NOTE: This report has been updated to include some of the latest offenses of busybody/gossip extraordinaire Janet Phelan and accomplices, including Karen Melton Stewart and Penny Shepard, just a few of the malicious gossips on social media running a defamation campaign against Barbara Hartwell. I will continue to update this report as time permits, and as the defamatory gossip makes the rounds, and the witch hunt proceeds.
Scroll down to bottom of page for UPDATES.
"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!"
"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
"Since Hugo Chavez was leading his country, boldly, in a manner that distinguished his leadership from the lockstep, pro-American arse licking that typifies most of the world’s statesmen at this juncture in time, one might ask if the power elite specifically bogarded the cure from Hugo Chavez."
– 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...”
About Janet Phelan
"Janet C. Phelan, investigative journalist and human rights defender that has traveled pretty extensively over the Asian region, an author of a tell-all book EXILE, exclusively for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook."
SOURCE: New Eastern Outlook
"In
the year 2000, an out of work reporter is approached by a man who is
not whom he appears to be. Lured into a romantic affair with him, the
reporter is soon to lose everything—her family, her home, her
country and nearly her life.
EXILE is the true story of Janet Phelan, who fled the US after the attempts to permanently silence her went awry. The lengths to which the intelligence community will go to cover their tracks is revealed in this memoir. The ultimate question—what is the meaning behind this grave assault on an American citizen—unfolds as the story is told."
EXILE is the true story of Janet Phelan, who fled the US after the attempts to permanently silence her went awry. The lengths to which the intelligence community will go to cover their tracks is revealed in this memoir. The ultimate question—what is the meaning behind this grave assault on an American citizen—unfolds as the story is told."
Book
Synopsis
SOURCE:
Janet
Phelan, who has touted herself as “reporter at large”, claims she
is living abroad in “exile”. She cites “the intelligence
community” as being the source of a grave
assault on an American citizen. Speaking strictly for myself, to
date, I have not seen, nor heard, from any reliable source, that “the
intelligence community” per se, has been involved, or has been
responsible, for the experiences reported by Janet Phelan. And I will
state for the record that I do not consider Janet Phelan to be a
reliable source. I have changed my mind about the credibility of
Janet Phelan, with good reason. And I certainly do not consider her a
“defender of human rights”.
In
regard to the intelligence community, I do know that Janet Phelan,
over the course of the years (2005-2012) when I had a professional
association and personal friendship with her, had made approaches to
numerous former intelligence professionals (including me), in
attempts to extract information, specifically in reference to her own
situation, as well as more general issues. I am just one of these
former intelligence professionals. As for the others, either I don't
know them personally, or am not at liberty to identify them, out of
respect for their privacy.
Suffice
it to say that from my experience and observations, Janet Phelan is
what is known as a “vacuum cleaner”, someone who goes from source
to source, using flattery to insinuate herself into a person's good
graces, while collecting their information for her own use.
Wait,
you may say, isn't that what a reporter does? Yes, in general, a
reporter conducts interviews with a source and writes an article. But
in this case, the “source” may find that Janet Phelan expects
some quid pro quo arrangement, after the fact. Or, she expects that
she will be able to make demands, based on her favorable promotions
of that individual. I see this as a sort of petty “protection
racket”, which the individual may be unaware of, until such time as
there may be some disagreement, or some conflict of interest. Then,
watch out! You will be badgered and harassed, accused of an “attack”
against her, when in reality you simply disagreed with her and stood
on principle for what you believe. This, in a nutshell, is what she
did to me.
All
the information presented here comes from public statements (some
from Janet Phelan) and from my own experiences, observations and
analyses regarding Janet Phelan.
And
I will state one thing up front: I have been provoked, repeatedly, to
the limits of my tolerance, by the hypocrisy, the opportunism, the
meddling and the attempts at manipulation by Janet Phelan. Much of
which is conducted behind the scenes, so to speak, via semi-private
communications, but not right out in the open where the subject has
the opportunity to face her accuser, stand in her own defense and
refute the false accusations.
I
publish this report in my own defense, and as always, the readers may
make of it what they will.
This
report is comprised of excerpts from previous reports, as well as
information I have found it necessary to add regarding more recent
events.
Specifically, this includes a number of false accusations against Barbara Hartwell, published on the Facebook page of one Howard Nemaizer (using the pseudonym Nema) in September, 2017. Howard Nemaizer, who has described Janet Phelan as “my good friend”, in his broadcasts of “TRUTH TALK NEWS”, published a defamatory article, filled with outrageous lies, bearing false witness against Barbara Hartwell. Janet Phelan added her own defamatory comments, along with other supporters of Howard Nemaizer. She accused me of “bashing” him “so badly”.
Just
as she has accused me in the past, of “attacking” her. In each
case, I acted in my own defense, when these individuals had invaded
my privacy, misrepresented and exploited my name, made a false
accusation. In each case, I set the record straight, with the truth
and the facts. As I am doing once again, tiresome as it is.
Since
I don't use social media, the defamatory comments by Janet Phelan
(and the smear piece by Howard Nemaizer) were brought to my attention
by my friend, journalist Sherri Kane, who was the sole individual on
Facebook who stood up against the accusers, and in my defense.
I
have now been falsely accused by Janet Phelan of the following:
Running
a “libel
site”; Barbara Hartwell is a “character assassin”; of promoting
“depraved lies”.
Since
she does not specify as to what she refers, since she presents no
argument, and no evidence for any of these accusations, there is
nothing to be said, except that I will not allow these defamatory
statements to stand unchallenged, as a matter of principle. Nobody is
going to call me a liar, especially “depraved”, but that they
will be exposed for their unjust and morally repugnant actions.
Here
are some excerpts from a previous report (2014), in which I provide
very specific information about my dealings with Janet Phelan, and my
analysis of her politics, as well as her character. Since she has
accused me of being a “character assassin”, the reader may make
his own evaluation whether or not this statement is accurate.
THE PRICE OF LIBERTY: A Retrospective on Political Persecution in America (2)
This
(above) is a very lengthy report, which covers issues in great
detail. Anyone interested may go to the link.
Excerpt
(2014):
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 [with Howard Nema aka
Nemaizer], 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.
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:
Michael
Herzog
Barry
Chamish
James
Arthur Jancik
Vinny
Eastwood
Scooter
McGee
Joe
Lanier
***********
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.
[See
original report for the various issues not detailed here.]
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.
So
I outlined my concerns in a letter.
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.
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
EXCERPT
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 psychobabble 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)
Here
are excerpts from Janet Phelan's e-mails to me. My comments follow.
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.
[link
removed]
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, 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".
Note
added, September, 2017:
I
received a gift in the mail from Barry Chamish, in 2014. In the
package was a note:
Barbara,
Thank
you for standing up in my defense.
Sadly,
Barry passed away in August, 2016. May he rest in peace.
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 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 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.
Now,
some evidence that Janet Phelan promotes and supports the United
Nations.
Here
are quotes from an article by Janet Phelan.
SOURCE:
"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.
More
promotion of John Kerry (Barf bag alert!) by Janet Phelan on “human
rights” issues. Her comrades, the left-wing agitators, will LOVE
this!
"In
presenting a recent report on human rights issues, US Secretary of
State John
Kerry
stated: “Here
is the truth, we believe: A government that fails to respect human
rights, no matter how lofty its pretentions, has very little to boast
about, to teach, and very little indeed in the way of reaching its
full potential."
Next
item: Janet Phelan's support for the Occupy Movement.
Here,
an excerpt from an article by Janet Phelan, titled 'Occupy the
Courts'
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/occupy-courts.html
"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
Next
item: Howard Nema (Nemaizer) and Janet Phelan misrepresent and
exploit the name of Barbara Hartwell:
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 the LA Times. 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 [where his
show airs]. Surely, he should have known better than to do that.
"I was first approached by Jack Smith back in October of 2000, when he
answered my personal ad
which ran in the LA Weekly. I was forty eight, divorced and looking
for something really special. What I didn't expect was for a killer
to show up on my doorstep.
On
the surface, Smith seemed to fit the bill. Forty-six, smart as a
whip, and though certainly not drop dead gorgeous, he still possessed
a certain confident charisma. And, as he said in his response, he
enjoyed many of the things I did—theatre, ballet, left wing
politics—and lo and behold! Came from the same Anglo-Jewish mix as
I did. The fact that Smith was tailoring his response to my profile
never occurred to me."
[Bold
emphasis mine, BHP]
-Excerpt
from Happy Birthday Agent Smith
SOURCE:
It
is not at all surprising that Janet Phelan has now become an
accomplice of the morally bankrupt scumbag and malicious liar, Howard
Nemaizer, to support him in his efforts to destroy my reputation.
To
wrap up this report, I will issue a warning to all and sundry,
especially those who are former intelligence professionals. Janet
Phelan, in my opinion, is a kind of “intelligence groupie”, who
likes to drop names and write articles which she uses to bolster her
own credibility, rather than out of a sincere concern for the actual
persecution from which many whistleblowers suffer.
I'm
certain that some of those reading this have received e-mails from
Janet Phelan, defaming Barbara Hartwell and calling me the devil
knows what, in her efforts to discredit me and my work.
She
clearly lacks the courage and the integrity to OPENLY address any
issues, so in her passive-aggressive M.O., she will claim “attacks”,
“character assassination” and “depraved lies”.
But
consider this: You could be the next Target of this meddlesome, self-righteous
busybody's gossip if you dare to disagree with her, or – heaven
forbid! – fail to comply with her personal demands. She will stir
up a world of trouble, just as she did for me.
Janet
Phelan: By her fruits shall you know her. With a vengeance!
Barbara
Hartwell Percival
September
26, 2017
ADDENDUM October 4, 2018
I have had no dealings with Janet Phelan for more than six years (since 2012). But I do have trustworthy sources, who have access to reliable information.
Since this report was published, over a year ago, Janet Phelan has continued to misrepresent her past dealings with Barbara Hartwell, and to slander me, not in any open public statements, but in malicious semi-private gossip, in attempts to discredit me.
In addition, she has continued to exploit names of other individuals, publicly, who have informed her, in no uncertain terms, that they want no further dealings with her. In a recent radio interview, Phelan has dropped the names of a former FBI agent/whistleblower, Geral Sosbee, and a former CIA asset, Susan Lindauer, attempting to enhance her own credibility by association.
And then, there is this. An article by Janet Phelan (2008), widely published on the Internet, in which the name of Barbara Hartwell is misrepresented.
ADDENDUM October 4, 2018
I have had no dealings with Janet Phelan for more than six years (since 2012). But I do have trustworthy sources, who have access to reliable information.
Since this report was published, over a year ago, Janet Phelan has continued to misrepresent her past dealings with Barbara Hartwell, and to slander me, not in any open public statements, but in malicious semi-private gossip, in attempts to discredit me.
In addition, she has continued to exploit names of other individuals, publicly, who have informed her, in no uncertain terms, that they want no further dealings with her. In a recent radio interview, Phelan has dropped the names of a former FBI agent/whistleblower, Geral Sosbee, and a former CIA asset, Susan Lindauer, attempting to enhance her own credibility by association.
And then, there is this. An article by Janet Phelan (2008), widely published on the Internet, in which the name of Barbara Hartwell is misrepresented.
SOURCE:
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2008/10/32533.php
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2008/10/32533.php
"These
tactics have a chilling effect on those who might speak out about the
covert, genteel violence being done in our courts, against the most
vulnerable of our fellow countrymen. And it has gotten worse. We have
journalists and whistleblowers now being imprisoned in our country.
Look at the fate of author Fritz Springmeier. Look at what has
happened to former reporters and CIA whistleblowers Susan Lindauer
and Barbara Hartwell."
For the record:
I did not give any such information to Janet Phelan.
I have never been a "reporter", much less a "former reporter". I have worked continuously as an advocacy journalist for more than 35 years, so where this false statement came from I have no idea.
I do not know Susan Lindauer, so I do not know what connection Phelan is trying to make. I can only say that my sources have told me that Susan Lindauer has disassociated herself from Janet Phelan, years ago. This is not meant as any reflection on Susan Lindauer. I have researched her case and consider her a credible source of information, unlike Janet Phelan.
And to use my name in connection with Fritz Springmeier, a convicted criminal (bank robbery), a charlatan and, in my opinion, fake Christian, whom I have exposed as such, going back many years, is unconscionable. She may endorse his credibility, but I most certainly do not, a fact she was well aware of during the time when I was associated with her.
Janet Phelan's accomplice in defaming Barbara Hartwell, Howard Nemaizer, is also a supporter of Fritz Springmeier.
ADDENDUM, January 8, 2021:
It never ends....
Janet Phelan, a cowardly left-wing agitator, passive-aggressive snake and secular humanist psycho-babbler has continued to lie, to spread false information, to invade privacy, now in collusion with other busybodies and intelligence groupies.
JANET PHELAN, GOSSIP & BUSYBODY ON SOCIAL MEDIA, WITH ACCOMPLICES KAREN STEWART & PENNY SHEPARD, MAKES FALSE CLAIM AGAINST BARBARA HARTWELL & RAMOLA D:
"You don't get it. She has teamed up with RD and is most likely heavily influencing her."
Karen Stewart:
"I know Ramola is her puppet".
Penny Shepard, intelligence groupie, fraud, liar, CIA-wannabe, who has engaged in public harassment and monstrous invasions of privacy, calls Barbara Hartwell a "Satanist" and promotes voluminous false information against Barbara Hartwell.
These lying lowlife gossips apparently have no better use for their time than to continue to concoct total fabrications!
See this evidence from Karen Stewart's Facebook page, where malicious liars, frauds, busybodies and gossips congregate, to defame Barbara Hartwell.
PERPS and Nutcases:
