« Pesticide waste: Notes on one battle in War Against the Record in minds of GOP lawmakers | Main | No beer, no work: bars and eateries please renew liquor purchasing cards in case of shutdown »

May 15, 2017


Larry A. Frost

Dear Bluestem Prairie:

I appreciate the fact you mentioned I represented Robin Hensel in her successful free speech lawsuit against Little Falls, but unfortunately your journalism flagged a little after that.

My clients in the effort to force scofflaw Dar al Farooq mosque to obey its voluntatary Conditional Use Permit can't fairly be called 'anti-mosque' as you state. My clients have not asked that the mosque be removed, only that it actually obey the CUP it signed with the city.

You do a fair job of citing an article about Mr. Loudon, who I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting, but then you dismiss his positions as 'hilarity'. In the law business, we call that a 'conclusory argument' - for your argument to work, you have to assume your conclusion is true. In my prior life (27 years in the military service, mostly as an intelligence officer) that sort of bad logic would get people killed. No, that is not a threat. I mean the plain meaning - assuming your conclusion is true could get troops killed.

Its a pity the level of debate is so, well, first-grade-playground. If your readers review what you said, it boils down to nothing more than 'ad hominem' - or in playground language, name-calling.

I will present facts to our audience next week. I'll cite evidence and quote the authoritative Islamic texts to try and determine whether Islamic doctrine is compatible with our Constitution. I won't treat my audience with the contempt you seem to show yours; I expect mine to question.

Unfortunate you chose to treat the subject this way. I prefer an adult discussion. Thank you for the coverage anyway.

Larry A Frost
Lieutenant Colonel, Military Intelligence Corps
U.S. Army (Ret)
Former Marine and Army NCO
Attorney licensed in Minnesota and Wisconsin

Robin Hensel

Jon Tevlin of the Star Tribune nailed it when he identified Frost and I as polar opposites. Nuf said.


Hey Larry Frost, speaking on adult conversation as you so call it, would you care to comment on the inane Bolshevism conspiracy theory? Why if facts are so important to you would you stand by a man claiming that a dead ideology is behind some strange conspiracy? Why would communists, who are against organized religion work with anyone to push forward Islamist goals? Seems strange for a man so concerned with facts and wanting to look good that you would be seen standing next to a clear hack job who has no business making social commentary.

Larry A. Frost

Dear Allen:

Let my take your comment one bit at a time.

"Hey Larry Frost, speaking on adult conversation as you so call it, would you care to comment on the inane Bolshevism conspiracy theory?"

No, I would not. I have not heard Mr. Loudon's presentation yet. I prefer to actually hear what a source says rather than rely on obviously hostile opponents attributing things to him. That is what being factual looks like.

"Why if facts are so important to you would you stand by a man claiming that a dead ideology is behind some strange conspiracy?"

The 1.7 billion Chinese ruled by a formally Communist (capital-C) government will be very surprised to learn that Mr. Allen has declared their ideology dead. And small-c communism is an ideology that is hardly dead. I think you should read a little more outside Bluestem Prairie. You have heard of the People's Republic of China, right? Your comment ignores its existence. Not very factual, Allen.

"Why would communists, who are against organized religion work with anyone to push forward Islamist goals?"

Ummm...first sentence you say communism is dead - now this. Please make your mind up. The answer is that communism has always worked with anyone who will forward its goals, including useful idiots in America who became fellow travellers.

"Seems strange for a man so concerned with facts and wanting to look good that you would be seen standing next to a clear hack job who has no business making social commentary."

I think you tell us more about you than me here. I said nothing about wanting to look good...and I don't care if I 'look good' (whatever that means) to you.

"Clear Hack"...sigh. This is a conclusory arguement again, Allen. And name-calling. You don't provide any evidence Mr. Loudon is a 'hack' (or even tell us what you mean by that smear term). He isn't a hack just because you say so. You need (drumroll) some evidence...also called facts. What you rely on here is a slanted, conclusory article in Bluestem, devoid of any facts, and consisting mostly of name-calling.

Calling people names was not an argument during first grade recess. It still isn't, but you haven't the excuse of a six year old.

Mr. Loudon has 'no business' speaking? Sounds like you also don't care much for the First Amendment. Saying something you don't like is not a bar to Mr. Loudon speaking.

Unless you can do better than your name-calling, factless hit piece, I certainly don't intend to pay much heed. I'll actually listen to Mr. Loudon and THEN make up my mind about what he has to say. You should try that some time instead of relying on second-hand hostile sources to report what other think.

Your comments are juvenile and not a decent argument at all.

My presentation will discuss Islamic doctrine - what Islam tells its followers to do. That's what intelligence officers work with: Find out what the other side believes and tells its own about how to behave. I'll let Islam speak for Islam, and compare it to the US Constitution. My presentation has not been coordinated with Mr. Loudon beyond a single phone conversation to be sure we have a smooth transition.

L. Frost

Robin Hensel

Excuse me Larry, isn't "useful idiot" also schoolyard name calling? Usama Dakdok hurls that term at his audience during his "so called"presentations on what he calls "jihadists". Did you copy him, or did you both "parrot"that term from a "Frank Gaffney"type? Your phrases are very similar. Are you just going along with the Center for Security Policy ideology?


Bolshevism is dead, not communism, duh. Also, funny to present alongside someone you haven't heard speak. Doesn't seem too professional to me but I suppose what I find amusing doesn't concern you.


Bonus points for calling china communist too, as anyone knows, giving a BMW a paint job and putting a few logos on it does not make it a Lamborghini, regardless of what its owner calls it. On what authority do you name China a communist country on anything but name alone when every academic who has studied China's economy calls it a capitalistic economy? I'm curious, do they focus on that particular subject and say something in law school than they do in economics and political science? If so, enlighten me because I wasn't aware of this particular phenomenon.

Larry A. Frost

Several replies:

Robin, just spoke to you on the phone. "Useful idiot" is not name-calling. Its from polisci and history; Soviets used it (I assume its equivalent in Russian!) to refer to Westerners who were apologists for communism. Fellow travellers were always regarded in Communist doctrine as useful but not reliable. So neither Frank Gafney nor I are parroting one another; we are both using a well-recognized historical term.

Allen, sorry you haven't studied history and know nothing about this. Know-Nothing-ism is serious problem on this issue.

Moving on, Allen, but there is nothing 'capitalist' about China. Capitalism is private ownership AND CONTROL of the means of production.

The most charitable description of CHina today is 'state capitalism' - where the STATE owns all key sectors but allows its entities to compete with one another and some private entities. Land was decollectivized, that is true. See:


This is what a (simple) fact based argument looks like, Allen. You seem to have a hard time with assembling one.

In short, no, NONE Of the major economics sources I am familiar with describe China as 'free market capitalism'. And even a cursory look at how they operate validates that. I stand with it:

China is a communist country; state-owened enterprises dominate and more importatly control the economy, government regulation is severe and pervasive, and the Communist Party still maintains the dictatorship of he proletariat.

Debra Ludemann


Thanks for sharing your views in such detail. I presume you'll also happily provide this audience either the written highlights of your St Cloud presentation (including Mr. Brantsner's opines?), or easy access to a tape of same? Thank you,

Deb Ludemann
St. Paul

Larry A. Frost


I posted a reply to your request, but either it got lost or the moderator decided not to post it.

Short version: If you want to hear speakers, come - and ask questions. I don't know why you think it is my job to make up for your not attending.

I don't have to do your work by providing you "...easy access..."

Editor's note: it must have been lost, as we have no record of it being posted (these arrive via email). We've been posting all of the comments on this thread, except those that are clearly spam promoting links to other unrelated sites. It's a fascinating discussion.

Larry A. Frost

To The Editors:

My assumption is that my computer didn't send it, since you are pretty clearly moderating for obvious things like trolling and defamation...and a thank-you to Blue Stem for publishing all sides without editing.

This is also a very important discussion. Suppression of free speech is very, very heavily linked with the entire idea of discussing Islamic doctrine.

Your readers may not know that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) (formerly Org of the Islamic Conference) has consistently sought United Nations action to illegalize criticism of Islam. This link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations outlines the bare history.

Anyone whose response to criticism of Islam or Islamic doctrine is to charge 'Islamophobia' is complicit in attempting to squelch free speech. Such a charge is ad hominem; and it is irrelevant to any reasonable discussion because what a speaker believes does not change the truth value of what a speaker says.

Comments like some of those above head in that direction.

Larry A. Frost

One of the points of my brief was that the shari'a considers blasphemy a death penalty offense. Some years ago, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris held a 'Draw Mohammed' day. Hundreds of thousands signed up - and Anwar al Awlaki, the treacherous American Muslim who was killed in a drone strike, put out a fatwa for her execution. She had to hide.

Years later, she is still in hiding.

Is execution for blasphemy in line with the US Constitution?

Isn't this an obvious violent attempt to suppress free speech?

And what have you here who read Bluestem Prairie done to fight it? Or do you agree that anyone who dares to say the unpopular should be forced to go into hiding?

Please don't say "Oh, but all Muslms aren't that way." I pointed that out multiple times in my brief. And I handed out the principles argued for by Zuhdi Jasser and Ani Zonneveld, both Muslims who want Islam to reform to conform to the US Constitution. But the very points they both argue for prove my point: As it stands now, the mainline religious doctrine of Islam stands squarely opposed to the most precious principles of our Constitution. How odd that none of the people who attended the speech post that here. The link to an article on Ms. Norris problem is below:


The comments to this entry are closed.

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Become a Fan

Bluestem Tweets

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad