Focused on providing independent journalism.

Tuesday, 26 May 2015

Kiss your pension fund goodbye

Image
    
I have warned for some time that government was eyeing up pensions. There is about $19.4 trillion dollars in private pension funds. How will they justify taking over these funds to the people? This is the question debated in secrecy behind the curtain. I have warned that if government seizes pension funds, it will come after 2015.75. The Supreme Court, without any justification constitutionally, just determined how that will be accomplished.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in the unanimous 8-page decision, ,stating that employers have a duty to protect workers in their 401(k) plans from mutual funds that perform poorly or are too expensive. That is simply astonishing since there is no constitutional requirement for even government to provide social benefits. The Supreme Court held in the 1980 case , that there is no duty imposed upon the state to provide a public program, for that would convert the constitution from a restrain upon government to a obligation to provide for everyone.

If we take the fact that the constitution is NEGATIVE, and was a restrain upon government, then this latest ruling is completely unfounded. Monday's unanimous ruling sends a warning to employers that they now must improve their plans, as it is now an obligation to protect employees. This comes just in time for the next step is government to seize private funds and prosecute employers who poorly chose a fund manager. This fits perfectly, and is just in time for the Obama Administration's next assault as they prepare a landmark change of its own by issuing rules requiring financial advisers to put the interest of customers ahead of their own. This creates a very grey area wide enough to justify public seizure of pension funds under management.

This ruling will have a dramatic impact upon investment management. We have already received calls asking about using our model for management purposes, since it has one of the longest verifiable track records in the industry. What this ruling imposes is a tremendous duty upon the plan fiduciary who must now backup his decision with proof. This may also have the impact of foreclosing new fund managers from entering the business since they will lack the track record.

Yet this decision is even deeper. It sets the stage to JUSTIFY government seizure of private pension funds to protect pensioners. When the economy turns down and things get messy, they place measures to eliminate money in its physical dimension by closing all tax loopholes and shutting down the world economy with FATCA. They are preparing for the final straw of Economic Totalitarianism with the Supreme Court reversing its entire construction of the Constitution to impose a duty upon employers to ensure the 401(k) plans perform in a world where interest rates are going negative. You really cannot make up this level of insanity.

The message here is not that all 401(k) plans are bad or too expensive. In fact, costs have fallen 30% over the past decade as more plan sponsors turn to low-cost passive investing options. However, this can be highly dangerous, for to lower costs they turn to government debt where there is no need for fund management decisions. Yes, when I did hedge fund management, the cost was 5% annually plus 20% performance. That cost went to staff around the world that had to monitor positions of the world economy on a 24 hours basis. You also paid NOT to trade, for most losses took place when traders were bored and tried to make money when there was nothing to be done. Our track record was the very best in the industry with the lowest drawn down, perhaps in fund management. But that risk reduction cost money.

Today, costs vary widely. Plans with more than $100 million in assets usually have total annual costs below 1% whereas the biggest plans usually are below 0.50%. In small plans, the costs can be as high as 2% today. The focus is now on cost - not performance.

Financial service companies can charge a range of management, administrative, marketing, distribution and record-keeping fees for 401(k) plans. Plan sponsors can assume the costs, but employees are paying at least 85% of all fees typically. It is true that most workers do not know they pay the bulk of the share of costs. A 2011 AARP survey found that 71% of retirement savers do not think they pay any investment fees at all. It is true that the fees make a huge difference in returns over time. However, this drive to lower costs has also lowered the quality of funds management.

The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that a 1% point difference on a current account balance of $25,000 will reduce total accumulations by 28% over 35 years, assuming average returns of 7% and no further contributions. The focus is all on these management fees without any consideration of the problem. Trying to manage money varies according to the size of the fund. Often the more you gather, the lower the performance, because the markets are not unlimited. You can pick up the phone and say, "Sell at the market!" when you have a $100 million fund, but you cannot do that with a $100 billion fund. So the management fee was also a means to reduce the number of clients; it was never a question of unlimited capacity to trade. The numbers on performance would decline with greater amounts of money under management for the manager lost flexibility.

The Supreme Court case clearly shows a lack of understanding of the industry, yet the battle centered on the 401(k) plans use of retail-class mutual funds when less-expensive institutional shares are available. The difference between those classes typically is 25 basis points. This will now put pressure on large plans to cut costs further, but it will not have much impact on smaller plans. This is because the big plans have the buying power to negotiate better deals, but at the same time they are an easy target for lawyers, making them much more attractive targets for litigation.

Cutting management fees to the bone may in fact set the stage for massive losses, for many of the older better traders are now just resigning. The quality of fund management is more likely than not going to decline noticeably.

Between the court ruling and the Obama Administration's push for stronger fiduciary rules sends a strong message that government can easily seize the pension fund management industry, of course to "protect the consumer".

Right-wing Bishop says women are sinning by doing yoga exercises

© Facebook

    
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with these anti-yoga right-wingers?

A conservative Catholic Bishop in Nebraska has issued a warning to women claiming that they are sinning if they practice yoga, and says they should find a different way to exercise.

Retired Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of the Lincoln Diocese sent a letter to Women of Grace Ministry calling yoga a dangerous practice and "a pagan religion based on heathen beliefs and false doctrine of revelation involving such things as transmigration of souls, and so forth."

That's right. This Catholic Bishop thinks over 20 million Americans are living in sin because they are practicing yoga, which exercises the body and mind through controlled breathing, stretching and meditation.

But because yoga originates from India and is associated with Hinduism, conservative "Christians" around the country have targeted yoga in vicious attacks that include proposals to ban women from wearing yoga pants.

"Certainly, if one wants to engage in physical exercises to strengthen one's body, such a practice would be morally neutral, and would not, in itself, involve anything detrimental to our Catholic faith," Bruskewitz continued.

"The practice of yoga...eventually morphs into an acceptance of points of view, and even doctrinal and moral matters that are distant from Catholic truth and from genuine and authentic Christian revelation.

In our time there are innumerable ways and methods by which appropriate and proper exercise of the human body can be undertaken that present no real danger to our faith or to our Catholic beliefs and commitments. It would be most desirable for persons who are Catholic to abstain from the practice of yoga and use other methods to exercise. We are never allowed to place our Catholic faith unnecessarily in any danger, and certainly the practice of yoga could be an occasion of serious sin."

If conservative Catholics are really worried about succumbing to "pagan" religions just because they adopt a practice originating from another religion, perhaps they should also stop using Christmas trees, mistletoe, or celebrating Christmas on December 25th, which were all adopted from "pagan" religions. It's really the only way to not be a hypocrite.

And conservatives wonder why more Americans than ever before are refusing to identify as Christians. It's because of embarrassments like Bruskewitz and other Christian leaders.

.

Russia digs 100 km ditch along border with south-eastern Ukraine

Image

© RIA Novosti/Valeriy Melnikov
Izvarino border crossing point in Lugansk Region, Ukraine.

    
Russia has erected 40km of fortified walls, and more than 100km of defensive trenches on its border with the rebel Ukrainian regions of Lugansk and Donetsk.

"The engineering fortification of the state border is aimed at ensuring stability in the Rostov region, and preventing the illegal circulation of firearms," Russia's border service said in a statement.

The government agency said that it intercepted over 60 illegal weapons shipments across the border since the beginning of the year. In doing so, it confiscated 40 firearms, 200 grenades, 100 shells and 40 landmines.

The border service said it had to arrest more than 400 people for either illegally crossing the border or approaching the secure zone next to it, and open fire on five occasions. Occasional media reports have surfaced in recent months about spillover from the restive region, locked in a stand-off with the central government in Kiev for the past year, including a report of a Donetsk man illegally trying to cross into Russia in a Soviet-era off-road vehicle.

Following the announcement, Kiev accused Russia of trying to seal in Russian fighters who have been drawn to the ranks of the rebel republics. Moscow strenuously denies that there are any Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine.

"If the mercenaries decide to try to get back into Russia from Ukraine on their armored vehicles, their entry will be blocked. This is a clear signal to the mercenaries in Donbass - they might have come here, but they are not going back. At least, they aren't going back out alive," said government spokesman Andrey Lysenko.

Ukraine itself is spending $200 million to build what has been termed the European Bulwark on a different segment of its 2,200-km border with Russia, further up north. The project is scheduled to be completed in 2018.

The power of uncertainty


Image
    
I dislike uncertainty as much as the next person, perhaps even more. My reaction to it can cause deep anxiety that negatively impacts my health, wealth and overall enjoyment of life. Yet, despite uncertainty's bad rep, I have learned that: no matter what we tell ourselves or how we arrange our circumstances, we can never be free of it, and learning to embrace it can lead to incredible possibilities that I didn't even know was on my radar. As long as we are living, breathing beings we will always live with uncertainty. Knowing how to manage and respond to it can make all the difference between a rich, fulfilling life and one that is always fraught with the anxiety of what "bad" things could happen.

Ignorance is bliss... sort of.

Simply put, anxiety is fear of the future whether known (if that's actually possible) or worse, unknown. It's a cliché to say that we all live in uncertain times. When I hear someone say that my first reaction is to ask Which is ludicrous when you think about it. Given not that not to long ago (in the grand scheme of things) you were lucky to make it to your 40th birthday. However, the fact that we have unprecedented instant access to all the news, scientific studies and pundit theories as to all the ways we won't make it as a species, I can see how this generation may be feeling a tad bit more anxious. It's the hyper-awareness of all the things that may do us in (or at least, severely cramp our lifestyle) that seems to be causing massive pharmaceutical industry profits in chemically treating our collective malaise. So, it seems that anxiety due to uncertainty is more a function of how many things could go wrong rather than the going wrong itself. From this perspective ignorance is truly bliss, until you are taken out by something you ducked your head in the sand about.

Different circumstances, different kinds of uncertainty.

In my previous career I made a lot of money. And, I remember often thinking Did having a lot of money eliminate my uncertainty, hardly. Uncertainty is like a water bed, you push it down in one corner and it will pop up someplace else. There is simply no escaping it. The desire to escape it however can be overwhelming and in some cases cause us to do really stupid and sometimes incredibly damaging things. Dictators attempt to eliminate uncertainty by oppression and removal of all threats by any means they deem necessary. Wall Street attempts to eliminate uncertainty by rigging the game in their favor as evidenced by the recent scandal of major banks manipulating the currency markets. An even more interesting twist is how ideologies, whether political or religious, seek to eliminate uncertainty by showing zero tolerance for any individual or group that does not agree with their point of view.

A fear ignored is far worse than one faced head on.

Perhaps one of the more rational approaches to dealing with uncertainty is insurance. While it doesn't eliminate uncertainty, it can mitigate its impact. Yet all of this begs the question as to why is uncertainty so universally reviled by our species? I personally think it boils down to one simple thing: survival. When you don't know what's coming, or worse, you think you know what's coming but feel powerless to stop it, there is this deep sense of impending doom that can ruin your day. And, we are hard wired to avoid that at all costs.

How to re-wire our response to uncertainty.

Fortunately for all of us, we have a free will (at least I'm sort of certain about that). And that means we have the ability to consciously "re-wire" our response to uncertainty. The best way I've found to do this is to:

  1. Face the fear of uncertainty - uncertainty gets the best of us when we try to pretend it's not there. A fear ignored is far worse than one faced head on. Acknowledging it fully is the first step.
  2. Get skilled in being present - uncertainty is all about the future and therefore cannot touch you if you are fully in the present moment. While it is not practical to live in the moment all the time, knowing how to put yourself there quickly when the ugly head of anxiety shows itself will go a long way to help you conquer the hold uncertainty has over you. In this Age of Distraction, learning to be in the moment is one of the most important skills you can acquire.
  3. See uncertainty as the threshold to possibility - I can honestly say that the best things in my life came about as a result of embracing uncertainty and jumping head first into the abyss of the unknown. How different would your life be if you viewed uncertainty as a powerful force for incredibly good things in your life, and not just a sign of danger?
Uncertainty is always going to be with us, no matter what our circumstances. Fortunately we all have a choice on how to respond to it. Popping pills or using distractions to hide from it is one way. The other is fully embracing it and seeing what kind of adventure it will take you on. Not really much of a choice, is it?

Today marks the 15th anniversary of US Government planning for 9/11

© waterfordwhispersnews.com

    
A huge milestone in recent history was recognised today in Washington DC as former US president George W. Bush, along with former vice-president Dick Cheney and former secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld as they made the journey back to the Whitehouse for an official state dinner with President Barack Obama.

The 15th anniversary of the decision to plan 9/11 was marked in typical grandeur and style with Beyoncé flying at the request of President Obama to sing the national anthem.

The large banquet attended by key figures from the Pentagon and the CIA represented one of the few occasions the American political and security personnel elite honoured the key people involved in the planning of 9/11, which unofficially began in May 2000.

"I'll be accused of mawkishness but I will hand the stage over to the great orchestrators of such a huge piece of American history and simply applaud," Barack Obama said as he handed the stage to George W. Bush, who looked visibly moved after encountering rapturous applause from the private security industry.

President Bush thanked everyone in attendance and begrudgingly praised the hard work of conspiracy theorists who he said "had elevated their field above the silliness of the moon landing to something greater".

Bush then took the time to make a special mention of avid conspiracy video uploader, Youtube user IlluminaMe IlluminaYou69, who was tragically killed in an incident set up to look exactly like a believable accident. The moment of silence requested by Bush was peacefully observed.

A memorial was then unveiled on Capitol Hill, which sought honour all those involved in making the inside job possible.

Dick Cheney spent much of the night by his official 9/11 Was An Inside Job merchandise stand at the back of the room which sold a number of slogan T-shirts, tote bags and buttons.

'Measuring stick' for human gene sequencing unveiled

© Gerald Barber, Virginia Tech University
Is this a static TV screen? Nope! It's the end result of the DNA sequencing.

    
In an attempt to ensure that gene sequencing, medical diagnoses, and personalized therapies of the future are as accurate as possible, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released the first human DNA "measuring stick" to serve as a point of reference.

According to Engadget, the sample genome was thoroughly tested, and will serve to let scientists know whether or not they are making basic mistakes and that their findings can be trusted. NIST hopes that the reference material will enhance the accuracy and reliability of genetic research.

Officially known as NIST RM 8398, the reference material can let a laboratory ensure that the equipment, chemistry, and data analysis involved in determining the patterns in a person's DNA are performing adequately, the Institute said. It also establishes technical benchmarks needed to enable the widespread clinical application of whole genome sequencing.

A prototype version of NIST RM 8398 is already in use. Created in November 2013, the reference genome has been used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to certify and approve one of the first commercially available high-throughput DNA sequencers.

Reference material could eliminate biases and blind spots

The new reference material also marks a significant advancement in addressing the needs of the FDA when it comes to evaluating next-gen gene sequencing and genetic testing. Using NIST RM 8398 as a benchmark will also increase the confidence levels of scientists as they report true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative results.

"DNA sequencers take long strings of a person's DNA and randomly chop them into small pieces that can be individually analyzed to determine their sequence of letters from the genetic code (A, C, G, and T representing the four key components of DNA that code for protein production in living organisms: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine)," NIST explained.

"The sequenced pieces can then be compared to a defined 'reference sequence' to identify differences in the two codes. The differences reveal where mutations have occurred in specific genes," they added. "However, biases and 'blind spots' for certain sequences contribute to uncertainties or errors in the sequence analysis. These biases can lead to hundreds of thousands of disagreements between different sequencing results for the same human genome."

The new reference material is said to be the first complete human genome to have been extensively sequenced and re-sequenced by multiple techniques, and to have the results carefully analyzed and weighted in order to eliminate as much variation and error as possible. It was also the topic of a paper published in the March 2014 edition of the journal .

The NSA's Technotyranny: One nation under surveillance

"The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control."—William Binney, NSA whistleblower

© truthalerts.com
William Binney

    
We now have a fourth branch of government.

As I document in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this fourth branch came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum, and yet it possesses superpowers, above and beyond those of any other government agency save the military. It is all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful. It operates beyond the reach of the president, Congress and the courts, and it marches in lockstep with the corporate elite who really call the shots in Washington, DC.

You might know this branch of government as Surveillance, but I prefer "technotyranny," a term coined by investigative journalist James Bamford to refer to an age of technological tyranny made possible by government secrets, government lies, government spies and their corporate ties.

Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it will all be recorded, stored and used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government's choosing. Privacy, as we have known it, is dead.

The police state is about to pass off the baton to the surveillance state.

Having already transformed local police into extensions of the military, the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the FBI are preparing to turn the nation's soldier cops into techno-warriors, complete with iris scanners, body scanners, thermal imaging Doppler radar devices, facial recognition programs, license plate readers, cell phone Stingray devices and so much more.

This is about to be the new face of policing in America.

The National Security Agency (NSA) has been a perfect red herring, distracting us from the government's broader, technology-driven campaign to render us helpless in the face of its prying eyes. In fact, long before the NSA became the agency we loved to hate, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration were carrying out their own secret mass surveillance on an unsuspecting populace.

Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. Then there are the fusion and counterterrorism centers that gather all of the data from the smaller government spies—the police, public health officials, transportation, etc.—and make it accessible for all those in power. And of course that doesn't even begin to touch on the complicity of the corporate sector, which buys and sells us from cradle to grave, until we have no more data left to mine.

The raging debate over the fate of the NSA's blatantly unconstitutional, illegal and ongoing domestic surveillance programs is just so much noise, what Shakespeare referred to as "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

It means nothing: the legislation, the revelations, the task forces, and the filibusters.

The government is not giving up, nor is it giving in. It has stopped listening to us. It has long since ceased to take orders from "we the people."

If you haven't figured it out yet, none of it—the military drills, the surveillance, the militarized police, the strip searches, the random pat downs, the stop-and-frisks, even the police-worn body cameras—is about fighting terrorism. It's about controlling the populace.

Despite the fact that its data snooping has been shown to be ineffective at detecting, let alone stopping, any actual terror attacks, the NSA continues to operate largely in secret, carrying out warrantless mass surveillance on hundreds of millions of Americans' phone calls, emails, text messages and the like, beyond the scrutiny of most of Congress and the taxpayers who are forced to fund its multi-billion dollar secret black ops budget.

Legislation such as the USA Patriot Act serves only to legitimize the actions of a secret agency run by a shadow government. Even the proposed and ultimately defeated USA Freedom Act, which purported to restrict the reach of the NSA's phone surveillance program—at least on paper—by requiring the agency to secure a warrant before surveillance could be carried out on American citizens and prohibiting the agency from storing any data collected on Americans, amounted to little more than a paper tiger: threatening in appearance, but lacking any real bite.

The question of how to deal with the NSA—an agency that operates outside of the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution—is a divisive issue that polarizes even those who have opposed the NSA's warrantless surveillance from the get-go, forcing all of us—cynics, idealists, politicians and realists alike—to grapple with a deeply unsatisfactory and dubious political "solution" to a problem that operates beyond the reach of voters and politicians: how do you trust a government that lies, cheats, steals, sidesteps the law, and then absolves itself of wrongdoing to actually obey the law?

Since its official start in 1952, when President Harry S. Truman issued a secret executive order establishing the NSA as the hub of the government's foreign intelligence activities, the agency—nicknamed "No Such Agency"—has operated covertly, unaccountable to Congress all the while using taxpayer dollars to fund its secret operations. It was only when the agency ballooned to 90,000 employees in 1969, making it the largest intelligence agency in the world with a significant footprint outside Washington, DC, that it became more difficult to deny its existence.

In the aftermath of Watergate in 1975, the Senate held meetings under the Church Committee in order to determine exactly what sorts of illicit activities the American intelligence apparatus was engaged in under the direction of President Nixon, and how future violations of the law could be stopped. It was the first time the NSA was exposed to public scrutiny since its creation.

The investigation revealed a sophisticated operation whose surveillance programs paid little heed to such things as the Constitution. For instance, under Project SHAMROCK, the NSA spied on telegrams to and from the U.S., as well as the correspondence of American citizens. Moreover, as the Saturday Evening Post reports, "Under Project MINARET, the NSA monitored the communications of civil rights leaders and opponents of the Vietnam War, including targets such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohammed Ali, Jane Fonda, and two active U.S. Senators. The NSA had launched this program in 1967 to monitor suspected terrorists and drug traffickers, but successive presidents used it to track all manner of political dissidents."

Senator Frank Church (D-Ida.), who served as the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence that investigated the NSA, understood only too well the dangers inherent in allowing the government to overstep its authority in the name of national security. Church recognized that such surveillance powers "at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."

Noting that the NSA could enable a dictator "to impose total tyranny" upon an utterly defenseless American public, Church declared that he did not "want to see this country ever go across the bridge" of constitutional protection, congressional oversight and popular demand for privacy. He avowed that "we," implicating both Congress and its constituency in this duty, "must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

The result was the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the creation of the FISA Court, which was supposed to oversee and correct how intelligence information is collected and collated. The law requires that the NSA get clearance from the FISA Court, a secret surveillance court, before it can carry out surveillance on American citizens. Fast forward to the present day, and the so-called solution to the problem of government entities engaging in unjustified and illegal surveillance—the FISA Court—has unwittingly become the enabler of such activities, rubberstamping almost every warrant request submitted to it.

The 9/11 attacks served as a watershed moment in our nation's history, ushering in an era in which immoral and/or illegal government activities such as surveillance, torture, strip searches, SWAT team raids are sanctioned as part of the quest to keep us "safe."

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush secretly authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance on Americans' phone calls and emails. That wireless wiretap program was reportedly ended in 2007 after the New York Times reported on it, to mass indignation.

Nothing changed under Barack Obama. In fact, the violations worsened, with the NSA authorized to secretly collect internet and telephone data on millions of Americans, as well as on foreign governments.

It was only after whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations in 2013 that the American people fully understood the extent to which they had been betrayed once again.

What this brief history of the NSA makes clear is that you cannot reform the NSA.

As long as the government is allowed to make a mockery of the law—be it the Constitution, the FISA Act or any other law intended to limit its reach and curtail its activities—and is permitted to operate behind closed doors, relaying on secret courts, secret budgets and secret interpretations of the laws of the land, there will be no reform.

Presidents, politicians, and court rulings have come and gone over the course of the NSA's 60-year history, but none of them have done much to put an end to the NSA's "technotyranny."

The beast has outgrown its chains. It will not be restrained.

The growing tension seen and felt throughout the country is a tension between those who wield power on behalf of the government—the president, Congress, the courts, the military, the militarized police, the technocrats, the faceless unelected bureaucrats who blindly obey and carry out government directives, no matter how immoral or unjust, and the corporations—and those among the populace who are finally waking up to the mounting injustices, seething corruption and endless tyrannies that are transforming our country into a technocrized police state.

At every turn, we have been handicapped in our quest for transparency, accountability and a representative democracy by an establishment culture of secrecy: secret agencies, secret experiments, secret military bases, secret surveillance, secret budgets, and secret court rulings, all of which exist beyond our reach, operate outside our knowledge, and do not answer to "we the people."

What we have failed to truly comprehend is that the NSA is merely one small part of a shadowy permanent government comprised of unelected bureaucrats who march in lockstep with profit-driven corporations that actually runs Washington, DC, and works to keep us under surveillance and, thus, under control. For example, Google openly works with the NSA, Amazon has built a massive $600 million intelligence database for the CIA, and the telecommunications industry is making a fat profit by spying on us for the government.

In other words, Corporate America is making a hefty profit by aiding and abetting the government in its domestic surveillance efforts. Conveniently, as the Intercept recently revealed, many of the NSA's loudest defenders have financial ties to NSA contractors.

Thus, if this secret regime not only exists but thrives, it is because we have allowed it through our ignorance, apathy and naïve trust in politicians who take their orders from Corporate America rather than the Constitution.

If this shadow government persists, it is because we have yet to get outraged enough to push back against its power grabs and put an end to its high-handed tactics.

And if this unelected bureaucracy succeeds in trampling underfoot our last vestiges of privacy and freedom, it will be because we let ourselves be fooled into believing that politics matters, that voting makes a difference, that politicians actually represent the citizenry, that the courts care about justice, and that everything that is being done is in our best interests.

Indeed, as political scientist Michael J. Glennon warns, you can vote all you want, but the people you elect aren't actually the ones calling the shots. "The American people are deluded ... that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy," stated Glennon. "They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. But ... policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions."

In other words, it doesn't matter who occupies the White House: the secret government with its secret agencies, secret budgets and secret programs won't change. It will simply continue to operate in secret until some whistleblower comes along to momentarily pull back the curtain and we dutifully—and fleetingly—play the part of the outraged public, demanding accountability and rattling our cages, all the while bringing about little real reform.

Thus, the lesson of the NSA and its vast network of domestic spy partners is simply this: once you allow the government to start breaking the law, no matter how seemingly justifiable the reason, you relinquish the contract between you and the government which establishes that the government works for and obeys you, the citizen—the employer—the master.

Once the government starts operating outside the law, answerable to no one but itself, there's no way to rein it back in, short of revolution. And by revolution, I mean doing away with the entire structure, because the corruption and lawlessness have become that pervasive.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.