November 4,
2015
The White
House
1600
Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington
D.C. 20500
Barry,
Your incorrigible appetite for
evil seems limitless, not to mention your predecessors and accomplices.
According to the national police your administration recently planned and
attempted to execute that felonious plan to harm an uninvolved and, might I add,
an entirely innocent member of my family, my daughter, so to mortally wound me
with the execrable tidings. That plan has been foiled, much to your
disappointment, but still your stench lingers. So let us clear the air, Barry
dear.
No
matter how you and your quisling colleagues snivel and sniffle, this
cozening campaign of terror and pain you so readily advance will come to an
end, and that end will include the incarceration of those who down through the
decades have broken the law in pursuit of the Swartos family’s destruction.
Like it or not, no matter its provenance, directing violence at the innocent
and defenseless, not to mention collateral targets of the same status, is a
cognizable act of terror and, moreover, as a strategy practiced by terrorists
in the general society reduces citizens to servility, daring not to raise their
voices in protest for fear of drawing unwanted attention. For that reason, they
submit and wait, hoping not to be cut out of the pens and reaped by, sometimes,
disguised violence—and sometimes not—for the pleasure of their many
masters. This makes us into something like the former Soviet’s, but with a
gloss of liberty. The prostitutes of progressivism have become the bien
pensants of a rejuvenated Marxism—down with the family, autonomy,
privacy and property, bring on central planning, thought police and speech
codes. They have made Stalin smile from the grave.
Challenges surround us with urgent reminders of your impotence. Whether we look
to Syria, where your grasp of foreign policy, if not for the seriousness of the
matter, would be utterly risible, so as to produce nothing but, perhaps,
laughter from our adversaries (and death for our allies) as they demonstrate an
adept grasp of strategy and the will to support it. Or Afghanistan where we
have installed democracy, which minus supporting institutions is simply a
system of voting. And despite the history that makes it clear institutions that
guard liberty are not the result of some metaphysicians decree from on high, but,
rather, come to be as a rooted outgrowth of a society’s practical experience,
culture, and character, extirpated the Taliban for what appears to be a
government that legitimates small children being torn from their weeping
mothers arms by men who drag them home, chain them up like animals and rape
them as they please.
Furthermore, some of our leaders, such as former CIA director James Woolsey
(1993-1995) expressed misgivings from the beginning about removing the Taliban
from power; possibly not seeing that course as necessary to deterring future
aggressions (this can only be attributed to an anonymous political news show,
on which Mr. Woolsey caught my attention when he offered a thought that was in
contrast to the fashionable opinion). As to the exact reasoning for doing that,
we might want to make our queries known to the “decider.” Maybe his worthiness
will deign to grant America an audience.
Still, it may be that raping children is simply an ingrained trait of the
regions culture. If this is so, it is reasonable to ask, based on the
experience in Iraq, where women were, by our standards, quite free prior
to the invasion but not anything like that now, what progress has been made in
the task of nation building that we have been engaged in for all these years?
Besides voting for a leader, which may just pit one incompetent against
another, what institutions and understandings of right guide this new nation
that we are creating? Does liberal democracy now include an institutionalized
right to snatch someone’s child, take them home, chain them and rape them at
will? How old must a person be under their rule of law to be considered equally
human, hence beyond the reach of such brutality? According to their law, are
all children equally subject to being taken like this, or just children of
parents who have no social standing or other influence? And what influence has
this had on our troops? Have some of them become so inured to this horror that
they are susceptible to the arguments of those who would make raping children
in the west legal? “Well,” homosexual advocates argue, “it’s so central to who
we really are, it’s biological so it’s normal; and there’s no harm in it for a
child, children can make up their own minds; indeed, it may be that the child
is really an “it” beyond the protection of any law; and certainly an adult has
no disproportionate influence over the child; and if a child is unruly well,
there’s nothing like a good rape to soften his spirit.” And so on. (Plutarch
claimed pederasty could “soften” a boys “natural fierceness.” (Selwyn Duke, The
Slippery Slope to Pedophilia, The New American. 9/24/2013) That may account for
the special hatred some of those boys, perhaps not gay, perhaps forced into the
relationship by their fathers in hope of gain, held so strongly for their
“lovers.”)
So
it is, no matter the reasoned arguments children’s emotional and psychological
states and needs are callously disregarded while men of deviant sexual
preferences continue to argue for their right to rape children because, they
believe (they must), persons are not equally human and for that reason the
pursuit of pleasure can annul the dignity of being human. This applied as a
justification for slavery, for abortion and to homosexual adoption today. Despite
the sometimes primal wounds inflicted (and abundantly documented) by depriving
children of their parents and forcing them on the market, hence forcing them
into situations they are naturally averse to, children come to exist for the
gratification of gays, they become commodities. They must, otherwise the life
of pretending marriage comes to an end at the time of their legal joining. The
union is forever sterile. They can acquire property together (though the
superior earner may wonder why the property is held equally), they can have the
same old boyfriends or girlfriends and more, they can even go their separate
ways while extracting whatever benefits society bestows on them as legally
joined, but they require the heterosexual relationship to produce children,
(this makes marriage a legitimate state interest). Some individuals, dedicated
to swish (in the informal sense) will be persuaded this makes some kind of
weird sense, and the rest, understanding there are any number of ways speaking
up can get them hurt, will, in their silence, find they are overwhelmed by this
revolutionary canaille. (Many a person might find the asserted threat of
harms from gays and others hard to believe. Yet, many do not this is why so
many individuals that have received these letters keep their collective heads
down. The consequences can be murderous. Moreover, one of the first people that
wanted to kill me when I came to Missoula* was a feminist. The second that I
know of was a homosexual who, I suspect, thought killing me would be hilarious.
For the doubters, government records will prove my veracity.)
* Originally the sentence
read Montana it should have read Missoula and was so changed 11/10/2015.
This is one of the greatest
challenges to liberty in America today. How does a society continue to function
when a large part of its government and society have been captured by
terrorists who despise liberalism and hence when, for example, the rule of law,
pluralistic tolerance and free speech are denied, made irrelevant; moreover,
when terrorists presence are felt in even the smallest towns across America?
How does a free society have a debate (free speech) when making a rebuttal or
merely holding an opinion can result in grievous harm to their persons or those
they care about, or some entirely unconnected innocent, just to make a point?
National police intelligence makes this clear. The animal “rights” movement,
for example, carries with it the ever present threat of violence; thus, open
skepticism and opposition are extremely dangerous. One can now suffer more for
putting down an animal than vivisecting a child—compare the consequences of
getting rid of an unwanted puppy or a rattlesnake trespassing in your yard to
cutting the face off of an unwanted, living, kicking child with a pair of
scissors. (Imagine that, they feel pain.) A local example of fear of
violence from LGBT groups can be found in the opposition to Missoula’s 2010
ordinance legitimizing bathroom “equality”—meaning if some guys wake up one
morning and decide they’re feeling girlish they can, attired in a bar jacket
and jeans (I’ve seen this), just wander into the women’s restroom no problem,
for them. If children are taken aback, even scared, well they are just
little bigots. (A good portion of America including Big Media, university
professors and their students, Hollywood, internet company thugs, Bill and
Hillary, Houston’s mayor Annise Parker (who, distressingly, reminds me of Kathy
Bates character in Misery), Tom Brady and Robert Kraft would, if they could,
jump at the chance to tell these children what despicable little bigots they
are; the just sentiments, by which we are humanized are, by progressive
standards of cultural relativism, bunk.) Except for two of seventeen groups the
opposition, apparently, did not feel safe identifying itself. So they didn’t.
Adding to the means of intimidation, the left can and will assault individual
economic means. In Texas Bob McNair, the owner of the Texans football team,
donated $10,000 to fight an ordinance that “allows a biological male to enter
the women’s restrooms and other private areas [locker rooms and showers] if he
identifies as a female.” LGBT groups recruited the NFL, “expressing their anger
that the NFL has not removed him as a team owner.” Under that threat, McNair
yielded and asked that his donation be returned. (Tony Perkins, Washington
Update, October 23, 2015) In contrast gay Jerry Jones is a darling of the left
who hates whom he will. For example, Tom Landry, who put his life on the line
every time he flew his bomber during the Second World War, and was one of the
men who made it possible for the idea of an objective reality to prevail was,
according to Jones, a meritless man of unequal status. Let the record speak for
itself. At the initiation of combat flights “the average bomber crew was
expected to complete 8-12 missions before being shot down or disabled,” 25
missions had been designated a “complete tour of duty.” Tom Landry, as a young
officer, completed 30.
No
matter how the encomiums might ring for his virtue I do not think our praises
could ever equal his character. He was a rock in any storm, an unflinching
example of character victorious over adversity, a man to be emulated but rarely*
matched. Jerry Jones would have been lost in his shadow. (*originally read never,
changed 3/30/2016)
Now at the mention of all this wickedness some might exclaim, “This is
outlandish,” and dismiss it out of hand. Ignorance or fear might account for
such a response, or a political desire to be on “the right side of history,”
but none of them invalidates the assertions. For another example, many years
ago a U.S. based terror group with international reach had a little girl gang
raped in a church parking lot. This was not a typical crime. They are in their
minds on a war footing with anyone who dares disagree with them. So they made
war on a child; in doing that they declared themselves terrorists and made war
on America.
The freedom to speak and to act, or in other words, to participate as a free
citizen in both senses of self-government has been voided; our former habits,
customs, and mores are, according to terrorists, those of bigots. Everything
Americans believed—and died for—about governing and living well has been
repudiated.
Even Christianity has come under attack. Though its presence is always salutary
and has no negative effects on the business of government, nor seeks to impose
itself in a theocracy, progressives find its humanizing ethos and its
persistent pointing to objective values to be a threat.
From theology we find God is no respecter of persons, but the originator of
equality from his promise of accountability to moral standards independent of
our opinions. Thus come’s our individuality and our duty to the community, to
do unto others, the principle of self-governance in the individual and of the
community according to an objective standard. By these understandings and more,
we begin to understand our nature and by our nature the objective values that
humanize us, and moreover to celebrate that humanness. This is what brings
progressives to demand the separation of church and state, or in other words
the objective moral ideas that bring us to praise the just and the true from
their subjectivism and relativistic machinations. This is to say they deny
objective reality and pick their own truth. But the thought police and
conscience are mutually exclusive, so to coercion and liberty, illiberalism and
tolerance, et al. The idea that truth comes of understanding reality denies
their authority. This throws them into a tizzy. (“The First Amendment
begins quite simply: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion….’ At the time, an establishment of religion was understood to be the
preference by government of one or more religions over others,” (Bork, Slouching,
p. 289). The amendment is not “mandating the separation of church and state,”
this is a progressive demand granted by the courts. Indeed it says nothing
about that or the separation of the individual from his or her beliefs,
religious or otherwise, when participating in society. This makes no more sense
than requiring progressives to set aside their beliefs before acting publicly.
Further, the practical consequences of this forced separation have been
demonstrated by the suspension of Washington states Bremerton High School
football coach Joe Kennedy for praying after a football game, publicly. This
had been customary, a moment honored and appreciated in the community. Sadly,
we are no longer allowed to express ourselves in community, unless it is to express
a grievance. Though of course, if you and your pals would like to ride your
bikes through town naked the mayor of Missoula will declare bare butts a matter
of free speech. But we’ll save that for another day. O, what a tangled web we /
weave when first we practice / to deceive. –Walter Scott)
All
this is not to say that absolute truth can be understood absolutely, or that
one must be a Christian to approach and appropriately order our sentiments to
objective values that exist whether we like it or not. Indeed, “This conception
in all its forms, C.S. Lewis writes in The Abolition of Man, was, “Platonic,
Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian, and Oriental,” and more. As to the former,
“Lewis wrote, ‘All reality is Iconoclastic.’ If one holds too tightly to what
is currently known, that knowledge will begin to compete against the
possibility of growth.” (Jerry Root, Ph.D., Wheaton College, C.S. Lewis and “The
Case Against Subjectivism”)
As
previously mentioned, long practiced modesty expressed in separate restrooms,
locker rooms, and showers, for our children even, has come under increasing
attack by the LGBT regime. They insist modesty expressed in privacy is bigotry
in disguise. By Aristotle’s definition modesty is being stripped to
shamelessness. By their standards Aristotle was a bigot. When Athenians hired
pedagogues to fend off lust-filled men that followed their sons in the streets
they were bigots (see what we have to look forward to), when Plato, in The
Laws, sternly denounced such acts as contrary to nature, “utterly unholy,
odious-to-the-gods and ugliest of ugly things,” he was a bigot (not to mention
Aristotle’s strict prohibition), and when the Apostle Paul condemns
homosexuality in the New Testament he too was a bigot. (I suspect this is progressive’s
favorite word.) Further, if a gay man breaks down and starts imitating a girl’s
speech and mannerisms (personal experience) for that moment anyway, he is
supposed to be female. He apparently can go back and forth. If we note the
illogic we are bigots. (The former Bruce Jenner seems to have taken a sexual
half and half position, little Bruce is still hiding out between Caitlyn’s
thighs. Note to Bruce: Don’t do it! Lopping off your penis will not make you a
woman. It only makes you a dummy with no penis.)
Their touted privacy is a garment to be worn only at their
pleasure, a subjective constitutional construct emanating out of their psyches
penumbra’s and exercised only with their permission. This naked right reveals
their psychology’s drive for control. We are now to comply or suffer the name
calling, the threats, the torture, and sometimes the murders.
The
right to privacy is not found in the Constitution nevertheless that does not
forbid defining it and exercising it according to wisdom and statute.
And in Utah the LGBT’s Human Rights Campaign has gone after Governor Gary
Hubert, demanding he not “welcome the World Congress of Families, a global
organization of pro-family lawmakers, scholars, and advocates” to Utah. (Tony
Perkins, ibid) They find natural marriage advocacy and the family to be repugnant,
said the governor, “We invite diversity and different opinions in Utah.” (If
anyone thinks man’s nature has progressed over the centuries, or that, along
with Rousseau, the proper institutions would improve his nature feel free to
speak up.)
The ranks of gay betrayal have sunk
its roots, even, in the Republican Party. This was recently demonstrated when
Kevin McCarthy aptly disguised a traitorous attempt to subvert the legitimacy
of, and tame, the Benghazi committee, as a run at the speakers position.
Softening up the committee, enabling Hillary to avoid tough questions is,
apparently, all important. But dodging those questions entirely proved too
difficult, at her age she can’t take too many more of those Wal-Mart flops. So
Hillary answered the committee’s questions, kind of. But we are still faced
with what may become incriminating circumstantial facts. At the outset of the
Benghazi catastrophe Hillary ran away like a fleeing felon and cut off all
communication with anyone who wanted to question her, whereupon Susan Rice,
someone who had no business occupying that position, was brought in. Then the
lies started. The attack, it was claimed, was spontaneous. But they knew, as everyone
now knows, as Hillary herself had said to the Egyptian Prime Minister it was
planned and knowing that still tried to divert attention and put the blame on a
video and its maker. September 11, 2012 something went terribly wrong in
Benghazi, after six hundred requests for improved security our people were
murdered in a country destabilized by Hillary Clinton’s bad judgment. Is she a
criminal? Or is she, in addition to having accomplished absolutely nothing in
her entire career, just a monumental screw up who wants so badly to increase
her political status that she started a war that added to the destabilization
of the region and removed one of our assets (Gaddafi), then skittered away from
any kind of criticism, putting the entire nation through convulsions? That
would be criminal. Moreover, they ought to question Susan Rice, and Hillary’s
close adviser Huma Abedin about any pillow talk regarding Benghazi. For that
matter, since you were part of it, instead of obstructing justice, how about
you answer some questions Barry? Or maybe Mr. McCarthy would care to testify.
Of course, all this might lead to contradictory testimony; and that would lead
to other questions. Let us test the links in this chain.
When gay progressives in Texas, perhaps such as the Castro brothers, conspired
to slander Rick Perry with false charges because he thought it appropriate
Rosemary Lehmberg resign as Travis County DA after she was arrested for drunk
driving—after being in custody for quite some time she still blew a whopping
.239 and, furthermore, was so eruptive she had to be strapped to a restraining
chair and fitted with a spit mask—they were taking advantage of the
circumstances to inflict political damage on someone less than acquiescent to
homosexual propaganda. Prostration is, of course, the proper attitude to take
before the gay overlords, including those like Donald Trump who crudely
remarked when told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice had gotten down on her
knees and begged not to be fired that that must have been “a pretty picture.”
Further, gay republican Ted Cruz may very well have delighted in this event,
perceiving Perry’s difficulties to be to his advantage as a presidential
aspirant.
In
California gay progressivism has seemingly always started with the governor
(when was the last time a heterosexual was elected to that office?) and then
works its way through the political system. This has manifested itself
according to their psychology. They resist any authority but their own. This
has been demonstrated in their collective repudiation of the rule of law when
that state and a large number of its cities codified voiding state and federal
law regarding persons in this country illegally. (Somebody has to do their yard
work.) As a result, more criminal law must be voided. For example, the recent
murder of Kathryn Steine by a man freed under that illicit authority requires
his acquittal. If that end is not realized, everyone who had a part in his
release, from the Governor on down, will be at risk of felony prosecution
(aiding a murderer, obstructing justice for starters). Or maybe not, maybe they
will simply ignore those laws as well and just tell everyone to shut-up. Not an
unprecedented action. Both gay Mark Zuckerberg and gay Larry Page have at one
time or another thwarted my ability to speak on the “Free” web. This is not
surprising, the high tech industry operates at the beck and call of gays, ask
Eich. Or ask Paul Allen, if you can tear him away from his boat load of
gay guys as he floats the seven seas.
So
to the news media, in I believe 2010 I talked to the Washington bureau of the
Boston Globe on my cell phone from Helena Montana and spoke to the head of that
office. (I believe I called the Globe’s offices in Boston first and was then
either given the number or transferred by a man named Fish. I do not remember
the name of the man in charge of the D.C. office, but the national police have
a record of the call, they will have his name.) I had sent out a brief letter
to a large number of prominent newspapers, including the Globe, hoping to
prevail upon the media to aid my family, and decrying children as young as
toddlers being brought to market by the corporate representatives of organized
crime so persons such as Robert Mueller and Harry Reid could rape them.
(Background: I had sent the Senate pretty much the same letter in 2009, and got
in return an incoherent voice mail on my phone from a man who claimed to be
with some congressional police office. At the end of the message he may have
requested I call him back, but he did not leave his name or phone number. I dug
it out of my phone and called him. The poor man sounded terrified, it was never
clear what he wanted from me, he just seemed confused. When I asked him his
name he reluctantly said to call him Zimmerman.) The head of the Globes D.C.
office had no knowledge of the letter until I read it to him over the phone.
When I read him the part about small children being raped he seemed to develop
a case of the shakes and insisted, emphatically so, in a tremulous voice given
force by fear, that there was “no way” (those may have been his exact words) he
was going to look into that subject. Again I repeated my plea and again he
adamantly rejected the request. His desperate distancing of himself from this
declension led me to believe the subject did not shock him from a lack of
familiarity but from his knowledge of the consequences for exposing such
practices. I also had the distinct impression he was speaking more to the
listeners on the phone than to me. We can be sure—as sure as most people in the
beltway know Bill and Hillary are gay, as sure as Planned Parenthood should be
prosecuted for murder, and as sure Donald Trump and Bill Clinton dream of
dancing boys in Afghanistan—Washington has its public secrets, and the media
helps keep them, ask gay George Stephanopoulos.
Another
example of public secrets might be the Benghazi affair. It was intimated on a
talk radio program that it was somewhat common knowledge around town (D.C.) why
Hillary Clinton had replaced herself, as spokeswoman, with Susan Rice and
subsequently hidden herself away from the reach of anyone who wanted to ask her
questions about the Benghazi murders. If this is true official Washington
is engaged in a giant charade.
Whether
the subject is politics and government, entertainment and the media, giant
internet companies and their ancillary institutions, or even the military, gays
have made their presence felt by gravitating towards power.* In the first
three, coming to dominate, in the latter the results have yet to be determined.
But certainly there are those who could enlighten us. General Barry McCaffrey
and Wesley Clark could tell us about being gay officers. General McCaffrey
might tell us which gay officers most inspired General Schwarzkopf’s famous
temper to flare during the Persian Gulf War. General Keith Alexander is a
notable example of the gay officers in the ranks of intelligence. And
Robert Gates (former Air Force) might tell us how it is so easy to dismiss a
heterosexual general but dismissing a gay general meets with so much seeming
tension and hostility. And certainly he might inform us as to why it is
that so many leaders must either be gay or essentially gay yes men. It has been
a very long time since many of our institutions have been managed by anyone but
gays.
When Edmund Burke wrote Letter to a Noble Lord, he was writing to the Duke of
Bedford and the Earl of Lauderdale, two men who were, it appears, incapable of
grace in any form and, evidently, too dull of wit to be brought to care. They
look to be incapable of any appreciation, any gratitude, or any sense of duty
to preserve what had been achieved, at sometimes great risk and sacrifice, and
to pass it on, as Burke would say, as an inheritance. They failed to appreciate
what they had and how it came to be, who their real friends were, and what
robbers they really would have been to support a revolution that would have
swept it all away, and perhaps them with it.
In
this they were a foreshadowing of today’s progressives.
I have the honor to be,
LYNN SWARTOS
Missoula, Montana
* Their presence is also felt in professional sports were
their rise to prominence is explainable only by an inherent physical
exceptionalism by which it is often the gayest team that wins. Afterward they
seem to find their way to the broadcast booth.
