New Saudi King Named In 9/11 Suits

New Saudi King Named In 9/11 Suits

Take note of my two recent articles on the subject.

You Can’t Point a Finger at Saudi Arabia, and Not Have 5 Fingers Pointing Back to the U.S.

About those 28 Redacted Pages…

Read more about him at

I hope Obama enjoys his visit to meet with him. – Jon


Mideast: President Obama should think before bowing to Saudi Arabia’s new king in his Tuesday visit. King Salman has a history of funding al-Qaida, and his son has been accused of knowing in advance about the 9/11 attacks.

When it comes to jihadism, Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud is more of a hardliner than his older brother, King Abdullah, who died last week of a lung infection. As such, any commitment he makes to helping the U.S. destroy al-Qaida and Islamic State terrorists should be viewed with great suspicion.

The 79-year-old Salman once ran a Saudi charity tied to al-Qaida and has been named a defendant in two lawsuits accusing the Saudi royal family of helping the 9/11 terrorists, one of which the U.S. Supreme Court recently let move forward after years of being blocked by the State Department and the well-funded Saudi lobby.

Plaintiffs have provided an enormous amount of material to source their accusations against Salman. Here’s why his ascension to the throne is not good news, especially as the terrorism threat grows:

  • Salman once headed the Saudi High Commission for Relief to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which served as a key charitable front for al-Qaida in the Balkans.
  • According to a United Nations-sponsored investigation, Salman in the 1990s transferred more than $120 million from commission accounts under his control — as well as his own personal accounts — to the Third World Relief Agency, another al-Qaida front and the main pipeline for illegal weapons shipments to al-Qaida fighters in the Balkans.
  • A U.N. audit found that the money was transferred following meetings with Salman, transfers that had no legitimate “humanitarian” purpose.
  • Former CIA officer Robert Baer has reported that an international raid of Saudi High Commission offices found evidence of terrorist plots against America.
  • Baer also revealed that Salman “personally approved” distribution of funds from the International Islamic Relief Organization, which also has provided material support to al-Qaida.
  • A recent Gulf Institute report says Salman and former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal knowingly aided and abetted al-Qaida in the run-up to 9/11.
  • Salman works closely with Saudi clerics Saleh al-Moghamsy, a radical anti-Semite, and Safar Hawali, a one-time mentor of Osama bin Laden, according to the Washington Free Beacon.
  • In “Why America Slept,” author Gerald Posner claimed that Salman’s son Ahmed bin Salman also had ties to al-Qaida and even advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Contradiction in Action: The Eulogies for Saudi King Abdullahbin Abdulaziz al Saud

Global Research, January 24, 2015

What a spanner in the works of international relations he proved to be. The late King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud of Saudi Arabia was always the spoiler in the morality plays of Western powers keen to back him. Oil was always the greatest deterrent against getting on his wrong side, but it also meant the most intolerable of inconsistencies. For most governments, however, these were tolerated.

Those inconsistencies were there for all to see in the eulogies for the monarch. US President Barack Obama gave a description of someone who was distinctly different from a member of the House of Saud. Abroad, he pursued the Arab Peace Initiative. “At home, King Abdullah’s vision was dedicated to the education of his people and to greater engagement with the world” (Politico, Jan 22).

It was precisely such behaviour that gave David Pryce-Jones room for a vital observation. “The world will remember one thing only of King Abdullah, the late king of Saudi Arabia” ventured Pryce-Jones, “and that is how President Barack Obama bowed before him in obeisance. Democracy was seen paying dues to absolute monarchy” (National Review Online, Jan 23).[1]

Such a prostrate position was similar adopted by other US officials. US Secretary of State John Kerry used his twitter account to suggest that he was a “man of wisdom & vision. US has lost a friend and Kingdom of #Saudi Arabia, Middle East, and world has lost a revered leader.” Former US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel seem to be channelling another spirit in describing Abdullah as, “a powerful voice for tolerance, moderation and peace,” having advanced “the lives of his people at home as well as his country’s leadership abroad.”

Former British prime minister, Tony Blair, added the predictable icing sugar, claiming that Abdullah was “loved by his people and will be deeply missed” while the British incumbent, David Cameron, mystified with his statement that the late monarch would be remembered “for his commitment to peace and strengthening the understanding between faiths.”[2] The cynics were certainly getting their fill, and even publications such as the New York Times would strive to find a streak of modernity lurking somewhere in that being which had governed Saudi Arabia as essentially a tribal CEO.

The Guardian’s editorial found room to admire the late sovereign’s efforts to curb the export of Wahhabism, minor moves towards democratisation in introducing elections to municipal councils, and proved “good, if slow” in his efforts to court the growing grouping of “educated commoners” needed to keep Saudi Arabia stable.[3] The editorial had to also concede to the Saudi ability, not merely to weather the stormy onslaught of the Arab Spring, but turn it against itself in various Middle Eastern states.

It did not take long for various news agencies to pick up that Saudi Arabia, prior to a 2013 law banning terrorist financing, had been at the forefront of Sunni funding for a colourful assortment of so-called enemies of the free world. A US cable from the WikiLeaks Public Library of US Diplomacy, titled “Terrorist Finance: Action Request for Senior Level Engagement on Terrorism Finance” (Dec 30, 2009) is illuminating on that precise point.[4]

“General talking points for all Embassies” are noted, including the theme of, “Cutting off the flow of funds to terrorist organizations and achieving stability in Af/Pak [Afghanistan and Pakistan]” as “top US priorities.” Specific countries mentioned in connection with terrorist funding include Saudi Arabia, whose donors “constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” Recipients include al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT, and Hamas, “which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan.”

The cable further conveys a certain meekness in dealing with the Saudi government. The Treasury attaché office in Riyadh was meant to provide a “robust interaction and information sharing on the issue.”

It is hard to imagine what the appearance of such robustness could have been – another US cable (Apr 20, 2008) made available by WikiLeaks revealed the sentiments of the monarch as conveyed by the Saudi ambassador to the US, Adel al-Jubeir.[5] Riyadh was getting tetchy over Iran, which it was itching to strike. “[Abdullah] told you to cut off the head of the snake.” The Iranian head remained in tact, though a few others may well have rolled.

The gender side of the commemorations were also somewhat skewed. Head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, was a test case that silence can, indeed, prove golden – when exercised with judiciousness. Instead, she decided to volunteer a view that King Abdullah had been “a strong advocate for women. It was a very gradual, appropriately so probably for the country.” The great moderniser was, after all, averse to letting his daughters out, keeping them under lock and key for taking issue with stifling, and overwhelming male guardianship.

It all proved a bit much for the former British MP and conservative Louis Mensch, who made a few ripples with a resounding, albeit social media driven “F***K YOU” to Cameron’s ingratiating behaviour to the House of Saud.

“It is so unacceptable to offer deep condolences for a man who flogged women, didn’t let them drive, saw guardian laws passed, & STARVES THEM” (emphasis in original).

As for the issue of preventing women from driving in the kingdom, The Independent found it fitting to publish a story taken from former Saudi Ambassador Sherard Cowper-Cole’s memoir, Ever the Diplomat. When visiting Balmoral as a Crown Prince in September 1998, Abdullah was greeted to an astonishing spectacle: the Queen of England taking the wheel of a Land Rover.[6]

While it would be remiss to point out that no single leader can dictate the entirety of a political system, it remains difficult to call King Abdullah, by any stretch of the imagination, a great, let alone subtle “moderniser”. Public beheadings, the sentencing of Raif Badawi to a thousand lashes and ten years in prison for being critical of the state, and injunctions on the construction of non-Islamic places of worship within the country, suggest the workings of a distinctly anti-modern entity rooted in firm tribalism.

The most striking contradiction of all came in how sworn enemies could also share similar, commemorative ground on the subject of the grovelling eulogy. The Pan-Arabia Enquirer (Jan 23) noted the similarity between the official statements of both the US and ISIS. Abdullah was praised for having “vision and leadership”; he “had the courage of his convictions” and “constantly strived for unity across borders in the Middle East.” Unnamed sources claim that ISIS has requested that its representative not be seated next to Joe Biden.[7]

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email:[email protected]


Careless Whispers? Petraeus May Be Headed for Prosecution


Petraeus and President Obama in better days.

There’s no doubt that Gen. David Petraeus’ affair was a colossal blunder: it forced him from the CIA’s top job and tarnished what had been a sterling military career.

But was the general sharing more than just his bed with a junior officer, and will it land him in prison?

The New York Times reports that the Justice Department has recommended a felony prosecution against Petraeus for sharing classified information with his paramour:

The Justice Department investigation stems from an affair Mr. Petraeus had with Paula Broadwell, an Army Reserve officer who was writing his biography, and focuses on whether he gave her access to his C.I.A. email account and other highly classified information.

F.B.I. agents discovered classified documents on her computer after Mr. Petraeus resigned from the C.I.A. in 2012 when the affair became public.

The key question here is timing. There is evidence, which WhoWhatWhy reported exclusively, that Petraeus’ affair was known to his rivals in the intelligence apparatus as early as 2011. That, and other facts, suggest that Petraeus may have been marked for a takedown.

The decision on whether to move forward with a prosecution apparently remains in the hands of Attorney General Eric Holder. Petraeus, for his part, is unwilling to accept a plea agreement, and haspowerful allies pushing for clemency. He remains in his position as chairman of the KKR Global Instititute, the geopolitical arm of private equity giant KKR.

As for Broadwell, her name had all but fallen from of the headlines and, it appears, out of the crosshairs which are now aimed at Petraeus. As a military intelligence reservist, she would be intimately familiar with the rules surrounding classified information. If Broadwell accessed material that she knew had been provided illegally, she theoretically could face prosecution, too.

Whether she is investigated or not will be an answer itself to the bigger question we first asked: Was Petraeus targeted, with Broadwell as the bait? Take a look at our investigation and decide for yourself whether it was indiscretion or intrigue.


Barrett Brown reported on Anonymous’ hack of CIA firm

Via Infowars

The journalist was sentenced after pleading guilty to charges of “accessory to hacking,” “transmitting threats,” and “interfering with the execution of a search warrant” as part of a plea deal he made with prosecutors in April.

“This breaks down to uploading YouTube videos that contained unfortunate statements, efforts to redact sensitive e-mails that had been procured by hackers, and hiding laptops in a kitchen cabinet,” Brown’s legal team said about the charges prior to sentencing.

Brown closely followed Anonymous as it leaked internal e-mails from the global intelligence firm Stratfor, which has close ties to the CIA.

He drew the attention of law enforcement after he revealed an Internet Relay Chat channel where members of Anonymous were distributing e-mails and other documents from the hack.

The Department of Justice claimed that by sharing a hyperlink to the IRC channel, “Brown caused the data to be made available to other persons online, without the knowledge and authorization of Stratfor and the card holders.”

Critics, however, argued that sharing a link to an IRC channel was not identity theft and called the case “prosecutorial overreach.”

“Brown’s prosecution is yet another transgression against media freedom in the land of the First Amendment,” WikiLeaks said in a statement. “It chills investigative reporting of national security issues and provides cover for the unholy alliance between government agencies and the security industry.”

Brown said the “novel, and sometimes even radical” claims the government made during his sentencing threatens “every journalist in the United States.”

“The government asserts that I am not a journalist and thus unable to claim the First Amendment protections guaranteed to those engaged in information-gathering activities,” he said in a statement to the court. “Your Honor, I’ve been employed as a journalist for much of my adult life, I’ve written for dozens of magazines and newspapers, and I’m the author of two published and critically-acclaimed books of expository non-fiction.”

“If I am not a journalist, then there are many, many people out there who are also not journalists, without being aware of it, and who are thus as much at risk as I am.”

On techniques and methods for ‘waking people up’.

 by dieyoung


If you’re in this sub and reading this post, you likely already are skeptic and have probably come to conclusions about topics most people would find odd or downright “crazy”. Now, if you’re like me, after doing research and realizing how corrupt and upside down things are that are hidden in plain sight, you may feel compelled to try and do something, anything to change this path that we are on. For most of us who are living on meager wages and working 8 hours a day, it’s nearly impossible to do something material to stop corruption, even at the local level. So what can we do? Educate.

To teach someone something about a topic that is new to them, you must first know the material yourself, which leads me to my first technique:

  • Know what you’re talking about

This may seem like common sense, but I am constantly running into people (I was one) that are just starting down the rabbit hole and are missing many pieces to the puzzle that get too excited and start to spew information that can easily be debunked or information that they don’t fully understand and can’t answer any further questions on the matter. Know what you’re talking about or people won’t give you the time of day. That brings me to the next point…

  • Be prepared to stand up to scrutiny

This is why it is crucial to understand your material. ‘Conspiracy theorist’ is already a pejorative term to many people that implies that you lack critical thinking skills and believe anything you hear. It is important to be able to stand your ground and to be able to defend your position regardless of the attacks coming your way. This means avoiding blogspasm on alternative media sites that lack sourcing and gravitating towards primary source documentation. .gov websites are great for sources and are, ironically, the most respected as proof to most debaters on this subject. Knowing every single detail is not necessarily important as I will illustrate later, but having a solid knowledge of your topic will ensure that you will not fall to any internet troll that comes your way.

The first two techniques are pretty self explanatory and pretty instinctual to the majority of people who are ‘awake’. The next few techniques touch on how to actually make someone aware, and more importantly, engaged in continual research and, likewise, the spreading of awareness to others.

First things first…

  • Develop a philosophy based on principles

When I first started researching, I asked myself, “what is the actual definition of government?” At the time, I was in college taking computer and political science classes and would routinely survey my peers and professors as to their definition of what government was. For as many people as I asked, I received that many different answers. Most people were ambiguous and gave answers like “the people” or “people acting on an ideology”. This wasn’t sufficient for me. I went on a journey to understand the nature of government and tried to find a definition that people from any side of the political spectrum could agree with. For me, I found that the most non-controversial and concrete definition I could find was:

The government is a monopoly on law and jurisdiction in a certain geographical area

Disregarding the conclusions you may draw from this definition, it is applicable to any type of government anywhere in the world. The fact that, depending on what country you live in, that nation’s government is the only agency in that area who is allowed to establish courts and interpret laws, in my eyes, was undeniable. This led me to ask many other questions and helped put me on track to have a reference point to judge political and economic goings on without having to rely on someone else’s interpretation on the matter. It is up to you to find your own philosophy that you identify with and use that as your foundation to deepen your understanding which will lead to you being more confident in presenting your opinion. Use your own philosophy and principles to help make you more adaptable and malleable in conversations, not to make you rigid and narrow minded in one set belief system or world view. As Bruce Lee once aptly phrased it, be water my friend.. With that in mind, we move on to the next technique:

  • Humble yourself

Now, I don’t expect everyone to come to the conclusions that I have or to share the same principles I do. However, I find far too often that people who are trying to present their case on whatever the topic may be come off as extremely hostile and condescending to people that may actually be interested in learning more. Constantly calling people ‘shills’ because they disagree with you gets us no where and further dissuades people from researching these topics on their own. Be prepared to be presented with information you have not come across before and don’t be afraid to admit that you have not seen that bit of information before. It’s a learning experience and doesn’t make you seem so stubborn to others who may be looking to you as a model ‘rational conspiracy theorist’. However, this does not mean that you cower away from the argument, it merely means that you are open to researching new information because you are confident that your main point is still valid. Don’t shy away from challenges, embrace them.

This can lead to a another problem I come across all the time with skeptics and is the next technique brings me to the next point:

  • Avoid coming to conclusions you cannot conclusively prove

I find this problem mostly with (but not limited to) 9/11 truth activists. Of all people, conspiracy theorists should know that we simply are not presented with the full truth in almost every instance imaginable. We have to accept that there are closed door meetings, secret emails, anonymous phone calls, insiders trading on privileged information etc. that go on on a daily basis and admit that we simply cannot know the full story on anything. For example, when someone says they know that there were no planes that hit the first two towers, or they know that Cheney was involved (which he most likely was) in the attacks, it opens up the door for people to ask you to present proof, which you can’t. You can explain how Halliburton subsidiary KBR got a no-bid, cost-plus contract to rebuild in Iraq after we destroyed their infrastructure and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children, but the smoking gun link to Cheney being behind 9/11 is still elusive.

  • Let them do most of the talking. Ask them questions

I don’t know about you, but this was (and still is) the hardest method to get used to. I know when I talk to others, I have so many facts and names and dates and everything else running through my head that I have to make a conscious effort to not jump in every 3 seconds. Let them talk become genuinely curious of their opinion of the topic at hand. Speak less and listen more. Become engaged in the conversation and don’t just wait for your turn to talk. Try to ask questions to make them contradict themselves. For example, I was once at a Newt Gingrich rally during the 2012 election cycle and brought signs that said “Newt Gingrich voted [x] times to raise the debt ceiling” and “Newt Gingrich has voted [x] times to have stricter gun laws”. I was quickly screamed at, pushed, called an ‘Obama supporter’ and a litany of other names. I began to gather a crowd around me and decided to field some questions. This is a paraphrased version of how it went down…

Me: You consider yourself conservative, right?

Them: Uh…yes?

Me: So you generally want the government to spend less and for the government to stay out of your lives, right?

Them: Yes, what’s your point?

Me: Then why would you support someone who constantly votes for repealing of the debt ceiling which will ultimately lead to higher taxes? * *Them: …

Of course, this particular exchange is just an example on how to exercise the techniques and methods I have laid out so far. The next and last technique is, in my opinion, the most important…

  • Don’t try to change people’s minds

This may seem counter-intuitive to everything I have been saying, but in actuality, it is the most useful technique to wake somebody up. My ‘wake up’ moment was when I was a freshman in college and came across the original Zeitgeist film. Today, I can confidently pick apart the film’s inaccuracies but at the time, this new information floored me. I was so intrigued at how clueless I was about things like fiat money and the Federal Reserve that were so intimately intertwined into the very nervous system of society that I had never even heard about before. I began to have an insatiable obsession for discovering the truth.

After a few weeks of research (lol), I thought I knew enough to share my new found wisdom to my friends and family. I would blurt out facts and have barely coherent thoughts from one sentence to the next. Needless to say, those days were a disaster in terms of waking people up. It quickly dawned on me that people are very reluctant to change their minds and that trying to do so simply made people shut down and refuse to continue to engage in a dialog. Those initial interactions forced me to reevaluate my entire approach. I recognized that the only reason I was so passionate about these things was because I had discovered them on my own. I saw that the only way to really make people ‘wake up’ was not by proving my position, but by making them realize that theirs was contradictory and/or not well thought out. As I mentioned before, I tried using leading questions to get them to come face to face with their own logical contradictions, and to my amazement, people became inquisitive and began to research on their own. I would constantly get text messages from friends who, before these conversations, would never spend a second reading or paying attention to news asking me what my take on a certain situation was. Some would even present me with information I had never come across before and were just as excited to share it with me as I was with them.

This should be the goal for us all and we should strive to ‘pay it forward’ and galvanize others to do the same.

Throughout time, the elites have always controlled the flow of information and the narratives by which that information is presented. We are living in an era in which, for the first time ever in human history, the bourgeoisie are able to directly communicate with each other instantaneously, bypassing the gatekeepers of the media and the sultans of spin. The internet is the tool by which an intellectual revolution can be catalyzed and real change can begin. For this to happen though, we need intellectual warriors ready to stand against the status quo and inspire others who will, in turn, embolden others to seek truth.

Use these techniques to recruit others into the fray and constantly strive to refine your own methods of rhetoric to intrigue others. People intuitively know something is wrong with the world but are so overwhelmed by the magnitude of the situation, they don’t even know where to start and thus, never do. Be the person that invigorates them to dive in.

I leave you with a quote by the American revolutionary Samuel Adams which encapsulates my drive and motivation for inspiring others much more eloquently than I ever could:

It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.

Martin Luther King assassinated by US Govt: King Family civil trial verdict

by R.L Mcgee
*Updated 2015 version

Coretta Scott King: “We have done what we can to reveal the truth, and we now urge you as members of the media, and we call upon elected officials, and other persons of influence to do what they can to share the revelation of this case to the widest possible audience.” – King Family Press Conference, Dec. 9, 1999.

Dr. Martin Luther King’s family and personal friend/attorney, William F. Pepper, won a civil trial that found US government agencies guilty of assassination/wrongful death. The 1999 trial, King Family versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, is the only trial ever conducted on the assassination of Dr. King. The King Center fully documents the case, with full trial transcript.

The overwhelming evidence of US government complicity found valid by the jury includes:

*US 111th Military Intelligence Group were at Dr. King’s location during the assassination.
*20th Special Forces Group had an 8-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day.
*Usual Memphis Police special body guards were advised they “weren’t needed” on the day of the assassination.
*Regular and constant police protection for Dr. King was removed from protecting Dr. King an hour before the assassination.
*Military Intelligence set-up photographers on the roof of a fire station with clear view to Dr. King’s balcony.
*Dr. King’s room was changed from a secure 1st-floor room to an exposed balcony room.
*Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down of their bushes that would have hid a sniper.
*Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned investigative procedure to interview witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.
*The rifle Mr. Ray delivered was not matched to the bullet that killed Dr. King, and was not sighted to accurately shoot.

Also, the FBI acted to cause Dr. King’s death by suicide. The FBI illegally spied on Dr. King, used data in attempt to split leadership, and sent Dr. King a letter promising to expose alleged sexual misconduct. This was part of the FBI’s illegal COINTELPRO program.

Please read the above evidence twice to be clear on its overwhelming power.

The King family’s attempts for a criminal trial were always denied by state and federal government. Claimed suspect, James Ray, said that his government-appointed attorney told him to sign a guilty plea to prevent the death penalty and threatened arrests of his father and brother as co-conspirators for his only part in the assassination plot: delivering a rifle. Mr. Ray produced a letter from his attorney stating the promise that Mr. Ray would receive a trial. When Mr. Ray discovered that he was solely blamed for Dr. King’s assassination and would never receive a trial, Mr. Ray’s subsequent recants of his guilty plea and requests for trial were denied.

The US government also denied the King family’s requests for independent investigation of the assassination, despite the overwhelming evidence produced at the 1999 civil trial. Dr. King’s wife, Coretta, spent more than twice the number of years she was married to Martin working to get a criminal trial for her husband’s assassination.

Importantly, the US government has never presented any evidence subject to challenge that substantiates their claim that Mr. Ray assassinated Dr. King.

The King family believes the government’s motivation to murder Dr. King was to prevent his imminent camp-in/Occupy at Washington, D.C. until the Vietnam War was ended and those resources directed to end poverty and invest in US hard and soft infrastructure.

US corporate media did not cover the civil trial, interview the King family, and textbooks omit this information. This is crucial evidence of a controlled corporate media rejecting coverage of a game-changing story. Journalist and author, James Douglass:

“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?’ ”

For comparison, please consider the media coverage of O.J. Simpson’s trials:

“Media coverage of the Simpson trial, which began in January 1995, was unlike any other. Over two thousand reporters covered the trial, and 80 miles of cable was required to allow nineteen television stations to cover the trial live to 91 percent of the American viewing audience. When the verdict was finally read on October 3, 1995, some 142 million people listened or watched. It seemed the nation stood still, divided along racial lines as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. During and after the trial, over eighty books were published about the event by most everyone involved in the Simpson case.”

Coretta Scott King was certain of the evidence after 30 years of consideration from the 1968 assassination to the 1999 trial:

“For a quarter of a century, Bill Pepper conducted an independent investigation of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. He opened his files to our family, encouraged us to speak with the witnesses, and represented our family in the civil trial against the conspirators. The jury affirmed his findings, providing our family with a long-sought sense of closure and peace, which had been denied by official disinformation and cover-ups. Now the findings of his exhaustive investigation and additional revelations from the trial are presented in the pages of this important book. We recommend it highly to everyone who seeks the truth about Dr. King’s assassination.” — Coretta Scott King.

The US Department of Justice issued a report in 2000 that explained their claimed investigation into their own possible guilt in the assassination. They concluded that they found no evidence to warrant further investigation. Dr. King’s son issued the following statement rebuking the “self-study” rather than independent investigation:

“We learned only hours before the Justice Department press conference that they were releasing the report of their results of their ‘limited investigation,’ which covered only two areas of new evidence concerning the assassination of Dr. King. We had requested that we be given a copy of the report a few days in advance so that we might have had the opportunity to review it in detail. Since that courtesy was not extended to us, we are only able at this time to state the following:

1. We initially requested that a comprehensive investigation be conducted by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, independent of the government, because we do not believe that, in such a politically-sensitive matter, the government is capable of investigating itself.

2. The type of independent investigation we sought was denied by the federal government. But in our view, it was carried out, in a Memphis courtroom, during a month-long trial by a jury of 12 American citizens who had no interest other than ascertaining the truth. (Kings v. Jowers)

3. After hearing and reviewing the extensive testimony and evidence, which had never before been tested under oath in a court of law, it took the Memphis jury only one (1) hour to find that a conspiracy to kill Dr. King did exist. Most significantly, this conspiracy involved agents of the governments of the City of Memphis, the state of Tennessee and the United States of America. The overwhelming weight of the evidence also indicated that James Earl Ray was not the triggerman and, in fact, was an unknowing patsy.

4. We stand by that verdict and have no doubt that the truth about this terrible event has finally been revealed.

5. We urge all interested Americans to read the transcript of the trial on the King Center website and consider the evidence, so they can form their own unbiased conclusions.

Although we cooperated fully with this limited investigation, we never really expected that the government report would be any more objective than that which has resulted from any previous official investigation.”

Let’s summarize: Under US Civil Law, covert US government agencies were found guilty of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. Dr. King was the leading figure of the Civil Rights Movement, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and widely recognized as one of the world’s greatest speakers for what it means to be human. The family’s conclusion as to motive was to prevent Dr. King from ending the Vietnam War because the government wanted to continue its ongoing illegal covert and overt military operations to control foreign governments and their resources.

It is therefore a factual statement that under US Civil Law, the US government assassinated Dr. King.

People of sufficient intellectual integrity and moral courage to apply critical thinking skills will embrace the trial evidence and testimony, jury conclusion, and King family analysis as appropriate and helpful information in seeking the facts.

People who at least temporarily reject challenging information out of fear might say something like, “The government killed Dr. King? That’s a crazy conspiracy theory!”

Let’s consider that statement.

When someone says that a body of evidence is “crazy,” or a “conspiracy theory” (meaning an irrational claim easily refuted by the evidence) that’s a claim. With a claim comes a burden of proof. In this case, the person would have to demonstrate command of the facts to explain and prove why the evidence from the civil trial is somehow “crazy” and refute the evidence.

If the person can do this, it would be tremendously helpful in understanding the facts. However, we know from our experience that such statements almost always have zero factual support, and that the person making such a claim literally doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

We also know from our experience, a person making such a statement is really voicing an emotional reaction something closer to, “The government killed Dr. King? Ok, I read and understood the paragraphs about the trial and evidence. I read Mrs. King’s and her son’s statement. I haven’t invested the time to verify how valid that information is. I’m not stupid, but because the implications of what that means is so disturbing, I’m going to deny anything about it could possibly be true as my first response. If I’m going to continue being in denial and refuse to discuss the evidence, I’ll attack the messenger.”

We also need to consider the lack of coverage by US corporate media of this compelling evidence, trial verdict, and King family testimony from over 30 years’ analysis of the facts. Recall the evidence of US corporate media reporting being infiltrated by CIA agents to propagandize Americans’ access to information. This included the Director of the CIA’s admission to Congress that they have over 400 agents working in corporate media to make the US public believe what the CIA wants them to believe.

In 2006, George Washington University used a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the US military’s “Information Operations Roadmap.” This formerly secret and approved document details present US government strategies to generate propaganda, and then attack Internet alternative media that provides dangerous facts and discussion. The military promoted the term, “Fight the net.”

Although I won’t enter the burden of proof here, you may know that there are similar and related bodies of evidence that the US government assassinated other American leaders. The 1975 Senate Church Committee disclosed that the US government initiated and helped assassination attempts on multiple foreign heads of state.

If we were discussing how the population of some other nation could employ critical thinking skills to understand current events from anytime in history, we would certainly understand the importance to anticipate disinformation from government, danger of controlled media, and assassination as a political weapon.

Failure to do so would appropriately elicit the label attributed to the first dictator of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin. Such people who believe what their government tells them when the history and present have overwhelming objective evidence to explain, document, and prove that the government is typical of so many other historical self-serving oligarchies are:

“Useful idiots.”

To the extent the United States today is any different from all other nations and all other times is up to your exercise of critical thinking skills.

And that said, objective, measurable, and independently verifiable facts easily explain, document, and prove US history of:

Unlawful Wars of Aggression based on easily-provable lies (here, here, here, here),
Bankster-looting economics (here, here, here, here, here),
Lying sacks of spin corporate media that “cover” the crimes.

An obvious question: What does the 99.99% of humanity do to end these viciously psychopathic assassinations of our best people, end lie-started Wars of Aggression, end banister looting, and genuinely have opportunity to create a bright future for all Earth’s inhabitants?

An obvious answer: We tell the truth/facts, arrest obvious criminals, and have media broadcast our true condition so we may begin. I explain here:

2015 Winning Time: 3 phases to 99.99%’s victory over .01% criminal psychopaths

CIA Behind Paris Attack?

According to The Associated Press, one of the men responsible for last week’s terrorist attack that killed 12 people in the French capital claimed to have lived with the Nigerian man behind the failed al-Qaeda “underwear bomb” plot five years ago, Yemeni Journalist and researcher Mohammed al-Kibsi who met Said Kouachi, the alleged Paris attacker, said on Monday.

In a phone interview with Press TV on Tuesday, Ulrich said, “The whole Paris incident has been a puzzle for many… and one has to find connections to find what really is going on.”

“We have been told by the mainstream media, the Western media, that a Yemeni reporter has claimed that he had interviewed Kouachi who was responsible for the Paris attack, or one of those who were responsible,” she said.

“And he had ties with ‘the underwear bomber’, ‘the underwear bomber’ who was held responsible for wanting to blow up an airliner at Christmas in 2009,” Ulrich added.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was convicted of attempting to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253, en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan.

“Well, it so happens that the mainstream media here is so busy turning up this information that they tend to forget the very information they gave us in the first place. For example, in 2012, we were told that ‘the underwear bomber’ was in fact working with the CIA intelligence and with the Saudis,” she pointed out.

This background information raises serious questions about the support network for the terrorists in Paris.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, January 18th, 2015.]

%d bloggers like this: