David Bellow, The David Duke of Texas: Wants A White President

Randy Newman professional troublemaker

KKK Working Well In Jasper Texas Via The Republican Party Members

BISHOP L.J. GUILLORY SPEAKS OUT ABOUT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTS AND THE ASSASSINATION OF REV. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR

The Martin Luther King Conspiracy
Exposed in Memphis

By Jim Douglass

According to a Memphis jury’s verdict on December 8,1999, in the wrongful death lawsuit of the King family versus Loyd Jowers "and other unknown co-conspirators," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government. Almost 32 years after King’s murder at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis on April 4, 1968, a court extended the circle of responsibility for the assassination beyond the late scapegoat James Earl Ray to the United States government.

I can hardly believe the fact that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, "Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?"

What I experienced in that courtroom ranged from inspiration at the courage of the Kings, their lawyer-investigator William F. Pepper, and the witnesses, to amazement at the government’s carefully interwoven plot to kill Dr. King. The seriousness with which U.S. intelligence agencies planned the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. speaks eloquently of the threat Kingian nonviolence represented to the powers that be in the spring of 1968.

In the complaint filed by the King family, "King versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators," the only named defendant, Loyd Jowers, was never their primary concern. As soon became evident in court, the real defendants were the anonymous co-conspirators who stood in the shadows behind Jowers, the former owner of a Memphis bar and grill. The Kings and Pepper were in effect charging U.S. intelligence agencies — particularly the FBI and Army intelligence — with organizing, subcontracting, and covering up the assassination. Such a charge guarantees almost insuperable obstacles to its being argued in a court within the United States. Judicially it is an unwelcome beast.

Many qualifiers have been attached to the verdict in the King case. It came not in criminal court but in civil court, where the standards of evidence are much lower than in criminal court. (For example, the plaintiffs used unsworn testimony made on audiotapes and videotapes.) Furthermore, the King family as plaintiffs and Jowers as defendant agreed ahead of time on much of the evidence.

But these observations are not entirely to the point. Because of the government’s "sovereign immunity," it is not possible to put a U.S. intelligence agency in the dock of a U.S. criminal court. Such a step would require authorization by the federal government, which is not likely to indict itself. Thanks to the conjunction of a civil court, an independent judge with a sense of history, and a courageous family and lawyer, a spiritual breakthrough to an unspeakable truth occurred in Memphis. It allowed at least a few people (and hopefully many more through them) to see the forces behind King’s martyrdom and to feel the responsibility we all share for it through our government. In the end, twelve jurors, six black and six white, said to everyone willing to hear: guilty as charged.

We can also thank the unlikely figure of Loyd Jowers for providing a way into that truth.

Loyd Jowers: When the frail, 73-year-old Jowers became ill after three days in court, Judge Swearengen excused him. Jowers did not testify and said through his attorney, Lewis Garrison, that he would plead the Fifth Amendment if subpoenaed. His discretion was too late. In 1993 against the advice of Garrison, Jowers had gone public. Prompted by William Pepper’s progress as James Earl Ray’s attorney in uncovering Jowers’s role in the assassination, Jowers told his story to Sam Donaldson on Prime Time Live. He said he had been asked to help in the murder of King and was told there would be a decoy (Ray) in the plot. He was also told that the police "wouldn’t be there that night."

In that interview, the transcript of which was read to the jury in the Memphis courtroom, Jowers said the man who asked him to help in the murder was a Mafia-connected produce dealer named Frank Liberto. Liberto, now deceased, had a courier deliver $l00,000 for Jowers to hold at his restaurant, Jim’s Grill, the back door of which opened onto the dense bushes across from the Lorraine Motel. Jowers said he was visited the day before the murder by a man named Raul, who brought a rifle in a box.

As Mike Vinson reported in the March-April Probe, other witnesses testified to their knowledge of Liberto’s involvement in King’s slaying. Store-owner John McFerren said he arrived around 5:l5 pm, April 4, 1968, for a produce pick-up at Frank Liberto’s warehouse in Memphis. (King would be shot at 6:0l pm.) When he approached the warehouse office, McFerren overheard Liberto on the phone inside saying, "Shoot the son-of-a-bitch on the balcony."

Café-owner Lavada Addison, a friend of Liberto’s in the late 1970’s, testified that Liberto had told her he "had Martin Luther King killed." Addison’s son, Nathan Whitlock, said when he learned of this conversation he asked Liberto point-blank if he had killed King.

"[Liberto] said, ‘I didn’t kill the nigger but I had it done.’ I said, ‘What about that other son-of-a-bitch taking credit for it?’ He says, ‘Ahh, he wasn’t nothing but a troublemaker from Missouri. He was a front man…a setup man.’"

The jury also heard a tape recording of a two-hour-long confession Jowers made at a fall 1998 meeting with Martin Luther King’s son Dexter and former UN Ambassador Andrew Young. On the tape Jowers says that meetings to plan the assassination occurred at Jim’s Grill. He said the planners included undercover Memphis Police Department officer Marrell McCollough (who now works for the Central Intelligence Agency, and who is referenced in the trial transcript as Merrell McCullough), MPD Lieutentant Earl Clark (who died in 1987), a third police officer, and two men Jowers did not know but thought were federal agents.

Young, who witnessed the assassination, can be heard on the tape identifying McCollough as the man kneeling beside King’s body on the balcony in a famous photograph. According to witness Colby Vernon Smith, McCollough had infiltrated a Memphis community organizing group, the Invaders, which was working with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. In his trial testimony Young said the MPD intelligence agent was "the guy who ran up [the balcony stairs] with us to see Martin."

Jowers says on the tape that right after the shot was fired he received a smoking rifle at the rear door of Jim’s Grill from Clark. He broke the rifle down into two pieces and wrapped it in a tablecloth. Raul picked it up the next day. Jowers said he didn’t actually see who fired the shot that killed King, but thought it was Clark, the MPD’s best marksman.

Young testified that his impression from the 1998 meeting was that the aging, ailing Jowers "wanted to get right with God before he died, wanted to confess it and be free of it." Jowers denied, however, that he knew the plot’s purpose was to kill King – a claim that seemed implausible to Dexter King and Young. Jowers has continued to fear jail, and he had directed Garrison to defend him on the grounds that he didn’t know the target of the plot was King. But his interview with Donaldson suggests he was not naïve on this point.

Loyd Jowers’s story opened the door to testimony that explored the systemic nature of the murder in seven other basic areas: l) background to the assassination; 2) local conspiracy; 3) the crime scene; 4) the rifle; 5) Raul; 6) broader conspiracy; 7) cover-up.

1) Background to the assassination: James Lawson, King’s friend and an organizer with SCLC, testified that King’s stands on Vietnam and the Poor People’s Campaign had created enemies in Washington. He said King’s speech at New York’s Riverside Church on April 4, 1967, which condemned the Vietnam War and identified the U.S. government as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today," provoked intense hostility in the White House and FBI.

Hatred and fear of King deepened, Lawson said, in response to his plan to hold the Poor People’s Campaign in Washington, D.C. King wanted to shut down the nation’s capital in the spring of 1968 through massive civil disobedience until the government agreed to abolish poverty. King saw the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike as the beginning of a nonviolent revolution that would redistribute income.

"I have no doubt," Lawson said, "that the government viewed all this seriously enough to plan his assassination."

Coretta Scott King testified that her husband had to return to Memphis in early April 1968 because of a violent demonstration there for which he had been blamed. Moments after King upon arriving in Memphis joined the sanitation workers’ march there on March 28, 1968, the scene turned violent – subverted by government provocateurs, Lawson said. Thus King had to return to Memphis on April 3 and prepare for a truly nonviolent march, Mrs. King said, to prove SCLC could still carry out a nonviolent campaign in Washington.

2) Local conspiracy: On the night of April 3, 1968, Floyd E. Newsum, a black firefighter and civil rights activist, heard King’s "I’ve Been to the Mountain Top" speech at the Mason Temple in Memphis. On his return home, Newsum returned a phone call from his lieutenant and was told he had been temporarily transferred, effective April 4, from Fire Station 2, located across the street from the Lorraine Motel, to Fire Station 3l. Newsum testified that he was not needed at the new station. However, he was needed at his old station because his departure left it "out of service unless somebody else was detailed to my company in my stead." After making many queries, Newsum was eventually told he had been transferred by request of the police department.

The only other black firefighter at Fire Station 2, Norvell E. Wallace, testified that he, too, received orders from his superior officer on the night of April 3 for a temporary transfer to a fire station far removed from the Lorraine Motel. He was later told vaguely that he had been threatened.

Wallace guessed it was because "I was putting out fires," he told the jury with a smile. Asked if he ever received a satisfactory explanation for his transfer Wallace answered, "No. Never did. Not to this day."

The rest of this article can be found in The Assassinations, edited by Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease.

Qui est l'ombudsman INTERNATIONAL - Etats-Unis?

Qui est l'ombudsman INTERNATIONAL - Etats-Unis?


International de l'Ombudsman, prend les plaintes concernant des fonctionnaires et / ou la corruption de fonctionnaires publics. À cet égard, nous avons un contrat d'un enquêteur privé pour enquêter sur la plainte. Si la plainte se trouve être vrai, nous vous ferons parvenir la plainte et d'enquête des données au procureur général et / ou d'autres organismes d'application de la loi.

Notre organisation n'est pas une organisation politique mais nous nous réservons le droit d'enquêter sur les revendications de la corruption, surtout lorsque la vie de nos jeunes, l'avenir de demain, sont compromises. C'est notre droit et il est de notre devoir, d'enquêter, le rapport, et de diffuser les conclusions de la corruption.

Simplement en prenant les plaintes, enquêter sur les plaintes, et à ces plaintes du public ne signifie pas un engagement politique. Notre organisation n'est ni pro, ni con, ni les républicains ni le Parti démocrate. Nous ne sommes pas favorables à la corruption!

Notre organisation a constaté que la racine sous-jacente à sauver nos enfants du système carcéral en impasse est fondée sur la vérité ainsi que la parole de God.We également assister à des colloques à travers les États-Unis d'Amérique. Ces colloques sont spécifiquement sur les questions relatives aux gangs de jeunes, les drogues, l'incarcération des mineurs, et la réforme pénitentiaire.

Organismes d'État, organismes sans but lucratif, ainsi que des églises parrainer ces événements. Assister à ces activités est très essentiel pour notre organisation car elle nous donne l'occasion de participer à la diffusion de nos matériaux ainsi que de s'unir avec les autres qui travaillent dans le domaine de la prévention du crime.

Une autre activité à laquelle nous participons est le programme de visites à la prison / jail. Nous sommes autorisés à visiter sur une base en tête-à-tête avec le prisonnier.Dans la plupart des cas, le prisonnier ne serait pas recevoir la visite de quelqu'un.Nous utilisons cette occasion à la communion avec les prisonniers. Il n'ya pas de remboursement pour les frais (voyage / repas) engagés par les bénévoles lors de leur visite un prisonnier.

En outre, nous sommes «auditeurs» lorsque les parents des jeunes incarcérés venir au bureau pour ramasser l'information, de ventilation, de trouver des ressources, ainsi que de communiquer leurs préoccupations au sujet de leur bureau ones.The aimé est aussi un centre de distribution pour les nombreuses brochures, brochures et autres documents imprimés tels que des articles écrits par des prisonniers réels que nous distribuons gratuitement.

Nous, International de l'Ombudsman, sont complètement à l'intention du public / contribuables. Nous sommes de nature religieuse, parce que nous mettons Dieu en premier dans tout ce que nous faisons. Nous aidons les gens ayant besoin de notre aide. Nous nous battons pour les personnes qui, autrement, se coucha et ne se battent pas pour eux-mêmes.

Quand on visite les prisons, nous mettons Dieu en premier. Quand nous parlons à des symposiums sur, nous mettons Dieu en premier. Dans le milieu de la nuit, quand nous répondre à des appels faits par les mères dont les enfants, plus précisément à leurs fils, sont abattus dans les rues et ils n'ont pas de directives sur la façon d'obtenir leurs nombreuses questions réponses des services de police locaux, nous répondons à leurs appels et mettre Dieu en premier.
Publié par Nouvelles Presse Médiateur

Archbishop L. J. Guillory Supports Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo

News

Print Article | Email Friend | Reprint Permissions

US Bishop on unrepentant pro-abort pols: ‘Treat them as a tax collector or Gentile. Expel him.’

BY CHRISTINE DHANAGOM

FARGO, North Dakota, August 11, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Church should seek the conversion of pro-abortion politicians, but if they remain obstinate they should be expelled from the Church, says Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo.

The Bishop proposed in aninterview with Catholic World Report this week that Bishops should take their cue from the Gospel of Matthew in handling pro-abortion politicians.

“Our Lord tells us to speak to the person, and then take two or three others with us if he does not change,” he said. “If he still does not change, the Church can speak to him, which is done through the bishop. [The bishop] exercises the authority of Christ. Christ then says that if that person is still obstinate and will not change, treat them as a tax collector or Gentile. Expel him.’”

The Bishop continued: “Catholics are called to defend human life, particularly that of the unborn. The Church’s teaching is clear. If we don’t challenge public officials who reject this teaching, we leave them in their sins and confuse the faithful.”

Aquila, who has been the spiritual head of the diocese of Fargo in North Dakota for ten years, is well known for his support for the pro-life cause.

His active support for the 40 Days for Life campaign in Fargo included sending a letter to the priests of the diocese asking them to sign up for an hour of prayer outside an abortion clinic. He has also personally led prayer vigils outside Fargo’s only abortuary.

The Bishop told Catholic World Report that his commitment to pro-life advocacy began in the 1970s, when he got a glimpse of the devastating aftermath of an abortion as an orderly in an emergency room in Colorado.

“A woman who had had an incomplete abortion was brought in. Those of us working in the emergency room were pro-life and had had nothing to do with the abortion, but were trying to help the woman afterward,” he said.

“It was there I first saw the remains of an unborn child, about three and a half months along. It really impacted me. It was impressed in my mind and my heart and that this was a human life. It had now been forever destroyed. Ever since then I’ve been outspoken on human-life issues, and tried to help people to understand the dignity of human life.”

Aquila also told the news service that clergy should be outspoken in defending the Church’s teaching in other areas, as well, particularly regarding the sanctity of marriage.

“The Church has been clear that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and we need to continue to speak clearly to society on the truth, dignity, and meaning of marriage,” he said.

DON'T SPY ON ME

Tell Congress to protect your privacy from invasive cell phone location spying. Do not forward: This link will open a page with your information already filled in.

Do you use a cell phone? Chances are, your answer is "yes." Does the government have the ability to track where you go, what you do, even who you know — all by using your phone? Well, that's a definite "yes."

The fact is, if you use a cell phone, your location is being recorded and stored. And law enforcement agencies see it as a gold mine of information that's there for the taking. We already know that one local police department sought information about every cell phone that happened to be in the vicinity of a planned labor protest.

We shouldn't have to choose between the convenience of technology and our right to personal privacy. New bills have been introduced by Sen. Wyden and Rep. Chaffetz that would create stronger location privacy protections. Tell your senators and representative to support updated location privacy legislation now. (Do not forward: This link will open a page with your information already filled in.)

Currently, the government claims that it doesn't need to go to a judge and get a full probable cause warrant before tracking cell phones. And because the government's applications are secret, we don't know just how it's using this invasive form of surveillance.

That's why last week, 34 ACLU affiliates across the country filed public records requests to find out just how far local law enforcement is going to track people using their cell phones. Through our public records requests, we expect to learn more about when, why and how local police are using cell phone location data to track us. In the meantime, we need to act now to demand stronger laws that protect all of us.

Tell the government that you want your location information to be kept private.

Thank you for standing with us.

Sincerely,

The ACLU Online Team

Archbishop L.J. Guillory, Has Asked That All National and International Members of World Religious Community To Pray For Peace!

"THAT'S MY MESSAGE TO ALL MEN OF GOD!" LET THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD SEE YOUR LIGHT!" "WE MUST START SHOWING THE WORLD THAT RELIGIOUS LEADERS PRAY!" SAID, ARCHBISHOP L. J. GUILLORY.

A high-ranking Israeli official on Sunday slammed a statement from Catholic bishops, who called for international organizations to lead the cause of Palestinian statehood.

Greek-Melchite Archbishop Cyrille Bustros sparked an interreligious firestorm when he suggested that Israel was “using Scripture” to continue its occupation of Palestinian territory.

"The Holy Scriptures cannot be used to justify the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians,”Bustros said at the close of a two-week conference in Rome, Italy, “to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands.”

The Archbishop then questioned the biblical idea of a “promised land” set aside by a specific group of people.

"We Christians cannot speak of the promised land as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people,” Bustros continued. "This promise was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people – all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."

Bustros led the group that drafted the synod's concluding statement on Israel and the Palestinians.

The controversial comments came at the conclusion of a two-week Vatican conference assembled to discuss the plight of Christians in the Middle East.

Pope Benedict XVI was in attendance at the synod and celebrated Mass in St. Peter's Cathedral on Sunday with the bishops.

Israel responds

On Sunday, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon criticized the concluding statement of the conference, saying the forum has been “hijacked by an anti-Israeli majority."

"We express our disappointment that this important synod has become a forum for political attacks on Israel in the best history of Arab propaganda," Ayalon said in a statement. "The synod was hijacked by an anti-Israel majority."

Ayalon then called on the Vatican to distance itself from the comments, which the Israeli official said amounted to“libel.”

"We call on the Vatican to distance themselves from Archbishop Bustros' comments which are a libel against the Jewish People and the State of Israel and should not be construed as the Vatican's official position," the foreign minister said in his statement. "These outrageous comments should not cast a shadow over the important relationship between the Vatican, the state of Israel and the Jewish people."

The Palestinian Authority, however, praised Bustros’ comments.

"Israel cannot use the biblical concept of a promised land or chosen people to justify new settlements in Jerusalem or Israeli territorial claims," Saeb Erakat, a spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said in a statement released Sunday.

Erakat said the synod sent "a clear a message to the government of Israel that it may not claim that Jerusalem is an exclusively Israeli city."

"The Palestinian people will thus have an independent and sovereign homeland where they can live with dignity and security," the statement continued optimistically. "The State of Israel will be able to enjoy peace and security within their internationally recognized borders."

"The Holy City of Jerusalem will be able to acquire its proper status, which respects its particular character, its holiness and the religious patrimony of the three religions: Jewish, Christian and Muslim," it said. "We hope that the two-state-solution might become a reality and not a dream only."

Pope Benedict XVI first called for a two-state solution to the Middle East crisis during a visit to the region in May 2009 when he voiced the Vatican's support of a sovereign Palestinian homeland. At the time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was opposed to a two-state solution.

The Vatican, however, eager to boost its sagging popularity worldwide, noted during the synod that only 2.1 per cent of those living in Israel are Christian, who continue to be outnumbered by high Jewish and Muslim birthrates.

The Catholic Church also mentioned conflict, religious discrimination and economic woes as the cause of its shrinking influence in the Middle East.

No sign of apology

The Vatican in January blamed Israel not only for the exodus of Christians from Palestinian-controlled territories, but for the plight of Christians across the entire Middle East.

The statement, which served as the basis for the latest Vatican synod, was also authored by Arab bishops from the Middle East, who argued that Israel’s "occupation" of Arab-claimed lands is the root cause of most of the oppression suffered by Christians in the region.

They suggested that in the absence of an "occupation," radical Islamic forces across the Middle East would lose their support base, and stop causing problems for Christians.

The Vatican said they were not trying to take sides in the issue, but that the Arab bishops “know the situation well.”

This is not the first time of late that religious tensions have boiled over between the adherents of Judaism and Christianity.

Earlier this year, the Catholic Church became suddenly embroiled in a string of pedophile cases, some of them dating back many years. Some inside of the Catholic Church saw a “Jewish conspiracy” behind the reports.

Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Meridiaga, the archbishop of Honduras, said there was something curious about the media’s timing of the revelations, coming as they did as the conflict in the Middle East was heating up.

"It certainly makes me think that in a moment in which all the attention of the mass media was focused on the Middle East, all the many injustices done against the Palestinian people, the print media and the TV in the United States became obsessed with sexual scandals that happened 40 years ago, 30 years ago…"

L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's daily newspaper, criticized what it said was a "clear and despicable intention" by the media to strike at Benedict "at any cost."

American lawyer Alan Dershowitz, a well known defender of Israeli interests, called the Cardinal’s assertions a“cockamamie theory” and “blood libels,” while arguing that much of the criticism (concerning the pedophile cases)“comes from disappointed Catholics.”

Strange how two religions that emerged from the same seed are so committed to dragging each other down at every opportunity.