Jack Blood Show – September 30 2014

September 30, 2014 by  
Filed under Archive

keep us ALIVE

All donations to jackblood@hotmail.com keep us going. “Donations” also sign you up for subscriptions at www.radiofreeblood.com

Jack Blood Show – September 29 2014

September 30, 2014 by  
Filed under Archive

Hong Kong’s student protesters ignite campaign against Beijing

September 29, 2014 by  
Filed under World


Hong Kong police use tear gas to break up protest

Hong Kong’s student protesters ignite campaign against Beijing…

China warns against foreign intervention…

HONG KONG (Reuters) – They are dubbed the “umbrella generation” – teenaged students who have stormed the streets of Hong Kong in their tens of thousands and electrified a long-running protest campaign against Beijing’s attempts to control the financial hub.

Organised, determined and idealistic, they pose a major challenge to mainland China as they demand it gives them the freedom to nominate election candidates. China recently announced that it would not go that far.

“The kids took over,” said media tycoon Jimmy Lai, a key backer of pro-democratic forces in Hong Kong, tears welling up as he voiced his belief that they would succeed.

“It is very frightening for Beijing, but it is very cheering for us…this is our future,” he told Reuters.

The latest show of popular dissent represents one of the biggest threats to Beijing’s Communist Party leadership since its bloody 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy student protests in and around Tiananmen Square.

Today’s young protesters are the first generation to grow up without direct memories of Tiananmen, an event still marked by an annual candle-lit vigil in Hong Kong.

Last week, students’ tightly choreographed, citywide boycott of classes escalated into arrests after the storming of a barricaded public space in the city’s Admiralty government quarter at the weekend and culminated in far wider demonstrations and public support.

As thousands of protesters confronted police at barriers to try to reach the students hemmed in at Admiralty, they were met with pepper spray, batons and, later, tear gas, as the unrest spread into the city’s glittering Central financial district.

Hundreds of upturned umbrellas – protection against pepper spray but useless against tear gas – lay abandoned as young protesters retreated temporarily.

“Stay safe,” warned a twitter message on Sunday night from the Hong Kong Federation of Students, a 60,000-strong union of university students. “This is a long battle.”


For 17-year-old Joshua Wong, it has already been a lengthy fight.

Two years ago, with the help of secondary school activists calling themselves Scholarism, he forced the Hong Kong government to shelve plans to introduce a pro-China national education scheme in the city’s schools.

At its height, 120,000 people, parents and students alike, converged on government headquarters to push for the change.

“I hope I can have a better future and that I can have the right to choose my future in Hong Kong,” Wong told Reuters recently, with a self-belief that belies his bookish looks.

“It is true that we are students, but we are also citizens, so we can use action to change the policy of the government.”

Both Scholarism and the federation are using the Internet to spread their message and eschewing the more traditional banner-led marches.

“I always stress that our work and our protests have to be very eye-catching and visually attractive,” Wong explained.

“We need to (have) ‘fun’ and people need to ‘get a kick’ out of what we do so that we can attract attention.”

Wong was arrested with two other students after a group broke into Hong Kong’s Civic Square on Saturday, demanding it be re-opened to the public.

After 40 hours in police custody, he was released without charge or conditions.

His lawyers convinced a High Court judge that he had been held for an unreasonably long time and, on the steps of the central police station, Wong vowed to re-join the fight after a short rest. His two fellow activists have also been released.


Typically, student groups operate out of cramped and cluttered apartments, fuelled by coffee and cans of soda. They are well-funded, with Scholarism collecting HK$1.2 million ($155,000) during a July 1 march alone.

They talk of being followed and worry about their phones being tapped, but remain defiant and speak openly of their mistrust of the Hong Kong and Beijing governments.”I don’t believe this is because they don’t feel they are ‘Chinese’, and it is not because they dislike China as a country,” said Scholarism deputy leader Agnes Chow.

“But they feel that they cannot trust the government in power. I think this idea is undeniable.”

As protests spread into streets lined by some of Hong Kong’s most expensive real estate, black-shirted students distributing yellow ribbons are a common sight.

The Occupy Central movement which planned the latest civil disobedience campaign, backed by leading established Democrats many of whom are in their 60s and 70s, has acknowledged the students have stolen a march on them.

“We are touched by the works of students,” said Occupy founder Benny Tai, as he launched Occupy’s latest action several days earlier than planned because of the scale of the protests.

“I will even admit that we are late,” he added. “We should be ashamed of ourselves.”

Spain mounts roadblock to Catalonia independence vote

September 29, 2014 by  
Filed under World



Barcelona (AFP) – The Spanish government on Monday rolled out a legal roadblock to stop the Catalonia region voting on independence, branding the planned ballot an affront to the sovereignty of Spain.

After Catalonia’s president Artur Mas staked his leadership on the issue by calling the vote for November 9, the national government responded by filing a constitutional challenge.

Conservative Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said he “deeply” regretted Mas’s move, saying it “divides Catalans, alienates them from Europe and the rest of Spain and seriously harms their welfare”.

He said the government had sent the appeal to the Constitutional Court and that Mas’s measures would be suspended as soon as that tribunal accepted the appeal, pending a final decision by its judges.

Buoyed by mass street demonstrations, Mas has pushed ahead for a vote in defiance of Rajoy’s warnings.

Since he signed a decree on Saturday calling the vote, a luminous clock on Barcelona’s historic Sant Jaume square has been ticking down the seconds to November 9.

“You cannot use the law to prevent people indefinitely from stating their opinion,” Mas said in a television interview on Sunday in anticipation of Monday’s appeal.

“Voting on November is the best thing for everyone because it will allow us and also the Spanish government to know what the Catalan people’s opinion is.”

Rajoy retorted on Monday that the right to decide on a region’s status belonged to “all of the Spanish people” under the country’s 1978 constitution — the keystone of Spain’s democracy after the death of the dictator Francisco Franco.

“There is nothing and no one, no power nor institution, that can break this principle of sole sovereignty,” Rajoy told reporters after an extraordinary cabinet meeting.


“We are committed to voting on November 9,” said Oriol Junqueras, leader of the left-wing Catalan nationalist party ERC, which is allied with Mas’s conservative CiU grouping in the regional parliament.

“We are aware of the great difficulties we will face in the coming days but we are ready to face those difficulties.”

Fired up by Scotland’s independence referendum earlier this month, vast crowds turned out in Barcelona on September 11 to demand their own vote.

Scottish voters eventually chose not to be independent from Britain.

But like Scotland, Catalonia “wants to be heard and it wants to vote,” Mas said.

Mas has vowed to let Catalans vote on independence but has also promised to respect Spanish law.

He has hinted that if the government blocks the vote, he could put his leadership at stake in an early regional election, which could serve as a plebiscite on the issue.

Catalonia is Spain’s economic powerhouse, accounting for about a fifth of the country’s economy. But like the rest of Spain, it suffered from the 2008 property crash and resulting economic downturn.

Proud of their Catalan language and culture, many of the region’s 7.5 million inhabitants feel short-changed by the government in Madrid which redistributes their taxes.

The independence movement in Catalonia has gathered strength in recent years as Spain’s economic crisis has increased unemployment and hardship in the region and swelled its debts.

Catalonia formally adopted the status of a “nation” in 2006 but the Constitutional Court overruled that claim.

The main opposition Socialist Party is calling for a constitutional reform instead of a vote to answer Catalan demands for greater autonomy.

The Socialists’ leader Pedro Sanchez on Monday said the referendum plan “deeply damages Spanish democracy”.

Related Stories

U.S-led raids hit grain silos in Syria, kill workers

September 29, 2014 by  
Filed under World


(Reuters) – U.S.-led air strikes hit grain silos and other targets in Islamic State-controlled territory in northern and eastern Syria overnight, killing civilians and wounding militants, a group monitoring the war said on Monday.

The aircraft “may have mistaken” the mills and grain storage areas in the northern Syrian town of Manbij for an Islamic State base, said the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. There was no immediate comment from Washington.

The United States has targeted Islamic State and other fighters in Syria since last week with the help of Arab allies, and in Iraq since last month. It aims to damage and destroy the bases, forces and supply lines of the al Qaeda offshoot which has captured large areas of both countries.

The strikes in Manbij appeared to have killed only civilians, not fighters, said Rami Abdulrahman, who runs the Observatory which gathers information from sources in Syria.

“These were the workers at the silos. They provide food for the people,” he said. He could not give a number of casualties and it was not immediately possible to verify the information.

Manbij sits between Aleppo city in the west and the town of Kobani on the northern border with Turkey, which Islamic State has been trying to capture from Kurdish forces, forcing tens of thousands of Syrian Kurds to flee over the frontier.

Syria’s army also carried out air raids in Aleppo province overnight, targeting areas east of Aleppo city with barrel bombs and other projectiles, the Observatory said. The army also carried out air strikes in Hama in western Syria.

Forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad have been battling Islamist fighters around Aleppo, which is held by a number of groups in Syria’s war

In eastern Syria, U.S.-led forces bombed a gas plant controlled by the Islamic State outside Deir al-Zor city, wounding several of the militant group’s fighters, the Observatory said.

The United States has said it wants strikes to target oil facilities held by Islamic State to try to stem a source of revenues for the group.

The raid hit Kuniko gas plant, which feeds a power station in Homs that provides several provinces with electricity and powers oil fields generators, the Observatory said.

U.S.-led warplanes also hit areas of Hasaka city in the north east and the outskirts of Raqqa city in the north, which is Islamic State’s stronghold.

California’s governor Brown vetoes drone warrant bill

September 29, 2014 by  
Filed under Police State

Up for Re’election this year…. Voters don’t care.

(Reuters) – California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have placed strict regulations on how law enforcement and other government agencies can use drones, his office said on Sunday.

The measure, which passed the state’s Senate and Assembly with broad support, would have required law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before using an unmanned aircraft, or drone, except in emergencies such as a fire or a hostage-taking.

“There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is appropriate. The bill’s exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow,” Brown said in his veto message.

Brown said the bill could have imposed standards on law enforcement beyond what is required by both the U.S. and California Constitutions.

Under the measure, other public agencies would have been allowed to use drones, or contract for their use, to achieve their “core mission,’ so long as that mission was not to gather criminal intelligence.

The law would have also required that data, video or photos collected from the drones be destroyed by public agencies within a year, except in certain cases.

Supporters of the bill said it would protect civil and privacy rights of state residents and prevent warrantless surveillance.

“The era of govt. surveillance continues,” the bill’s author, Republican Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, tweeted on Sunday evening. He expressed disappointment over the veto.

The measure faced opposition from law enforcement groups, including the state’s police chiefs and sheriff’s associations, as well as the Los Angeles District Attorney.

Idaho and Virginia have also passed laws restricting uses of pilotless aircraft because of privacy concerns.

The Federal Aviation Administration, under growing pressure to set rules that would permit broader drone use, on Thursday loosened restrictions by granting six television and movie production companies permission to use the aircraft to shoot scenes on closed sets.

Obama Targets Free Expression in the USA and Beyond

September 29, 2014 by  
Filed under Commentary

cousins Obusha SAfr13


by Stephen Lendman

Speech, press and academic freedoms are fundamental. They’re our most precious rights. Without them all others are endangered.

Candidate Obama pledged “change you can believe in.” He promised hope. He did Lincoln one better. He fooled most people enough times to matter.

“Yes we can” conceals his dark side duplicity. He made America look like Guatemala. He transformed NSA into America’s Stasi.

He promised transparency, accountability, and reform. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

He called it “the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse.” He said whistleblowing reflects “acts of courage and patriotism.”

“Often the best source of information about (government wrongdoing) is an existing employee committed to public integrity willing to speak out.”

“We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance.”

He promised “strengthen(ed) whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.”

He stressed “(g)overnment should be transparent. (He claimed he) promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their government is doing.”


He said one thing. He did another. He broke every major promise made. He gave information control new meaning. 

His administration is more Stalinist than democratic. He wants free flowing information stifled. He wants total control over what’s made public.

He wants unprecedented amounts of government information classified to conceal what’s vital for everyone to know.

He monitors journalists. He accesses their phone records. He reads their emails. He tracks their personal movements.

He’s gives police state control new meaning. He wants nothing he demands suppressed revealed.

He’s obsessed with secrecy. He wants government wrongdoing concealed. Whistleblowers are criminalized for doing their job. Independent journalism is threatened.

The late Helen Thomas (1920 – 2013) covered five decades of US administrations. She began during the Kennedy years.

In July 2009, she complained about Obama. She called his press-controlling efforts unprecedented.

“It’s shocking. It’s really shocking,” she said. “What the hell do they think we are, puppets?”

“They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.” Press control is worse than ever before, she said.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.”

“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to (a) fare-thee-well for town halls, the press conferences. It’s blatant.”

“They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”

Obama disgraces the office he holds. He presides of a homeland police state apparatus. He exceeds the worst of his predecessors.

Mass surveillance became institutionalized on his watch. Rule of law principles don’t matter.

Business as usual takes precedence. Constitutional protections are irrelevant. Fundamental rights are dying.

Press freedom is endangered on his watch. It’s targeted for elimination altogether.

Obama wants Big Brother watching everyone. He wants content censored. He wants thought control.

He wants dissent crushed. He wants digital democracy destroyed. He wants truth and full disclosure suppressed.

He wants journalists closely watched. He wants their reporting monitored. He wants their dispatches censored.

An “Insider Threat Program” requires all federal employees help prevent unauthorized leaks. It’s done by colleagues monitoring each other.

Everybody is supposed to watch everyone else. Doing so gives Big Brother new meaning.

It heightens paranoia. It makes government employees cautious about who they see and what they say.

Since 2009, six government employees, two contractors, and Edward Snowden faced criminal prosecutions. They were charged with leaking classified information to the press.

Other federal employees are being investigated. A climate of fear exists. Journalists and sources are reluctant to share information.

New York Times reporter Scott Shane said he’s “scared to death. (W)e have a real problem.”

“Most people are deterred by those leaks prosecutions. There’s a gray zone between classified and unclassified information.”

“(M)ost sources are in it. It’s having a deterrent effect.”

“If we consider aggressive press coverage of government activities being at the core of American democracy, this tips the balance heavily in favor of the government.”

Times correspondent David Sanger called the Obama administration “the most closed, control freak (one he) ever covered.”

AP senior managing editor Michael Oreskes:

“Sources are more jittery and more standoffish, not just in national security reporting. A lot of skittishness is at the more routine level.”

“The Obama administration has been extremely controlling and extremely resistant to journalistic intervention.”

“There’s a mind-set and approach that holds journalists at a greater distance.”

Washington-based Financial Times correspondent Richard McGregor said:

“Covering this White House is pretty miserable in terms of getting anything of substance to report on in what should be a much more open system.”

CBS Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer calls the Obama administration “the most manipulative and secretive (he ever) covered.”

On September 24, RT International  headlined “White House accused of censoring dispatches from pool reporters,” saying:

Washington Post  media reporter Paul Farhi said White House staffers demand changes in press-pool content.

They “steer coverage in a more favorable direction.” Their meddling “represents a troubling trend…”

“(It) prompted their main representative, the White House Correspondents’ Association, to consider revising its approach to pool reporting.”

It was created a decade ago. A handful of reporters are proxies or “poolers.” They represent the entire press corp.

They’re chosen from among regular White House correspondents. They serve on a rotating basis. They share information with their colleagues.

Before doing so, they “send their files to the White House press office…(It) forwards them via email to a database of thousands of recipients…”

They include “news outlets, federal agencies and congressional offices.”

The process lets White House staffers read pool reports in advance, flag objectionable content, and demand removal before distribution to other recipients.

Obama wants final say on pool reporters’ content. His policy constitutes brazen censorship.

Longtime National Journal contributing editor Tom DeFrank said “the White House has no right to touch a pool report.”

“It’s none of their business. If they want to challenge something by putting out a statement of their own, that’s their right.”

“It’s also their prerogative to jawbone a reporter, which often happens. But they have no right to alter a pool report unilaterally.”

According to White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) president/Los Angeles Times reporter Christi Parsons:

“The independence of the print pool reports is of utmost importance to us. Our expectation is that the White House puts out the pool report and asks questions later.”

It compromises independent journalism. It micro-manages. It criticizes trivial details. It wants final say on content. It targets press freedom.

Last year, AP, the Washington Post, ABC News, USA Today, McClatchy newspapers and other news outlets wrote the White House.

They’ll no longer publish executive branch issued images, they said. They cited interference with their own photojournalists.

They’re unwelcome at official events. They’re increasingly shut out. Obama’s photography team alone gets free access.

Their letter read in part:

“As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government.”

Censoring content compromises pool reporting. Deputy press secretary Eric Schultz lied, saying:

“We value the role of the independent press pool, which provides timely, extensive, and important coverage of the president and his activities while at the White House and around the world.”

“That is why, at the request of the White House Correspondents Association, the White House has distributed 20,000 pool reports in the past six years, and we will continue to offer that facilitation for journalists as they work to chronicle the presidency.”

Pool reporters and other journalists explain otherwise. Obama is obsessed with secrecy.

He wants free-flowing information stifled.  AP reporter Sally Buzbee complained about White House staffers blocking information they want concealed.

Buzbee commented on Obama’s Iraq and Syrian wars. White House staffers block information on them. “The public can’t see any of it,” she said.

“News organizations can’t shoot photos or video of bombers as they take off. There are no embeds. In fact, the administration won’t even say what country the (US) bombers fly from.”

In April, the Thomas Jefferson Center (TJC) for the Protection of Free Expression  awarded the White House press office and Department of Justice its annual “Jefferson Muzzle.”

It “draw(s) national attention to abridgments of free speech and press and, at the same time, foster an appreciation for those tenets of the First Amendment.”

According to TJC director Josh Wheeler:

“From the White House to the statehouse, from universities to high schools, members of the press have had to defend against a variety of challenges, some never seen before.”

Prior muzzle winners included George HW Bush’s White House, Clinton’s administration, GW Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign and key members of his cabinet.

TJC’s web site says:

“Since 1992, it “celebrated the birth and ideals of its namesake by calling attention to those who in the past year forgot or disregarded Mr. Jefferson’s admonition that freedom of speech ‘cannot be limited without being lost.’ ”

It’s eroding in plain sight. It’s headed for elimination altogether.

Police states operate this way. Obama gives rogue leadership new meaning.



Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com . 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

BOSTON (Marathon Bombing) UPDATE: Is Officer Collier’s Killer Still at Large?

September 29, 2014 by  
Filed under Commentary

As there seems to be NO EVIDENCE of the Tsarnaev Bros having any direct involvement in the actual Bombing…. This case can bring down the entire Theory of their guilt.

The Official Story has been unraveling since day one!

By on Sep 26, 2014

From Who What Why

Why is the death of Officer Collier so important? Partly because, as Boston’s police commissioner Edward Davis said, “It was his death that ultimately led to the apprehension. The report of the shot officer led to all those resources being poured in.”

But there is a more important reason: Collier’s murder was linked to the emotionally charged Boston Marathon bombing—based on the assertions of anonymous carjacking victim “Danny.” He claimed the elder Tsarnaev told him they were responsible for both the bombing and the officer’s murder. (For lingering questions about the veracity of “Danny’s” testimony, click here and here.)

Again, it bears repeating that the Tsarnaev brothers very likely were somehow involved in the violence that erupted in and around Boston that week. But did they kill Sean Collier?

We do know that they did not rob a 7-Eleven store. What makes this significant is the fact that the police claimed they did—even after they had conclusive evidence, on film, that someone else had done it. So why should we necessarily believe what they say about who shot Collier?

A False Accusation Backfires

On the night of April 18, 2013, three days after the bombing, a 7-Eleven store was robbed at around 10:30 p.m.  Within minutes, an officer responded and, according to the police report below, got a description of the suspect from the clerk, and viewed the surveillance video himself. He can then be heard broadcasting that very description  over the police scanner, which was repeated multiple times over the next half-hour or so:

Once again, that’s a Hispanic male, black coat, a black cowboy hat and jeans.

7-Eleven Robbery Report

Minutes later, reports surfaced of an MIT police officer being shot not far from the 7-Eleven. First responders to that scene thought that whoever held up the 7-Eleven at gunpoint also shot Collier . There was a message sent out soon after the shooting to be on the lookout for:

Hispanic male, possibly wearing a cowboy hat, he was last seen on Vassar Street in Cambridge, six rounds were fired and he is currently armed.

Seen on Vassar Street? That’s where Sean Collier was shot.

Around midnight, Cambridge police received a report of a carjacking that ultimately led to the shootout in neighboring Watertown, Tamerlan’s death, and Dzhokhar’s escape.


After the dust settled in Watertown in the early morning hours of April 19, Massachusetts State Police Superintendent Timothy Alben told reporters at a press conference  that the Tsarnaev brothers perpetrated all of the violence that occurred in Cambridge and Watertown that night, including the robbery of the 7-Eleven.

During that same press conference he made reference to the photo  of Dzhokhar wearing a hoodie, widely circulated by law enforcement, claiming it had been taken by a security camera at the 7-Eleven. Numerous news outlets reported the series of events as exactly that: The brothers committed a robbery at 7-Eleven, shot Officer Collier, hijacked an SUV, and then engaged police in a shootout in Watertown.

But there was one glaring problem  with Alben’s account, and 7-Eleven’s director of corporate communications picked up on it. She pointed out to reporters later that day what law enforcement already knew: the security video clearly shows the 7-Eleven suspect’s face—and it looks nothing like either Tsarnaev. In addition, she said the photo of Dzhokhar was not even taken at a 7-Eleven store.

Okay, so they didn’t rob the 7-Eleven. We were told it was just a coincidence; the brothers just happened to be at the convenience store around the time of the robbery, again, according to Massachusetts State Police Superintendent Timothy Alben.

How Did Police Get It So Wrong?

But how did Alben get it so wrong, even though the Cambridge police were in possession of an eyewitness description and a photograph of the real suspect in the robbery? And why did he continue to place Dzhokhar at that same store even though he had been informed that it was a different store?

Robert Haas, the Cambridge police commissioner, can be seen standing behind Alben as he misrepresented evidence from Cambridge during the press conference. Why didn’t he speak up?

And if the 7-Eleven executive had not come forward with the facts, would the police have continued to falsely accuse the Tsarnaevs of the robbery?

In any case, law enforcement insists the Tsarnaevs shot and killed Officer Collier—it was caught on camera. Only in this case, it wasn’t. The security video at MIT does not show the faces of the two assailants, according to  three different law enforcement officials .


Then there were the early reports that Officer Collier was responding to a disturbance when he was shot. Later, we were told that that report was erroneous. Instead, he was simply sitting in his cruiser watching for people to make illegal turns.

Now, in what appears to be the final iteration, we’re being told  that he was positioned where he was in order to keep an eye out for the 7-Eleven suspect, as revealed in a Harvard white paper titled “Why Was Boston Strong?”

Why the effort to hide this simple fact initially?  Did it become clear to law enforcement that connecting Collier shooting in any way to the 7-Eleven robbery might raise some troubling questions?

And another thing: the carjacking took place in the Boston neighborhood of Allston across the river from Cambridge. But it  was originally reported  to have occurred at Third Street in Cambridge by the Middlesex County DA, the Cambridge police Commissioner, and the chief of MIT Police. That’s just a couple blocks away from where Collier was shot—and is smack dab in the center of those three law-enforcement officials’ precinct.

How could they possibly get that wrong?

A Clairvoyant FBI?

In a strange twist, Sen. Chuck Grassley revealed  that there were “multiple teams of FBI employees” conducting surveillance in and around Central Square around the time this all went down. The 7-Eleven in question happens to be right in the middle of Central Square. The Tsarnaev brothers just happened to pass through that same area, as we learned from Superintendent Alben.

Also, thanks to that Harvard white paper, Cambridge Police discovered “a group of law enforcement officials in a car with out-of-state plates were staking out a location thought to be connected to the assailants [emphasis added].”

Wait, what? Connected to the assailants? How did the FBI know what was connected to the assailants?

Even stranger, the local Boston Fox affiliate discovered that  FBI was also conducting surveillance on MIT students then thought to be connected with the bombing.

Doesn’t it seem odd that both the robbery and the shooting took place in areas where FBI surveillance teams were operating—without the knowledge of local law enforcement? Talk about a coincidence.

The Gun

The gun Tamerlan Tsarnaev left in the street after the shootout in Watertown was a P95 Ruger 9mm with an obliterated serial number. It was allegedly given to them by their friend Stephen Silva who was recently arrested for heroin dealing and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number.

Officially, there is no evidence that that was the gun used to shoot Collier. However, off the record, law enforcement is telling the media—and therefore the public—that the weapon is one and the same. Either it is the gun, or it isn’t. Why be coy about it?

So, law-enforcement blamed the 7-Eleven robbery on the Tsarnaevs for as long as they could, despite eyewitness description and surveillance photos of a very different suspect. They also blame the shooting of Sean Collier on the Tsarnaev brothers, despite the fact that the security camera does not identify the suspects, and there were no eyewitnesses to the shooting that we know of.

The suspect in the armed robbery of the 7-Eleven is still at large , which begs the question: Is Officer Sean Collier’s murderer also still at large?  (For more on these mysteries, go here, here, here,  and here.)

And with all this uncertainty, why is law enforcement working so hard to pin everything on these two brothers? Could it have something to do with the FBI’s very reluctant admission, forced by the Russians, that it knew who the Tsarnaevs were long ago because the Russians warned them about Tamerlan Tsarnaev—and that the Bureau even interacted with the now dead elder brother?


Read the entire article HERE

Jack Blood Show – September 25 2014

September 26, 2014 by  
Filed under Archive

Show drops out for a few minutes here and there –
RBN network still working on problem solving….

Show be all good soon. Thanks for being patient.

News, info and callers….

Saudi Connections to ISIS? Nah, Can’t Be True After 9/11… (cough)

September 25, 2014 by  
Filed under Commentary

The Sauds are not much more than a oil client state under the direct protection of Global Intel, and Global Corp Inc… Recent threats to reveal their role in 911, is likely nothing more than a shot over their bow to keep them in line! 
By Bryson Hull on Sep 20, 2014
Via Who What Why

Getting payback (or is it blowback?) in Iraq and Syria

Now that the U.S. is back at it in Iraq against a new foe, there’s suddenly renewed focus on evidence of Saudi involvement in 9/11.

More specifically, questions are now being asked about whether the U.S. government’s suppression of what it learned about Saudi Arabia during the 9/11 investigations contributed directly to the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Former Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired the official 9/11 inquiry, told Counterpunch that “the failure to shine a full light on Saudi actions and particularly its involvement in 9/11 has contributed to the Saudi ability to continue to engage in actions that are damaging to the U.S.—and in particular their support for ISIS.”

Though it’s now well-known that there was some Saudi involvement in 9/11, WhoWhatWhy was the first news organization to uncover the fact that a Saudi in Florida, who hosted the hijackers, worked directly for the Saudi prince in charge of aviation. We also pointed out that there was no hurry to dig deeper into the story by the mainstream media.

The direct contacts we established are a crucial part of the story. So too is the FBI’s reluctant admission that it knew about—and covered up—“many connections” between a Saudi family and the hijackers. Then there’s also the information contained in 28 pages redacted from the congressional report on 9/11, a part of the puzzle getting a new look in the New Yorker thanks to the ISIS news peg.


What all this leads us to ask is this: Why is the U.S. once again plunging into a fight that is at least partially of its own making? (That’s to say nothing of the contribution of America’s failed policy in Iraq to the current fiasco.) ISIS is yet another example of a militant group that grew into a threat in large part due to the support of an ostensible ally.

In this latest case, said ally is going to be hosting training camps for moderate Syrian rebels, who are supposed to be some of the boots-on-the-ground against ISIS. This couldn’t possibly be a bad idea, could it?

That Saudi Arabia has a role, either tacit or implicit, in funneling money to Islamic militants is no secret to anyone, least of all the United States government. Hilary Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, was explicit in her request to put greater pressure on the Saudi government to knock off its loose approach to jihadi financing.

“Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources,” Clinton wrote in a Dec. 30, 2009 cable obtained by WikiLeaks.

Haven’t we seen this before? An ally that, for its own foreign policy or domestic political reasons, supports (or turns a blind eye to homegrown support for) groups that fight directly against the United States? You could start with Pakistan’s nurturing of al Qaeda and the Taliban, which began with the CIA’s backing of Afghan mujahideen who counted Osama bin Laden among their benefactors.


Read the rest at WHO WHAT WHY


Next Page »