February 20, 2013 by  
Filed under Archive, The Jack Blood Show

Jack Blood and Liam Scheff make an awesome mix ~ a toxic cocktail of nerve and wit. You may not have known that this kind of radio exists… And… Maybe it shouldn’t. Get a drink, sit back and prepare to have your mind blown! ( — The Conspiracy Realist) Liam is the author of “Official Stories – From CIA and JFK, to 9/11 and Shakespeare; from Vaccination to HIV to Big Bang theory, and more….” – Make sure to See Liam LIVE at the Health Freedom Expo in Long Beach CA – March 2013 info here (fyi – FAKE ENDING gives way to part 2 w. Liam on BACKSTAGE BLOOD! )

RFK Jr: ‘Very convincing’ evidence that JFK wasn’t killed by lone gunman

January 13, 2013 by  
Filed under Americas

DALLAS — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is convinced that a lone gunman wasn’t solely responsible for the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, and said his father believed the Warren Commission report was a “shoddy piece of craftsmanship.”

Kennedy and his sister, Rory, spoke about their family Friday night while being interviewed in front of an audience by Charlie Rose at the Winspear Opera House in Dallas. The event comes as a year of observances begins for the 50th anniversary of the president’s death.

Their uncle was killed on Nov. 22, 1963, while riding in a motorcade through Dallas. Five years later, their father was assassinated in a Los Angeles hotel while celebrating his win in the California Democratic presidential primary.

Full Article

Skepticism and the New World Order Conspiracy

December 27, 2012 by  
Filed under Commentary

I think skepticism is a good thing, a very good thing. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical and it can in many cases prevent one from being suckered into some big con or lie. Skepticism, however, can also be a very effective tool to keep the truth hidden from people. It can be used to prevent people from even wanting to know the truth, especially when presented by some very clever propagandist in a way that ridicules others. No one wants to be ridiculed and so when some “respected” source ridicules those who make some “fantastic” claim others quickly learn to keep their mouths shut and not question authority. Skepticism based on emotion or opinion is not skepticism, it is a simple choice to believe one thing or source over another. Sometimes the mind can’t imagine that the incredible could be reality and so one tends to disbelieve based on that fact alone. Read more

The Jack Blood Show – May 30 2012

May 30, 2012 by  
Filed under Archive

Jack Blood wades through the sludge that is breaking news – all of it on TX primary updates, Sean Hannity thinks you are un-American if you question the attack on the USS Liberty, and Sen McCain. Turkey rules IDF Guilty for Flotilla massacre – convicts with 18,000 years prison time (don’t piss of the Turks) etc… HOUR 2: We are joined by web activist Bob Tuskin ( and we discuss the Bilderberg conf, LSD, JFK, Zombies, 911 suspicious deaths, and the phony war on Drugs. (share it – DONATE TO OUR LIVE CHIP IN TO GET MORE OF THESE ARCHIVES FOR FREE – WE SERIOUSLY NEED YOUR HELP ASAP!)

Secret Service Vet With Very Strange JFK Story

May 3, 2012 by  
Filed under Commentary


By on May 2, 2012
Originally published at


PODCAST: Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent on the White House detail, in a talk from 2008. Recalls his astonishing experience with JFK, with his fellow agents, and the ominous goings-on prior to and after Kennedy’s assassination. A must-listen. Chilling. Also see our recent piece on the Service.

Click HERE to download/listen.

Former White House (Neo Con) Speechwriter Suggests Military Coup Could Oust Obama

April 3, 2012 by  
Filed under Media


Full Text Of Newsmax Column Suggesting Military Coup Against Obama

Here is the full text of John L. Perry’s column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to “resolve the Obama problem” is becoming more possible and is not “unrealistic.” Perry also writes that a coup, while not “ideal,” may be preferable to “Obama’s radical ideal” — and would “restore and defend the Constitution.” Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.

Via Talking Points Memo
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

By: John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened (Other than the JFK assassination …ah hmm) doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.


Claim: Oswald told Cuban embassy staff in Mexico City that he was going to kill JFK

March 20, 2012 by  
Filed under Americas

Fidel Castro had advance knowledge that President John F Kennedy was about to be killed, according to an explosive new book about the 1963 assassination soon to be published by a retired CIA agent.

Rumours about the Cuban dictator’s involvement in a plot to murder his fierce adversary have swirled for almost half a century since communist sympathiser Lee Harvey Oswald shot the US president during a trip to Dallas in November that year.

Now author Brian Latell, who studied Cuban affairs as a CIA analyst in the 1960s and later became the agency’s chief intelligence officer for Latin America, says he is certain that Castro at least knew the attack was going to happen.

On the morning of November 22, 1963, the day Kennedy was killed, Castro ordered a senior intelligence officer in Havana to stop listening for non-specific CIA radio communications and concentrate instead on ‘any little detail, any small detail from Texas,’ Mr Latell claims in his new book Castro’s Secrets – the CIA and Cuba’s Intelligence Machine, set for release next month. Four hours later, the airwaves came alive with news that Kennedy was dead.

Mr Latell also claims that Castro was aware that Oswald, who had been denied a visa to visit Cuba at the country’s embassy in Mexico City, told staff there that he was going to murder Kennedy to prove his allegiance to the communist cause.

‘Fidel knew of Oswald’s intentions and did nothing to deter the act,’ Mr Latell writes in the book.

In an interview published today in The Miami Herald, Mr Latell, now a respected senior lecturer on Cuba at the University of Miami, says he discovered the information in interviews with former Cuban intelligence officers, backed up by declassified US government documents.

‘I don’t say Fidel Castro ordered the assassination, I don’t say Oswald was under his control. He might have been, but I don’t argue that, because I was unable to find any evidence for that,’ he said.

Full article