I was reading about the farmer, from the area of Bradford Township, MN. who chased down a thief and held him at gunpoint until the “Authorities”, who he himself called, arrived, now faces a more serious charge than the thief himself.

The farmer, Kenneth Englund, 74, was charged with second-degree assault, a felony. The actual criminal and thief, who the sheriff said had admitted stealing gasoline from Mr. Englund's neighbor, ended up being charged with misdemeanor theft.

What bothers me the most is what Sheriff Mike Ammend said: “People can't take the law into their own hands”, and “that Englund's actions were an invitation to a shootout, there's so many things that could have gone wrong here."

So, as most Law Enforcement Officials say, “This was another case of ordinary citizens taking the law into their own hands”. Two questions come to my mind: “Whoever said that only paid Law Enforcement Officials can enforce laws?” and “Who came up with this concept?” In this case what actually did take place: First, the thief did, admittedly, steal the gasoline, therefore, crime committed. Second, Mr. Englund never fired a shot, no one got hurt, therefore NO crime committed. Who gets a slap on the wrist and who gets screwed over by the Trained, Paid, Professional, Unionized and Armed Law Enforcement “Authorities.”

Now, I am not suggesting that everybody should be able to pull other drivers over for traffic violations or arrest people for passing on the right. We don’t want everyone to start entrapping their neighbors or setting traps, but what is wrong with holding or even chasing people that have so obviously broken the law as described earlier.

Why is it that if someone steals my car I cannot give chase and recover my own car? Why is it that if someone pulls a gun on me and takes my wallet, the police advise me to let them have it, walk away and call the paid Law Enforcement “Authorities”, so they can take care of it? (Which they never do 99% of the time.)

Taking the “Law into our own hands” is one of the phrases that I consider Anti-Freedom Rhetoric. The Law should be in our own hands. We should be able to protect ourselves, our families and our property. This means if you break into my house, whether you are armed or not, whether you are 14 or 40 years old, if you end up with one of my bullets coursing through your brain causing “Sudden Death Syndrome”, well, shame on you.

If your little innocent 20 year old child tries to rob me and I beat him or her into a comatose veggie, whose fault is that? Really, take your pick, either it is the kids fault, or mom and dads, it surely isn’t mine. I mean really, getting robbed, mugged, beat up or otherwise assaulted, is not my idea of “Freedom of Expression.”

Why do we allow our justice system to be perverted by the so called Liberal Do-Gooders, who want to “Protect” us from ourselves? How can “Liberal Do-Gooders” possibly say that a policing system that may have worked 300 years ago still works today? Have they not noticed that the number of Law Enforcers out on the street has not quite kept pace with population growth?

One thing is for sure, if we had more neighbors like Mr. Englund, I bet there would be less crime. Mr. Englund, Thank you.

Newsflash: Rape is OK. Torture is OK. Murder, kidnapping, discrimination, extortion, slavery and censorship are all OK.

Just not in our country.

A few years ago there was a rash of rapes of schoolchildren on their way to school in Detroit. The major Newspapers and TV News Stations in Detroit were appalled that this could go on in a city like Detroit. Where were our Political and Moral Leaders, our police? What was the School District doing to combat this atrocity? And if you were any type of respectable parent, you would be escorting your children to and from school.

So answer me a question. Why do we tolerate the Rape, Murder, Torture, Enslavement or other violations the Human Rights that we hold so dear here in the United States of America, in foreign countries?

Iraq comes to mind, among others, like maybe the entire continent of Africa, or at least 99% of it.

Where did the notion that if "Wrongs" are committed outside of our Country, it is of no concern to us. It’s “None of our business,” so to speak.

Let’s get specific. Let us concentrate on Iraq, as most of the world seems to be right now.

The Government of Iraq used torture against their own citizens, raped and murdered the very people you would think that the Iraqi Government would have instead strove to protect. But the government of Iraq was not in business to “Protect and Serve”, but to “Control and Enslave.”

Saddam fought a war with Iran not to improve the safety or wellbeing of his citizens, but to add to his “Personal Empire.” He did the same thing to Kuwait. And look what he did in both cases. Kidnapped citizens of the countries he invaded, raped them, murdered them and enslaved more than just a few. Some of these people are still missing.

Take a time out for just one minute and think about what life is like for a person who saw their relatives raped, beaten and murdered, or maybe just not knowing what happened to your brother or sister, father and mother, son or daughter, you just know they are nowhere to be found.

This is "None of our business?" We don't belong there? We don't have the authority, either morally or legally, to intervene on the behalf of the oppressed of this world? I ask you how this travesty can NOT be our “Business?”

Oh, I've heard the Official Rhetoric of the "Politicians" and the Hollywood Experts. (Funny how making a couple of popular movies or singing a couple of #1 Hits all of a sudden makes you expert on Foreign Relations and in Political Science.)

A few of my favorites:

WMD's. Oh, yeah. This one is so precious. “We went in there to rid Iraq of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and there weren’t any.” Did we now? Maybe I’m slow or stupid, but I thought we went in there to overthrow an Evil Government (who never let the WMD Inspectors do their job), much like we did in the case of Hitler. And the weapons we did not find? I have two thoughts on this subject. First, most of the world thought he had them. Europeans and Americans, Democrats and Republicans, Blacks and Whites, absolutely 99% of the world’s leadership thought he had them. (Maybe Cuba and Libya didn’t). Second, Saddam knew he didn’t have any, but did he ever deny it? (By the way, the answer is “No.”)

Iraq was a Sovereign Country; we had no authority to go in there. So was Japan and Germany.

We should have waited on the U.N. Oh, please, that place is so corrupt, mismanaged and ineffective, it would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad.

We should have let the Arabs take care of their own problems. I’m glad we did not take that stance with the people in another region after the Tsunami hit, aren’t you?

We should have let the Iraqis take care of their own problems. Yeah, that worked out well for the world community in the Balkans and Rwanda, didn’t it?

Diplomacy should have been given more time. Yep, that’s working out real well for us in Iran and North Korea, isn’t it?

If we were Luxembourg, yea, probably not much we could do about anything I’ve brought up here, but we aren’t. We are the United Sates of America. We are not the world’s policeman, but, we need to help those who cannot help themselves. That is what a “Moral People” do. It is what a “Moral Country” should do. The USA should no more turn its back on the “Worlds Oppressed Peoples” than you should turn your back on a sick and dying sibling.