July 24, 2013 at 1:39 P.M. Certified mail, return receipts indicate packages to which I have alluded in previous posts have been received by Mr. Mintz (#7012-3460-0002-8380-9614) and Mr. Di Blasio (#7012-3460-0002-8380-9607). I will post the numbers of such receipts for packages sent to the FBI, IRS, and Mr. Vance in addition to the previously sent packages. The size of lettering and spacing may be altered by government hackers.
Will New Jersey ever learn?
Richard Cowen, "School Chief to Make $200,000: Signs 5-Year Deal to Move to Passaic," The Record, July 24, 2013, p. L-1. (PABLO MUNOZ, alleged Menendez supporter, signs a deal that guarantees him $200,000 per year. This is one of the poorest districts in the state.)
Joe Malinconico, "Principal Removed From Job: Gave Scalped Thanksgiving Speech," The Record, July 24, 2013, p. L-1. (Are school administrators worth every penny?)
Peter J. Sampson, "5 Arrested in $2.5 MILLION Tax Refund Scam," The Record, July 24, 2013, p. L-3. (Allegedly, politicians in the state -- perhaps including school administrators? -- were sharing in the scam money.)
Charlie Savage, "Roberts' Picks Reshaping Secret Surveillance Court: 10 of Its 11 Judges Are GOP Appointees -- Critics Fear Deference On Spying," The New York Times, July 26, 2013, p. A1. (Secret court with NO accountability and Right-wing bias is not reassuring to civil libertarians.)
Scott Shane, "Spy Agencies Under Heaviest Scrutiny Since Abuse Scandal of the '70s," The New York Times, July 26, 2013, p. A15. (Reservations about the national security state are growing.)
Charlie Savage, "In Closing Arguments, Prosecutor Casts Soldier as 'Anarchist' for Leaking Archives," The New York Times, July 26, 2013, p. A14. (Disclosures by Snowden, Manning and the activism of young persons -- like Aaron Schwartz -- have helped to awaken Americans to the threat to liberty posed by our own government. "Aaron Schwartz, Freedom, and American Law.")
Jonathan Weisman, "House's Attempt to Reign In N.S.A. [sic.] Narrowly Fails: Surveillance at Issue," The New York Times, July 25, 2013, p. A1. (No "reigning-in" of security agencies. The italics in the newspaper title were altered by hackers. I have tried to correct the problem. Apparently, someone connected to this newspaper does not wish for its errors to be seen.)
"A Bipartisan Warning On Surveillance: The Administration can no longer ignore the growing discomfort with broad spying powers," (Editorial) The New York Times, July 26, 2013, p. A22.
"In one of the most unusual votes in years, the House on Wednesday barely defeated an Amendment to curtail the National Security Agency's collection of every phone record, limiting it to records of people targeted in investigations. The vote was 205 to 217, and what was particularly remarkable was that 94 Republicans supported the limits, along with 111 Democrats who stood up to intense lobbying by the White House and its lobbyists."
Americans now realize that it is one thing to give the government extra powers in an "emergency," it is quite another to get those powers back from the government after the emergency has passed.
The emergency will never pass, the so-called "War on Terror" will never be won or lost, the need for special monitoring will never end. ("Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace.")
"Power is a hungry beast," as the Framers feared, that will always seek more of our liberties to devour. ("Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution.")
The people currently subject to monitoring (I am probably one of them) will not necessarily be persons suspected of committing any crimes, much less of planning terrorist actions of any kind. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
The persons subjected to surveillance and control -- often by the use of what are called "psychological methods" -- also to illegal searches, entries into our homes, moronic threatening letters, alterations, plagiarisms, theft or censorship of Constitutionally-protected writings will be dissidents or "unruly" intellectuals. (I know, you will "deny me all publication opportunities and starve me of all income and assets.")
People who think differently (or at all), persons who hold "controversial" as opposed to "P.C." or Conservative views -- depending on your preferences -- will draw government scrutiny, probably at the expense of the people who should be subject to scrutiny. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review" then "How censorship works in America.")
My offense may have been to provide irrefutable proof of the stupidity and ignorance of some politicians and judges who are not accustomed to being exhibited as fools. ("Does Senator Menendez have mafia friends?" and "Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks.")
Among the dangers of power feared by the Framers of the Constitution is excessive or overweening pride. Abuse of authority, when power is made unaccountable to the people, is not merely "likely"; rather, such abuse becomes a certainty when powerful officials escape the boundaries of law:
"The arguments for unlimited record-keeping were remarkably thin. A White House spokesperson said the amendment was not 'the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process' -- a laughable assertion considering how uninformed the Administration wants the public to be about the loss of privacy. The Chairman [Chairperson?] of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Mike Rodgers of Michigan, said supporters seemed to have forgotten Sept. 11."
Knee-jerk reactions to the 9/11 flag will no longer suffice to halt inquiries into the use of secret power by state officials.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel," according to Dr. Samuel Johnson. Patriotism is certainly the first recourse for proponents of government intrusions into all of our lives -- provided that THEY get to define patriotism. To insist on privacy rights, evidently, somehow makes us unpatriotic.
We must continue to struggle for our endangered freedom to think and speak "differently" or freely. We must hold on to the shrinking territory where we are permitted to be autonomous: homosexual acts, rightly, are protected by law. Perhaps consensual sexual acts among all adults will someday also be protected as beyond the reach of state surveillance, monitoring, and control. ("Skinny People Dressed in Black.")
Ironically, spying on Americans in their bedrooms is defended by politicians who claim to be against pornography, even as the nation spends more than $10 billion per year on erotica.
What we read -- if we are among the few Americans, proportionately, who do read -- is not and should not be the government's business.
What we write, even in our blogs, should also not be subject to regulation by the state. First Amendment rights are always in the interest of society, especially when we oppose government policy.
Some day -- I know that this is idealistic -- the values we impart to our children, belief in any values for that matter, respect for unpopular or minority views based on a commitment to the non-relative truth of liberty and diversity of opinions will once again be the American way. ("John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism" and "Why I am not an ethical relativist.")
Perhaps this long-sought day will only come with the arrival of a new Administration in Washington, D.C.
As one of Mr. Obama's supporters and defenders, I must say that my disappointment is growing -- and yet, I am still hopeful that President Obama will fulfill the promises of his campaign by helping to make us a stronger and better people.
