Barbara Hartwell

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

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

JANET PHELAN: PROFILE OF A LEFT-WING AGITATOR FOR ONE WORLD TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT



"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


"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...”

--Janet Phelan, from letter to Barbara Hartwell (2012)


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.

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)

http://www.barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2013/07/part-2-trafficking-with-devil.html


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."

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.
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 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 [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