The Ground Truth: The Human Cost of War

“The Ground Truth” documents the stories of American soldiers who have been involved in the war in Iraq and their experiences both at abroad and after their return from the Middle East. They discuss the indoctrination and personality restructuring they experienced upon entering the military, beginning with the deceptive enticements of the recruitment table on through the suffering of combat and finally in the shattered lives they lead after their tours are over. [END] Permalink: The Ground Truth: The Human Cost of War

The Integrity of American Political Elections

James Collier, author of Votescam: The Stealing of America (web site archived by the Wayback Machine here) discusses in the above interview from 1996 methods of vote rigging in U. S. elections which have been used since the 1970′s. James and his brother, Kenneth, discovered extensive electoral anomalies and high-level government corruption while doing research for a book they were writing about running for political office without spending money.
The 2000 election saw the installation of George W. Bush as U. S. President after hotly contested election results in Florida. “Unprecedented” details some of the processes by which many eligible Florida voters were wrongly purged from the voter rolls, by which many Florida voters’ ballots were discarded and by which post-election legal processes hampered the various recount initiatives which were undertaken, some automatic and some by request. This was election tampering of a highly visible sort which saw, among other things, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris in a massive conflict of interest, serving both as election overseer and as George Bush’s campaign manager.
Similar dynamics arose yet again in 2004, as documented in several features including Free for All and “Uncounted – The New Math of American Elections” and by more decentralized efforts such as Video the Vote. This time, the spotlight was on Ohio, where Secretary of State Ken Blackwell served as the head of George Bush’s reelection campaign. In the above lecture, NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller, author of Loser Take All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy, 2000 – 2008, describes a broad range of tactics used to suppress Democratic votes in 2004, including vote machine shortages which created excessively long lines, sometimes with a two or more hour wait time, vote machines recording votes for Kerry as votes for Bush, and up to ten to twenty percent of Democratic voters being told at the door that they were not on the roster and therefore unable to vote. In many of these cases, voters were reduced to casting provisional ballots instead of a traditional ballot, many of which were not included in the final count. Many Americans put in a lot of effort to try to defeat Bush that election in the hope of putting America on at least a marginally less apocalyptic trajectory, holding their noses to vote for “the lesser of two evils” despite their conscience telling them that Kerry was simply, as the saying went, “Bush Lite,” and the Kerry team’s thanks was to roll over silently on November 3rd despite overwhelming evidence of a crooked election. According to the lecture above, John Kerry told Miller at a party that he agreed that there had probably been a misvote but that high-ranking Democrats including Christopher Dodd told him not to pursue the topic. (Incidentally, Miller also notes that “alternative left media” outlets including Mother Jones, The Nation and Salon all went out of their way to write against the possibility of election fraud. A similar situation was encountered by 9/11 skeptics with these same publications.)
A 2008 supplement to Crispin’s UC talk on Democracy Now! is above in which he discusses a legal case involving Republican computer guru Michael Connell, who had worked with both the George W. Bush and John McCain Presidential campaigns. Connell was subpoenaed in December 2008 with regard to the alleged vote fraud in Ohio but, like Iraq war opponent former Senator Paul Wellstone, met an untimely fate in a plane crash after only one deposition.
Here, in an interview with Velvet Revolution, Stephen Spoonamore, a computer security professional who is involved with the Ohio vote fraud case with which Connell had been connected, provides technical details about the situation. In the sense that Democratic Party leadership has not made electoral integrity much of a public issue, this is a non-partisan issue. However, as Spoonamore notes, the active conspirators in the above cases are all closely connected with the Republican Party. [END] Permalink: The Integrity of American Political Elections

“Third Party” Politics in America

The above debate, filmed by the now-defunct Free Market News Network, features the 2004 Libertarian and Green Party candidates for United States President, Michael Badnarik and David Cobb. Both candidates raise some very interesting points about the two dominant American political parties and discuss their experiences in growing their organizations in a climate as hostile to political competition as contemporary America. Let us consider, for instance, the very name which is used for political parties other than the Democratic and Republican parties: “third party.” The most often-used meaning of this term is one who is outside or an observer to a transaction, i. e., a non-participant or marginal participant in a process. Certainly, though, these two candidates represent parties with coherent and comprehensive platforms which deserve America’s consideration. Former independent Presidential candidate John B. Anderson also makes an appearance here and extensive commentary is provided by the Libertarian commentators from FMNN, including former Libertarian U. S. Presidential candidate Harry Browne.
This second debate, filmed by C-SPAN, features 2008 U. S. Presidential candidates Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party, and independent candidate Ralph Nader.
Finally, this third debate is from the 2008 Green Party Presidential primaries out of which former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was nominated. In addition to these three relatively large national parties, there are also some smaller state-based political parties and other parties which are, today, relatively inactive. Politics 1 and The Green Papers have additional information and statistics. [END] Permalink: “Third Party” Politics in America

Columbine Shooting Witnesses Speak Out

A little while ago, I managed to get in contact with a number of witnesses to the Columbine shooting who had reported in their interviews with government “investigators” events which contradicted the official narrative. Their accounts variously described additional gunmen, for instance, whom they were able to name by name and who, they insisted to police over repeated interviews, were absolutely on-scene as perpetrators. Many of these “alternative” accounts were independently corroborated by other witnesses, sometimes by the dozen. There were six of these witnesses who communicated to me in all, all of whom wish to remain anonymous for now. In contacting them, I sent a link to my video, “The Columbine Cause,” and asked them if they had any comments on the version I portrayed, which had been based off of their recorded testimonies and others’, versus the official version. Below is what they told me, in which I have removed all details which could be used to identify them. 1) Witness A confirmed that he was who I was looking for but did not reply further. 2) Witness B confirmed that he was who I was looking for but would only comment if paid:
I apologize, but I don’t do FREE interviews on this subject. Best of luck to you with this project.

I was therefore not certain that he would be giving reliable information and did not pursue the matter further. 3) Witness C replied,

“I will need sometime to think about this question Evan. It has been ten years and at some point in your life, you think about how to move on. I will be in touch after I watch the video and think about how to respond”

He did not send any further correspondence and did not reply to follow-up inquiries. 4) Witness D initially replied and then no response was given to a follow-up. Upon receiving a second follow-up, he gave the following response:

“I am so sorry Evan. I was thinking about it and then a lot was going on and I forgot that you wanted to talk with me. Honestly, it has taken me a very long time to get over my fears (only within the last couple of years) and I have blocked out most of the details of what happened as it helped me cope not to remember. I have only read bits and pieces of what was released to the public and only within the last year have I seen the photo of Eric and Dylan deceased on the floor. I don’t think that I want to bring up any of those memories when my life is normal again. I really hope that you understand.”

5) When I told Witness E who I was, sent him my video, and specifically asked about his testimony as reflected in the government documents, he replied by sending me his phone number and telling me,

“I’m interested in what you have found, i’m willing to talk.”

I don’t know what he had in mind to tell me when he wrote this but once I had him on the line, things turned difficult quickly. After greetings were exchanged, the conversation, which lasted approximately fifteen minutes, proceeded as follows:

WE: I’m really hesitant about talking. I’m kind of curious as to what you have. I don’t want my name in any book or anything like that. I’m happy to give you information but I don’t want my name on anything. EL: Sure. WE: So as long as you can guarantee me my name’s not going to be on anything, I’m okay with giving you any information I have. I mean, it was ten years ago, so… EL: Well, absolutely, I will not use your name if you don’t want me to. You’re the first person I’ve talked to so I’m kinda new at this. I’ll give you a little background on me and why I’m doing this and where I’m coming from? WE: Okay. EL: Basically, I’m a researcher is how this all started. When the “War on Terror” started, I was alarmed by it and I also thought that there was probably more to what was going with that than we were told so I started researching the background of that and along the way, I started tuning into alternative media and came across Columbine researchers talking about these government files where witnesses, lots of them, were talking about other shooters. So, I became really interested and decided to, well, I read the files and then decided to put something together to kind of present this publicly and see if anybody was interested in, if there was a cover-up, which it seemed there was, in breaking that. The primary interest is in having these things not happen anymore, obviously. So basically, we have this one story of why Columbine, you know, why the shootings happened. I’m not sure that that’s really the right story and if we’re trying to get to the root of why these things happen, I think that we probably have to go another route. So that’s where, I guess, that’s where you come in. I made this video two years ago and did a couple of interviews and articles to promote it and a lot of people are interested now. A lot of people watched it and said, gee, that was a lot of witnesses who said Robert Perry was there, or that Chris Morris was there, or Brian Sargent or whatever. And people are going, okay, so what really happened? All we really have are these government files which are five or six page interview summaries with people so I figure, enough time has gone by and people are interested in this; why don’t I contact some of the people who were there and see if you have anything to add to what we read in the interviews. I don’t suppose you’ve ever read your files from the police reports? WE: I started to. I just became less interested. EL: Okay, basically what they have you as saying is that you were — and if this is upsetting or anything just tell me to — WE: You’ve given me two reasons as to why you’re doing that. You’ve — that’s two different things as to why you’re doing it. What’s the reason you’re doing this? Is it to uncover something; is it the public interest? EL: Yeah, it’s public interest, basically. I mean, these acts of terrorism — I’m skeptical that we’re getting the full story and I think it is in the public interest that we get the full story. That’s about it. I mean, as far as why I picked up on Columbine in particular, it seemed like there’s so much evidence and nobody was covering it. So that’s why I got into it. But yeah, it’s a public interest thing. I don’t personally know anybody there or anything like that. WE: Okay. In that case, I’m more willing to promote the survival of the victims and the victims’ families as opposed to public interest. I don’t believe in harping on the negative as to what happened. I believe that the media keeps doing that; it’s going to keep focusing on the negative facts and I’m sure there’s a lot that’s untold to the public but there’s probably a reason for that. I’m involved in a very government, you know, family. I have a [government employee] as a [family member] and et cetera. My [other family member's] in [a government job] so I believe in what they do. I’m not saying it’s right; I’m just saying there’s probably a reason, whether it’s for our best judgement or not, it’s their judgement. If you’re doing this, I firmly believe you should do it to show what good came out of this. To show the bad and what was covered up isn’t going to help anybody. Yeah, it’s going to grab the media’s attention for a minute and society’s going to look at it for a little bit but that’s just wrong. That’s gonna hurt a lot of people and I’m not willing to help that. EL: All right, well, can I ask you, in your statement, it said that you were almost positive that there was another, at least another person involved, shooting that day, as did [...] other people who said the same guy. I mean, that — WE: The cops actually have a timeline of the exact moment where he was that day so that was my mistake. EL: So you would say then, there were people who were very insistent who also knew this guy. It said [...] you also were acquaintances with Harris and Klebold and you were pretty sure it wasn’t them whereas his alibis were [... weak]. WE: Yeah, that would be my alibis, too. Who would be yours? EL: Well, I don’t know but again, the interest here was that so many people put him there and some of them were adamant that it was neither of the two official accused. He wasn’t the only one that people said. WE: I’m not willing to hurt my fellow classmates reliving this. I would happily do this if you were there to say, “Hey, this was covered up but hey, this is the good that came out of it. This is ten years later; this is how society improved,” but you’re not and I’m not willing to help you. I don’t think that’s right and you’re going to make people and families of the victims, of survivors relive so much that they don’t have to and you can retell me my statement — trust me, I know it word for word; I had to give it a few times. EL: I don’t understand what you’re saying. Could you — WE: If you make this book and if you’re going to do it, do it but people are gonna read this and be like, “Oh, there’s a cover-up.” Okay, fine; the general society doesn’t understand. The average person has not been through a horrific event like that but you know, whether it be Columbine, whether it be the friggin’ Trade Center, they’re gonna look at this and be, like, reliving it ten years later. That’s not awesome; that’s terrible. I was very hesitant in talking to you but knowing the victims, I thought, “Hey, this may bring something awesome out of this. He may make this amazing book showing that, yeah, there was this cover-up, this could happen but there’s a conspiracy theory to everything. To suppress what could be this journalistic expedition for you is, you’re focusing on the wrong aspect; you’re focusing on fifteen minutes of fame and I’m not willing to help with that and whoever one of my classmates are is ashamed. EL: Well, what would you suggest — I mean, you’re saying, “what good came of it.” What would you suggest? WE: I, what good came of this? Law enforcement so much is more adept to look for red flags and yes, sometimes will go to extremes of looking at every single red flag but you know what? Sometimes, it needs to be done. [... Teachers are more likely to say,] “What students need help; what ones don’t?” Parents are probably more adept to what their students are feeling. Not every parent but maybe one parent changed. People are a lot more aware. It brought me closer to my family in general. I mean, I was a high-schooler who thought [I] knew everything, obviously, at [that age]. It brought me a lot closer to my family at the time. I mean, you view society a little bit differently. It made the whole town look a little bit differently at each other and kind of open your arms to each other. It made this town a little bit tighter. It made society look at what was wrong and how to fix it. Yeah, it may not be fixed but there’s options and there’s people that are aware of this. [...] There’s a lot that came out of it and that’s just off the top of my head; I had long work day [...]. So, there’s a lot that came out of this and if you’re just focusing on the cover-up of this, I’m not willing to incriminate people that I have absolutely no proof as to where they were that day, I — it’s something that was ten years ago in fifteen minutes of gunfire. I, as I told the sheriff that day, I can’t be a hundred percent as to what I saw but here’s what I feel I saw. I trust my eyes, I trust my judgement but they’ve proven me wrong before and I’m not willing to incriminate people or have people intervene in their lives for ten years later. They’ve moved past this and if they’re guilty, karma will come around; due day will come; punishment will come. It’s not me to put that on. So, that’s my feelings; I’m sorry I couldn’t help. I thought this was different. EL: No, that’s okay. My concern was that, also in looking at this, was that if this was the kind of cover-up that I and some of my colleagues suspect it was, this might not have been an isolated incident and that some of the other large events might have been arranged in a similar kind of way. In other words, if there was something bigger behind what happened, and that the reason why it was blamed on just the two kids who wouldn’t be talking and that the others were excluded to protect the truly guilty behind it — WE: Why would somebody protect the guilty? What’s the point of that? What comes of that? What good comes of protecting the guilty? EL: Well, that’s a good question. Again, I’m looking at it and asking questions where things look suspicious. It looked to me and to others like if that were the case, this might not be the only event of its kind and that there may be more in the future. Virginia Tech, for example, had a lot of questions around that, too, and so people are looking for — WE: Of course it was similar. He studied the case on Columbine so yeah, just like any serial killer, they’ve studied other criminals. They’re gonna have similarities. EL: Well, more than that, suspicious as to how the authorities acted with regard to the case and more of that type of question. There was another incident in Australia in 1996 where there’s also very serious questions about whether there was a larger group involved in that and if that is the case, are these people still operating and capable of doing another one. That’s where, I mean, this is not an angle that gets pursued in the media pretty much ever but it is something that was going around the alternative media and among some independent researchers whose work I studied and thought it was worth some merit at least considering. Like I said, you’re the first I’ve spoken to from the situation so I honestly am not very up on how people feel about it or if everyone believes there are people who were guilty but got off or not; I don’t know. I do know that some of the witnesses refused to say, no, to say that they were unsure. They were absolutely positive that most of the rest of those trench coat kids were involved in it, plus an adult. There were several witnesses in the science areas who all described — one girl produced a sketch — an older guy. So again, looking at it, I’m an outsider just looking at it through the window of these police interviews but that’s serious if there were other people involved that either got away through ineptness or if someone deliberately covered that up. Were the people covering that up knowingly working on the behalf of that group, and I guess that’s where the really serious questions start and that’s ultimately, I would say, my aim and where the real public interest is, is, “Is there a powerful group of criminals orchestrating these crimes for some gain?” Now, that’s not something you hear often and you know what, it might not be the case. But I guess that’s my ultimate thesis in this situation and I’m glad that you have taken the time to talk to me and give me your thoughts about this. WE: Well, I’m sorry I couldn’t help. Thank you. EL: All right. WE: Bye. EL: Bye.

6) Witness F was, without a doubt, the most forthcoming. He told me the following:

“I have a hard time watching your entire video. I watched 5 min. I saw too much that day, plain and simple. I have been told I could and would easily disappear if I tried to expose what happened that day. I was locked inside that building [for hours] with the teacher [Dave Sanders] that died, risked my life to save him and he still died. I lost [...] friends [...] and had many friends seriously injured. [...] I was O. C. D. trying to save myself from death at [such a young age]. I was also told by the police and investigators that I [...] was the most credible witness that day: However, I did not see [...] this and [...] that! [...] Everything I said happened in those 4 hours, the police have evidence of happening within 2 minutes of when I say it happened. They only denied my credibility after celebrating my accounts as true and belittling me and my mother to our faces! My mom taught me to “Pay attention to time, location, and description.” She taught me that it pays to pay attention. This time it didn’t pay it cost me. I am a potential threat to those guilty and still living. They cannot make up their minds of what is right and wrong, they’ve been sucked into to the evil [...]. I want to write a book, and have since it happened, but know too many reasons not to [publish it], like my family saying it risks my life. It still plagues me that my friends were forced to leave me while those sickened minds who killed them still walk [among] us. I want peace without being a martyr! I love and so I am lovable! What makes that so hard?!!! My protectors betrayed me, deeply. Would die for the truth, but want to live for the beauty of my lost friends memory and most important power of LOVE!”

To all of the witnesses I contacted, including those who may not have replied at all, I hope I presented myself in a manner that was respectful to your satisfaction. I do truly appreciate the difficulty imposed on you by the experience of the shooting, the events preceding it and its aftermath and wish you only the best in your recovery. [END] Permalink: Columbine Shooting Witnesses Speak Out

Indictment – Inside the Oklahoma City Grand Jury – The Hoppy Heidelberg Story

“Indictment: Inside the Oklahoma City Grand Jury – The Hoppy Heidelberg Story” highlights Oklahoma City Bombing Grand Juror Hoppy Heidelberg’s involvement with the effort to indict Timothy McVeigh for the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in April 1995. Heidelberg was unhappy with the way the prosecution tried to manhandle the jurors and limit their powers of inquiry and was eventually thrown off the jury for being too critical of the proceedings, which left many an important stone unturned. Like 9/11, like 7/7 and like many other high-profile acts of terrorism, the Oklahoma City Bombing has left many who’ve researched beyond the government’s convenient patsies and unlikely official version with many questions about who really committed the crime. [END] Permalink: Indictment – Inside the Oklahoma City Grand Jury – The Hoppy Heidelberg Story

J. A. Calhoun on the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing

In this video, Joseph Calhoun, a researcher who has worked on projects including the Oscar-winning “The Panama Deception,” gives a lecture and displays rare television news footage concerning the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. Many have seen documentary evidence about the impossibilities and peculiarities of the official 9/11 story but data on the WTC ’93 Bombing has been much harder to come by. [END] Permalink: J. A. Calhoun on the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing

Kay Griggs Talks

Kay Griggs is a Virginia woman from an American establishment family with extensive knowledge of the inner workings of high-level U. S. military circles. According to her seven hours of interviews in two parts above, her second husband, U.S. Marine Corps Colonel George Griggs, was a highly disturbed man who battered her, drank heavily and sometimes went missing. In this interview, Kay tells what she knows about the corruption and sexual perversion within the U. S. and NATO military command structures. [END] Permalink: Kay Griggs Talks