Friday, March 5, 2010

Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell dead

The Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell has died from his wounds after exchanging gunfire with Pentagon Security officers. The LA Times is reporting that Bedell was a 9/11 Truther and was angry about government enforcement of marijuana laws. 
Washington - The gunman in the Pentagon shootings may have harbored resentment for the military and had doubts about the facts behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
John Patrick Bedell, 36, died after exchanging gunfire with two police officers, both of whom were wounded.
In an Internet posting, a user named JPatrickBedell wrote that he was determined to see justice for the 1991 death of Marine Col. James Sabow in Orange County, which was ruled a suicide but has long been the source of coverup theories. The writer said the case would be a step toward revealing the truth behind the 9/11 "demolitions." 
The same posting railed against the government's enforcement of marijuana laws and included links to the author's 2006 court case in Orange County for cultivating marijuana and resisting a police officer. 
Court records available online show the date of birth on the case mentioned by the user JPatrickBedell matches that of the John Patrick Bedell who was killed after opening fire outside the Pentagon. 

So in the newly popular "Ideological Game", do we attribute this shooting to Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann?  Perhaps we should all just grow up and start blaming these incidents on the nut cases who carry them out.

Photo H/T: Mediaelites


Reaganite Republican said...

Good stuff, linked at Reaganite Republican-

hparis said...

No. instead, the government will use this as an excuse to shut down and/or root out any and all who may be affiliated with these causes or social networking sites.

I see this guy had a link to the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Great, wonder how long it'll be before they come pounding down MY door with their Patriot Act self-written search warrants all because that is a site I visit often?

I'm not a Truther, but I listen to Alex Jones on occasion, I agree with Ron Paul's stance on the war on drugs, and I think the 16th Amendment should be repealed.

The fact that guys like Bedell and the IRS plane crash guy are losing it has me more than a little concerned. I'm not so much concerned about the actions of these individuals as I am with the government's response to them.

Maybe this is the kind of "crisis" Rahm is hoping for - the perfect excuse to regulate the internet and suspend the 2nd Amendment

PeaceAndWar said...

Actually, Glenn Beck is the one inciting people to "reset" the government and "Take it back". Its safe to say the Mr. Beck played a part in the motivation of this man. If you can't see that, then you are willingly blinding yourself from reality for ideological reasons.

Clifton B said...


Thanks for the linkage

Clifton B said...


The government response to nuts like Stark and Bedell will obviously be driven by the media. The media is very anxious to connect all this junk to Tea Parties and so forth.

The administration sure does love "crisis" so in that case we should be some what concerned.

Clifton B said...


Sorry but that doesn't work. Bedell was deep into his delusions long before Beck came on the scene. He had major problems with Bush


and see:

As I have stated the Ideological Blame game serves no one.

PeaceAndWar said...

Clifton B:

I never said Beck had influence in his issues, just motivated him to "Take Action".

And its not about ideological blame, its about the consequences of inciting fear and violence regardless of ideology. But in all honesty, the right wing are perpetuating this far more than the left.

Clifton B said...


I am reviewing all I can about Bedell now and thus far there is nothing there that proves he ever listened to Beck, or any other right wing talk program.

Regarding people inciting fear and violence, you need only spend a few minutes watching MSNBC and you can see they incite their own version of fear:

Now what do you think the consequence are for manufacturing racism like this?

NookSurfer said...

I'm just glad that the officers that got shot aren't seriously injured.

PeaceAndWar said...

If you dont believe that the Tea party is motivated primarily by race, then I don't know what to say other than you are not looking at this movement objectionably.
Sure there are some black and latino men involved seeking attention (and getting it). But if you look at the demonstrations 95 percent are white.

But that's something I could care less about, where were they when Bush pushed us in this hole (a different issue).

To answer your question, inciting someone using shock rhetoric and subtle calls violence is far different than to frame an opinion by cherry picking facts.

FoxNews is not the only one as I said before, but its the primary one at this moment.

Clifton B said...


The Officers were quite lucky Bedell was a poor shooter.

Clifton B said...


As someone who actually attends Tea Parties, I can tell you race is NOT the motivating factor, government largess and the fear our children will be saddled in debt is the motivating factor.

Tea Parties did not spring forth under Bush because Bush did not expand the debt anywhere near as much as Obama. In less than two years, Obama has quadrupled the debt. There is no way not to be alarmed by that.

You seem quite susceptible to cherry picked facts. Your belief of Tea Parties and your easy acceptance that Bedell was incited prove that.

Here is more proof that conservative talk did not incite Bedell. He was a registered Democrat:

PeaceAndWar said...

Not suceptible to either cherry picked facts or opinions, Im a very impartial person and I like to see things for what they are.

Thanks for the link, Michelle Malkin is as trustworthy as a Used Car Salesman, but if what she stated turns out to be fact, then I was wrong for assuming.

My issues with the right wing remain, and to say that Obama quadrupled the debt is not true. I challenge you to look at the facts surrounding our economy with an impartial view.

History shows that the goverment increased its deficit EVERY time under a republican president as opposed to a Democrat.

Republican Ideologies of less regulation and cutting taxes dont work. This is proven over and over again.

Also, I appreciate the debate.

Clifton B said...


Malkin got her info from a list of registered voters. Bedell is a Dem last voted Nov 11, 2005.

Regarding the debt, the numbers speak for themselves. Bush left us with about a 500 billion deficit and Obama has upped it to $1.85 trillion. Obama is even proposing to add another 1.6 on top of that with his new $3.8 trillion budget. Name whatever Republican president you wish, none of them created debt at these levels.

Regarding regulation, it was government regulating bank through the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) that forced banks to lower their lending standards. The problem was made worse by the government stepping in to back these risky loans with Fanny and Freddy. If you were a bank and the government told you to make bad loans and they would have your back, you would proceed full speed ahead because there was no risk and that is exactly what they did.

Regarding tax cuts, I say all for it. You need only look at the way tax dollars are wasted. Those tax dollars come from real people, with real needs for their money. The more government takes from them the less the people have to pursue their own goal (i.e. life liberty and pursuit of happiness). Big government and big government solutions simply do not work.

Bruce Flitt said...


Related Posts with Thumbnails