• Home page of novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • About author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Books by novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Reviews of the writing of author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Blog of author William (Bill) S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Contact author William S. Frankl, M.D.
Title: Blog by Novelist William S. Frankl, MD

Archive for August, 2017

Gone With The Wind Banned From Memphis Theater

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

The Left Wing in the USA is suffering from a severe case of political correctness/Antifa dementia, which one can only hope will not continue to spread and infect those of us who are still sane. Below witness the effect of this fatal malady( one can only hope).

Gone With The Wind Banned From Memphis Theater

by Tyler Durden

Aug 27, 2017 9:17 AM

http://www.zerohedge.com/printmail/602379http://www.zerohedge.com/print/602379

When Vice News argued that perhaps Mt. Rushmore should be demolished, running a headline which declared without irony – “Let’s Blow Up Mount Rushmore” (a headline subsequently scrubbed) – we suggested that the fanatical push to sanitize all historic monuments and public references to past political leaders perceived as ‘tainted’ or controversial “may have hit peak crazy here.” Well, we were wrong – it appears the PC mob is now coming for the film industry.

 

The historic Orpheum Theatre in Memphis, Tennessee has decided to censor “Gone With the Wind” from a line-up of movies it will show as part of its 2018 Summer Movie Series after dubbing it racially “insensitive”. The 1939 classic film, based on the book by Margaret Mitchell, is set on a plantation in the American South during the Civil War and Reconstruction era, and is widely considered by critics and historians to be among the greatest American movies of all time. It broke Academy Award records at the time, receiving eight Oscars including a Best Supporting Actress for Hattie McDaniel, who became the first African-American Academy Award-winner. It also remains the highest grossing film of all time (with ticket prices adjusted for inflation) – beating out even Star Wars. TheMemphis’ Orpheum Theatre has included the movie as part of its annual local film festival featuring American classics for decades. But apparently this nearly 80-year old world renowned classic has been scrubbed for the first time based on some complaints the theater received after its last August 11 showing. “As an organization whose stated mission is to ‘entertain, educate and enlighten the communities it serves’, the Orpheum cannot show a film that is insensitive to a large segment of its local population,” the theater’s board said in a statement.

The theater indicated that for the first time this year’s screening “generated numerous comments” which led to the decision to drop it, adding that, “while title selections for the series are typically made in the spring of each year, the Orpheum has made this determination early in response to specific inquiries from patrons.” This will mark the first time in 34 years Gone With the Wind will not show. It appears that much of the negative feedback came via Orpheum Theatre’s Facebook page with some comments decrying the film as “racist” and leveling the charge that it’s a “tribute to white supremacy”.

 

N. Korea Missile over Japan. What to do?

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

 

 

The following is a very sensible way to proceed in this terribly difficult situation. But unlikely to be followed wholly or in part.

Washington Examiner

August 30, 2017

How Trump Should Respond to North Korea’s Missile Over Japan

  By Tom Rogan

       August 29,2017

 Early Tuesday morning Japan time, North Korea fired a missile over Japan’s northern Hokkaido island. The missile launch represents a major North Korean escalation in its ongoing standoff with the United States, South Korea, and Japan.

 

This is the first time in 8 years that North Korea has fired a missile over Japanese territory, and in doing so Kim Jong Un has seized back the strategic initiative.

 

Kim’s success in that regard is reflected by Japan’s apparent failure to try and shoot down the missile. In recent weeks, the Trump administration had suggested any launch against Japanese territory would be dealt with aggressively and immediately; implying the use of anti-ballistic missile weapons or retaliation. True, Japan might say that it didn’t act here because the missile’s trajectory was indicative of a Western Pacific impact, but Kim will feel his roll of the dice has been vindicated.

 

That puts the Trump administration in a difficult position. As I noted last week, while Trump’s tough-rhetoric on North Korea has been largely successful, there was a growing likelihood that Kim would launch a missile test against South Korea or Japan. That option, now rendered, allows Kim to preach defiance while avoiding Guam or another U.S. territory.

 

Still, the specter of a ballistic missile passing over one of America’s closest allies cannot be ignored. After all, it cuts to the heart of any realistic deterrent policy.

 

So what should Trump do?

 

I think four things. First, he should work to establish a consensus with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan on what to do if another launch takes place. Here, both leaders should state any further missiles on course to transit Japan will be shot down. North Korea must know that this activity cannot become the new norm. Absent that understanding, Kim will be emboldened to further acts of aggression.

Second, the president should direct Nikki Haley to work with the U.N. security council to pass new sanctions legislation on North Korea. This should include the sanctioning of North Korean government accounts used to support its diplomats around the world, and the North’s importation of machinery, electronics, and refined petroleum from China and Russia. While China and Russia might well veto such legislation, it would force China and Russia to take a stand against the international community. With export reliant economies, both nations would worry about the impacts of that vote. An able negotiator, Nikki Haley should call on allies like Britain and France to lobby on America’s behalf.

 

Third, Trump should order the deployment of additional forces to the U.S. Military’s Pacific Command. As I’ve explained, these deployments should be focused on air and naval striking capabilities. The intent here would not simply serve the prudent preparation for military action against North Korea’s ballistic missile program, but to remind China that the U.S. sees the end game on the horizon. North Korean nuclear-ballistic capabilities are growing in many areas, and China continues to take only mild action. Put simply, either that must change or the U.S. must strike.

 

Fourth, as soon as is feasibly possible (following his visit to Texas), Trump should visit Tokyo and make a speech in solidarity with U.S. allies in the region. Doing so wouldn’t simply calm our friends in the Asia-Pacific, it would personally stake Trump’s reputation on resolving this crisis. Knowing his ego is considerable, Trump’s arrival might deter those like China and North Korea who would accept the North’s conduct as the new norm.

 

Ultimately, Kim has changed the dimensions of the crisis by this missile launch. While a diplomatic solution is both possible and preferable, Trump must ensure everyone knows that time for a peaceful solution is running out.

 

Author’s note: An earlier version of this article suggested that the last North Korean missile to transit Japan was fired in 1998. While a missile was launched over Japan in 1998, the last such transit was in 2009.

Tom Rogan Donald Trump Japan North Korea White House Opinion Beltway Confidential

Explaining President Trump?

Monday, August 28th, 2017

This may explain a few things going on at The White House. On the other hand, this might explain nothing. And if you believe this, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. But keep an open mind.

Read this little essay a couple of times and read it slowly the last time you read it. And Donald Trump is the smartest President we have had for quite some time.

“Apparently, liberals and never-Trumpers are so isolated in their political circles that they have no concept how things work in the real world of business and corporate America. For example, they completely fail to grasp the concept of the “hatchet man.”

Say you are a business tycoon. You just successfully completed a large-scale acquisition and merger, bringing together multiple smaller companies into one conglomerate. After the merger, you want to put your own people in charge of everything. However, all those smaller companies had their own executives – and, at least for the short term – you need to keep many of them around the keep things running. So, you keep many of those executives around, and let them retain their own senior staff. You even appoint one of them – the head of the largest of the companies you acquired – to be the CEO of the conglomerate, and he pledges to get all the departments working together harmoniously.

After a transition period, some of them are doing fine in the new conglomerate – but others are clearly causing trouble. In fact, the one you appointed CEO is clearly a disaster. The newly merged departments are working against each other.

Furthermore, you have good suspicion he is dealing in insider trading – nothing you can take to a prosecutor, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence building up. Worse, he is not only doing his own dirty dealing, but it appears he may even be leaking intellectual property to your competitors, helping them take market share from you.

Clearly, he has to go – and go now.

Problem is, many of the senior employees in your conglomerate are loyal to him. If you just fire him and put in your own chosen CEO, you know you could get a lot of backlash from disgruntled employees. And in your business, there is such a small profit-margin that you really can’t afford anything at all that threatens performance. So, what do you do?

In comes the hatchet man.

The hatchet man is someone you bring in for sole purpose of slashing the problems and shaking things up over a very short period of time – but doing it in a way that deflects any blame or blowback away from you. As soon as the problems are hacked away, the hatchet man leaves – taking the ire and resentment with him, and leaving you free to bring in your new team for a fresh start.

This happens in the business world all the time. And Donald Trump is a businessman. He knows this. He has lived this. We’ve seen him do it on “The Apprentice.” We’ve read about it in his books. This is not a surprise to anyone. Except for liberals and never-Trumpers.

Enter Scaramucci.

Liberals and never-Trumpers see the past two weeks as proof of a Hitler-clown-circus spectacle, as evidence that Trump is unhinged and our government is in the hands of madmen. Anyone who understands the business world and Donald Trump fully understands that what we just witnessed was a perfectly executed hatchet man maneuver.

When Trump won the election, he essentially performed the political equivalent of an acquisition and merger. He brought together different political factions – establishment Republicans, conservatives, tea party, religious right, moderates, independents, cross-overs – into one winning political coup. For some, it was a hostile takeover – and if they were going to be dragged in against their will, they would sure as hell resist.

This is where Reince Priebus came in.

Priebus, as the then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, was hired as White House Chief of Staff to be a sort of post-merger CEO. It was his job to bring all these political factions together and get them to work harmoniously. But he failed. Worse, there is ample evidence to suggest he not only failed, but worked against Trump and the Trump agenda. Look at the leaks. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the bureaucracy continuing to work at odds with the president. Priebus – and a number of other people around him – had to go.

Back to Scaramucci.

Donald Trump has known for some time that Priebus was a disaster. He was going to give him his six-month trial period – that’s a fairly common thing in the private sector. After that, heads were going to roll. But Trump himself doesn’t want to be the hatchet man. He needs to be able to lead after the bloodbath. So, what does he do? He turns to an old friend he has known for many years – someone with nothing to lose, someone who can step in with a hatchet and hack away, someone who can then just walk away from it all and leave the slate clean. He turned to Scaramucci.

So, what does Scaramucci do? He comes in swinging. He fires a few people to make a quick example. He tells others they can “resign” right now if they want to – but if not, they will be fired. Others see what is going on and just up and quit of their own accord.

That problem CEO, Priebus? Oh, the new “structure” of the organization puts Scaramucci in direct competition with Priebus – and Priebus throws up his hands and says “fine, I’m out of here.” And Scaramucci does it all in a way that is spectacularly visible to draw all the fire from Trump critics.

So how does it all end? It ends with Trump putting in his new CEO – the one he probably wanted from day one, but held back – and the new CEO says “OK, Scaramucci – you are no longer needed here.”

Gen. Kelly now has a clean slate to start fresh – and Scaramucci takes all the heat. Where the left and never-Trumpers see a circus freak-show, realists from the business world see a perfectly executed post-merger hatchet-man job.

The political wonks see Kelly taking command as the first sane thing to happen in this administration. They don’t realize they’ve been played, and played perfectly. And soon we will likely see some other changes that move the Executive Branch further towards what Trump has wanted from day one. And then watch the real swamp-drainer get to work. It sucks to be Hillary Clinton right now…

Oh, and Scaramucci? He gets a sweet deal out of all this – no doubt, he and his friend Donald Trump talked it all out first.

Scaramucci was already facing a nasty divorce that would result in the liquidation of his business to divide assets. A little-known law allows people who are legally required to sell a business as a condition of employment in the Executive Branch (to prevent conflicts of interest) to defer the taxes on their profits from the sale.

Scaramucci was going to have to sell his company anyway due to his pending divorce. Now he and his soon-to-be ex-wife just saved $80 million in taxes. So, don’t think for a moment all this was an unplanned mess that went awry. Scaramucci and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

All of this was planned – and foreseen. Not just by me, but by others as well.

Scott Adams wrote before Trump was inaugurated that, to his critics, the first year of Trump would be a play in three acts:
Act One – Trump is literally Hitler.

Act Two – Trump is not literally Hitler, but Trump is incompetent.

Act Three – Trump is not incompetent, but we don’t like his policies.

We’ve seen this play out. From election night, up through the first 100 days, the left was out rioting and acting as though Trump taking office was literally the end of Western Civilization.

But after 100 days, when Trump had failed to do evil-dictator things like round up all the brown people and put the gays into camps and force women to stay home and have babies, it became farcical to continue the “Trump is Hitler” narrative.

And so, from that 100 day point up until now, it has been the “Trump is incompetent” game. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the leaking. Look at all the tweets. Now, we begin Act Three. With Priebus out and Kelly in, things will settle down. Pretty soon, all the left will have to say is “we just don’t like Trump’s policies.”…Act Three.

And once that happens, the left is dead. Because, Trump’s policies are policies that most Americans actually agree with. We should put America first. Build back our economy. Create jobs. Strengthen the military. Protect the border. Outside a few densely-populated liberal strongholds like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and – of course – Washington, D.C., Americans in general agree with all of this. So, when all the left has to say is “Trump’s policies are wrong,” the left will literally be telling most of America, “you people are stupid.”

Trump will win 47 states in 2020. The left will be scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened. And you’ll be able to look back and say, “hey, some of us told you all this back in 201….
The author of this “tale” is unknown. In fact, it might even be Trump.

Kill the Filibuster?

Sunday, August 27th, 2017

Kill the Filibuster? Sounds good to me. Below is an interesting piece on the subject.

Washington Examiner
Trump vs the Filibuster
by Byron York
8/26/17

President Trump brings an outsider’s perspective to the long debate over the Senate filibuster. An overwhelming majority of the Senate disagrees with his desire to kill the filibuster, which means he doesn’t have a prayer of winning. But he’s not entirely wrong, either.

Set aside Trump’s sledgehammer tweets directed at Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In private conversations, Trump has made a reasonable and sophisticated case against the filibuster. Not only has the filibuster been eliminated for appointments, Trump has noted, it has also been eliminated (through the process of reconciliation) for some of the most important things the Senate does — that is, the budget and related bills it passes each year. So now, after all those changes, what remains of the filibuster is somehow supposed to be sacred and can never be changed again?

Trump’s question not only recognizes the reality of former Majority Leader’s Harry Reid’s nuclear-option destruction of the filibuster for appointments, and McConnell’s extension of that to Supreme Court nominations — it also takes into account the reality of reconciliation, by which, a generation ago, the Senate killed the filibuster for budget-related bills. The rule allows those measures to pass on a simple majority vote.

In other words, the filibuster has been steadily whittled down — by the Senate itself, of course, and not by a headstrong president — so why can’t the Senate do it again?

Trump doesn’t have the slightest chance, of course. In May, when the president called for an end to the filibuster, McConnell said, “There is an overwhelming majority on a bipartisan basis not interested in changing the way the Senate operates on the legislative calendar. And that will not happen.”

“It would fundamentally change the way the Senate has worked for a very long time,” McConnell added. “We’re not going to do that.”

In return, Trump has railed against McConnell and Senate tradition. On Friday, the president tweeted, “If Senate Republicans don’t get rid of the Filibuster Rule and go to a 51% majority, few bills will be passed. 8 Dems control the Senate!”

Two days earlier, Trump tweeted, “If Republican Senate doesn’t get rid of the Filibuster Rule & go to a simple majority, which the Dems would do, they are just wasting time!”

A month earlier, Trump tweeted, “The very outdated filibuster rule must go. Budget reconciliation is killing Rs in the Senate. Mitch M, go to 51 votes NOW and WIN. IT’S TIME!”

Earlier, on May 1, as the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare sputtered on Capitol Hill, Trump made a calmer argument to Fox News:

It’s an archaic system. You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House — but the rules of the Senate and some of the things you have to go through, it’s really a bad thing for the country, in my opinion. There are archaic rules, and maybe at some point we’re going to have to take those rules on, because, for the good of the nation, things are going to have to be different. You can’t go through a process like this. It’s not fair. It forces you to make bad decisions. I mean, you’re really forced into doing things that you would normally not do except for these archaic rules.

It would be an understatement to say McConnell is not convinced, and he has essentially ended the discussion with his over-my-dead-body pronouncements.

One of the problems in the Trump-McConnell relationship is Trump tends to treat leaders in Congress as if they are his employees, instead of leaders elected on their own and not beholden to the president. Plus, Congress is not only a separate branch of government, it is the first branch of government; a united Congress can remove the president, while it doesn’t work the other way around. Nevertheless, Trump whacks away at some of the lawmakers he will need to pass his agenda.

One point heard often in the debate is that Trump can rail all he wants about the filibuster, but the real problem is that he couldn’t get 50 Republicans to vote with him on Obamacare, and changing the filibuster rules wouldn’t change the result.

That’s probably not entirely accurate.

The House had to craft its bill specifically to accommodate the Senate’s reconciliation requirements — meaning it was shaped by the filibuster. The Senate had to craft its bill with the same considerations. Senate drafters had to leave provisions that might have gotten 50-plus votes out of the bill in order to stay within reconciliation rules.

In short, the House and Senate bills were fundamentally shaped by the filibuster, and the filibuster was very much a part of Obamacare reform’s defeat in the Senate.

Now, stonewalled by McConnell, Trump might look for a compromise that moves him closer to his goal. The president certainly shares the cause with the many Democrats who in the last decade have sought to limit and weaken the filibuster. Senators Dick Durbin, Sherrod Brown, Richard Blumenthal, Kristen Gillibrand, Ben Cardin, Al Franken, Mark Warner, Sheldon Whitehouse — and many others — all have supported changing the Senate’s filibuster rules.

Of course, that was in 2011, when they held the majority in the Senate. But Trump could still try to appeal to them.

Indeed, short of fully eliminating the filibuster, there are things Trump could join with the anti-filibuster Democrats and perhaps some Republicans in attempting: getting rid of the 60-vote standard on motions to proceed, streamlining voting on procedural matters, and other initiatives. Of course, that’s probably not possible, either; these days the filibuster-reforming Democrats seem to oppose everything Trump does. But if they refused to join him in making changes they supported just a few years ago, Trump could at least shine a light on their inconsistency.

And inconsistency — call it hypocrisy if you like — is always a factor when it comes to the filibuster. In late 2008, after Republicans lost everything in the election — House, Senate, White House — the former GOP Senator Fred Thompson offered his old colleagues a short course in the filibuster now that they were in the minority.

“They need to make sure they get this straight,” Thompson said. “Up until now, filibusters have been a bad thing. Now, filibusters are a good thing.”

Thompson spoke with a smile, but he was telling a fundamental truth about the filibuster. In the last 40 years, the Senate has changed hands more than the House. Veteran senators know that while they might be in the majority now, they could be in the minority next year. They know a lot of bad proposals might have become law had the filibuster not existed. So, many of them protect the filibuster whether they’re in charge or not. That’s the consistent, non-hypocritical position.

The president is an outsider who shares none of those concerns. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a point. The Senate has changed its rules, including those on supermajorities, many times over the years. And in the future, it might change them again — in Trump’s direction.
Byron York Opinion Beltway Confidential

Bigotry and Hate on the Left

Sunday, August 27th, 2017

This is a terrific essay on the depths of bigotry and hate as practiced by the far left. The piece was sent to me by my good friend, Dr. Stephen Dubel, no friend of the far left.

THE AMERICAN THINKER
August 24, 2017

If There Aren’t Two Sides, Why Is There Division?
By Jeffrey T. Brown

George Clooney and his wife just donated a large sum of money to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal hate group active in smearing non-adherents to Marxist theology. He said, “There are no two sides to bigotry and hate.” Paul Ryan has been equally generous with his wisdom on how there is somehow only one side to issues of bigotry and hatred, though there are clearly two or more cultural factions expressing diametrically opposed views on myriad social and cultural issues.

If there are not two sides to a phenomenon, then there is only one side. If there’s only one side, then everyone must be on the same side, since there isn’t another option. Working on such deep philosophical levels, we can then discern that those who rallied in Boston to protest against “free speech,” for example, actually speak for all of us when they demand that those who express resistance to anarchy and repression and hatred on the left, and who are then attacked violently for defending cherished American freedoms, should stop speaking at all or assume the risk of injury and death through anarchistic mob violence. Remember that no one speaking in favor of “free speech” in Boston was a Nazi, or a KKK member, or a member of any other traditional Democrat-associated group. They were “counter-protested” for defending the fundamental American right to speak freely without injury from other citizens.

One must be a champion simpleton to believe that the only people who hate are those the simpleton vehemently hates. Or perhaps it is merely an herculean act of dishonesty that motivates a seemingly cogent person to say something so monumentally dishonest and stupid.

Politically speaking, if we boil this down to a uniquely American perspective, we observe that there are two clearly recognizable sides. On the one hand, there are those Americans who recognize the necessity of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a shield against the tyranny and oppression of a mob of frenzied zealots bent on power and destruction. Those Americans – we’ll call them “grown-ups” – understand what the Founders knew. Sooner or later, the capacity for human vice, and the ease with which it is manipulated, will exceed the capacity for reason and wisdom in a significant percentage of the population, and there will be demands for revenge and retribution by those whose weakness has been rubbed raw.

On the other hand, there are those Americans – we’ll call them “angry toddlers” – who are emotional puppets, whose alarming mental weakness predisposes them to manipulation and misdirection dressed up as virtue. They decline mental exercises that require objectivity, reason, and actual morality, because these do not bring the desired result, which is their presumed moral primacy over those their handlers seek to dominate and control, not to mention the wealth and property of those targets. These people are not the most dangerous among us, but they run a close second because of their utter inability to process basic information and come up with a correct answer. The most dangerous are those who manipulate such people to steal what they want while pretending to be making things better.

At the heart of our social conflict, we are engaged in a total war for the soul of America, and despite the malice of people like Clooney and Ryan, there certainly are two sides. As Americans, we on one side of the struggle see the anarchists and Marxists for who they really are. They, on the other hand, see the liberals and progressives for who they are and recruit them for their gullibility and stupidity to fight us. No political philosophy has brought more hatred, death, and destruction to the world than communism, and no political movement has ever been misrepresented so fully to its “useful idiots.” It is an ideology motivated by every human vice, yet the “anarcho-communists” who constitute the Antifa movement have somehow led Democrats to believe that Antifa’s cause is their cause, and it must be fought by frenzied mental patients throwing bottles of urine, clubbing bystanders, tearing down statues, killing police, and attacking elderly women holding American flags.

So liberal Democrats happily and proudly rally against “free speech” for the sake of their righteousness. They are committed to eradicating the Bill of Rights for its protection of those they hate, those against whom they are deeply bigoted, those whose declared right to refuse to be owned by tyrants is the single biggest obstacle to their victory. They have decided for themselves that violence, but only their violence, is acceptable, because their motives are so “moral.” Their “morality” encourages violence to achieve peace, which is akin to encouraging rape to achieve virginity. Such is the intellectual depth of the tools being manipulated by a communist movement to destroy capitalism and, with it, their own individual freedom.

To win this fight, those on the Left, regardless of party affiliation, recognize the need to falsely moralize about exercising resistance to totalitarianism, embodied by not only believing in, but practicing protected inalienable rights. That is the objective when saying something so patently absurd as “There are no two sides to hate and bigotry.” It is to discourage and dishearten those who have not surrendered to liberal/progressive/Marxist/communist theology, those who have not offered themselves up to the wisdom of the state to come, which will be controlled by those wearing black clothing, hoods, and masks. It calls self-preservation against our own overthrow “hatred” and “bigotry” and treats these as morally unacceptable principles. To those on the left, those who would unseat our president and hasten our plunge from a constitutional republic to a mobocracy, there is only one side in this struggle that is valid: theirs.

Remember what the left means when it says there are not two sides to hate and bigotry. Leftists are actually saying it is hate and bigotry to resist them. It is hate and bigotry to wish freedom for yourself and your children, to demand to keep what you earn, to live your life peacefully, and to reject totalitarianism. It is hate and bigotry to live in white skin and not believe that it should determine one’s future any more than dark skin should, to refuse to be owned by those whose every word and deed is itself motivated by hatred and bigotry against us. To them, refusal to accept the place in society they have reserved for us is the epitome of hate and bigotry.

We must accept and understand that we cannot win this argument and escape the impending punishment of the left’s overwhelming hatred and bigotry by surrendering. If the leftists prevail, they will exact their revenge upon us for our refusal to buckle and submit. We must do all we can now to remain free, while they lie the hardest to conquer us.


William S. Frankl, All Rights Reserved
Design by Yikes!