March 5, 2010
Angry anti-gov't writing linked to Pentagon gunman
WASHINGTON – A California man killed in a shootout with Pentagon police drove cross-country and arrived outside the military headquarters armed with two semiautomatic weapons, authorities said Friday. Internet postings linked to the lone shooting suspect reflect long-held anti-government anger.
John Patrick Bedell, 36, pulled a handgun at a Pentagon entrance, shot two police officers and was mortally wounded in an exchange of gunfire, authorities said. The two officers were hospitalized briefly with minor injuries.
A blog connected to Bedell via the social networking site LinkedIn outlines his growing distrust of the federal government. It gives credence to the idea that a criminal enterprise run out of the government could have staged the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
It was one of several conspiracy-laden Internet postings linked to Bedell to surface since Thursday night's shooting.
Authorities said Bedell, of Hollister, Calif., had previous run-ins with the law. They found no known connection to terrorist groups or ideologies, investigators said.
The attack outside the massive Defense Department headquarters appeared to be a case of "a single individual who had issues," Richard Keevill, chief of Pentagon police, said Friday.
Bedell died Thursday night from head wounds. Officials said the two wounded guards were officers Jeffery Amos and Marvin Carraway, both of whom returned fire. They said a third guard they did not name also fired.
Reached by telephone, Amos declined to answer any questions about the shooting but said he was doing OK.
"I'm fine and my family is fine," he told The Associated Press. "I just thank the Lord that he shielded me when all of this took place."
Bedell drove across country, including a stop at a motel in Reno, Nevada, law enforcement officials said.
It was not immediately clear how long he stayed there, or if it was anything more than a stopover on his way to a violent end.
Hints of a deep-seated mistrust of government emerged in Internet postings linked to Bedell. A blog connected to his LinkedIn profile contained a two-part treatise on big government, including its vulnerability to being controlled by a criminal organization.
"This organization, like so many murderous governments throughout history, would see the sacrifice of thousands of its citizens, in an event such as the September 11 attacks, as a small cost in order to perpetuate its barbaric control," the blog post read.
Keevill described Bedell as "very well-educated" and well-dressed, wearing a suit that blended with commuters when he showed up at the Pentagon's subway entrance about 6:40 p.m. But he was concealing two 9 millimeter semiautomatic weapons and "many magazines" of ammunition, Keevill said.
When Bedell seemed to reach into his pocket for worker identification, he was instead reaching for a gun, Keevill said.
"He just reached in his pocket, pulled out a gun and started shooting" at point-blank range, Keevill said. "He walked up very cool. He had no real emotion on his face."
Although the gunfire near the subway exit in Arlington, Va., lasted less than a minute, Keevill said, numerous shots were fired.
There was more ammunition in Bedell's car, which authorities found in a nearby mall parking garage. "He came here from California," Keevill said. "We were able to identify certain locations that he spent that last several weeks making his way from the West coast to the East coast." Keevill said he did not know what motivated the shooting: "I have no idea what his intentions were." On a Wikipedia page linked to Bedell, a user by the name JPatrickBedell revealed ill feelings toward the government and the armed forces and made reference to another conspiracy theory. JPatrickBedell wrote that he was "determined to see that justice is served" in the death of Marine Col. James Sabow, who was found dead in the backyard of his California home in 1991. The death was ruled a suicide but the case has long been the source of theories of a cover up. Sabow's family has maintained that he was murdered because he was about to expose covert military operations in Central America involving drug smuggling. That posting can be linked to Bedell through court documents matching the shooter's birth date but Keevill said Friday that authorities had not made "a final determination" that the shooter was the same Bedell. On the Internet posting, user JPatrickBedell wrote the Sabow case was "a step toward establishing the truth of events such as the September 11 demolitions." That same posting railed against the government's enforcement of marijuana laws and included links to the author's 2006 court case in Orange County, Calif., involving allegations of cultivating marijuana and resisting a police officer. The assault at the very threshold of the Pentagon — the U.S. capital's ground zero on Sept. 11, 2001 — came four months after a deadly attack on the Army's Fort Hood, Texas, post allegedly by a U.S. Army psychiatrist with radical Islamic leanings. Hatred of the government motivated a man in Texas last month to fly a small plane into a building housing Internal Revenue Service offices, killing an IRS employee and himself. The shooting resembled one in January in which a gunman walked up to the security entrance of a Las Vegas courthouse and opened fire with a shotgun, killing one officer and wounding another before being gunned down in return fire. The subway station in Arlington is immediately adjacent to the Pentagon building, a five-sided northern Virginia colossus across the Potomac River from Washington. Since a redesign following the 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon, riders take a long escalator ride to the surface from the underground station, then pass through a security check outside the doors of the building, where further security awaits. Keevill said the gunman gave no clue to the officers at the checkpoint about what he was going to do. "There was no distress," he said. "When he reached into his pocket, they assumed he was going to get a pass and he came up with a gun." Ronald Domingues, 74, who lives next door to Bedell's parents in a gated golf course community in Hollister, said he doesn't know the family well. But he said Bedell sometimes lived with his parents and struck him "like a normal young man."
Source: Associated Press
John Patrick Bedell, 36, pulled a handgun at a Pentagon entrance, shot two police officers and was mortally wounded in an exchange of gunfire, authorities said. The two officers were hospitalized briefly with minor injuries.
A blog connected to Bedell via the social networking site LinkedIn outlines his growing distrust of the federal government. It gives credence to the idea that a criminal enterprise run out of the government could have staged the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
It was one of several conspiracy-laden Internet postings linked to Bedell to surface since Thursday night's shooting.
Authorities said Bedell, of Hollister, Calif., had previous run-ins with the law. They found no known connection to terrorist groups or ideologies, investigators said.
The attack outside the massive Defense Department headquarters appeared to be a case of "a single individual who had issues," Richard Keevill, chief of Pentagon police, said Friday.
Bedell died Thursday night from head wounds. Officials said the two wounded guards were officers Jeffery Amos and Marvin Carraway, both of whom returned fire. They said a third guard they did not name also fired.
Reached by telephone, Amos declined to answer any questions about the shooting but said he was doing OK.
"I'm fine and my family is fine," he told The Associated Press. "I just thank the Lord that he shielded me when all of this took place."
Bedell drove across country, including a stop at a motel in Reno, Nevada, law enforcement officials said.
It was not immediately clear how long he stayed there, or if it was anything more than a stopover on his way to a violent end.
Hints of a deep-seated mistrust of government emerged in Internet postings linked to Bedell. A blog connected to his LinkedIn profile contained a two-part treatise on big government, including its vulnerability to being controlled by a criminal organization.
"This organization, like so many murderous governments throughout history, would see the sacrifice of thousands of its citizens, in an event such as the September 11 attacks, as a small cost in order to perpetuate its barbaric control," the blog post read.
Keevill described Bedell as "very well-educated" and well-dressed, wearing a suit that blended with commuters when he showed up at the Pentagon's subway entrance about 6:40 p.m. But he was concealing two 9 millimeter semiautomatic weapons and "many magazines" of ammunition, Keevill said.
When Bedell seemed to reach into his pocket for worker identification, he was instead reaching for a gun, Keevill said.
"He just reached in his pocket, pulled out a gun and started shooting" at point-blank range, Keevill said. "He walked up very cool. He had no real emotion on his face."
Although the gunfire near the subway exit in Arlington, Va., lasted less than a minute, Keevill said, numerous shots were fired.
There was more ammunition in Bedell's car, which authorities found in a nearby mall parking garage. "He came here from California," Keevill said. "We were able to identify certain locations that he spent that last several weeks making his way from the West coast to the East coast." Keevill said he did not know what motivated the shooting: "I have no idea what his intentions were." On a Wikipedia page linked to Bedell, a user by the name JPatrickBedell revealed ill feelings toward the government and the armed forces and made reference to another conspiracy theory. JPatrickBedell wrote that he was "determined to see that justice is served" in the death of Marine Col. James Sabow, who was found dead in the backyard of his California home in 1991. The death was ruled a suicide but the case has long been the source of theories of a cover up. Sabow's family has maintained that he was murdered because he was about to expose covert military operations in Central America involving drug smuggling. That posting can be linked to Bedell through court documents matching the shooter's birth date but Keevill said Friday that authorities had not made "a final determination" that the shooter was the same Bedell. On the Internet posting, user JPatrickBedell wrote the Sabow case was "a step toward establishing the truth of events such as the September 11 demolitions." That same posting railed against the government's enforcement of marijuana laws and included links to the author's 2006 court case in Orange County, Calif., involving allegations of cultivating marijuana and resisting a police officer. The assault at the very threshold of the Pentagon — the U.S. capital's ground zero on Sept. 11, 2001 — came four months after a deadly attack on the Army's Fort Hood, Texas, post allegedly by a U.S. Army psychiatrist with radical Islamic leanings. Hatred of the government motivated a man in Texas last month to fly a small plane into a building housing Internal Revenue Service offices, killing an IRS employee and himself. The shooting resembled one in January in which a gunman walked up to the security entrance of a Las Vegas courthouse and opened fire with a shotgun, killing one officer and wounding another before being gunned down in return fire. The subway station in Arlington is immediately adjacent to the Pentagon building, a five-sided northern Virginia colossus across the Potomac River from Washington. Since a redesign following the 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon, riders take a long escalator ride to the surface from the underground station, then pass through a security check outside the doors of the building, where further security awaits. Keevill said the gunman gave no clue to the officers at the checkpoint about what he was going to do. "There was no distress," he said. "When he reached into his pocket, they assumed he was going to get a pass and he came up with a gun." Ronald Domingues, 74, who lives next door to Bedell's parents in a gated golf course community in Hollister, said he doesn't know the family well. But he said Bedell sometimes lived with his parents and struck him "like a normal young man."
Source: Associated Press
Possible Conspiracy: Fear Mongering Attack on Free Speech
This isn't good. They mentioned internet one to many times for this to be about a nut job with a gun, pay attention to his actions, NOT where and how he wrote his thoughts.This is an attack on free speech. Any decent is being grouped into terroristic behavior. There is a movement taking shape here. The majority of outspoken websites such as this one wouldn't dream of doing anything like this. We are non-violent to our core. I see a limited patients/tolorance for conspiracy driven material. The reason why is it is just our kind of material that short circuited attempts to move us further faster into a form of government that favors the law makers/money makers instead of the law abiding citizens. In short we are holding on to our freedoms and they do not like that. We are not going for the tricks that should want us to give up freedom for safety. If we do that we will have nether says Thomas Jefferson. Nope this doesn't look good fellow LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who are non-violent to their core. Not good at all....
DISCLAIMER: Wait Wait before you start I can't stand Rush either, jury is out on Beck, But listen to the message beause it is true. I am not exactly sure Obama is behind it, but there is a push for exactly what these men are talking about
DISCLAIMER: Wait Wait before you start I can't stand Rush either, jury is out on Beck, But listen to the message beause it is true. I am not exactly sure Obama is behind it, but there is a push for exactly what these men are talking about
February 28, 2010
Obama signs one-year extension of Patriot Act
President Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.
Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.
The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.
Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:
—Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
—Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
—Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.
The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.
Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.
The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.
Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:
—Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
—Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
—Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.
The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.
Possible Conspiracy: Faux Difference Between Parties
One of the strangest prongs of conventional Beltway wisdom is the lament that there is not enough bipartisanship. The opposite is true: many of the most damaging acts inflicted on the country by Washington are enacted on a fully bipartisan basis — the most destructive political act of this generation, the invasion of Iraq, was fully bipartisan, as were most of the post-9/11 civil liberties abuses and other Bush-era initiatives– and, at least in certain areas, the harmonious joining together of Republicans and Democrats continues unabated.
February 15, 2010
Woman prof charged with murder in US campus shooting By Donna Francavilla
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama — A woman biology professor accused of murdering three University of Alabama colleagues after she had been denied a promotion was in US police custody Sunday, as a new report emerged about a fatal shooting in her past.
Amy Bishop, 45, a mother of four, was charged with capital murder and could face other charges including aggravated assault, district attorney Rob Broussard told a press conference in the US southern city of Huntsville.
Police said she used a nine-millimeter gun, armed with 16 bullets, at a university staff meeting on Friday. The gun was later found in the women's restroom.
A stunned Bishop, dressed in jeans and a pink sweater, was seen being driven away from the University of Alabama campus by police after the incident, shaking her head in disbelief.
"It didn't happen. There's no way. They're still alive," she murmured to local television station WHNT-TV as she climbed into the vehicle.
The shooting allegedly happened after Bishop, who had worked at the university since 2003, discovered several months ago she had been denied tenure, which would have secured her job in the biology faculty.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reported Sunday that Bishop fatally shot her brother in 1986 in suburban Boston.
According to police in Braintree, Massachusetts, 24 years ago, Bishop fatally wounded her brother, Seth Bishop, in an argument at their home, which police at the time called an accident, the paper reported.
However, Braintree police chief Paul Frazier said authorities were considering reopening the case because it may have been mishandled when Bishop was let go without being charged, the report said.
In Huntsville witnesses to the university shooting told local media screaming had broken out as the biology faculty met Friday in the math and science building, the Shelby Center.
The three slain faculty members were identified as Gopi Polia, the chair of the biology department; Maria Ragland Davis, a professor of biotechnology; and Adriel Johnson, a professor of physiology.
Two of the three people also injured in the incident were said to still be in critical condition on Saturday, while the third was in stable condition.
University president David Williams told AFP Saturday of his shock, saying his first reaction had been: "This can't be happening. It's incomprehensible."
The university, which has about 300 staff, has a "no-gun" policy on campus, he said. "We do not have metal detectors on our campus. This is a very safe community and it was a safe campus."
An e-mail alert sent to students Friday read: "There has been a shooting on campus. The shooter has been apprehended. Everyone is encouraged to go home, classes are cancelled tonight.... Counselors are available."
Williams confirmed about a dozen people had attended the biology faculty meeting, and said Bishop, whom he did not know well, had been informed several months ago that she would not be getting tenure.
The Huntsville Times said Bishop, a Harvard-educated geneticist and her husband, Jim Anderson, are credited with inventing a mobile cell incubation system, which could replace the old-fashioned petri dish.
The incident was just the latest in a series of school shootings to rock the United States -- most of which have been carried out by students -- amid the nation's ever-prevalent debate about gun control.
The shooting comes more than two years after the southern state of Virginia was stunned by the April 2007 massacre of 32 people at Virginia Tech University by a student gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, who then turned his gun on himself.
In 1999, two teenagers went on the rampage at Columbine high school in Colorado, gunning down 13 people before also killing themselves.
In the first six weeks of this year alone several shootings have already been reported around the country.
Last month, eight people were killed in Virginia by a lone gunman. And in early January a disgruntled employee at a Missouri plant of Swiss power company ABB went on a rampage shooting dead three people and wounding five others, before killing himself
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama — A woman biology professor accused of murdering three University of Alabama colleagues after she had been denied a promotion was in US police custody Sunday, as a new report emerged about a fatal shooting in her past.
Amy Bishop, 45, a mother of four, was charged with capital murder and could face other charges including aggravated assault, district attorney Rob Broussard told a press conference in the US southern city of Huntsville.
Police said she used a nine-millimeter gun, armed with 16 bullets, at a university staff meeting on Friday. The gun was later found in the women's restroom.
A stunned Bishop, dressed in jeans and a pink sweater, was seen being driven away from the University of Alabama campus by police after the incident, shaking her head in disbelief.
"It didn't happen. There's no way. They're still alive," she murmured to local television station WHNT-TV as she climbed into the vehicle.
The shooting allegedly happened after Bishop, who had worked at the university since 2003, discovered several months ago she had been denied tenure, which would have secured her job in the biology faculty.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reported Sunday that Bishop fatally shot her brother in 1986 in suburban Boston.
According to police in Braintree, Massachusetts, 24 years ago, Bishop fatally wounded her brother, Seth Bishop, in an argument at their home, which police at the time called an accident, the paper reported.
However, Braintree police chief Paul Frazier said authorities were considering reopening the case because it may have been mishandled when Bishop was let go without being charged, the report said.
In Huntsville witnesses to the university shooting told local media screaming had broken out as the biology faculty met Friday in the math and science building, the Shelby Center.
The three slain faculty members were identified as Gopi Polia, the chair of the biology department; Maria Ragland Davis, a professor of biotechnology; and Adriel Johnson, a professor of physiology.
Two of the three people also injured in the incident were said to still be in critical condition on Saturday, while the third was in stable condition.
University president David Williams told AFP Saturday of his shock, saying his first reaction had been: "This can't be happening. It's incomprehensible."
The university, which has about 300 staff, has a "no-gun" policy on campus, he said. "We do not have metal detectors on our campus. This is a very safe community and it was a safe campus."
An e-mail alert sent to students Friday read: "There has been a shooting on campus. The shooter has been apprehended. Everyone is encouraged to go home, classes are cancelled tonight.... Counselors are available."
Williams confirmed about a dozen people had attended the biology faculty meeting, and said Bishop, whom he did not know well, had been informed several months ago that she would not be getting tenure.
The Huntsville Times said Bishop, a Harvard-educated geneticist and her husband, Jim Anderson, are credited with inventing a mobile cell incubation system, which could replace the old-fashioned petri dish.
The incident was just the latest in a series of school shootings to rock the United States -- most of which have been carried out by students -- amid the nation's ever-prevalent debate about gun control.
The shooting comes more than two years after the southern state of Virginia was stunned by the April 2007 massacre of 32 people at Virginia Tech University by a student gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, who then turned his gun on himself.
In 1999, two teenagers went on the rampage at Columbine high school in Colorado, gunning down 13 people before also killing themselves.
In the first six weeks of this year alone several shootings have already been reported around the country.
Last month, eight people were killed in Virginia by a lone gunman. And in early January a disgruntled employee at a Missouri plant of Swiss power company ABB went on a rampage shooting dead three people and wounding five others, before killing himself
Possible Conspiracy: Mind Control Operative.
A couple things stick out about this crime. One is the reaction of the woman on the media file tape as she is being put into the car. This a tell tail sign of mind control. You say "TDC you have gone to far, you paranoid silly people! Everything is NOT a conspiracy, somethings are just what they seem, stop it!" Ok we accept that, BUT, I know that these type of events are relatively new on schools, campuses, and Military bases. There was the Austin Tower shooting back in the day, but that was very isolated. You are probably correct, this is what is seems, a woman that was mentally ill and triggered when she did not receive what she expected at work. This does not change the fact that we MUST alway be suspicious of these type of events. The reason being is the second point that sticks out to us, that is the strict gun control bills almost always follow. It is a well known fact that one of the ONLY things that stand between the Illuminati and world domination, that is to say a One World Government, is an Armed American public of 600,000,000. They want more than anything to separate us from our guns and these type of events followed by proposed gun control bills are the only way they can do it. We must be sick and tired of "senseless violence" and agree to give up the guns. As if guns are the problem. Stay vigilant,, and don't take the news at face value.
bigsteelguy
Well said Big Steel and I guess it is a matter of being immune to the news, or low frequencies, whatever the reason you are no fool. Great Video and Great Channel.
TruTHTVSpokaneWA
Another Truther with a keen sense of observation as well as a very well formulated Channel. Tru has collected suspicious events on the channel, take a look.
TheRoyMastersChannel
Those who know us know we adore wisdom. This elder statesman posesses just that. His channel lends credibility to the cause, please subscribe to both the channel and his way of thinking.
February 5, 2010
U.S. cleric: Accused Detroit plane bomber was my student
San'a, Yemen -- A radical American-Yemeni Islamic cleric suspected of ties to al-Qaida has said the Nigerian accused in the failed Christmas airliner attack was his student but that he didn't tell him to carry out the operation, Al-Jazeera television reported.
The U.S.-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, is believed by U.S. officials to be working with al-Qaida's offshoot in Yemen, which has claimed responsibility for planning the attempt to bomb an American passenger jet. Al-Awlaki also is known to have had contacts with the U.S. Army major accused in the Nov. 5 shooting rampage at the Fort Hood military base.
Yemeni officials have said they believe al-Awlaki met in Yemen with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian accused in the Christmas bombing.
Advertisement
Al-Awlaki, who is believed to be hiding in the remote mountains of Yemen, spoke in an interview with a Yemeni journalist who reported it to the Al-Jazeera Web site.
It was not clear when the interview took place or whether it took place in person. The journalist, one of the few said to have direct contacts with al-Awlaki, previously interviewed the cleric after the Fort Hood shooting.
"Brother mujahed Umar Farouk -- may God relieve him -- is one of my students, yes," al-Awlaki said in the interview, which Al-Jazeera reported on its Web site Tuesday. "We had kept in contact, but I didn't issue a fatwa to Umar Farouk for this operation," al-Awlaki was quoted as saying.
Al-Awlaki said he supported the Christmas attack, but it would have been better if the target was a U.S. military target or plane.
"I support what Umar Farouk did after seeing my brothers in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan being killed," he was quoted as saying. "If it was a military plane or a U.S. military target it would have been better ... (but) the American people have participated in all the crimes of their government.
"Some 300 Americans are nothing compared to thousands Muslims they have killed," he said.
Al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents and who once preached in mosques in California and northern Virginia, moved to his ancestral hometown in Yemen in 2004. He has become popular among Islamic militant sympathizers for his English-language Internet sermons, in which he explains to young Muslims the philosophy of violent jihad and martyrdom against the West and its allied Muslim and Arab governments.
Al-Awlaki exchanged up to 20 e-mails with the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood attack, U.S. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan months before it. Hasan initiated the contacts, seeking religious advice.
Yemeni officials have said they believe al-Awlaki met with Abdulmuttalab when the Nigerian was in Yemen late last year allegedly to study Arabic.
Yemeni security officials suspect he is involved in recruiting new members for al-Qaida's offshoot in Yemen and in dealings between al-Qaida fighters and Yemeni tribes.
Yemen has attracted renewed and concerted international efforts to fight al-Qaida. Members of the group have increasingly found refuge in the many mountain ranges of Yemen, where the central government has little control and tribal loyalty is key.
U.S. and Yemen are increasingly cooperating to fight the terror network, with the U.S providing nearly $70 million in military aid, as well as intelligence support, this year.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100204/NATION/2040439/1020/NATION/U.S.-cleric--Accused-Detroit-plane-bomber-was-my-student#ixzz0egET4Qu1
The U.S.-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, is believed by U.S. officials to be working with al-Qaida's offshoot in Yemen, which has claimed responsibility for planning the attempt to bomb an American passenger jet. Al-Awlaki also is known to have had contacts with the U.S. Army major accused in the Nov. 5 shooting rampage at the Fort Hood military base.
Yemeni officials have said they believe al-Awlaki met in Yemen with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian accused in the Christmas bombing.
Advertisement
Al-Awlaki, who is believed to be hiding in the remote mountains of Yemen, spoke in an interview with a Yemeni journalist who reported it to the Al-Jazeera Web site.
It was not clear when the interview took place or whether it took place in person. The journalist, one of the few said to have direct contacts with al-Awlaki, previously interviewed the cleric after the Fort Hood shooting.
"Brother mujahed Umar Farouk -- may God relieve him -- is one of my students, yes," al-Awlaki said in the interview, which Al-Jazeera reported on its Web site Tuesday. "We had kept in contact, but I didn't issue a fatwa to Umar Farouk for this operation," al-Awlaki was quoted as saying.
Al-Awlaki said he supported the Christmas attack, but it would have been better if the target was a U.S. military target or plane.
"I support what Umar Farouk did after seeing my brothers in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan being killed," he was quoted as saying. "If it was a military plane or a U.S. military target it would have been better ... (but) the American people have participated in all the crimes of their government.
"Some 300 Americans are nothing compared to thousands Muslims they have killed," he said.
Al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents and who once preached in mosques in California and northern Virginia, moved to his ancestral hometown in Yemen in 2004. He has become popular among Islamic militant sympathizers for his English-language Internet sermons, in which he explains to young Muslims the philosophy of violent jihad and martyrdom against the West and its allied Muslim and Arab governments.
Al-Awlaki exchanged up to 20 e-mails with the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood attack, U.S. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan months before it. Hasan initiated the contacts, seeking religious advice.
Yemeni officials have said they believe al-Awlaki met with Abdulmuttalab when the Nigerian was in Yemen late last year allegedly to study Arabic.
Yemeni security officials suspect he is involved in recruiting new members for al-Qaida's offshoot in Yemen and in dealings between al-Qaida fighters and Yemeni tribes.
Yemen has attracted renewed and concerted international efforts to fight al-Qaida. Members of the group have increasingly found refuge in the many mountain ranges of Yemen, where the central government has little control and tribal loyalty is key.
U.S. and Yemen are increasingly cooperating to fight the terror network, with the U.S providing nearly $70 million in military aid, as well as intelligence support, this year.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100204/NATION/2040439/1020/NATION/U.S.-cleric--Accused-Detroit-plane-bomber-was-my-student#ixzz0egET4Qu1
Possible Conspiracy: Liar Liar Underpants On Fire.
It appears that were are nearing the inevitable. To the observant this revelation is the first in a series of public connections to 9/11. Apparently this man who taught the Detroit Bomber is connected to Yemen AND 9/11. This is what we call in the conspiracy business a TWOFER. I must admit I have learned something new today. That is as long as the majority of the people show signs of believing the last lie, it can be recycled. Keep your eye on Fox. I think they will lead the charge on connecting the two events and stoking the fires of patriotism and duty of country to invade.
It is so blatant it is surreptitious if you can follow. It is so in your face it is hidden. When I was younger there was a saying. "If you want to dodge the police hide in the police station parking lot" I take that back do not keep your eye on Fox, do not give them any more attention than they have already. Just pay attention to the pundits on the other stations as well as the topic of conversation on talk radio. There you will find the blatant deception in the parking lot.
Excellent observation ddarko2012 and great channel. I will take this a step futher man. Haiti + Haarp = Distraction. (Below)
It is so blatant it is surreptitious if you can follow. It is so in your face it is hidden. When I was younger there was a saying. "If you want to dodge the police hide in the police station parking lot" I take that back do not keep your eye on Fox, do not give them any more attention than they have already. Just pay attention to the pundits on the other stations as well as the topic of conversation on talk radio. There you will find the blatant deception in the parking lot.
Excellent observation ddarko2012 and great channel. I will take this a step futher man. Haiti + Haarp = Distraction. (Below)
February , 2010
High court's ruling is a blow to campaign finance reform
How about tossing all limits and just fully disclosing?
From Sacramento — Maybe it's time -- time to junk all the political campaign contribution limits with their jumbo loopholes. Just give it up.
In many ways, the restrictions are useless and counterproductive, driving contributions underground and often through the laundry room.
Perhaps we should allow each candidate free rein to raise -- in bright sunlight -- whatever amount is possible from any source, but require that the money be immediately reported to the public. Faster, fuller disclosure -- maybe that's the only feasible way to confront the corrupting influence of political money.
If Exxon donates $1 million to a candidate for governor who then advocates offshore oil drilling, let the voters be the judge of whether that smacks of corruption.
Actually, I wince when re-reading these words. They read as though I'm headed for the dark side.
They're parroting the mantra of the political-industrial complex. The more special interest money in the election system, the more that complex prospers.
The words also echo the spin of many politicians, especially conservatives, who until last week's Supreme Court decision could not benefit from corporate bankrolling in federal races except through convoluted schemes, such as "political action committees." They bray about "full disclosure" but never seem to vote for it.
For years, I've had two thoughts about campaign financing:
One, politicians are like insects. Some bugs can adapt to a new pesticide and become tougher and smarter. Same with politicians and "reform." In political Darwinism, the fittest learn to survive in loopholes and outwit each new attempt to sanitize a Capitol.
Two, the ultimate solution is public financing of campaigns. If the public doesn't buy the politicians, the special interests will.
But the voters show no inclination toward buying public financing, at least of state politicians' campaigns -- not when elected officials are so mistrusted and Sacramento so destitute.
What I never thought was that the Supreme Court one day would decree that the 1st Amendment applies equally to individuals and to corporations -- AIG, Exxon, Tribune. . . .
But wait. Tribune, owner of The Times, does have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press. So why shouldn't it -- and Goldman Sachs -- be entitled to freedom of speech? What's all the moaning and screaming about? Someone needs to explain the difference.
Meanwhile, this seems most obvious: We've been headed down the road of reform frustration ever since the Supreme Court 34 years ago ruled that money is the equivalent of speech. I and many other people always figured that money was property.
But the court ruled that restricting money in political campaigns was the same as limiting speech. And that violated the 1st Amendment unless the restrictions were needed to combat "the reality or appearance of improper influence" stemming from large contributions.
Therefore, a billionaire could spend whatever she wanted of her own money running for office, greatly tilting the playing field. She couldn't corrupt herself, it was theorized.
But there could be limits on contributions to candidates who were not self-funded.
And in California state races -- unlike in federal campaigns -- restricted donations could be accepted from corporations and labor unions.
Exxon, for example, could give a gubernatorial candidate $25,900 per election.
But, through a huge loophole, the company also could pump an additional unlimited amount into an "independent expenditure" committee to support the candidate or attack his opponent.
Legally, the campaigns of the candidate and independent committee are not supposed to be coordinated. But even if they are, it's practically impossible to prove.
California's "independent expenditure" plague now will spread nationwide because of last week's court decision.
"The danger," says veteran Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, "is that we're going to have campaigns where actual candidates are drowned out by outside groups. . . . Every time somebody does something to the election system -- either through legislation or a court ruling -- it seems to make things worse."
In its decision, the court retained the longtime ban on direct contributions by corporations and unions to federal candidates.
But it allowed corporations -- and presumably unions -- to spend independently on political races. It found there was nothing corrupting about that.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who grew up in Sacramento as the son of a Capitol lobbyist, wrote in the opinion that "Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
The most polite thing one can say about this thesis is that it's frightfully naive.
But let Ross Johnson, the chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, and a conservative former Republican legislative leader from Orange County, expound:
"It's an idiotic decision that defies logic to presume that a corporation is entitled to the same constitutional rights as the people. Our Constitution starts out with, 'We the people.' It doesn't say 'We the corporations.' These are legal fictions that exist because of the sufferance of government. We regulate corporations in a number of ways."
As for independent expenditures not influencing officeholders, the former lawmaker says: "These people don't live in caves. If you're elected to the state Senate and someone spent $500,000 getting you there, you think you're going to return his phone call?
"And there's a matter you're voting on, and they come in and say, 'This is a silver-bullet issue for us.' Are you going to vote for the greater good of the state, or are you going to be swayed?"
"Last Thursday was not a good day for the American people. It's awfully difficult to look at this decision and have any hope for the future of campaign finance regulation."
How about tossing all limits and just fully disclosing? "I'm still for limits," he says, "but you make a great point."
But I haven't convinced myself. Keep trying with the limits allowed. Maybe someday we'll get a Supreme Court that knows the difference between money and speech.
Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/local/la-me-cap28-2010jan28
In many ways, the restrictions are useless and counterproductive, driving contributions underground and often through the laundry room.
Perhaps we should allow each candidate free rein to raise -- in bright sunlight -- whatever amount is possible from any source, but require that the money be immediately reported to the public. Faster, fuller disclosure -- maybe that's the only feasible way to confront the corrupting influence of political money.
If Exxon donates $1 million to a candidate for governor who then advocates offshore oil drilling, let the voters be the judge of whether that smacks of corruption.
Actually, I wince when re-reading these words. They read as though I'm headed for the dark side.
They're parroting the mantra of the political-industrial complex. The more special interest money in the election system, the more that complex prospers.
The words also echo the spin of many politicians, especially conservatives, who until last week's Supreme Court decision could not benefit from corporate bankrolling in federal races except through convoluted schemes, such as "political action committees." They bray about "full disclosure" but never seem to vote for it.
For years, I've had two thoughts about campaign financing:
One, politicians are like insects. Some bugs can adapt to a new pesticide and become tougher and smarter. Same with politicians and "reform." In political Darwinism, the fittest learn to survive in loopholes and outwit each new attempt to sanitize a Capitol.
Two, the ultimate solution is public financing of campaigns. If the public doesn't buy the politicians, the special interests will.
But the voters show no inclination toward buying public financing, at least of state politicians' campaigns -- not when elected officials are so mistrusted and Sacramento so destitute.
What I never thought was that the Supreme Court one day would decree that the 1st Amendment applies equally to individuals and to corporations -- AIG, Exxon, Tribune. . . .
But wait. Tribune, owner of The Times, does have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press. So why shouldn't it -- and Goldman Sachs -- be entitled to freedom of speech? What's all the moaning and screaming about? Someone needs to explain the difference.
Meanwhile, this seems most obvious: We've been headed down the road of reform frustration ever since the Supreme Court 34 years ago ruled that money is the equivalent of speech. I and many other people always figured that money was property.
But the court ruled that restricting money in political campaigns was the same as limiting speech. And that violated the 1st Amendment unless the restrictions were needed to combat "the reality or appearance of improper influence" stemming from large contributions.
Therefore, a billionaire could spend whatever she wanted of her own money running for office, greatly tilting the playing field. She couldn't corrupt herself, it was theorized.
But there could be limits on contributions to candidates who were not self-funded.
And in California state races -- unlike in federal campaigns -- restricted donations could be accepted from corporations and labor unions.
Exxon, for example, could give a gubernatorial candidate $25,900 per election.
But, through a huge loophole, the company also could pump an additional unlimited amount into an "independent expenditure" committee to support the candidate or attack his opponent.
Legally, the campaigns of the candidate and independent committee are not supposed to be coordinated. But even if they are, it's practically impossible to prove.
California's "independent expenditure" plague now will spread nationwide because of last week's court decision.
"The danger," says veteran Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, "is that we're going to have campaigns where actual candidates are drowned out by outside groups. . . . Every time somebody does something to the election system -- either through legislation or a court ruling -- it seems to make things worse."
In its decision, the court retained the longtime ban on direct contributions by corporations and unions to federal candidates.
But it allowed corporations -- and presumably unions -- to spend independently on political races. It found there was nothing corrupting about that.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who grew up in Sacramento as the son of a Capitol lobbyist, wrote in the opinion that "Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
The most polite thing one can say about this thesis is that it's frightfully naive.
But let Ross Johnson, the chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, and a conservative former Republican legislative leader from Orange County, expound:
"It's an idiotic decision that defies logic to presume that a corporation is entitled to the same constitutional rights as the people. Our Constitution starts out with, 'We the people.' It doesn't say 'We the corporations.' These are legal fictions that exist because of the sufferance of government. We regulate corporations in a number of ways."
As for independent expenditures not influencing officeholders, the former lawmaker says: "These people don't live in caves. If you're elected to the state Senate and someone spent $500,000 getting you there, you think you're going to return his phone call?
"And there's a matter you're voting on, and they come in and say, 'This is a silver-bullet issue for us.' Are you going to vote for the greater good of the state, or are you going to be swayed?"
"Last Thursday was not a good day for the American people. It's awfully difficult to look at this decision and have any hope for the future of campaign finance regulation."
How about tossing all limits and just fully disclosing? "I'm still for limits," he says, "but you make a great point."
But I haven't convinced myself. Keep trying with the limits allowed. Maybe someday we'll get a Supreme Court that knows the difference between money and speech.
Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/local/la-me-cap28-2010jan28
Possible Conspiracy: Illuminati Device To Influence America Protected By Supreme Court.
Lets face it this is where the rubber meets the road for Illuminati control. Look back at the Woodrow Wilson Campaign. The Illuminati bank rolled him into office to take control of Americas gold based currency immediately making it a fiat currency based on nothing but thin air and loans that enslaved every one of us. Wilson admitted this at the end of his life. Well finally we were gaining control of this by way of campaign reform. I could have told you this would not pass. If it had the Banking powers in the form of Corporate powers would have been crippled. We as people would have had a fighting chance when it came to electing people who had an interest in the people instead of furthering control of an ever strengthening Illuminati grip on the planet. This one was a no brainer. Oh and don't let Obamas indignation fool you. He knew how this would turn out. He just had to be on the right side of history.
SludgeReport2 Gives it to us square!! This man pulls no punches. Crazy robe wearing man seen a lot and it shows by way of wisdom. Right On Sludge!
January 31,2010
GG agrees to suspend Parliament until January
Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean has granted a request from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to suspend Parliament until late next month, a move that avoids a confidence vote set for Monday that could have toppled his minority government.
"Following my advice, the Governor General has agreed to prorogue Parliament," Harper said outside Rideau Hall after a 2½-hour meeting with Jean.
Harper would not reveal the content of the discussion, citing constitutional traditions, but he said the first order of business when Parliament resumes on Jan. 26 will be the presentation of the federal budget, to be delivered the following day.
"The economy is the priority now, and the public is very frustrated with the situation in Parliament. We're all responsible for that," Harper said in French.
Monday's no-confidence vote could have precipitated the rise of a proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Québécois, or could have resulted in another election, depending on the Governor General's response.
The decision to suspend Parliament — made after Jean cut short a two-week trip to Europe — only gives the ruling Conservatives a reprieve until Parliament resumes in about two months. At that point, the Tory government could be brought down when it tables the budget, which would be a confidence vote, as all money bills are.
In the interim, the Tories will continue to wage a public relations blitz against the Liberal-NDP coalition. But the opposition parties showed no sign of easing talks of a coalition and planned to continue waging their own campaigns to gain public support.
'Monumental change' required: Dion Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion accused Harper of "running away" from Parliament, and said only a "monumental change" from the prime minister would change his position on toppling the government.
"Warm sentiments are not enough. His behaviour must change," Dion told reporters.
NDP Leader Jack Layton suggested that his party may even try to bring down the government at the first opportunity — voting against a speech from the throne even before the Conservatives table the budget.
"We need a government that actually believes in what it's doing," Layton told reporters.
"[Confidence in the government] isn't going to be restored by seven weeks of propaganda."
He also accused Harper of attacking democracy by using a "parliamentary trick to put the locks on the door" so MPs cannot express themselves.
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, meanwhile, accused Harper of denigrating Quebec voters and asking his supporters to engage in the "worst attacks" against Quebecers since the Meech Lake Accord.
The reference was to the failed attempt to bring Quebec back into the constitutional fold under then prime minister Brian Mulroney.
Asked whether the Bloc might support the Conservative budget, Duceppe said he would be surprised if Harper met their demands.
Supporters greeted Harper Harper was greeted by about 40 chanting supporters, including many Tory staffers, when he arrived at Rideau Hall, the Governor General's residence, at 9:30 a.m. ET. A single anti-Harper demonstrator stood waving a sign reading "Harper Must Go."
Anti-coalition protesters wave placards outside Rideau Hall Thursday morning as Prime Minister Stephen Harper meets with the Governor General. (CBC)Opposition parties had hoped to have a word with the Governor General before she made her decision. They planned to present her with a petition with signatures from all NDP and Liberal members that the Conservatives had lost the confidence of the House and urging her to accept a coalition government.
Dion, who would head the proposed coalition, had said he sent a letter to Jean on Wednesday, urging her to reject any attempt by Harper to prorogue Parliament.
The Conservatives have lost the confidence of the majority of members of the House of Commons — largely because of their, in the opposition's view, inadequate reaction to Canada's financial crunch — and thus "have lost the right to govern," Dion had said.
The Conservative leader had vowed to use "every legal means" to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition government from taking power and took to the airwaves late Wednesday to make his case to the public.
In a five-minute, pre-recorded statement Wednesday night, Harper spoke bluntly against the coalition backed by "separatists," saying the federal government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together in the face of the global economic crisis.
Economic statement lambasted The coalition sprang up after the Tories released an economic statement lambasted by the opposition parties.
They accused Harper of doing nothing to address the current economic crisis and slammed what they saw as ideologically driven measures such as the proposed elimination of subsidies for political parties, a three-year ban on the right of civil servants to strike and limits on the ability of women to sue for pay equity.
Harper has since backed down on those contentious issues, but the opposition has pushed forward with the coalition.
The coalition — which would have a 24-member cabinet composed of six NDP and 18 Liberal MPs — has vowed to make an economic stimulus package a priority, proposing a multibillion-dollar plan that would include help for the auto and forestry sectors.
With 77 Liberal MPs and 37 New Democrats, plus the support of 49 Bloc members, the three parties have more seats than the 143 held by the Tories.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/harper-jean.html#ixzz0eGPWLNq5
"Following my advice, the Governor General has agreed to prorogue Parliament," Harper said outside Rideau Hall after a 2½-hour meeting with Jean.
Harper would not reveal the content of the discussion, citing constitutional traditions, but he said the first order of business when Parliament resumes on Jan. 26 will be the presentation of the federal budget, to be delivered the following day.
"The economy is the priority now, and the public is very frustrated with the situation in Parliament. We're all responsible for that," Harper said in French.
Monday's no-confidence vote could have precipitated the rise of a proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Québécois, or could have resulted in another election, depending on the Governor General's response.
The decision to suspend Parliament — made after Jean cut short a two-week trip to Europe — only gives the ruling Conservatives a reprieve until Parliament resumes in about two months. At that point, the Tory government could be brought down when it tables the budget, which would be a confidence vote, as all money bills are.
In the interim, the Tories will continue to wage a public relations blitz against the Liberal-NDP coalition. But the opposition parties showed no sign of easing talks of a coalition and planned to continue waging their own campaigns to gain public support.
'Monumental change' required: Dion Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion accused Harper of "running away" from Parliament, and said only a "monumental change" from the prime minister would change his position on toppling the government.
"Warm sentiments are not enough. His behaviour must change," Dion told reporters.
NDP Leader Jack Layton suggested that his party may even try to bring down the government at the first opportunity — voting against a speech from the throne even before the Conservatives table the budget.
"We need a government that actually believes in what it's doing," Layton told reporters.
"[Confidence in the government] isn't going to be restored by seven weeks of propaganda."
He also accused Harper of attacking democracy by using a "parliamentary trick to put the locks on the door" so MPs cannot express themselves.
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, meanwhile, accused Harper of denigrating Quebec voters and asking his supporters to engage in the "worst attacks" against Quebecers since the Meech Lake Accord.
The reference was to the failed attempt to bring Quebec back into the constitutional fold under then prime minister Brian Mulroney.
Asked whether the Bloc might support the Conservative budget, Duceppe said he would be surprised if Harper met their demands.
Supporters greeted Harper Harper was greeted by about 40 chanting supporters, including many Tory staffers, when he arrived at Rideau Hall, the Governor General's residence, at 9:30 a.m. ET. A single anti-Harper demonstrator stood waving a sign reading "Harper Must Go."
Anti-coalition protesters wave placards outside Rideau Hall Thursday morning as Prime Minister Stephen Harper meets with the Governor General. (CBC)Opposition parties had hoped to have a word with the Governor General before she made her decision. They planned to present her with a petition with signatures from all NDP and Liberal members that the Conservatives had lost the confidence of the House and urging her to accept a coalition government.
Dion, who would head the proposed coalition, had said he sent a letter to Jean on Wednesday, urging her to reject any attempt by Harper to prorogue Parliament.
The Conservatives have lost the confidence of the majority of members of the House of Commons — largely because of their, in the opposition's view, inadequate reaction to Canada's financial crunch — and thus "have lost the right to govern," Dion had said.
The Conservative leader had vowed to use "every legal means" to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition government from taking power and took to the airwaves late Wednesday to make his case to the public.
In a five-minute, pre-recorded statement Wednesday night, Harper spoke bluntly against the coalition backed by "separatists," saying the federal government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together in the face of the global economic crisis.
Economic statement lambasted The coalition sprang up after the Tories released an economic statement lambasted by the opposition parties.
They accused Harper of doing nothing to address the current economic crisis and slammed what they saw as ideologically driven measures such as the proposed elimination of subsidies for political parties, a three-year ban on the right of civil servants to strike and limits on the ability of women to sue for pay equity.
Harper has since backed down on those contentious issues, but the opposition has pushed forward with the coalition.
The coalition — which would have a 24-member cabinet composed of six NDP and 18 Liberal MPs — has vowed to make an economic stimulus package a priority, proposing a multibillion-dollar plan that would include help for the auto and forestry sectors.
With 77 Liberal MPs and 37 New Democrats, plus the support of 49 Bloc members, the three parties have more seats than the 143 held by the Tories.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/harper-jean.html#ixzz0eGPWLNq5
Possible Conspiracy:False Flag Attack
While I am not a canuck I have heard that many Canadians are very suspicious and out raged by this unusual turn of events in Canada Parliament. It appears Canada's leadership has suspended the Parliament sessions until after the Olympics. The yhave also hired a suspicious outfit to handle security. The same security outfit used on England's 7/7 Subway bombing. The same outfit that had security cameras turned off. The security outfit are Israeli nationals. By now we have all heard and seen the video of the New Your Police on 9/11 talking over their radios about Israeli's in a van parked outside of the Trade center. Whats all this mean? Maybe nothing..BUT it sure smell like something to a growing number of truthers. Truthers who if are correct are a thorn in the side of many high ups. This will be very interesting if something happens during the Olympics, what with all the You Tube videos running that will predate this possible event. What will You Tube do? Pull all the Videos? Or will the Governments pull all the truthers? They wish.
Below the Truther Girls do what they do best.
Below the Truther Girls do what they do best.
UltimateWarrior65 draws a comparision to the movie 2012. Good eyes Ultimate. .
UBER069 comes through with an indepth very well done video. Worth a look.
Friday January 29,2010
John Edwards mistress Rielle Hunter seeks return of sex tape from Andrew Young
Just when you thought the saga over disgraced presidential wannabe John Edwards couldn't get more sordid, now comes this - his baby mama is suing to get her sex tape back.
Rielle Hunter, the former mistress of the two-timing Edwards, has obtained a court order demanding that former Edwards aide Andrew Young turn over videotapes and photos Hunter says belong to her, reports CBS News.
According to the Maj. Charles Blackwood of the Orange County, N.C. Sheriff's Office, the restraining order "speaks to video recordings and photographs that depict matters of a private and personal nature."
That would seem to jibe with an account by Young in his new book, "The Politician," in which Young describes how he and his wife found a sex tape made by Hunter and Edwards just months before the January 2008 Iowa caucus.
Young says the tape in question clearly shows Edwards right in the middle of a "sexual encounter," but the woman in the tape is harder to identify. Young does say, however, that the woman was visibly pregnant and is seen wearing a thumb ring similar to one that Hunter frequently wears.
Young refused to hand over the tapes and photos to the Sheriff's Office on Thursday, CBS reported, but apparently negotiations continue.
Blackwood says Young "didn't comply, but he wasn't necessarily non-compliant."
The tussle comes after Edwards recently admitted to fathering a child with Hunter, Frances Quinn. It also follows news this week that Edwards and his wife of 32 years, the cancer-stricken Elizabeth Edwards, have separated.
Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/29/2010-01-29_john_edwards_mistress_rielle_hunter_seeks_return_of_private_tape_from_andrew_you.html#ixzz0e2e85Z1O
Rielle Hunter, the former mistress of the two-timing Edwards, has obtained a court order demanding that former Edwards aide Andrew Young turn over videotapes and photos Hunter says belong to her, reports CBS News.
According to the Maj. Charles Blackwood of the Orange County, N.C. Sheriff's Office, the restraining order "speaks to video recordings and photographs that depict matters of a private and personal nature."
That would seem to jibe with an account by Young in his new book, "The Politician," in which Young describes how he and his wife found a sex tape made by Hunter and Edwards just months before the January 2008 Iowa caucus.
Young says the tape in question clearly shows Edwards right in the middle of a "sexual encounter," but the woman in the tape is harder to identify. Young does say, however, that the woman was visibly pregnant and is seen wearing a thumb ring similar to one that Hunter frequently wears.
Young refused to hand over the tapes and photos to the Sheriff's Office on Thursday, CBS reported, but apparently negotiations continue.
Blackwood says Young "didn't comply, but he wasn't necessarily non-compliant."
The tussle comes after Edwards recently admitted to fathering a child with Hunter, Frances Quinn. It also follows news this week that Edwards and his wife of 32 years, the cancer-stricken Elizabeth Edwards, have separated.
Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/29/2010-01-29_john_edwards_mistress_rielle_hunter_seeks_return_of_private_tape_from_andrew_you.html#ixzz0e2e85Z1O
Who did Edwards Piss off?
I don't have much to say about this, only an open challenge. Find out who Edwards pissed off. Now we all know it is rare to actually get busted doing this sort of thing when your a politician. You have to have made more powerful enemies than you have powerful friends. But to be a very RICH politician and get caught? This stinks of conspiracy. Don't get me wrong I couldn't give two squirts of rat piss about Edwards, didn't vote for him,wouldn't have voted for him. It is just that inquisitive nature I have about me. I smell something very peculiar. Yes I have seen the videos claiming the man is a lizard. I even saw that VERY VERY ODD video of him having a Lizard Tongue (seen Below) I don't know how to feel about that, but I would be remiss on a conspiracy site if I didn't at least mention it.Below is mysterious Video by FakeWorld1
A Very Interesting Channel To Be Spotlighted Soon.
Who know maybe old John forgot to pay homage to the "Lizard King" on his last visit. ;)
Anything is possible. In any case please send me your thoughts on the subject.
Anything is possible. In any case please send me your thoughts on the subject.
Tuesday January 26, 2010
Former 9/11 Chairs Criticize Handling of Detroit Christmas Day Bomber Case
The two former chairmen of the 9/11 Commission expressed concerns today about how security agencies responded to the arrest of alleged Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and the decision to quickly charge him instead of attempting to gain valuable intelligence information. Before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, former 9/11 Commission vice-chair Lee Hamilton testified there needs to be more urgency when confronting Al Qaeda, saying the terrorist group "is on the march, not on the run…the sense of urgency for terrorism has been too low."
"Here is a man who may have trained with other people who are trying to get into this country one way or another, who may have worked with some of the top al Qaeda leadership in Yemen or al Qaeda generally and we don't know the details of that," Thomas Kean, former chairman of the 9/11 Commission, told the committee. "He may know about other plots that are pending and we haven't found out about them."
Source: ABCNEWS.COM
"Here is a man who may have trained with other people who are trying to get into this country one way or another, who may have worked with some of the top al Qaeda leadership in Yemen or al Qaeda generally and we don't know the details of that," Thomas Kean, former chairman of the 9/11 Commission, told the committee. "He may know about other plots that are pending and we haven't found out about them."
Source: ABCNEWS.COM
Possible Conspiracy
If this was an inside job sure they would not want him to talk. This is yet more evidence that the "well dressed Indian man" who lobbied on behalf of Abdulmatallab when the boy didn't have a passport was indeed his handler. Here a list of unanswered strange happenings surrounding this incident.The damning witnesses accounts that have not made the mainstream news. The authorities have been less than enthusiastic about interviewing these witnesses There was a mysterious man who stood up an filmed the whole incident. All this and now the government charges him prematurely. Before he was charged the kid was singing like a bird. So they charge him and he quickly lawyered up. You tell me.
Below You Tuber daryllawsonCA breaks it down nicely.
Below You Tuber daryllawsonCA breaks it down nicely.
