Two FBI Whistleblowers Take on Unresolved Case of Suspicious Letters Targeting Oregon Sheriffs

Dr. Fred Whitehurst, the nation’s leading forensic expert, former Supervisory Special Agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, and a whistleblower, joins
FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds on the highly questionable aspects of the suspicious letters targeting Oregon Sheriffs. After 7 months the case of suspicious letters sent to Oregon Sheriffs’ offices still remains unsolved. Dr. Whitehurst and Edmonds take on the case-from chain of custody and adherence to national forensic examination guidelines, to the singular questionable suspect, motive(s), timing, and the absence of any federal or state charges against the suspect.

*This is a good representation of significant blacked out stories we will be taking on with gusto and integrity. Please do ‘Your’ share: Pledge and help us activate others to make Newsbud a reality.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

Comments

  1. Tomcat108 says:

    Wow what a woman ! Sibel always knows how to see things rightly ! So brilliant ! Thx Sibel as always ! I love you ! Your my favorite of all the honest “alternative media” ! ☆☆☆☆☆ ♡♡♡♡♡

  2. michael bennett says:

    The more I look into the events related to the death of LaVoy Finicum, the bigger, and more important this case appears to be. From the over the top heavy handed way the government dealt with the protesters at the refuge, and how they are going after Sheriff Palmer, and Ammon Bundy’s lawyer. When I looked into how the BLM and court system are coercing the Hammonds out of their land (which started this recent set of events in the first place: see this article from October 29, 2015 in the TSLN http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke ), it became very clear to me it’s all tied together.
    Then I ran across this article from APRIL 23, 2015 in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=2, and also this article from Jon Rappoport from January 27, 2016: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/the-clintons-is-the-oregon-standoff-really-about-uranium/, things look very suspicious.

  3. I haven’t gotten through this fascinating episode in its entirety yet but one thing that caught my ear was this idea that these sheriffs were reacting against “extreme” gun control proposals by Obama. Did I hear that right? Because I haven’t seen any Obama gun control proposals that were remotely extreme. I’m always grateful to be corrected and educated, but from what I’ve been able to gather, Obama has proposed only the most milquetoast reforms aimed at enforcing existing rules on background checks, and making sure that regular, in-the-business gun sellers performed these checks routinely. I do realize there’s been a lot of “he’s coming for our guns!” hyperbole as a result, but if there have been any actual extreme proposals, I haven’t been able to find one. Extremeness is of course in the eye of the beholder.

    Am I wrong? Can anyone point to a Really Existing Extreme Proposal?

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      The most disturbing aspect of his proposals has to do with the “mental health” provisions, effectively putting the power of deciding who may or may not own weapons into the hands of psychiatrists, outside of due process through the court system. The ability of an individual to contest ones diagnosis is hence significantly weakened.

      Think about how this provision might play out in certain areas not exactly known for playing even-handedly towards ethnic minorities, not to mention how it may be applied towards otherwise “irate minorities” like ourselves, especially considering how creative the psychiatric profession can be in making up mental health “diseases” like Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD).

      It should be noted that the legislative version of this provision failed in congress on April 15, 2013…. and then the Boston bombing happened – curious timing to say the least. Now Obama is trying to do an end run around congress with his executive orders.

      • steven hobbs says:

        Hi RonO,
        ” — “mental health” provisions, effectively putting the power of deciding who may or may not own weapons into the hands of psychiatrists, outside of due process through the court system.” — Here, Here!

        I wouldn’t judge judges more or less biased than psychiatrists. Power arrives with multiple names, even “Consigliere”. It’s p;ower relationships! NO? Just as you say. Church, school, court, media, doctors offices, military, are n control systems endemic to Hollywood screens easily and presciently provided by elites to distracted minds.

  4. Like John, I’d also like to know what it is about Obama’s proposals which are viewed as being extreme. My recollection was that the proposals seemed quite mild and, dare I even say it, reasonable, but perhaps there are reasons why people see it as more threatening which I’m not aware of.

    • Just for the record, I realize that this question is somewhat peripheral to the main story, but it’s something I’d appreciate some more information on as part of the larger context. Maybe there are even specific aspects of these proposals which would help explain the nature of the targeting and harassment. The targeting of these Sheriffs may or may not be related to their stance on 2nd amendment issues, but at least in the case of Sheriff Palmer, it seems clear that they’re definitely trying to make some sort of example out of him in light of the standoff which I would agree makes the specifics of the previous instance highly suspicious.

      I think it would be worth looking into who the other Sheriffs that were targeted were to see what other connections there might be to explain a motive.

    • Raymond Kitchen says:

      Benny,

      Refer to Ronald Orovitz’s post. That is just One of the reason why Americans should resist proposals on the 2nd amendment. I’m Canadian so I really can’t say much on this but from the research I have done on this there was the part about being mentally sound to own arms in your current administrations proposal. Again like what Ronald has already stated that psychiatric association is very good a making up mental illnesses.

      • Thanks, both Raymond and Ronald for your input, I appreciate it.

        While I generally don’t view psychiatry with the same kind of distrust many others do, in this context I recognize that there’s definitely enough leeway within the subjective nature of defining “mental health” diagnostics that there’s ample cause for concern that this could be used as the grounds for state sanctioned deprivation of rights for political reasons versus legitimate public safety concerns. After all, how many of us here have encountered individuals who would define our distrust of the government or view various conspiracy theories we subscribe to as being paranoid, in some cases bordering on “crazy”?

        Regardless of my feelings about specific aspects of the application of the second amendment I agree with the fundamental rationale that we ought to resist any measure that allows the government leeway to selectively interpret aspects of our civil liberties.

        • Read Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry by Peter Breggin sometime. It is VERY disturbing. I couldnt even make it past about page 360 into the FDA corruption section. There is a book on amazon about how black people were much more likely to be labelled schizophrenic during the civil rights era, you may wish to look it up. There there’s the whole drugging of foster children crap. Also look up… What was the name of that woman that was a CIA asset and then was held on a military base psych ward where they attempted to drug her sensless until she couldnt blow the whistle? Susan Lindauer? Furthermore the reality of “mental illness” is that the vast majority cannot be proven to exist, and that that is provable, autism and maybe bipolar for example, arent even mental illnesses, but are neurological abnormalities. And because most of it is not something whose existence and be proven or disproven, and because people have faith in psychiatry, there is a TON of room for error, personal bias, purposeful sabotage as was the cas with Lindauer, greed… Etc and so on.

          • Oh, and then there is the issue with mass mental illness, such as that that allows people to think that killing jews or palestenians or black folk is okay or allows people to be so deluded as to think their govenrment is their for them and that THE DONALD or the Great and Holy Obama will save them or allows people to think that eugenics is a good thing or that allows people to think that droning will actually stop terrorism or that the sun revolves around the earth… etc and so on… you know, mass delusion, which of course allows these idiotic masses to believe in the insane and then disbalieve the sane. When such idiotic masses have a means to express their delusions as fact, usually with healthy doses of thought terminating cliches, it can be VERY dangerous and lead to a situation where pollyana’s like us are considered nut while the insane masses are considered sane. Then there is the issue where perception is necessarily delusional as a human can only know and understand so much, and therefore must fill in the gaps with their own, always flawed at some level, reasoning. I personally consider the majority of people, including authorities to be insane. The mere act of bias is insane. And looking at that experiment that was done where students were assigned roles as pisoners or guards and th guards became sadistic and the prisoners took on their role as oppresed, I forget the name of it, it was done in the 60’s or 70’s IIRC, putting some group or another in an official state sponsered position to lower the status of someone with an undesireable opinion to the level of “that cray cray f’er” is particularly dangerous. The act of granting authority itself creates bias. Typing this on a phone is such a PITA. That black bar with my avatar is taking up too much space.

  5. paving the way for ‘anti-government thought’ to be considered ‘mental illness.’ http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/elites-link-anti-government-thought-to-mental-illness-lay-groundwork-for-incarceration/ lynn b

    • Vocalist Lauryn Hill was ordered by a judge to undergo counseling to address various “conspiracy theories” she expressed with respect to the music industry in an open letter explaining her reasons for feeling the need to withdraw herself and her family from some of the harmful social and psychological aspects that frequently accompany critical success and fame in the music/entertainment industry. The order was part of a guilty plea and subsequent jail sentence for a failure to pay taxes during this period of withdrawal from the spotlight taken for reasons outlined (but not defended on a legal basis) in her letter.

      While anti-government paranoia can certainly be taken to extremes, I’d have to say the level of trust and lack of skepticism towards the government on the part of much of the public strikes me as more closely resembling a form of “mental illness” or a “psychiatric disorder” than the opposite. “Fool me once…” – But then again, I’m preaching to the choir here 😉

      • I have always wondered, why is it mentally ill to distrust, but not mentally ill to trust? It seems like the people who favor that way of looking at things have purposely created a this way of looking at things in an attempt to pressure people into not questioning them. This seems a particularly dangerous mentality to embrace when dealing with a species, such as ours, so apt at deciet.

  6. I haven’t clicked on the link as I am not familiar with that website, but it makes sense. The same shrink that came up with sluggish schizophrenia was applauded by the american psychiatric societies. It is just that all over again with ODD (obstinant defiant disorder) and whatever this new one is. What exactly is going on with this latesy psychiatric invention?

    BTW, is benswann.com a legit site?

  7. Latest, not latesy

  8. Apparently that website has shut down?

  9. With regard to the discussion thread on conspiracy theory and mental illness, Lance deHaven-Smith has written a pretty good book called Conspiracy Theory in America. Unlike most academic books on the subject, deHaven-Smith doesn’t look at conspiracy theorists as cute little kooks to be studied. He argues that America was built on conspiracy theory — the idea that powerful elites will always almost by definition try to deceive and manipulate the masses and that the checks and balances were meant to watch out for that sort of thing. He points out there’s a lot of dire language in the various founding documents about “tyranny” and “plots”, and he provides an academic theoretical context in defense of conspiracy theorizing, noting a strong tradition of conspiracy and conspiracy theorizing and conspiracy accusing in the halls of Congress and elsewhere, describing the current anti-conspiracy hysteria as a sort of social pathology, and quite a recent aberration from the norm in which conspiracies were just one more problem to be expected and defended against. The book is weak on modern examples — he goes from a strong analytical framework to some amazingly weak evidence, focusing at length for some weird reason on the resonance between the date 9/11 and the emergency number 911, and uses some of the weakest JFK evidence as well, but it’s good for the analytical if not the evidentiary framework.

    Like BennyB, I also recognize this is all a tangent off the main points of the video, but while it’s true that psychiatry and the insanity label are dodgy as hell (there are a few good studies demonstrating the inability of doctors to tell the sane from the insane, e.g., journalists infiltrating asylums in controlled experiments unbeknownst to most of the staff, and not even acting crazy at all, they get labeled mad for doing ordinary things, even their frank confessions that they are in there as an experiment and aren’t the least bit mad mark them as madder than Mad Jack McMad) — anyway despite all this there may be some baby in that bathwater and there might be ways to identify people who oughtn’t be allowed to play with guns. There would have to be safeguards and it wouldn’t ever be perfect but on principle, if somebody’s a raving maniac type with a history of violence, I’d have to find myself in favor of denying him his artillery.

Speak Your Mind