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.