Monday, February 25, 2013


February 25, 2013

The President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” 
                                                                               James Madison, The Federalist No. 51 1
                                                                                         
The tenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; Therefore, regarding the destruction of the Swartos family by American government “it is incumbent in this, as in every other exercise of power by the federal government, to prove from the Constitution that it grants the particular power exercised.”2 Obviously this cannot be done. Hence, out of nothing but malice and thin air the executive branch has created a law and charged a crime against the Swartos of which presidents alone sit in judgment. Legislative and judicial powers are thus united in the executive.

“In the administration of preventive justice, the following principles have been held sacred; that some probable ground of suspicion be exhibited before some judicial authority; that it be supported by oath or affirmation…and that he may at any time be…restored to his former liberty and rights, on the order of the proper judicial authority; if it shall see sufficient cause.”3

“All these principles of the only preventive justice known to American jurisprudence, are violated…The ground of suspicion is to be judged of, not by any judicial authority, but by the executive magistrate alone; no oath or affirmation is required…And the party being under the sentence of the President…cannot be discharged from the proceedings against him, and restored to the benefits of his former situation, although the highest judicial authority should see the most sufficient cause for it.”4

“Thus it is the President whose will is to designate the offensive conduct; it is his will that is to ascertain the individuals on whom it is charged; and it is his will, that is to cause the sentence to be executed.”5  

“It is affirmed that this union of powers subverts the general principles of free government.

It has become an axiom in the science of government, that a separation of the legislative, executive and judicial departments, is necessary to the preservation of public liberty. No where has this axiom been better understood in theory, or more carefully pursued in practice, than in the United States.

It is affirmed that such a union of power subverts the particular organization and positive provisions of the federal constitution.

According to the particular organization of the constitution, its legislative powers are vested in the Congress; its executive powers in the President, and its judicial powers, in a supreme and inferior tribunals. The union of any two of these powers, and still more of all three, in any one of these departments…must consequently subvert the constitutional organization of them.

That positive provisions in the constitution, securing to individuals the benefits of fair trial, are also violated by the union of powers…”6

“Power being found by universal experience liable to abuses, a distribution of it into separate departments, has become a first principle of free governments.”7 However, In bestowing the eulogies due to the partitions and internal checks of power, it ought not the less to be remembered, that they are neither the sole nor the chief palladium of constitutional liberty. The people who are the authors of this blessing, must also be its guardians. Their eyes must be ever ready to mark, their voice to pronounce, and their arm to repel or repair aggressions on the authority of their constitutions; the highest authority next to their own, because the immediate work of their own, and the most sacred part of their property, as recognizing and recording the title of every other.”8

Having been informed by the prudence of Republican principles it is apparent Constitutional vigor is suffering the atrophy of an imposed desuetude, your actions are willful violations of the Constitution of the United States of America. We do hereby renew our protest of such.

Yours truly,

 
Lynn Swartos
General Delivery
Bullhead City, AZ 86430
406-694-3475, klmfs2009@gmail.com

Cc: Various media, groups and individuals

 

  1. Writings. James Madison. Edited by Jack Rakove. New York: Library of America, 1999, p. 298.
  2. Ibid., p. 621.
  3. Ibid., p. 622.
  4. Ibid., p. 622.
  5. Ibid., p. 631.
  6. Ibid., p. 631.
  7. Ibid., p. 508.
  8. Ibid., p. 509.
[These letters are now on my Facebook page. Tell a friend. (This note was not included in the original letter.)]

Tuesday, February 5, 2013


February 5, 2013

 
The President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington DC 20500

 
Dear Mr. President,

It has been “proposed as the crucial test of a social philosophy its attitude toward the family; if there were only one criterion by which to distinguish between liberal and authoritarian philosophies, it would be the degree to which they supported or subverted the family.”1

The Swartos family travails are symptomatic of modern liberalisms corrupt autocratic determination to enshrine incoherence as a civic god of compliance, correlative intolerance for constitutional Republicanism and the concomitant rule of law that admits the principle of our legal and political equality (equal participation, not some hate filled liberal excrescence). Hence, rational inquiry into the facts of our circumstances, as is often true of intellectual inquiry in the universities, is punitively deterred and replaced with blatant fiction, appeals to society’s now enervated mediating institutions, that would result in indictments of your vaut rien cadre go unheeded through threat of force. And the law, that would properly validate such charges, has been replaced with the cruel dictates of “institutions that are largely insulated from the popular will.”2 These malodorous fruits of modern liberalism have left the polity in a state of inanition.

The futures door has opened onto a dystopia where truth is no longer welcome much less objective, merely a relativistic product manufactured to the specifications of our elite conditioners who set the standards society is now expected to order itself to. Smiling Bill Clinton is a quintessential example of this modern liberal pretense. Bill’s cry for individual liberty masks his great want of a license for his pleasure. He demands equality because he resents the unfavorable distinctions ordinate to his actions. He screams pacific professions of compassion but screams of the innocent give him the greatest joy. The nation has bread and circuses but for smiling Bill the nation is a feast fit for a psychopath. “Gay” and “straight,” babies and toddlers, boys and girls and grownups too, they are all on the menu for Bill.

There is nothing just or ordinate, no truth, no limits and no values other than the relative in Bill’s world. Moreover, according to Bill, from time immemorial the great minds are all mistaken. Taking a lesson from histrionic Hillary he’ll flail away and shout out “what difference does it make” (as if that answers anything) and we are supposed to endorse that nonsense—the Senate did. No doubts will be tolerated. He just wants to be free and equal. Oh, there is one more thing. He wants us all to pretend this is normal. So when he comes scratching at your door, boy scout in hand, just repeat after Bill, it’s all normal.

Epilogue: “All is relative. There is no progress, reason, natural law, or indeed any pattern, meaning, or sense in the universe. The only legitimate questions are “What?” and “How?”3 “If sometimes, in a moment of absent-mindedness or idle diversion, we ask the question ‘Why?’ the answer escapes us. Our supreme object is to measure and master the world rather than to understand it.“4

We are on the verge of an epoch that includes the frightening “potential for reshaping human beings and their nature through genetic science,” 5 bio-technologies that will result in “nothing less than the ‘end of man,’ the transcendence of human nature (and of nature itself),”6 the potential for “a new human nature that transcends, for good and bad, not only liberal democracy but also any recognizable polity, society, or history.”7 At the same time we have the technological tools to form, monitor and prod human beings through a lifetime, to train them in what to believe and what not to believe, to reward and punish like a god and when the means reach their limits and those few who would be our masters cannot achieve their ends through technology, psychology and propaganda, to slaughter people with impunity until they get what they want. “Let us decide for ourselves,” the few might say, “what man is to be and make him into that: not on any ground of imagined value, but because we want him to be such.”8 And what will history say of this? Perhaps what it says of former barbarisms. That man can be cruel and evil and thoughtless and as the ages advanced so did his tools.

Irony runs high. Suspicion cannot be ignored. These leaders that portray themselves as courageous are another pretense, imposters, cur’s masquerading as men. All this time, Lynn and Gwen and Ashley have been an easy target for these caricatures of men, a low risk opportunity to inflate their pathetic egos: George Bush, “just wanted to be strong for Daddy,” Bill Clinton, “nobody understood his desires” and Barry, “mama ran away to party.” Winning the White House has become an attempted anodyne for the miscreant psyche. But it is no cure for weakness as your actions testify. America can do better.

Just so you are clear on this, you can take this personally.

Yours Truly,

 
Lynn Swartos

232 South 12thAvenue

Phoenix, AZ 85007



Cc: Various media, groups and individuals

[These letters are now on my Facebook page. Tell a friend. (This note was not included in the original letter.)]

 

  1. The New History and the Old: critical essays and reappraisals, Rev. ed. Gertrude Himmelfarb. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2004. p. 203.
  2. Slouching  Towards Gommorah: modern liberalism and American decline. Robert Bork. ReaganBooks. New York, NY. 1996. p. 318.
  3. The New History and the Old, Himmelfarb, p. 197.
  4. The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers. Carl L. Becker. (New Haven, 1970 [1st ed., 1932]), p. 16-17.
  5. Slouching Towards Gommorah, Bork, p. 9.
  6. The New History and the Old, Himmelfarb, p. 232.
  7. Ibid., p. 232.
  8. The Abolition of Man. C.S. Lewis.