Stories That MSM Don’t Want You to Hear- Part 5 – Sneak and Peek

The USA PATRIOT ACT (Act of 2001) in its preamble states: “This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”. However, the reality of how this act is being used is far from that objective. While we are all aware of the impacts to countering terrorism the Patriot Act may or may not have had, what will surprise a few of us is how this act has been directed against non-terror related US citizens’ activities and in stark contrast to our basic rights we are granted by the constitution.

We have all seen how our local police forces have been transformed into paramilitary units. How SWAT teams now are deployed to issue warrants for overdue library books (I am not kidding). We all know how “Homeland Security” was used to solidify and greatly increase spending for domestic policing by blurring the lines for CIA to conduct domestic operations, increasing greatly the FBI budget, expanding the role of NSA on domestic ease dropping. All of this has been widely reported. However, these stories are all covered in a very generic manner.

What is NOT reported is exactly how the Patriot Act has been used against ordinary citizens in any number of domestic criminal or political situations where these citizens have been suspected of “activity” not to the liking of our government. Let’s drill down a bit to make this point.


Sec. 213 of the Patriot Act gives officials the authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant. In common terms, this means police can execute a warrant without showing the warrant FIRST or even telling you that the warrant was exercised.   Specifically:

With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given, may be delayed if:

(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result ;

(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.

So how has this broadened “Sneak and Peek” power been used. Government statistics show that less than 1% of all “sneak and peek” actions involve suspected terrorists. Under section 213 of the Patriot Act, law enforcement agencies can carry out sneak-and-peek warrants, which allow agents to “secretly enter, either physically or virtually; conduct a search, observe, take measurements, conduct examinations, smell, take pictures, copy documents, download or transmit computer files, and the like; and depart without taking any tangible evidence or leaving notice of their presence.” Suspects can be informed of the search later.

snake and peek 2

Remember the provision was added to the Patriot Act because, the FBI claimed, it was important not to tip off terrorism suspects during cases. But the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) found after reviewing reports released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that only 51 sneak-and-peek requests during 2013 were for terrorism out of 11,129 total requests that year. The biggest reason for the warrants was to investigate drug crimes (9,401 requests), EFF reported.

“The numbers vindicate privacy advocates who urged Congress to shelve Section 213 during the Patriot Act debates,” Mark Jaycox at EFF wrote. “Proponents of Section 213 claimed sneak and peek warrants were needed to protect against terrorism. But just like we’ve seen elsewhere, these claims are false.”

What is more shocking to you? The fact that the police can come into your home, go through your “stuff” and leave without ever telling you they were there or that this was done nearly 12,000 last year alone. What is absolutely amazing to us is that these types of political actions that result in these exact realities are as old as fascism. How do we fall for this crap after knowing all the history of previous fascist governments? Why do we accept this total collapse of our rights? Think about what this means to you. If you are “suspect” of any crime, the police can come into your home, ransack it and leave without ever telling you why or that they were even there in the first place, and it is all totally legal!

Benjamin Franklin is often quoted concerning Liberty and Security. However what he actually said was this; “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

So the question becomes “is this current state of the union what we deserve?” More importantly, if it is not what we deserve, what is the recourse to correct it at this point? Things that make you go “Hmmmmmmm.”

Stories That MSM Don’t Want You to Hear- Part 4 – Why is $ 4 Billion Being Spent on Mid-Term Elections?

Here is a logical question. Why would a person spend $22 million dollars of their own money to get elected to a job that pays $170,000 dollars a year for 4 years? Think about that for a moment. Just so we keep it all in focus here, the answer is several candidates have done so and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. It is happening on both sides. This is the true definition of an oligarchy, which is defined as a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

midterm spending

So one has to ask the next logical question, why would those few see the economic advantage of investing these massive amounts of money? Where is the profit in that move? The answer is obvious and factual.

The Social Security Administration has just released wage statistics for 2013, and the numbers are startling.  Last year, 50 percent of all American workers made less than $28,031, that is less than $13.50/hr. wage, and 39 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000, which is less than $9.75/hr. wage.  If you worked a full-time job at $10 an hour all year long with two weeks off, you would make $20,000.  So the fact that 39 percent of all workers made less than that amount is rather telling.  This is more evidence of the declining quality of the jobs in this country.  In many homes in America today, both parents are working multiple jobs in a desperate attempt to make ends meet. Our paychecks are stagnant while the cost of living just continues to soar.  And the jobs that are being added to the economy pay a lot less than the jobs lost in the last recession.  In fact, it has been estimated that the jobs that have been created since the last recession pay an average of 23 percent less than the jobs that were lost.  We are witnessing the slow-motion destruction of the middle class, and very few of our leaders seem to care.

The “average” yearly wage in America last year was just $43,041.  But after accounting for inflation, that was actually worse than the year before… American paychecks shrank last year, just-released data show, further eroding the public’s purchasing power, which is so vital to economic growth. Average pay for 2013 was $43,041 — down $79 from the previous year when measured in 2013 dollars. Worse, average pay fell $508 below the 2007 level, my analysis of the new Social Security Administration data shows.

Flat or declining average pay is a major reason so many Americans feel that the Great Recession never ended for them. A severe job shortage compounds that misery not just for workers but also for businesses trying to profit from selling goods and services. Average pay declined in 59 of the 60 levels of worker pay the government reports each October. And please keep in mind that “average pay” is really skewed by the millionaires and billionaires at the top end of the spectrum.

Median pay in 2013 was just $28,031.02.  That means that 50 percent of American workers made less than that number, and 50 percent of American workers made more than that number. Here are some more numbers from the report that the Social Security Administration just released…

-39 percent of American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

-52 percent of American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

-63 percent of American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

-72 percent of American workers made less than $50,000 last year.

It has been estimated that it takes approximately $50,000 a year to support a middle class lifestyle for a family of four, and so the fact that 72 percent of all workers make less than that amount shows how difficult it is for families that try to get by with just a single breadwinner.

The way that our economy is structured now, both parents usually have to work as hard as they can just to pay the bills. But there was one group of Americans that did see their incomes actually increase last year. Those making over 50 million dollars had their pay increase by an average of $12.8 million in 2013. That’s a startling 25%+!

Posted below is a chart that comes from the Federal Reserve.  It shows how real median household income in the United States has declined since the year 2000…

real median income 2014


Meanwhile, the cost of living has continued to rise at a steady pace. Needless to say, this is putting a tremendous squeeze on the middle class.  With each passing day, more Americans are losing their spots in the middle class and this has pushed government dependence to an all-time high.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans now live in a home that receives money from the government each month.  This is completely and totally unsustainable, but our long-term economic problems just keep getting worse.

Our politicians have stood by as millions upon millions of good paying jobs have been shipped out of the country.  Millions of other middle class jobs have been lost to technology.  This has resulted in intense competition for the middle class jobs that remain, and huge profits for the corporate elite, which in turn invest huge amounts of money to insure that our government continues its policies of not raising the minimum wage and denying the real cost of living to those on social security and disability. They then create propaganda through their media outlets to convince us that 72% of us are “takers”. How bold is that? Shame on us for buying this crap.

And at this point we are even losing lots of lower paying retail jobs.  For example, it is being reported that Sears plans to close 110 more stores and lay off more than 6,000 workers.  Sears says that the report “isn’t accurate”, but it isn’t denying that stores will be closed either… In an email to USA Today, Sears spokesman Howard Riefs said the store count and closures “isn’t accurate,” but did not provide store closures or layoff numbers. “As we stated in our (second quarter earnings report), we disclosed that we would be closing unprofitable stores as leases expire and in some cases will accelerate closings when it is economically prudent. And that we would consider closing additional stores during the remainder of the year,” Riefs said. “Make no mistake, we believe the store will continue to play an integral role in our transformation, however, if a store is not generating a profit, it is straightforward that the store should be considered for closure.” Hmmm. If people have no money to spend how can there be demand?

Are we going to remain silent until, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, “You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power – he’s free again. Wake TFU.

Stories That MSM Don’t Want You to Hear- Part 3 “Pentagon Awash in Money”

Our CONgress and the media are constantly flooding the air waves with how concerned they are about government spending. Conservatives have proposed to cut the three major social programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security by $1 Trillion dollars over the next five years. The ironic part of this is that the Social Security fund is funded by separate revenue and in fact currently has nearly a $2.76 Trillion balance as of 2013! Even with a significant portion of Baby Boomers hitting retirement age, the fund had receipts of $885 Million in 2013 with expenditure of $822 Million adding $32 million to the account balance. Given full employment (6% unemployment) the social security fund would actually be solvent until at least 2052. It would be expected to remain solvent after that since most, if not all, of the “baby-boomers” would have passed. If these proposed cuts were implemented, it would mean that the average social security check would be decreased from $1,250 to just $870 per month. Given the government’s own guidelines of defining extreme poverty ($11,670), a majority of social security recipients would be expected to survive on just $10,440 per year. In 2015, social security recipients will receive a 1.7% increase in benefits when the true inflation rate was arguable 6-8% over the last 24 months. This is in fact a defacto cut in benefits.

This is ironic since even the media fails to report that Social Security was NEVER part of the general budget until 1968 when President Johnson made that move by executive order to partial fund the Vietnam War. Since then, the government has been “spending” these retirement dollars, putting I.O.U.’s in place of the actual cash.

When you hear that the Federal Deficit has reached an all time high, it’s actually even more than you think. To arrive at the “true” and “correct” total of the U.S. Deficit, cash of the Social Security Trust funds need to be SUBTRACTED to the reported deficit. As it is now the assets of the Social Security Trust Funds are added into the Budget as a positive cash flow which offsets the “true” Federal Deficit.


In other words, plain and simple, the politicians in Washington have been lying to you since 1968 about the “true” Federal debt of the U.S. Government. It is being reported that the U.S. has a $17.6 trillion dollar deficit. However, $2.76 trillion dollars of Social Security Trust Fund monies are added in as an asset into the Budget. That would make the true deficit at over $20 Trillion dollars! To put this in perspective, this means that every man, woman, and child in this country owes somebody (mostly China) nearly $58,000.

However, Congress doesn’t seem to have the same fiscal restraint concerns as related to expanding the Pentagon’s 2014 budget by $32 billion. The Pentagon currently receives over $600 billion, when its current budget is combined with supplemental war funding. One out of every five US tax dollars is spent on defense, cumulatively more than the total of the next ten countries’ defense budgets combined. Where does the money go? “The exact answer is a mystery,” wrote Dave Gilson for Mother Jones. “That’s because the Pentagon’s books are a complete mess.” As the Government Accountability Office dryly noted, the Pentagon has “serious financial management problems” that render its financial statements “inauditable.”

miltary spending 2013

Despite a 1997 requirement that federal agencies submit to annual audits, the Pentagon, Gilson reported, claims it will not “achieve audit readiness” until 2017. Lack of budgetary accountability has led to risky investments by the Pentagon, Gilson reported, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, for example. As Gilson summarizes, the F-35 program is “years behind schedule, hugely over budget, and plagued with problems that have earned them a reputation as the biggest defense boondoggle in history.”

The Mother Jones report also analyzed how congressional interests and coalitions contributed to the protection of the Pentagon budget, even at a time when Congress was imposing spending reductions to food stamps and other mandatory social programs. Though fiscal conservatives in Congress favored defense cuts (like their liberal dove counterparts), they aligned with conservative hawks to impose social cuts, rather than reduce the Pentagon’s budget. Similarly, those conservative hawks found allies among liberal hawks, who were not supportive of domestic cuts, but also wanted more money for military spending. As Gilson observed, military spending was “the glue holding the budget deal together.”

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $1.5 trillion, about twice the cost of the Vietnam War when adjusted for inflation. Those funds came entirely from borrowing, contributing nearly 20 percent to the national debt accrued between 2001 and 2012. And that’s just the “supplemental” military spending passed by Congress for the wars—the regular Pentagon budget also grew nearly 45 percent between 2001 and 2010.

No wonder, perhaps, that defense watchdogs found the Pentagon’s wailing about the sequester less than convincing. “These ‘terrible’ cuts would return us to historically high levels of spending,” snapped Winslow Wheeler of the Project on Government Oversight. According to Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the Pentagon could reduce its budget by $100 billion a year without undermining its readiness. The sequestration cuts for 2013 amounted to $37 billion. So in essence the expansion of the DoD spending authorized by congress of $32 Billion pretty well “exempted’ Defense from the sequester.

Who benefits from the DoD windfall? According to Department of Defense documents, since 2001 contracts for services have increased 137%, compared to a 1% increase for payrolls of active duty military personnel over the same time period (in 2011 dollars), and is labeled as “increasingly unaffordable.” From this fact it would seem that the “toys” of war are far more valuable than the brave men and women who are sent into battle.

To understand the spending involved, analyzed data from, which was established in 2006 by the U.S. Office of Budget Management to make federal awards publicly available. According to the site, in FY2011 there were $536.8 billion in government contracts awarded to approximately 170,000 contractors. The data presented here are based solely on U.S. government contracts and do not include assistance, insurance, grants, loans or other forms of payment.

To put this into further perspective, Lockheed Martin, the number 1 government contractor, realized nearly $45 Billion in revenue as of December 2013 and had a net income of nearly $3 billion dollars! This is the real story of how corporate America has usurped our CONgress and is stealing us blind, while forcing more and more Americas into poverty. Forget the crap that middle class Americans are diminishing in number because it is far worse than that. A majority of Americans are being forced into poverty by the irresponsible and unethical acts of major corporations to maximize their profits on the backs of the taxpayers and under paid employees, and these irresponsible acts are being supported by our elected officials! This is the real economic story of our time and because these same corporations control the media, you don’t know or realize the true extent of these irresponsible acts. Again this should not be a political issue, but instead, should be an issue of who we are as a people. Why do we tolerate this level of mismanagement and wrong priorities in our government and our congress? Now you know.

Stories That MSM Don’t Want You to Hear- Part 2 “Education and American Elitism”

Everyone would agree that the future of our country is directly related to the level of education we provide our children. What is happening in America however is a travesty. Not only have states slashed their budgets for public education, but we have experienced the highest increases in college tuition in our history. I think we have all heard that our college students are strapped with over $1.2 Trillion dollars in educational related debt. This debt load now outpaces credit card debt in the US. Our congress last year raised interest rate ceilings on student loan debt; being the good corporate lackeys that they are and made it so that education related debt is NOT dischargeable in bankruptcy. This part of the story has been covered in MSM to some extent.

In the United States, the average per-year tuition cost is $8,655 per year for an in-state 4-year public college, $21,706 for an out-of-state 4 year public college, and $29,056 for a private 4-year college. The average American college student will graduate with more than $27,000 in debt, and college costs in the U.S. have gone up more than 1100% since 1978 with little sign of leveling off. However, what is not covered in MSM is what other major countries are doing to address the higher educational needs of their youth.

Germany made international news last week when they decided to eliminate college tuition entirely (before this, it was less than €1,000– the equivalent to $1,300– per year). In light of Germany’s actions, we decided to highlight 5 countries whose approaches towards financing higher education put ours to shame.

  1. Germany

Nearly all college students in Germany (99%) attend public universities, funded by the government. These schools were free up until 2006, when the German government decided to allow them to charge up to €1,000 per year in tuition fees to shift some of the financial burden onto students. The ensuing 8 years have seen mass protests (in the German state Hesse, 70,000 signatures were gathered), many politicians voted out of office, and as of last week, every German state has reverted to the free tuition model.

Germany, which has the 4th largest economy in the world (behind the US, China and Japan), once again has the government pick up the full tab for its citizens’ higher education. Gabrielle Heinen-Kjajic, the minister for science and culture in Lower Saxony, said: “We got rid of tuition fees because we do not want higher education [that] depends on the wealth of the parents.”  What a novel concept.

 german education free

  1.  Denmark

Denmark’s government provides university education completely free for its citizens as well as those of any country in the European Union. It gets better: Denmark’s government also provides monthly stipends to students for cost-of-living expenses (rent is less expensive in Denmark but food, transportation and other goods tend to be slightly more expensive as compared to the United States according to Expatistan and Numbeo). Any student who needs additional money can get a low-interest government loan (Denmark’s parliament sets the interest rate).

  1. Australia

Australian universities charge tuition and many students borrow money to attend school; however, Australia has a few tricks in place to help students manage debt:

First, tuition varies based on your major. Majors that lead to a higher future income, like medicine, law, and business, cost more.  Second, students may pay as much of their tuition up front as they or their families can afford, and get a 10% discount. Any tuition costs not paid up front will be paid back by the student based on their future income (this system is known as HELP).
This is where it gets interesting. For one thing, Australian graduates don’t pay back a cent until their income reaches a certain level (around $51,000 per year). Then they pay back between 4% and 8% of their income per year. However, if their income ever falls below the minimum level, they do not have to pay anything back until their income recovers. The most important part: no fees or interest accumulates on their debt during years where they earn below the $51,000 income threshold.

australian education

It should be noted that Australia’s government is cutting its education budget, and as a result, Australian universities are expected to raise tuition at least 30%. The interest rate on loans is also expected to be tied to the 10 year government bond rate (6%), which is higher than the current interest rate tied to the Consumer Price Index (currently 2.9%).

In the US is no limit on the rate of payback and even though it has been proposed to be capped at 10% of income, congress has failed to act.

  1. New Zealand

Staying Down Under, Australia’s neighbor New Zealand spends a greater percentage of their GDP (which essentially represents the size of a country’s economy) on education than any country in the world, which indicates they have concluded that education is a public good and is therefore worth government investment.

Like Australia, New Zealand allows graduates to repay their loans based on how much they earn. And in 2006, New Zealand’s government completely eliminated interest on student loans for all future students, meaning students will continue to pay back their loans based on their income level but won’t accrue interest. In the United States, the federal government generated $41.3 billion in student loan profits in fiscal year 2013, most of which is due to interest accumulation. 

As in Denmark, students in New Zealand also receive an allowance from the government, which does not need to be paid back.

  1. England

Almost all of England’s universities are public and tuition is around £6,000 per year (which is a little less than $10,000 per year) — and no university can charge more than £9,000.

Students repay their debt on an income-contingent basis, meaning they are not required to make a payment until their income exceeds £21,000 (around $33,000). Students pay back 9% of any income over that threshold – and their payments are put on hold if their income drops below £21,000 per year. So even though many in England are upset that higher education tuition has tripled in recent years, theirs is still a system that is currently better than the United States.

Higher Education is also free in Norway, Sweden, France, Finland, Greece, Scotland, Brazil, Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. The results of these public efforts are not surprising. The US ranks below every one of these nations in math and science and we rank below everyone of these nations economically on a per capita basis.

When you wonder why the US economy is not reviving, or why we are losing jobs overseas, or why so many people immigrate to country, forget the rhetoric and begin to understand, we are not supplying our own industry with the highly skilled and educated talent that is required in the 21st century, but other countries are doing the right thing.. Investing in their children and their futures.

In mathematics, 29 nations and other jurisdictions outperformed the United States by a statistically significant margin, up from 23 three years ago. In science, 22 education systems scored above the U.S. average, up from 18 in 2009. When comes to child poverty, the United States ranks 34th of the 35 countries surveyed, above only Romania and below virtually all of Europe plus Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

government spending

The real question here is, why can we, as Americans, justify this reality? We spend more on defense than the next ten countries in the world combined, yet when it comes to our children and our future, we are failing dismally. This is not a political question, but instead, is a real question of who we are as a people. Now you know the whole truth of the “dumbing down” of America, Home of the Privileged Few. Now you know the truth of what happens when we allow corporations (including our higher educational institutions) to usurp our government and make maximizing profits the primary goal of government at the cost to our children and our future.

Stories That MSM Don’t Want You to Hear- Part 1 “Chaptered Out”

While you may know that 96% of the media outlets in the US are owned by just 5 corporations, and while you may understand how heavily censored and manipulated the news you receive may be; it still doesn’t begin to put into perspective the “why” and “how” of the information you are fed is used to keep you uninformed and how it is manipulated to form your opinion of what is really going on in the world. Over the next several days and weeks, we are going to endeavor to “paint” as vividly as we can the real information you need to form opinion and hopefully, collectively, we can begin to stand up and change the reality of our political bondage and economic slavery. Sound too paranoid? Hold your opinion until our series ends, then make your judgment as you will.

What is “chaptered out”?

The US military has been engaged in a policy of forcing wounded and disabled veterans out of service to avoid paying benefits and to make room for new able-bodied recruits. Identifying injured combat soldiers as delinquent and negligent has lead to a practice called “chaptering out” which results in those soldiers being forced to leave the military without an honorable discharge. Because of this, thousands of soldiers have been chaptered out, losing federally sponsored benefits including health care, unemployment, and educational programs.

Dave Philipps, a reporter for the Colorado Springs Gazette, exposed this practice through his story of Purple Heart recipient Sergeant Jerrald Jensen. Jensen, a decorated two-tour Afghanistan war veteran and recovering active-duty sergeant, was forced from the army without benefits for what army officials called “a pattern of misconduct.” Jensen failed to pass a urine test after being prescribed drugs for his injuries. He was also written up for being late to an appointment. Jensen made numerous attempts to be retested but was chaptered out by his superiors. “They told me that I didn’t deserve to wear the uniform now, nor did I ever deserve to wear it,” Jensen told Al Jazeera America.


Philipps has followed several stories of wounded soldiers who have been kicked out of the military and left with nothing. “Many have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and some also have traumatic brain injuries (TBI), both of which can influence behavior and judgment,” said Philipps. He estimates that 76,000 soldiers have been chaptered out since 2006, and that number has increased every year since the war in Iraq began.

Although the military declined to be interviewed, denying any policy that targeted disabled soldiers to be forced out without benefits, an insider from the US Army Medical Command confirmed that this does happen. According to Philipps, “These commanders are stuck in this position where if they try to get them out medically, they are still stuck with them, maybe for a long time. If they decide to kick them out for misconduct instead, they could be out in weeks.” Some soldiers like Jensen have had success appealing their discharges, but many others are left without any support from the nation they served.

A roadside bomb hit Sgt. Jerrald Jensen’s Humvee in Iraq, punching through heavy armor and shooting a chunk of hot metal into his head at several times the speed of sound, shattering his face and putting him in a coma. “I wasn’t supposed to live,” the veteran lisped with half a tongue through numb lips. “No one knows why I did. It’s shocking.” Even more shocking is what Jensen did next. After 16 surgeries, the sergeant volunteered to go back to combat in one of the most savage corners of Afghanistan, where he was injured again. Perhaps most shocking, though, is what happened when he got home.

sgt jensen

Jensen returned to recover in a battalion at Fort Carson designed to care for wounded soldiers called the Warrior Transition Unit. In the WTU, the soldier with a heroic record said he encountered a hostile environment where commanders, some of whom had never deployed, harassed and punished the wounded for the slightest misstep while making them wait many weeks for critical medical care and sometimes canceling care altogether.

In 2011, a year after joining the WTU, just days after coming out of a surgery, Jensen tested positive for the drug amphetamine. The then-41-year-old asked to be retested, suggesting his many Army prescriptions might be to blame. His commander refused and instead gave Jensen the maximum punishment, cutting his rank to private, docking his pay and canceling surgery to fix his face so he could spend weeks mopping floors, picking weeds and scrubbing toilets. Then, Jensen said, WTU leaders said he should be discharged for misconduct — the equivalent of getting fired — with other-than-honorable rating, which denies him any benefits for the rest of his life.

“To call guys who sacrificed so much dishonorable and kick them out with nothing?” said Jensen, who is now out of the Army, living in a small apartment with blankets covering the windows because his injuries make him sensitive to light. “Christ sake, man, it is a disgrace.”

With troops going back and forth between duty stateside and in war zones during multiple deployments, disciplinary regulations designed for more conventional wars of the past increasingly are snaring troops. A Gazette investigation shows that after a decade of war, the Army is discharging more soldiers for misconduct every year. The number kicked out Army-wide annually has increased 60 percent since 2006.

The Gazette detailed how some of the discharged have invisible wounds of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder but are kicked out anyway. The factors driving the surge in discharges include a lack of objective tests for those invisible injuries; the need to shrink the force by at least 80,000 by 2017; and Army systems that make combat units wait months or years for replacements for the wounded, turning injured soldiers into a burden and giving low-level leaders incentive to get rid of them.

“At a policy level the Army is saying it takes care of these guys but at a command level it is not happening,” said Lenore Warger, a counselor who has worked with discharged soldiers for 12 years at the veterans rights organization The Quaker House near Fort Bragg in North Carolina. “Oftentimes guys with PTSD or TBI are shunned. Instead of being cared for they are marginalized.”

More than 13,000 soldiers were discharged for misconduct from the Army in 2012, records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show. Army leaders contend that caring for soldiers is a top priority and no one is unduly punished. But the Army does not track how many of the discharged were also injured.

The Army refused multiple requests to comment on Jensen’s case. Army regulations allow soldiers to be discharged for any number of infractions, from drug use to disrespect to showing up late too often. Ultimately, the commanding general of each post decides who is punished and who is spared.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Army considers soldiers’ entire records, as well as their physical and mental conditions, in a discharge. “In short, each case is considered individually and judged on its merits,” he said in an email.

At Fort Carson, discharge data obtained by The Gazette shows few of the wounded are spared. Of the 41 Fort Carson soldiers designated as wounded (those in the medical discharge process) who were targeted for a misconduct discharge in 2012, 80 percent were cut loose.

In the WTU, where soldiers by definition have complex medical issues, the rate of discharge was just as high. Of the five soldiers up for punishment, all but one were kicked out. In 2011, it was even more harsh. Of four WTU soldiers targeted for misconduct, all were kicked out.

The Fort Carson figures do not account for the unknown number of soldiers with PTSD or TBI who are not in the medical discharge process or the WTU. The Army said it does not track the number of wounded soldiers kicked out for misconduct.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Anderson, who commanded Fort Carson from November 2011 until mid-March and is slated to become commander of Fort Bragg this summer, said discipline, must be strictly enforced, even when soldiers are hurt.

This story isn’t about just veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, Vietnam era veterans were denied treatment for PTSD. The military said it was just behavioral disorders. We now know better.

The number of veterans as of Sept. 2014 is approximately 25 million men and women.

  • Between 529,000 and 840,000 veterans are homeless at some time during the year.
  • On any given night, more than 300,000 veterans are living on the streets or in shelters in the U.S.
  • Approx. 33% of homeless males in the U.S. are veterans.
  • Veterans are twice as likely as other Americans to become chronically homeless.
  • Veterans represent 11% of the adult civilian population, but 26% of the homeless population, according to the Homeless Research Institute.
  • Veterans are more at risk of becoming homeless than non-veterans
  • The number of homeless Vietnam-era veterans, male and female, is greater than the number of soldiers who died during the war.
  • Primary causes of homelessness among veterans are:
  1. Lack of income due to limited education and lack of transferable skills from military to civilian life (especially true of younger veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan)
  2. Combat-related physical health issues and disabilities
  3. Combat-related mental health issues and disabilities
  4. Substance abuse problems that interfere with job retention
  5. Weak social networks due to problems adjusting to civilian life
  6. Lack of services.

While we all are aware of the spotlight on the Veteran’s Administration’s failure to treat our veterans in a full or timely manner, the military itself is guilty of a far more egregious act of denying benefits at all to those who have so faithfully served and have paid a high price for their service. This is an outrage! We all should surely be motivated to act politically to this situation, if we knew. Now you know.

We should demand that every one of these men and women be re-instated to a status to continue to receive the care and treatment they deserve and have earned. Veterans represent one of the largest political blocs in this country and it is time we, along veterans, stand united. It truly has touched every family. No politician should be elected to office who would not pledge to have these men and women reinstated to their honorable status.. No Exceptions.

It is Time for Real Truth to Begin

Those who are beginning to wake up realize that we are constantly being manipulated by all forms of “authority”. What we are taught in school. What we are taught in most organized religions. What we are told by our media outlets. What we are told by our governments. Ironically, we never seem to have that individual thought of “is that the truth?” It is time to question everything we are taught and told. This is the ACTION we can take as awakening individuals. Let’s look at something very fundamental and what we were ALL taught in school.

Who was the first president of the United States? Ask any school child and they will readily tell you “George Washington.” And of course, they would be wrong—at least technically. Washington was not inaugurated until April 30, 1789. And yet, the United States continually had functioning governments from as early as September 5, 1774 and operated as a confederated nation from as early as July 4, 1776. During that nearly fifteen year interval, Congress—first the Continental Congress and then later the Confederation Congress—was always moderated by a duly elected president. As the chief executive officer of the government of the United States, the president was recognized as the head of state. Washington was thus the fifteenth in a long line of distinguished presidents—and he led the seventeenth administration—he just happened to be the first under the current constitution. So who were the luminaries who preceded him? The following brief biographies profile these “forgotten presidents.”

Peyton Randolph of Virginia (1723-1775)
When delegates gathered in Philadelphia for the first Continental Congress, they promptly elected the former King’s Attorney of Virginia as the moderator and president of their convocation. He was a propitious choice. He was a legal prodigy—having studied at the Inner Temple in London, served as his native colony’s Attorney General, and tutored many of the most able men of the South at William and Mary College—including the young Patrick Henry. His home in Williamsburg was the gathering place for Virginia’s legal and political gentry—and it remains a popular attraction in the restored colonial capital. He had served as a delegate in the Virginia House of Burgesses, and had been a commander under William Byrd in the colonial militia. He was a scholar of some renown—having begun a self-guided reading of the classics when he was thirteen. Despite suffering poor health served the Continental Congress as president twice, in 1774 from September 5 to October 21, and then again for a few days in 1775 from May 10 to May 23. He never lived to see independence, yet was numbered among the nation’s most revered founders.

Henry Middleton (1717-1784)
America’s second elected president was one of the wealthiest planters in the South, the patriarch of the most powerful families anywhere in the nation. His public spirit was evident from an early age. He was a member of his state’s Common House from 1744-1747. During the last two years he served as the Speaker. During 1755 he was the King’s Commissioner of Indian Affairs. He was a member of the South Carolina Council from 1755-1770. His valor in the War with the Cherokees during 1760-1761 earned him wide recognition throughout the colonies—and demonstrated his cool leadership abilities while under pressure. He was elected as a delegate to the first session of the Continental Congress and when Peyton Randolph was forced to resign the presidency, his peers immediately turned to Middleton to complete the term. He served as the fledgling coalition’s president from October 22, 1774 until Randolph was able to resume his duties briefly beginning on May 10, 1775. Afterward, he was a member of the Congressional Council of Safety and helped to establish the young nation’s policy toward the encouragement and support of education. In February 1776 he resigned his political involvements in order to prepare his family and lands for what he believed was inevitable war—but he was replaced by his son Arthur who eventually became a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, served time as an English prisoner of war, and was twice elected Governor of his state.

John Hancock (1737-1793)
The third president was a patriot, rebel leader, merchant who signed his name into immortality in giant strokes on the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. The boldness of his signature has made it live in American minds as a perfect expression of the strength and freedom—and defiance—of the individual in the face of British tyranny. As President of the Continental Congress during two widely spaced terms—the first from May 24 1775 to October 30 1777 and the second from November 23 1885 to June 5, 1786—Hancock was the presiding officer when the members approved the Declaration of Independence. Because of his position, it was his official duty to sign the document first—but not necessarily as dramatically as he did. Hancock figured prominently in another historic event—the battle at Lexington: British troops who fought there April 10, 1775, had known Hancock and Samuel Adams were in Lexington and had come there to capture these rebel leaders. And the two would have been captured, if they had not been warned by Paul Revere. As early as 1768, Hancock defied the British by refusing to pay customs charges on the cargo of one of his ships. One of Boston’s wealthiest merchants, he was recognized by the citizens, as well as by the British, as a rebel leader—and was elected President of the first Massachusetts Provincial Congress. After he was chosen President of the Continental Congress in 1775, Hancock became known beyond the borders of Massachusetts, and, having served as colonel of the Massachusetts Governor’s Guards he hoped to be named commander of the American forces—until John Adams nominated George Washington. In 1778 Hancock was commissioned Major General and took part in an unsuccessful campaign in Rhode Island. But it was as a political leader that his real distinction was earned—as the first Governor of Massachusetts, as President of Congress, and as President of the Massachusetts constitutional ratification convention. He helped win ratification in Massachusetts, gaining enough popular recognition to make him a contender for the newly created Presidency of the United States, but again he saw Washington gain the prize. Like his rival, George Washington, Hancock was a wealthy man who risked much for the cause of independence. He was the wealthiest New Englander supporting the patriotic cause, and, although he lacked the brilliance of John Adams or the capacity to inspire of Samuel Adams, he became one of the foremost leaders of the new nation—perhaps, in part, because he was willing to commit so much at such risk to the cause of freedom.

how to think

Henry Laurens (1724-1792)
The only American president ever to be held as a prisoner of war by a foreign power, Laurens was heralded after he was released as “the father of our country,” by no less a personage than George Washington. He was of Huguenot extraction, his ancestors having come to America from France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes made the Reformed faith illegal. Raised and educated for a life of mercantilism at his home in Charleston, he also had the opportunity to spend more than a year in continental travel. It was while in Europe that he began to write revolutionary pamphlets—gaining him renown as a patriot. He served as vice-president of South Carolina in1776. He was then elected to the Continental Congress. He succeeded John Hancock as President of the newly independent but war beleaguered United States on November 1, 1777. He served until December 9, 1778 at which time he was appointed Ambassador to the Netherlands. Unfortunately for the cause of the young nation, he was captured by an English warship during his cross-Atlantic voyage and was confined to the Tower of London until the end of the war. After the Battle of Yorktown, the American government regained his freedom in a dramatic prisoner exchange—President Laurens for Lord Cornwallis. Ever the patriot, Laurens continued to serve his nation as one of the three representatives selected to negotiate terms at the Paris Peace Conference in 1782.

John Jay (1745-1829)
America’s first Secretary of State, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, one of its first ambassadors, and author of some of the celebrated Federalist Papers, Jay was a Founding Father who, by a quirk of fate, missed signing the Declaration of Independence—at the time of the vote for independence and the signing, he had temporarily left the Continental Congress to serve in New York’s revolutionary legislature. Nevertheless, he was chosen by his peers to succeed Henry Laurens as President of the United States—serving a term from December 10, 1778 to September 27, 1779. A conservative New York lawyer who was at first against the idea of independence for the colonies, the aristocratic Jay in 1776 turned into a patriot who was willing to give the next twenty-five years of his life to help establish the new nation. During those years, he won the regard of his peers as a dedicated and accomplished statesman and a man of unwavering principle. In the Continental Congress Jay prepared addresses to the people of Canada and Great Britain. In New York he drafted the State constitution and served as Chief Justice during the war. He was President of the Continental Congress before he undertook the difficult assignment, as ambassador, of trying to gain support and funds from Spain. After helping Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and Laurens complete peace negotiations in Paris in 1783, Jay returned to become the first Secretary of State, called “Secretary of Foreign Affairs” under the Articles of Confederation. He negotiated valuable commercial treaties with Russia and Morocco, and dealt with the continuing controversy with Britain and Spain over the southern and western boundaries of the United States. He proposed that America and Britain establish a joint commission to arbitrate disputes that remained after the war—a proposal which, though not adopted, influenced the government’s use of arbitration and diplomacy in settling later international problems. In this post Jay felt keenly the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and was one of the first to advocate a new governmental compact. He wrote five Federalist Papers supporting the Constitution, and he was a leader in the New York ratification convention. As first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jay made the historic decision that a State could be sued by a citizen from another State, which led to the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. On a special mission to London he concluded the “Jay Treaty,” which helped avert a renewal of hostilities with Britain but won little popular favor at home—and it is probably for this treaty that this Founding Father is best remembered.

Samuel Huntington (1732-1796)
An industrious youth who mastered his studies of the law without the advantage of a school, a tutor, or a master—borrowing books and snatching opportunities to read and research between odd jobs—he was one of the greatest self-made men among the Founders. He was also one of the greatest legal minds of the age—all the more remarkable for his lack of advantage as a youth. In 1764, in recognition of his obvious abilities and initiative, he was elected to the General Assembly of Connecticut. The next year he was chosen to serve on the Executive Council. In 1774 he was appointed Associate Judge of the Superior Court and, as a delegate to the Continental Congress, was acknowledged to be a legal scholar of some respect. He served in Congress for five consecutive terms, during the last of which he was elected President. He served in that office from September 28, 1779 until ill health forced him to resign on July 9, 1781. He returned to his home in Connecticut—and as he recuperated, he accepted more Councilor and Bench duties. He again took his seat in Congress in 1783, but left it to become Chief Justice of his state’s Superior Court. He was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1785 and Governor in 1786. According to John Jay, he was “the most precisely trained Christian jurists ever to serve his country.”

Thomas McKean (1734-1817)
During his astonishingly varied fifty-year career in public life he held almost every possible position—from deputy county attorney to President of the United States under the Confederation. Besides signing the Declaration of Independence, he contributed significantly to the development and establishment of constitutional government in both his home state of Delaware and the nation. At the Stamp Act Congress he proposed the voting procedure that Congress adopted: that each colony, regardless of size or population, have one vote—the practice adopted by the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation, and the principle of state equality manifest in the composition of the Senate. And as county judge in 1765, he defied the British by ordering his court to work only with documents that did not bear the hated stamps. In June 1776, at the Continental Congress, McKean joined with Caesar Rodney to register Delaware’s approval of the Declaration of Independence, over the negative vote of the third Delaware delegate, George Read—permitting it to be “The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States.” And at a special Delaware convention, he drafted the constitution for that State. McKean also helped draft—and signed—the Articles of Confederation. It was during his tenure of service as President—from July 10, 1781 to November 4, 1782—when news arrived from General Washington in October 1781 that the British had surrendered following the Battle of Yorktown. As Chief Justice of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, he contributed to the establishment of the legal system in that State, and, in 1787, he strongly supported the Constitution at the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, declaring it “the best the world has yet seen.” At sixty-five, after over forty years of public service, McKean resigned from his post as Chief Justice. A candidate on the Democratic-Republican ticket in 1799, McKean was elected Governor of Pennsylvania. As Governor, he followed such a strict policy of appointing only fellow Republicans to office that he became the father of the spoils system in America. He served three tempestuous terms as Governor, completing one of the longest continuous careers of public service of any of the Founding Fathers.

John Hanson (1715-1783)
He was the heir of one of the greatest family traditions in the colonies and became the patriarch of a long line of American patriots—his great grandfather died at Lutzen beside the great King Gustavus Aldophus of Sweden; his grandfather was one of the founders of New Sweden along the Delaware River in Maryland; one of his nephews was the military secretary to George Washington; another was a signer of the Declaration; still another was a signer of the Constitution; yet another was Governor of Maryland during the Revolution; and still another was a member of the first Congress; two sons were killed in action with the Continental Army; a grandson served as a member of Congress under the new Constitution; and another grandson was a Maryland Senator. Thus, even if Hanson had not served as President himself, he would have greatly contributed to the life of the nation through his ancestry and progeny. As a youngster he began a self-guided reading of classics and rather quickly became an acknowledged expert in the juridicalism of Anselm and the practical philosophy of Seneca—both of which were influential in the development of the political philosophy of the great leaders of the Reformation. It was based upon these legal and theological studies that the young planter—his farm, Mulberry Grove was just across the Potomac from Mount Vernon—began to espouse the cause of the patriots. In 1775 he was elected to the Provincial Legislature of Maryland. Then in 1777, he became a member of Congress where he distinguished himself as a brilliant administrator. Thus, he was elected President in 1781. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation—and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was strongly opposed to the Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.

Elias Boudinot (1741-1802)
He did not sign the Declaration, the Articles, or the Constitution. He did not serve in the Continental Army with distinction. He was not renowned for his legal mind or his political skills. He was instead a man who spent his entire career in foreign diplomacy. He earned the respect of his fellow patriots during the dangerous days following the traitorous action of Benedict Arnold. His deft handling of relations with Canada also earned him great praise. After being elected to the Congress from his home state of New Jersey, he served as the new nation’s Secretary for Foreign Affairs—managing the influx of aid from France, Spain, and Holland. The in 1783 he was elected to the Presidency. He served in that office from November 4, 1782 until November 2, 1783. Like so many of the other early presidents, he was a classically trained scholar, of the Reformed faith, and an anti-federalist in political matters. He was the father and grandfather of frontiersmen—and one of his grandchildren and namesakes eventually became a leader of the Cherokee nation in its bid for independence from the sprawling expansion of the United States.

Thomas Mifflin (1744-1800)
By an ironic sort of providence, Thomas Mifflin served as George Washington’s first aide-de-camp at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, and, when the war was over, he was the man, as President of the United States, who accepted Washington’s resignation of his commission. In the years between, Mifflin greatly served the cause of freedom—and, apparently, his own cause—while serving as the first Quartermaster General of the Continental Army. He obtained desperately needed supplies for the new army—and was suspected of making excessive profit himself. Although experienced in business and successful in obtaining supplies for the war, Mifflin preferred the front lines, and he distinguished himself in military actions on Long Island and near Philadelphia. Born and reared a Quaker, he was excluded from their meetings for his military activities. A controversial figure, Mifflin lost favor with Washington and was part of the Conway Cabal—a rather notorious plan to replace Washington with General Horatio Gates. And Mifflin narrowly missed court-martial action over his handling of funds by resigning his commission in 1778. In spite of these problems—and of repeated charges that he was a drunkard—Mifflin continued to be elected to positions of responsibility—as President and Governor of Pennsylvania, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, as well as the highest office in the land—where he served from November 3, 1783 to November 29, 1784. Most of Mifflin’s significant contributions occurred in his earlier years—in the First and Second Continental Congresses he was firm in his stand for independence and for fighting for it, and he helped obtain both men and supplies for Washington’s army in the early critical period. In 1784, as President, he signed the treaty with Great Britain which ended the war. Although a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he did not make a significant contribution—beyond signing the document. As Governor of Pennsylvania, although he was accused of negligence, he supported improvements of roads, and reformed the State penal and judicial systems. He had gradually become sympathetic to Jefferson’s principles regarding State’s rights, even so, he directed the Pennsylvania militia to support the Federal tax collectors in the Whiskey Rebellion. In spite of charges of corruption, the affable Mifflin remained a popular figure. A magnetic personality and an effective speaker, he managed to hold a variety of elective offices for almost thirty years of the critical Revolutionary period.


Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794)
His resolution “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States,” approved by the Continental Congress July 2, 1776, was the first official act of the United Colonies that set them irrevocably on the road to independence. It was not surprising that it came from Lee’s pen—as early as 1768 he proposed the idea of committees of correspondence among the colonies, and in 1774 he proposed that the colonies meet in what became the Continental Congress. From the first, his eye was on independence. A wealthy Virginia planter whose ancestors had been granted extensive lands by King Charles II, Lee disdained the traditional aristocratic role and the aristocratic view. In the House of Burgesses he flatly denounced the practice of slavery. He saw independent America as “an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repose.” In 1764, when news of the proposed Stamp Act reached Virginia, Lee was a member of the committee of the House of Burgesses that drew up an address to the King, an official protest against such a tax. After the tax was established, Lee organized the citizens of his county into the Westmoreland Association, a group pledged to buy no British goods until the Stamp Act was repealed. At the First Continental Congress, Lee persuaded representatives from all the colonies to adopt this non-importation idea, leading to the formation of the Continental Association, which was one of the first steps toward union of the colonies. Lee also proposed to the First Continental Congress that a militia be organized and armed—the year before the first shots were fired at Lexington; but this and other proposals of his were considered too radical—at the time. Three days after Lee introduced his resolution, in June of 1776, he was appointed by Congress to the committee responsible for drafting a declaration of independence, but he was called home when his wife fell ill, and his place was taken by his young protégé, Thomas Jefferson. Thus Lee missed the chance to draft the document—though his influence greatly shaped it and he was able to return in time to sign it. He was elected President—serving from November 30, 1784 to November 22, 1785 when he was succeeded by the second administration of John Hancock. Elected to the Constitutional Convention, Lee refused to attend, but as a member of the Congress of the Confederation, he contributed to another great document, the Northwest Ordinance, which provided for the formation of new States from the Northwest Territory. When the completed Constitution was sent to the States for ratification, Lee opposed it as anti-democratic and anti-Christian. However, as one of Virginia’s first Senators, he helped assure passage of the amendments that, he felt, corrected many of the document’s gravest faults—the Bill of Rights. He was the great uncle of Robert E. Lee and the scion of a great family tradition.

Nathaniel Gorham (1738-1796)
Another self-made man, Gorham was one of the many successful Boston merchants who risked all he had for the cause of freedom. He was first elected to the Massachusetts General Court in 1771. His honesty and integrity won his acclaim and was thus among the first delegates chose to serve in the Continental Congress. He remained in public service throughout the war and into the Constitutional period, though his greatest contribution was his call for a stronger central government. But even though he was an avid federalist, he did not believe that the union could—or even should—be maintained peaceably for more than a hundred years. He was convinced that eventually, in order to avoid civil or cultural war, smaller regional interests should pursue an independent course. His support of a new constitution was rooted more in pragmatism than ideology. When John Hancock was unable to complete his second term as President, Gorham was elected to succeed him—serving from June 6, 1786 to February 1, 1787. It was during this time that the Congress actually entertained the idea of asking Prince Henry—the brother of Frederick II of Prussia—and Bonnie Prince Charlie—the leader of the ill-fated Scottish Jacobite Rising and heir of the Stuart royal line—to consider the possibility of establishing a constitutional monarch in America. It was a plan that had much to recommend it but eventually the advocates of republicanism held the day. During the final years of his life, Gorham was concerned with several speculative land deals which nearly cost him his entire fortune.

Arthur St. Clair (1734-1818)
Born and educated in Edinburgh, Scotland during the tumultuous days of the final Jacobite Rising and the Tartan Suppression, St. Clair was the only president of the United States born and bred on foreign soil. Though most of his family and friends abandoned their devastated homeland in the years following the Battle of Culloden—after which nearly a third of the land was depopulated through emigration to America—he stayed behind to learn the ways of the hated Hanoverian English in the Royal Navy. His plan was to learn of the enemy’s military might in order to fight another day. During the global conflict of the Seven Years War—generally known as the French and Indian War—he was stationed in the American theater. Afterward, he decided to settle in Pennsylvania where many of his kin had established themselves. His civic-mindedness quickly became apparent: he helped to organize both the New Jersey and the Pennsylvania militias, led the Continental Army’s Canadian expedition, and was elected Congress. His long years of training in the enemy camp was finally paying off. He was elected President in 1787—and he served from February 2 of that year until January 21 of the next. Following his term of duty in the highest office in the land, he became the first Governor of the Northwest Territory and the founder of Cincinnati. Though he briefly supported the idea of creating a constitutional monarchy under the Stuart’s Bonnie Prince Charlie, he was a strident Anti-Federalist—believing that the proposed federal constitution would eventually allow for the intrusion of government into virtually every sphere and aspect of life. He even predicted that under the vastly expanded centralized power of the state the taxing powers of bureaucrats and other unelected officials would eventually confiscate as much as a quarter of the income of the citizens—a notion that seemed laughable at the time but that has proven to be ominously modest in light of our current governmental leviathan. St. Clair lived to see the hated English tyrants who destroyed his homeland defeated. But he despaired that his adopted home might actually create similar tyrannies and impose them upon themselves.

Cyrus Griffin (1736-1796)
Like Peyton Randolph, he was trained in London’s Inner Temple to be a lawyer—and thus was counted among his nation’s legal elite. Like so many other Virginians, he was an anti-federalist, though he eventually accepted the new Constitution with the promise of the Bill of Rights as a hedge against the establishment of an American monarchy—which still had a good deal of currency. The Articles of Confederation afforded such freedoms that he had become convinced that even with the incumbent loss of liberty, some new form of government would be required. A protégé of George Washington—having worked with him on several speculative land deals in the West—he was a reluctant supporter of the Constitutional ratifying process. It was during his term in the office of the Presidency—the last before the new national compact went into effect—that ratification was formalized and finalized. He served as the nation’s chief executive from January 22, 1788 until George Washington’s inauguration on April 30, 1789.

Now that you know the whole truth, does it bother you that you were not taught any of this in school? What else do you not know, and more importantly why is the truth hidden from us? It is time to question everything and all authority. It is time to take the personal responsibility to confirm or reject everything we have been taught. The truth is really far more interesting and exciting than the garbage we have been fed. Truth surely does set us free.

Time to Rise and Shine!

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us “Universe”, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.

This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.

Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security. 

-ALBERT EINSTEIN (as quoted in The New York Times 29 March 1972)

It’s quite obvious to anyone with nerve endings un-deadened by Prozac that the energies of this planet are very highly charged at this moment.  The banking system keeps trying to phoenix the existing debt systems by issuing new debt and hoping to cover that trail by worldwide conflagration and/or pandemic.

A critical mass of awakened humanity has been reached, and quite like the 10 billion neurons in a brain, the collective human consciousness on this planet is firing up and remembering who it is.  And each human awakening like a tuning fork stirs the next one.
The elite bankers and their crony politicians are continuing to play out their drama because they are only one trick pony acts.  Creativity was never their strong point.  They have a Felix the Magic Cat template bag of magic tricks.  They were always middle management imported from some distant star that spent too many eons in building their gold plated thrones on the dead remains of those they see as the “less evolved” on one planet or another.  This is their last bastion.  Bred on the belief in their own separation from Source, even while they grudgingly acknowledge the oneness of all in their own writings, they still attempt to hide that oneness with every allusion and illusion of separation wrapped up in hierarchies of light and dark when they themselves recognize no such boundary.  But there is an energetic accounting.

When it comes to the game of separation consciousness, these parasites are very skilled at it and getting you to play that game. Separation consciousness is a game that feeds on itself. It’s an endless recursive loop, the endless program that keeps on running because it keeps following the same track. There was always another option, but that exit door said “LOVE ALL, JUDGE NONE” … for judgment is only an excuse for withholding love. The pain of separation consciousness makes that seem like the foolish choice.

These techniques that have us judging ourselves coupled with life- long teaching of being God’s chosen ones, the one true religion, correct politics, or race or the one thousand and one other ways humanity has been divided and conquered, you get what we have now, gasoline looking for a match. No one on this planet has been immune from that kind of mental programming.  And those that want to cast one race or another as evil demons or aliens are just doing more of the same. The separation game always plays both sides
Biology wants to survive; it’s the evolutionary imperative that drives life to arise from the materium.  You are not biology with a consciousness; you are consciousness that has a biological body.  The Soul knows it survives – no matter what – and from that knowing and love all courage is born.   The threat and use of violence to instill fear to the ego causes people to turn from their inner guidance and believe in the illusion of separation.

There is one belief, however, that destroys artificial barriers to perception, an expanding belief that automatically pierces false and inhibiting ideas.

“The Self Is Not Limited.  And… There Are No Boundaries or Separations of the Self. “

Roberts, Jane (2011-09-30). The Nature of Personal Reality: Specific, Practical Techniques for Solving Everyday Problems and Enriching the Life You Know 


Here is what you should try to understand about the true nature of who you are;

  1.  I am part of the world. The world is not outside of me, and I am not outside of the world. The world is in me, and I am in the world.
  2.  I am more than a skin-and-bone material organism: my body, and its cells and organs are manifestations of what is truly me: a self-sustaining, self-evolving dynamic system arising, persisting and developing in interaction with other such systems and with the world around me.
  3.  I am one of the highest, most evolved manifestations of the drive toward coherence and wholeness in the world. My essence is this cosmic drive. It is the same essence that is inherent in all the systems that arise and evolve in the universe.
  4.  There are no absolute boundaries and divisions among the systems that arise and evolve in the universe, only transition points where one set of relations yields prevalence to another. In me, in this self-maintaining and self-evolving coherence- and wholeness-oriented system, the relations that integrate the cells and organs of my body are prevalent.  Beyond my body other relations gain prevalence: those that drive toward coherence and wholeness in humanity, nature, and throughout the universe.
  5.  The separate identity I attach to my fellow humans is a convenient convention to facilitate my interaction with them. My family and my community are just as much “me” as the cells and organs of my body. There are only gradients of intensity in the relations that distinguishing individuals from each other and from the world, no absolute divisions and boundaries. There are no “others” in the world: we are all dynamic, coherence and wholeness oriented systems in the world and we are part of the world and so part of each other.
  6.  Collaboration, not competition, is the royal road to the wholeness and coherence that hallmarks healthy systems in the world. Collaboration calls for trust, empathy and solidarity. Comprehension, conciliation, and forgiveness are not signs of weakness but signs of courage. Harming others, even under the banner of patriotism and national or corporate interest is a mistaken intention. I am part of whoever I harm, and so I harm myself.
  7.  “The good” for me, and for everyone in my world, is not the possession and accumulation of wealth. Wealth, whether in money or in a material resource, is just a means for maintaining myself in my environment. As exclusively mine, it commandeers a part of the resources that all living beings on the planet need to share if they are to live and thrive. Exclusive wealth is a threat to everyone in the community of life on the planet, and because I, as well as the holders of wealth, are part of this community it is a threat to the wealthy, and to me.
  8.  A healthy person has pleasure in giving: it is a higher pleasure than having. I am healthy and whole when I value giving over having. The true measure of accomplishment and excellence is my readiness to give, whatever I can give without harming myself, my family and those in my care. A community that values giving over having is a community of healthy persons, thriving through solidarity and love. Sharing enhances the community, while possessing and accumulating creates demarcation, invites competition and fuels envy. The share-society is the norm for all communities of life on the planet; the have-society is an aberration.
  9.  Only life and its development have intrinsic value as ends in themselves.  All other things have value only insofar as they add to or enhance life and its development. Material things, and the energies and substances they need or generate, have value only insofar as they contribute to the development of life in the community of all beings on the planet.
  10.  I recognize my responsibility for evolving my consciousness and through my example for helping the evolution of consciousness in others. We have been part of the aberration of human consciousness in the modern world, and we need to be part of the evolution that overcomes that aberration. Living and working toward this goal is my duty, as a conscious member of a conscious species in a conscious cosmos.


As you begin to absorb these affirmations you will begin to feel the fears and anxieties of life begin to melt away. In their place you begin to feel hopeful, surety, gratefulness, and freedom. Mostly you will begin to feel free and in-charge. They are just words and thoughts, but when they begin to resonate within your soul, the chains, delusion and illusions begin to fade. You can breathe finally, really breathe.