As many have written and noticed, I have not posted as much as usual.
Well after yesterday, that will change.

I had a chance to see the future of the MN GOP and I am inspired.
Not but what I saw, but what I didn’t see.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect different results and yesterday I had a tour of the insane asylum.

While there is lots of talk of the need to change, I saw a long parade of the same old, same old.

For the past year, I have taken a less active role in order to concentrate on getting key conservatives re-elected – well that is going to change.

I am going to campaign hard to regain a more active leadership role in CD2 and will work to help like minded leaders through out the state.

The time is now. The place is here. We must stand up and be counted.

I’m fairly straight forward when it comes to how I feel about the military and especially WWII veterans. I’m a member of the 8th Air Force Historical Society of Minnesota. These are the guys who flew and maintained the B-17’s, B-24’s, C-47’s. We have men from the 8th, 12th, 15th, 7th Air Forces along with ground and air crew from the Pacific. And they let hanger-ons like me join. One of those men is Richard “Mac” McCullum. He was a Navy Corsair pilot in the Pacific. Carrier based. Over 120 carrier landings, 24 at night (long before sophisticated radar, GPS and electronics) when night carrier landings were, well, dangerous (unlike all other carrier landings that are described even by Air Force pilots as “a controlled crash”). My friend Mac passed away on Friday.
He had been in failing health for the last few years. So, I’m not shocked, but am certainly sad and saddened.
Mac kept flying well after WWII. He was finally forced to give up his pilots license in the early 1990’s after a heart battack and the onset of diabetes, but was somehow able to find the stick in his hand when offered the opportunity on someone else’s license.But, Mac was always reluctant to tell his story about WWII. A friend of mine Jon Cermin has committed to putting as many stories as possible on video (CAPS). We tried a few times to interview Mac. Mac said OK, but then declined. I never pressed him after the second time. But Mac was my friend. If he didn’t want to talk about WWII, that was more than fine. I just enjoined his company.
At today’s luncheon, there was an article that was read. The oldest living veteran in America and the last WWI veteran in Massachusetts passed away. And the comment was that there are now only seven known surviving American WWI veterans. And that the men I have lunch with will also shortly be in small numbers.
When these wonderful men started to pass away shortly after I joined the Society, I was talking to my brother. I told him that we are going to get to know these men better. That we’re going to get closer to them. And that it’s going to hurt more and more when they pass away. And we agreed that was the price to be paid to get to know and serve these wonderful guys. And we’d have it no other way. As my brother remarked, in a quote from the war “We knew the mission was dangerous when we volunteered”.
And I already miss my friend Mac.

From September, 1988:
Preflight

Strap-in

Contact

My fellow blogger Lady Logician has a post about the story of Kenneth Englund and his confrontation with a now admitted gas thief. She pondered why I “wasn’t all over” the story.
She makes the following statement: “It seems that Farmer Englund saw a punk stealing from one of his neighbors, grabbed an unloaded shotgun and gave chase. Under Minnesota law, if you catch someone robbing you and he/she flees, you are obliged not to chase them down.

Sigh…..this is Minnesota. Don’t get involved, you might get charged with a crime.”

Here are my comments on this story and her post:

This is an area where commentary really needs to be left to those with knowledge. Comments about this type of story should not be made briefly, capriciously or flippantly.

My credentials: I have had a Minnesota permit to carry a firearm for five years. My firearm instructors were: a range qualifying officer for six police jurisdictions here in the southern suburbs, an Army Ranger, an NRA certified firearms instructor, an Air Force intelligence officer and the pioneer firearms instructor in Minnesota. One of those instructors is also a BCA (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension) certified instructor and the retired sniper for a suburban SWAT team. He has also survived a close quarter’s firefight. I am a certified firearms instructor (AACFI-American Association of Certified Firearms Instructors). I am also a member of a number of pro-liberty, pro-self defense groups here in Minnesota. I do not speak for any of these organizations. My comments reflect only my own opinion(s). Also, all my comments are based upon the current facts as presented and reported in the Star Tribune story.

That being said, there is so much wrong with Mr.Englund’s actions. It’s obvious that he is a good citizen and was also trying to also be a good neighbor. It seems the resultant protest firestorm comes from trying to support his intent without questioning at all his methods and actions. I support the former but strongly criticize the latter. It appears that Mr. Englund made decisions based on emotion and very faulty analysis. Once firearms are introduced into any situation, and especially this situation, and with obvious emotion, all the dynamics change radically. When a firearm is carried, it is absolutely incumbent upon the carrier to be aware of how, when, where and why that firearm can be used. It is therefore vitally incumbent upon the carrier to also know how, when, where and why not to use that firearm.

There is a four fold test for the self-defensive use of a firearm in Minnesota. All four must, repeat must be present:

1. You must be an unwilling participant.

2. You must be reasonably in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm (meaning death would occur from the resultant injuries).

3. Reasonable retreat is not practical.

4. No lesser force will do.

Mr. Englund fails first of all as his was not the self-defensive use a firearm. He was not subjected to either harm or danger. He therefore subsequently fails in all four of the requirements for the deadly use of a firearm. Lady Logician states that first of all Mr. Englund saw Mr. Smith stealing from Englund’s neighbor, not from Englund (this statement is not supported at all by Englund’s comments). She then closes her comments saying that “Under Minnesota law, if you catch someone robbing you and he/she flees, you are obliged not to chase them down.” Englund was not the victim. His neighbor was. Englund’s neighbor was not threatened, his property may have been (again because Englund admits that he did not see, at this point, the alleged theft. See comments below). Mr. Englund was not in danger. Mr. Englund chose to confront, at this point, the alleged perpetrator and chose to do so with a firearm. Mr. Englund at this point was not avoiding conflict, but became a willing participant. He introduced a firearm into a situation that he willingly entered into. As he was a willing participant he also had ample opportunity to execute practical retreat. As Smith was not visibly armed, Englund having violated the first three precepts now violated the fourth. But, what if Smith were clandestinely armed, perhaps even with a knife? By taking an unloaded firearm into a situation, Englund may have been attempting to bluff or intimidate Smith. One does not bluff with a firearm. Ever. Repeat: EVER! Englund potentially put his and Smith’s life at risk for $5.00 worth of gasoline. And to make matters even worse, Englund admitted he did not even see the theft. He was only suspicious because Englund said Smith’s car was the same one that was seen at the site where a truck radiator went missing previously.

Englund then proceeded to be involved in a high speed chase that involved a woman and an innocent three year old child. Minnesota law allows the use of deadly force only until the threat ceases. Englund was not threatened at any point, let alone here. Smith was fleeing, thereby ending any threat if it ever existed. Englund jumped into a vehicle to pursue Smith and once again became a willing participant. Four lives, including an innocent child’s life were all put at risk by Englund’s actions in this high speed chase. And Englund similarly put in danger the lives of any passengers in any cars traveling those same roads (remember, Englund had a cell phone all this time. He could have just as easily reported a description of the driver, car, license and direction of flight rather asking if he “should blow them away”). Englund then commits the same act at the end of the chase by pointing his shotgun at Smith. Again, if Smith were armed the potential for deadly consequences were rampant, once more including at the very least the life of a blameless child. As Isanti County Sheriff Ammend said:” Th
ere’s so many things that could have gone wrong here” (sic). Fortunately, for all involved, they didn’t.

Now, Prairie Pravda does not exactly do justice to the story by stating “A long history of legal decisions runs against people who use force to protect property.” There are certainly both statutory and case law regarding the use of deadly force to defend one’s domicile when one is present or accidentally comes upon an intruder. However, that is not even remotely the case regarding Mr. Englund and his actions.

Again, I applaud Mr. Englund’s sense of civic duty. However, how that duty is implemented and executed must be fashioned and tempered with wisdom, scrutiny, responsibility, prudence and discernment. No matter how lofty his intent, Mr. Englund did not apply those constraints at the risk to himself and to innocent life.

Wanton, impulsive and reckless comments do nothing but inflame the situation. And certainly situations like this. They can easily add to the lethality of a future confrontation. And emotions and firearms are most certainly a deadly mix.

Above is a picture of a table located in a powder blue building named T-2. The T stands for temporary. There the microphones point north and south. The microphone cords designate what is termed the “MDL” (Military Line of Demarcation). It is considered the international border between South and North Korea. Senator James Webb gave the response to President Bush’s State of the Union speech. During that speech he used a reference to President Eisenhower. He stated “As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the general who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. And as soon as he became president, he brought the Korean War to an end.” Really. I seem to recall that all that occurred in 1953 was a temporary suspension of major hostilities. That there have been any number of violent incidents in the intervening fifty-four years. There were long talks at that truce table where the representatives of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK, aka North Korea) routinely just got up and walked away from negotiations, turned off their microphones. What brought about the end of active major hostilities was the prospect of the United Nations forces overrunning the DPRK with a major offensive. (BTW, it was a resumption of massive bombing of North Vietnam that brought the communists back to the Paris Peace talks). But, there has never been a formal peace treaty between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the DPRK. There have been American troops in Korea since 1950. So, I’m hard pressed to understand what Senator Webb means by President Eisenhower bringing about an end to the police action in Korea. But, as he was comparing the Korean War and Iraq, I thought about some logical extensions to Senator Webb’s comparison that might be in order.
Let’s assume that negotiations between The West and radical Islam were to occur at the truce table in T-2. The enemies of radical Islam occupied the chairs on the left side of the table, represented by, say, the United States, Israel and Britain. Then who would be seated across from them on the right? Where would the invitation to radical Islam to attend negotiations be sent?
What would, or even more succinctly, what could be negotiated? As I once heard it said that Hamas and Hezbolah want all the Jews in Israel dead. All the Jews in Israel don’t want to die. What’s the middle ground then? What is there for the two sides to negotiate? Same here with radical Islam and the West. The jihadists want us either converted or dead. We don’t want to convert or die. Where then would the middle ground be between death and living, between loyalty to Christ and loyalty to Mohamed? Also, remember, the Qur’an allows Muslims to lie to advance Islam. What assurances (again, considering the previous sentence) could the West be given to whatever were agreed to; that the West wouldn’t have to face terror at anytime, or face a myriad of splinter Islamic radical groups, as is seemingly the want of Islamic groups to splinter?
Just a couple of thoughts.

Hugh Hewitt has developed a spine! He was arguing , and heatedly,with Senator Ensign, head of the National Republican Senate Committee about Republican Senators supporting or considering supporting various resolutions questioning President Bush’s recent troop deployment. Hugh blasted the Senator Ensign when he said that the NRSC is about getting back a Republican majority and Hugh was very clear: resolutions of this sort will NOT a majority remake. Hugh went on to say that he has split ranks with many of his Senate friends on this matter.
Hugh has a pledge to sign here that puts any and all Senate Republicans on notice.
I’ve also sent a webmail to Senator Norm Coleman (here) attempting to be direct while also being diplomatic that he should not even consider supporting any Warneresque, Hagelesque or Bidenesque “Sense of the Senate” resolution concerning the troop deployment. Even Tony Snow said that war trumps party. Agreed.
As I heard someone say in reference to Senator Coleman on this matter “Can anyone say ‘Senator Franken’?”
P.S. I’ve just heard that Senator McCain is “doing for the war what he did for judicial nominations” (remember the Gang of 14?). Adios any chance he ever had to be President.

My respect for Pat Robertson of the 700 Club has just taken a significant hit.
I’m doing some late night work and was watching the 700 Club when there a brief report about Los Angeles considering banning trans fat ala New York. Mr. Robertsons comments:
“Well, I’m not in favor of Big Brother, but…” whereupon he launched into the evils of trans fat (heart disease, cancer, etc). His closing comments “Well, if we don’t do it ourselves, government will have to. So I approve.” In other words “I approve of tyranny when I agree with it’s motives.” Well, Pat, why not mandatory taking of vitamins with random urine tests and blood work. Or, exposure meters ensuring that our sun UV exposure doesn’t exceed safe limits? Or government required exercise with again random tests? Why not? It is for our good after all. If we don’t do it voluntarily, the government should.
Right?
Walter Williams sees again the tyrananny state at work. I wonder why Mr. Robertson’s vision is so occluded here?

I listened to the President;s speech last night. I like the point he made about where and why the troops where going where they’re going (over 80% of the terrorists’ attacks happen within a thirty mile radius of Baghdad. Very similar to the vast majority of shootings, murders and assaults happen in just two zip codes in Minneapolis).
Now, I’m a military history buff. I took a full year of the history of WWII in college. Well over half of all the hundreds of books I own are military related. They go from front line soldiers (Band of Brothers for example) all the way up to the diplomatic papers between Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt. I have a number of books dealing with that war that was the genesis for all modern warfare-The War Between the States. Now, all that being said, I probably have done deeper studies of war tactics and strategy than the vast majority of Congress. And we have a Commander-in-Chief and a military that is far more qualified to determine what’s needed in Iraq than elected representatives. Period.
I just got off the phone with a good friend of mine. He’s exasperated with Pawlenty and Coleman and their lack of support for the President. He said he’d be willing to give a pass to soemone who complains BUT offers an alternative to the President. Pelosi, Rangel, Hillary, Murtha even Coleman have absolutely NO counter plan. None at all. And none of the critics has stated what would happen if we left. I stated to my friend a great example of what would happen if we left is Fallujah. There was the first and then the second battle of Fallujah. The first was prematurely ended due to politics. And the second cost many more lives but was necessitated by the failure of the first. And what do those who oppose the battle against radical Islam in Iraq suppose will happen if we don’t win there? What happened when we left Somalia? Lebanon? All that happened was that the radical Islamisists were encouraged.
And so it will be in Iraq.
So, when you hear someone criticize the battle in Iraq, as for a detailed counter plan.

The day before her coronation, I heard Nancy Pelosi say this “Democrats are back and that is cause for celebration,” Pelosi told the crowd. “Thanks to you, working moms in this country know there’s a mom in the speaker’s office…”
My term for San Fran Nan: Tyrananny Nancy.
And as for the lefties sweep in November? So many have accused the Republicans for straying from the platform, both here in Minnesota and nationally. Nah. Not true. I only wish that were true. However, every one of those Republicans was elected. And they were elected by people who wanted to see the gavel in the hands of someone who had the “R” designation after their name. I’ve seen it here locally. I’ve seen it statewide. I’ve seen it nationally. The electorate was unwilling to hold Republican politicians responsible and accountable. They were elected by us and passed laws in our name.
Same holds true for every single erosion of our liberties.
As Walt Kelly so eloquently stated:

Less than a week in power and as I posted here the lefties are lefties. Newly installed MN AG Lori Swanson has already lodged her first big lawsuit (as a matter of fact, her first lawsuit period) against a Minnesota company, Allianz Life. AG Swanson is a legal superwoman! She has the ability and the talent, in less than five working days, to gather all the evidence and file all necessary papers to enter a lawsuit against a major PRIVATE Minnesota employer and major provider of annuities. All I can say is-wow!
Now, I noticed that she’s hired former MN AG Mike Hatch. A few loose dots and I’m wondering: do you think that this was one more lawsuit that Mike Hatch just longed to launch but ran out of time? That perhaps , just perhaps, all that paperwork was just sitting there at 1400 Bremer Tower just aching to be filed? And Ms. Swanson has decided to become Ms. Michelle Hatch, jr. And that she’s hired Mike Hatch to assist here in her quest to follow her mentor and predecessor in making the business climate in Minnesota even more inhospitable?

And in those same five working days, the MN State Legislature has a $2,250,000,000 surplus (meaning that you and I have been overtaxed. This surplus did NOT come from reduced spending). And the lefties response to your being overtaxed? Come on. That’s a rhetorical question. Their only answer is: Increase taxes. A sales tax increase. An increase in vehicle registration fees (a tax increase by another name). Increase vehicle taxes. Increase the gas tax. Allow counties to charge a wheelage tax. Allow counties to impose a county wide sales tax (if Hennepin County can do it, why not us?). And of course, the cry is for a cap on property taxes. How? Increase other taxes to be sent to St. Paul and then sent to sent back to the local governments, after of course the bureaucrats all along the way take their cuts to administer all the comings and goings of your money. Take that money from your back pocket (exactly like a pick pocket, and for exactly the same reasons) so the locals won’t take it from your right pocket.
Oh, and as they increase taxes all around, they want to cap health insurance premiums. No irony or duplicity there.