything I stand for. Perhaps I failed to see the obvious, perhaps I was naive, and for that I can only blame myself. But I have never supported the ideology she espouses, I have only supported her personally, in efforts to stand against crimes and injustices which were perpetrated against her and others, some by common adversaries.
However, considering her disrespect for my privacy and personal boundaries, her eventual betrayal of my trust (for it was nothing less), and considering the unfortunate consequences to me, it is a support I now regret having given.
But I have noticed that since I broke off my association with Janet Phelan, the leftist agenda to which she subscribes has become far more obvious, even blatant. It could be just my perception; maybe nothing has changed. (If not, then I truly have been blind, and a fool.) But in any case, since this ideology, and those who adhere to it, would trample the God-given unalienable rights and liberties of every individual in this nation, I will provide some specific examples as evidence to support my considered professional opinion that Janet Phelan is a left-wing agitator for global government.
Let me start with by far the most obvious: Her involvement with the United Nations.
Here are quotes from an article by Janet Phelan.
“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."
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.
Next item: Janet Phelan's support for the Occupy Movement.
Here, an excerpt from an article by Janet Phelan, titled 'Occupy the Courts'
“A movement to expand the focus of #OWS to include a general occupation of the courts could take several different manifestations. For example, on a designated day each week, a local Occupy group could all enter a nearby courthouse and sit in on a certain department (if space permits!). Or, there could be a contingent of a local Occupy group which could make the courthouse its focal point and sit in on proceedings every day. Each Occupy group could come to its own determination as to how best to occupy the courthouses.
The seat of power is also occupied by the judges, not only by the financial institutions. If we are to truly take back our country, we must occupy the very places that those who have hijacked our democratic institutions now control.
The seat of power is also occupied by the judges, not only by the financial institutions. If we are to truly take back our country, we must occupy the very places that those who have hijacked our democratic institutions now control.
Occupy the courts!”
Not surprising, Janet Phelan's support and promotion of the 'Occupy' movement, just another political contrivance, masquerading as a “grassroots” phenomenon, but in reality funded and directed by movers and shakers of the globalist control freaks. (Think George Soros et al...)
In case nobody noticed, the participants were all screeching for socialism, even communism (same thing, different label). And judging from their lawless, ill-mannered, and utterly appalling behavior, such as public nudity, and sex exhibitionism, defecating on police cars (could there be anything more disgusting!) , vandalising both government and private property, etc., you would think they were all brought up in a barnyard. Who could possibly respect such persons, or take their “cause” seriously?
And in accord with her support of all this, why then, didn't Janet Phelan herself “occupy” the courts, as she was so vociferously urging others to do? I guess it was just more leftist political rhetoric, but not backed by action.
And she really expects anyone to believe she wants to “take back our country”, when she herself agitates for selling us all out to the U.N.? If she and her comrades get their way, the U.N. will soon have their “peacekeeping” forces marching right here on American soil, taking shots at anyone who stands up for their unalienable rights. But not to worry, she lives in Mexico, so it won't affect her in the slightest.
See this report for the unvarnished truth about the Occupy movement.
Occupy Wall Street: Agitating for Left-Wing Mob Rule
And for those interested, here is a brief report on the U.N. (2003 & 2007)
Next item: Janet Phelan proclaims her admiration for the “bold leadership” of Hugo Chavez.
In keeping with her left-wing agenda, Janet Phelan continues with an article about communist (oh, excuse me, I meant socialist) dictator Hugo Chavez. She offers a bizarre theory that the “cancer death” of Chavez may have happened because the “cure” (we are never told what precisely this “cure” is supposed to be) was somehow kept from him.
I won't bother saying much about this despicable despot, except that I shed no tears over his passing. I'd rather let him speak for himself. Here, just a few quotes should suffice.
You are the father of the revolutions on this continent, you are our father."
--Hugo Chavez to Fidel Castro (2007)
"Let's save the human race, let's finish off the U.S. Empire."
--Hugo Chavez: On teaming up with with Iran to take down America
ON FORMER UGANDAN DICTATOR IDI AMIN, 2009:
"We thought he was a cannibal ... I have doubts ... Maybe he was a great nationalist, a patriot."
ON CARLOS THE JACKAL, 2011:
"He was a worthy promoter of the greatest struggles ... a revolutionary fighter."
Janet Phelan, in her frequent appearances as a guest on 'TRUTH TALK NEWS' , hosted by Howard Nema, also covered the same theme (as well as offering up a plethora of additional leftist ideology on various subjects). I'll get to that in a moment, but first I'm happy to be able to present a far different viewpoint, one with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Here is a link to The Dave Champion Show.
Dave and Bill, in a traditon they have established, “every time a significant leftist dies”, raise their glasses in a toast: One more leftist, gone for good!
THE MISREPRESENTATION OF BARBARA HARTWELL
In 2012, I published a report titled, Trafficking with the Devil (link above), which was meant to set the record straight about my dealings with Janet Phelan. But evidently, the message didn't 'get through', even to some of those to whom I clearly stated my position, not only in my report, but also in personal conversations. Nothing was ever said to anyone which differed from what I have stated in writing in that public report. (Same applies to this one, which is far more detailed, but entirely consistent.) There has never been any malice on my part (though I was falsely accused of “animus” by Janet Phelan), and no gossip --only a straightforward narrative of the related events to concerned parties, solely for the purpose of making my position crystal clear.
In brief: This was a matter of principle. Janet Phelan treated me with great disrespect for my privacy and personal boundaries, betrayed my trust, and insulted my honor (that being the “personal” side); and after much evidence, analysis and reflection, I have concluded that, for all intents and purposes, her mentality is that of a communist (that being the political side). Therefore I wanted no further dealings with her. I sincerely wish her well, but do NOT wish her success in her endeavors to agitate for a globalist government. (What liberty-loving person could possibly support such an agenda?)
Howard Nema, a mutual acquaintance of mine and Janet Phelan's, was one of the people with whom I had discussed these issues, shortly after I broke off my association with Janet. In fact, he posted my 2012 report (Trafficking with the Devil) on a website called 'Truth Broadcast Network', run by Harry Link, of his own volition, not at my request. (But I have to wonder, did he actually READ it?)
I never asked Howard (or anyone else) to “take my side” against Janet Phelan. I don't think or act along those lines. On the contrary, I respect the rights of others to associate with whom they choose. I only told people the truth and left it at that. Howard has had Janet Phelan on his show numerous times since then, and I never commented on it, as it was not my business.
However, in a recent program (2014) where Janet Phelan was a guest, she had come on Howard's program to promote her new book, 'EXILE'. And I was astounded when she brought up my name, in connection with it.
She actually tried to use me as a reference or source (Barbara Hartwell said.....), as if to try to gain credibility/corroboration for her story about a man with whom she had been involved, whom she claims was a “government agent” (“Agent Smith”, as she has called him in her writings.) I haven't read the book, and don't know what's in it, so I wouldn't presume to comment further on that.
But I do find it necessary to set the record straight concerning the PUBLIC statements I HAVE read and heard, now that she has brought my name into it, supposedly quoting me from a private conversation some years ago. (I have no idea if she has brought up my name elsewhere in reference to this.)
It is true that I had many personal discussions with Janet Phelan about her situation, including about this so-called “agent”. I have never disclosed anything she told me in confidence, nor would I, as that would be a violation of her privacy, and against my principles. But what she herself has made public is an entirely different matter, and I don't want my name mixed up in any of it.
According to Janet Phelan, she was “lured into a romantic affair” with a man named Jack Smith. But in point of fact, as she has openly (and publicly) admitted, she actually met him as the direct result of a personal ad she had
placed in some sort of 'dating service'. She solicited his attentions, and he responded. I don't see any “luring” happening here. In fact that was my first thought when she told me of the circumstances. (Aside from wondering why anyone would advertise herself in such a manner, but that's beside the point.)
Then, she apparently at some point formed the opinion that he must be a government agent. And she solicited the opinions of a number of former intelligence professionals (who shall not be named by me), evidently trying to gain traction for her belief, but none of them (not the ones I knew of) would necessarily give credence to her story, as there was no evidence presented to substantiate such a theory. To my knowledge, there was no such evidence (not that I ever saw or heard, from any source) to establish this as a fact.
I mostly just listened to her story, and (like others of a similar intelligence background) have never been convinced that this was a fact, nor have I ever stated such an opinion. So for the record, I ask the readers to please disregard any such claims in connection with MY name. I don't know who this Jack Smith is, don't know if he is in fact an agent, and it doesn't concern me.
But I was also surprised (and not pleased) that Howard Nema would be publicly discussing this with Janet Phelan on his show, using my name, being well aware of my clearly stated position re both Janet Phelan and 'Truth Broadcast Network', run by Harry Link. Surely, he should have known better than to do that.
Here's why: I had told Howard Nema, in 2012, that I could not in good conscience any longer appear on his show, TRUTH TALK NEWS, nor promote it, as long as it was running on 'Truth Broadcast Network' (in my opinion, yet another misnomer, like 'Freedom Fighters for America' or 'Educate Yourself') run by Harry Link. This, after Harry Link began a heavy promotion of a number of the most notorious liars, shills and charlatans, including Alex Jones, but most notably Fritz Springmeier (aka Arthur Alexander Jr. aka Victor Schoof aka....who the hell knows what his real name is...), a convicted felon (bank robbery), a charlatan and promoter of 'Monarch', and self-proclaimed expert on “mind control”; followed by Rima Laibow, the liar and psy op perpetrator (like her infamous husband General Burt Stubblebine, who cruelly abused animals in his voodoo “science” psywar mind control experiments). Both of these individuals, Laibow and Stubblebine, are about as demonic as it is possible to be.
(Janet Phelan also promotes Rima Laibow and has appeared on her program, “Dr. Rima's Truth” --yet another flagrant misnomer!-- concurring on their very compatible belief systems.)
Rima Laibow made a psy op video, plastered all over the Internet, in which she promoted the fraudulent claim, “I am Adam Lanza's doctor.” Bullshit! She never laid eyes on Adam Lanza (if he even existed, which after doing my own research, I have come to doubt), which she actually admitted in a “disclaimer”. Those on 'Truth Broadcast Network' seized upon this hoax as if it were the Holy Grail, heavily advertising an upcoming interview with Rima Laibow on Howard Nema's show, TRUTH TALK NEWS.
When I presented evidence that this was a hoax and that Laibow is a liar, Howard cancelled the interview, but Harry Link was shortly thereafter heard criticizing Howard on his show, shaking his head in apparent dismay that Howard had not gone along with his own opinion that these characters (Springmeier, Laibow and other charlatans) were legitimate.
To be clear, I never presumed to advise Howard what he “should” be doing, or with whom. I only made it clear I wanted no part in it, and that I wanted my name LEFT OUT of anything related to 'Truth Broadcast Network'.
In 2012, at Howard's request, I had provided documentation on Fritz Springmeier and apprised him of a number of facts, based on my own investigations, going back many years, and Howard then told me he wanted to “expose” Springmeier, whom he had interviewed on his show, believing him to be legitimate, prior to making my acquaintance.
But his idea of “exposing” Springmeier was to set him up (on a show with Harry Link and another associate, Vincent Blasone) by using a pretense of supporting Springmeier, and then knocking him down on the air. I told him, when he asked me what I thought of this idea, Do what you want, Howard, it's not my business, but I want no part of that, as it is dishonest; and please do not mention my name in connection with any of it.
As it turned out, they never did “expose” Springmeier, they only ended up more heavily promoting and supporting him, and Harry Link put up front page banner ads extolling Springmeier's books, which, as legitimate persons 'in the know' are well aware, are filled with disinformation on government mind control programs.
(I should add that Janet Phelan has also promoted the work of Springmeier on “mind control”, a subject it has been made clear she knows next to nothing about.)
For a time, following this debacle (which he admitted had compromised his credibility, just as I had predicted it would), Howard made a decision to disassociate himself from Harry Link and 'Truth Broadcast Network' and go his own way. He even put up a public notice to that effect.
The last time I appeared on Howard Nema's show was December 2013, while he was still independent of 'Truth Broadcast Network'. By that time, Harry Link had expanded his promotions to include Alma Ott aka “True Ott”, another charlatan, liar and rabid Jew-hater, who had for many years been part of the Gunderson cabal. Ott was (and still is) also running a libel/slander campaign against Dr. Len Horowitz and Sherri Kane, and to a lesser extent, has attempted to discredit Barbara Hartwell, with the help of his lackey, a government stooge (and porno-monger, protector of child porno freaks) named Alex Studer, and the ubiquitous predicate felon, Tim White. And let's not forget Anthony Hilder, a longtime Gunderson crony, also involved in the libel/slander campaigns targeting Horowitz, Kane and Hartwell. Ott is, unsurpisingly, also an associate/accomplice of Ken Adachi, who heavily promotes Ott's libel against Horowitz and Kane. This is an organized network of criminals! Howard was well aware of all of this.
Harry Link also had tried to persuade Howard that Barbara Hartwell is a government agent. I had told Howard that it did not concern me what Harry Link thought. I don't know Harry Link (who touts himself as “Hardcore Harry”, and, as a publicity gimmick, appears on camera in a goofy looking “uniform”, festooned with medals), and have never had any dealings with him. I wanted none, as I view him as just another loud-mouthed grandstander, publicity hound and brazen opportunist, who lacks any discretion or discernment (if you doubt this, just look at who all he promotes and supports). He's a misogynist, to boot, which was clear from his disrepectful attitude and comments about women in general. Howard knew this, too.
Nonetheless, by 2014, Howard Nema was back on Truth Broadcast Network, aligned with Harry Link. That is his prerogative, but once I learned of this, that was all I needed to know. Not my business, but speaking strictly for myself, I wanted no part of it, nor would I ever.
I had asked Howard, during his past affiliation with Harry Link and 'Truth Broadcast Network', to please REMOVE all links to my website, and told him I did NOT want my name, my website, or my material promoted on that network, or associated in any way. I say what I mean, and mean what I say. I never told Howard that I had changed my mind, and I certainly have not. So I have to wonder, why he is continuing to use my name and to misrepresent me?
But his promotion of Barbara Hartwell, on 'Truth Broadcast Network' was not limited to his conversation with Janet Phelan. In July, 2014 I was again shocked to see that he had made a video which he titled “The CIA Black Book of Dirty Tricks”.
The program centered on a book I had given Howard in 2013, of the above title. I happened to be in Howard's company while sorting through some of my old stuff, paraphernalia I had acquired over a period of years. Howard saw the book and expressed interest in it. And since I had no use for it, I told him, Take it, it's yours.
It is important to state that I did not give Howard any explanation as regarded the book's provenance. I didn't say where or how I got it, or from whom.
But somehow, a “story” emerged on the program regarding this book. Howard held up the book to the camera and announced that he was given the book by former CIA agent, Barbara Hartwell. That much was true, I gave him the book. But I have no idea where the rest of the story came from. Such as: that I was “issued” the book by CIA during the 1960s or 70s. Or, that it was “CLASSIFIED”.
True, the word CLASSIFIED was splashed across the book's cover. But the book itself was NOT an official CIA document. And it was NOT “classified”. Furthermore, I would not have had in my possession any genuine “classified” document, though declassified would be another story. And lastly, anyone who took the trouble to look could have seen that the book had been PUBLISHED. (I don't remember by whom, as I no longer have it.) Only declassified material would have been published. Lastly, CIA does not “issue” such books to their agents.
It appears that Howard made a number of unwarranted assumptions regarding this book, as well as engaging in speculation. But to bring those assumptions up on a TV show, AS IF they were factual, in connection with my name, was a misrepresentation of me personally, and a misrepresenation of facts regarding CIA. Anyone with an intelligence background would know this, and if they believed that I was the one who gave Howard this “information”, would dismiss me as a crank.
And to do this, especially on 'Truth Broadcast Network', after I had clearly stated I did NOT want my name connected in any way with that network, is something I cannot understand.
But unfortunately, there's more....
On Howard Nema's websites
I recently found this announcement:
[LINKS REMOVED ]
Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA
Harry Link, Truth Broadcast Network
There are a number of links included, which I have removed; I don't wish to bring their names into this report, or comment on them here, as some are my friends and colleagues. I will give only the ones that particularly concern me. And my concern is this: Why are my name and website being falsely advertised?
Firstly, I am NOT, nor have ever been, a “partner” of anyone (including other names/sites listed in this notice) and NOT of Howard Nema, Harry Link, or Janet Phelan. Not literally, not figuratively speaking, and as far as I am concerned, not even in the spirit of any sort of partnership.
Secondly, the phrase “TRUSTED PARTNERS IN TRUTH” clearly implies one of two things:
That (among other names and websites given here), I am a “partner” of Howard Nema and aligned with his website and program. FALSE.
That all those listed are in partnership with the others, including Barbara Hartwell. FALSE. (I speak strictly for myself here.)
Nothing could be further from the truth. I am completely independent in all my work. I am not a team player, nor have ever been. And in fact I am extremely selective as to whom I associate myself with, especially when it comes to professional work, public promotion or endorsements.
This notice is deceptive in that it clearly implies some sort of group effort, one where “trust” is involved.
So it is very important that I state for the record:
I do NOT support or endorse Harry Link or 'Truth Broadcast Network'. I do not even know Harry Link, and in my opinion, he is not concerned with “truth”, but mostly with personal ambition, self-aggrandizement and publicity. Short on factual information, long on hype and sensationalism, indiscriminately promoting and supporting all manner of those who in my opinion lack integrity and strict adherence to truth.
I do NOT support or endorse Janet Phelan or her website, which I have made
very clear, for the public record, since 2012, long before this report.
And as a result of the continued misrepresentation of my name, my website and my work, in disregard of my clearly stated wishes, and his alignment with Harry Link and 'Truth Broadcast Network', I can no longer in good conscience support or endorse Howard Nema, his program or any of his websites.
And so, with all due respect, I must ask that Howard please REMOVE all references to my name, my website and my material from any and all sites with which he is associated. (Just as I had requested in the past.)
This is a perfectly reasonable request, which I expect to be honored. If at any time, for any reason, a person of my acquaintance requested of me that I NOT use their name, place a link to their website, or discuss him or his business,
my response would be: Your wish is my command, no questions asked.
And I must make this request publicly, rather than privately, because the misrepresentation of my name and work have already been publicly injurious to my good name.
That being said, I don't believe Howard meant any harm, but that he simply failed to exercise the proper discretion –unfortunately at my expense.
LEFTIST RHETORIC ON TRUTH TALK NEWS
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:
THE RISE OF GLOBAL TOTALITARIANISM
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?
AGITATING FOR LEFT-WING MOB RULE: TOTALITARIANISM, THE U.N. & THE NEW WORLD ORDER
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.
A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE
There is a civil war raging in this country. It may be officially undeclared, but those of us who stand on principle to defend Liberty and the God-given unalienable rights of the INDIVIDUAL, as protected under the Constitution, with no compromises, cannot help but see it, as clear as day.
It is not about those who call themselves Republicans and Democrats. It is not about those who call themselves liberals and conservatives. It is not about those who call themselves Christians, Jews (or any other religion, or lack thereof). It is not about those who call themselves “black” or “white”, Hispanic or any other ethnic group.
Rather, it is about those who WILL stand up for the principles on which this Constitutional Republic was founded, and those who will NOT. Unfortunately, those who will NOT are the majority of the populace. (And so has it ever been, from time immemorial...)
Some of the 'will nots' are merely ignorant. They have failed to put in the time and effort to learn the truth, much less stand up for it. Some are apathetic. Some have been sidetracked by all manner of distractions. Some have been deceived by the 'controlled opposition', the counterintelligence operations seeking to capture hearts and minds for their nefarious agenda. Some are like weathervanes, turning any way the wind blows. Some are flip-floppers, going back and forth, back and forth, never willing to take the side of what is righteous and just, and stick to it.
And some have willfully taken the side of compromise, in the false belief that they can serve an agenda which would force others into compliance. The ends justify the means...
But not to worry, they say, it is “for the common good”, and will all come right in the end.
It won't, it never has, and it never will. Compromise is the most of slippery of slopes and always ends with the compromisers landing on their butts at the bottom of a slag heap, wallowing in their own misery, bewailing their terrible circumstances –for which they have no one to blame but themselves.
All too many embrace the belief that “We are all in this together.” How many times have I heard this foolish phrase? Especially from the leftists, including the socialists, the communists, the Neo Bolsheviks, the 'Occupiers', the New Agers, the secular humanists, the U.N., you name it, most of the followers of all these camps are buying into it.
That is a falsehood so extreme, so ludicrous, I won't even try to put it into words.
But those who truly love Liberty, who hate tyranny (in any form, be it blatant, or concealed in flowery rhetoric); those who care about the future of their children and grandchildren, WILL STAND UP for what they believe in, what they know in their hearts to be true, righteous and just, what they hold dearer than life itself.
And speaking for myself, I don't care if the 'will nots', the compromisers, are strangers, if they are my mortal enemies, or if they are my friends, my family, my colleagues (or former friends or colleagues, estranged family) I will stand on principle, no matter what.
I am not influenced by what they have done for me, how much they have done, or what they think they have done. Their past support of me (material or otherwise) is not a factor to be considered. Nobody can buy my loyalty, nobody can pressure me to move from the rock solid position I have taken, which I will defend with my life.
I have no malice in my heart against anyone, even my worst enemies. Rather, in such cases, there is only righteous outrage and a pursuit of justice.
It is not my intent to “attack” anyone. I sincerely wish them all well and pray for them.
But when someone (anyone) takes it upon himself/herself to meddle in my business, to invade my privacy, to insult my honor, to disrespect my rights, to use pressure tactics in attempts to influence me, or to misrepresent me, using my name, my website, or my written material in a manner which disregards my clearly stated policies and principles, I will stand in my own defense, no matter the consequences.
Because I am defending something which is --by many orders of magnitude--far larger than myself: Liberty and Individual God-given, unalienable rights.
Barbara Hartwell Percival
December 15, 2014
“The individual is responsible before God.”
–Dietrich Bonhoeffer, No Rusty Swords
To be continued...