• 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 April, 2015

Awful April

Thursday, April 30th, 2015

Well, today is April 30th. This month is finally, thankfully ended. As T.S. Eliot wrote to open his memorable poem, The Waste Land, “April is the cruelest month . . . ” Indeed it is.

Baltimore ablaze in riots and looting––– and we don’t know how the young man, the drug dealer was killed  ––– was it the police or something else? No one waits to find out. Just riot, you fool.

Iranian warships take over a cargo ship flying the Marshall Islands flag ––– Oh, yes. The Marshall Islands are a protectorate of the United States. So, what are we doing? Nothing, of course.

Hillary Clinton/Bill Clinton/the Obama administration are selling 20% of our uranium mines to Russia. No corruption of course! What evidence do you have, Hillary, Bill, the Democrats counter? Oh, you mean all those destroyed Hillary e-mails that might tell the truth? All gone! Too bad! Isn’t this a traitorous act? Of course not. In any case, it’s all the Republicans fault! Of course. How stupid of me. Bill and Hil and the Dems are all clean. No corruption there!

And the Republicans stand by and do very little. Too busy –– all 20 or 30 of their finest are jockeying to be the next presidential candidate in 2016. Watch them destroy each other and leave the last man/woman standing there to lose another election!

April IS the cruelest month. But so are all the others as we stagger along to 2016.

Oh, my. What’s happening to our country?

What Country (or Countries) Does The Democrat Party Represent?

Saturday, April 25th, 2015

What has happened to the Democrat Party? It is certainly not the party of Thomas Jefferson or Franklin Roosevelt or “Scoop” Jackson. It seems to be the party of corruption, left wing hooliganism, and now has a “presumptive” candidate for president who has sold out 20% of the United States uranium mines to the Russians!! She did this while Secretary of State of the United States! Aided and abetted by her husband(former president of the United States!!) who received $500,000 for his family’s foundation for a “talk” in Moscow after the deal! Oh, and guess who also is alleged to have signed off on the deal? The president president of the United States, also a Democrat.

The following is a report by Fox news as an opening salvo on this unbelievable story:

“It would be one thing for a politician to cash in her influence to get rich. Most do, to one degree or another. But what if a politician used her official position to do favors for her patrons? That starts to sound like something that can cross the line between unseemly and potentially illegal. But what if those favors compromised national security? That’s the incendiary claim made against presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a forthcoming book by Peter Schweizer and laid out in the New York Times. The author’s allegation, which went on television for the first time on April 23 at 10 a.m. ET on the Fox News Channel, was that Clinton personally benefitted from a deal that would eventually make the United States dependent on Vladimir Putin’s Russia for its supply of uranium.

“While all of these deals and the money that flowed to the Clintons is complicated, now the nascent Clinton campaign will have to respond with more than just ‘you can’t prove it.’ And hovering over all of this is a destroyed e-mail server that many lawmakers now believe may have held the keys to unlock the behind-the-scenes connections between the Clinton Foundation, the family’s personal fortune and the secretary of state.”

“The first installment of the book is about how Canadian mogul Frank Giustra brought the former President Clinton in 2005 to help score a huge uranium deal with the repressive government of Kazakhstan. Giustra would go on to donate $31.3 million to the Clintons’ foundation several months after the Kazakhstan deal. But the company’s stock began to crater after charges of illegal dealings. A Russian interest was willing to shore up the company, but wanted an ownership share, a deal that got the approval of the Clinton State Department. When Putin’s government went for a controlling interest, a move that meant a huge windfall for investors, a cabinet committee on which Hillary Clinton sits, signed off on the deal. Around the same time, Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.

“Of course, the Clinton campaign is dismissive of the claims, saying that such connections don’t amount to a conspiracy. But in light of the more than 30,000 emails that Clinton destroyed from her time as Secretary of State, their case for multiple beneficial coincidences is hard to prop up. And the stakes here are sky-high. Here’s how the NYT put it: “‘Should we be concerned? Absolutely,’ said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. ‘Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.’ ”

Can this party be trusted? Can its prime movers and shakers be trusted? What has happened to our Constitution, our government officials, our culture, our way of life?

2016 might truly be the most important election we’ve ever had –– it might determine the destiny of our children, their children, and indeed, generations to come and whether the United States of America can survive? Throw these awful rascals out! Bring back the America we once knew.

Dangers to Democracy in the Prosecution of Senator Menendez

Tuesday, April 14th, 2015

This is a very important op-ed piece. Are we already in a totalitarian State?

Dangers to Democracy in the Prosecution of Senator Menendez

by Alan M. Dershowitz
April 10, 2015 at 10:45 am
Whenever a prominent political figure is indicted on charges of alleged corruption, serious questions arise. Is the prosecution part of a growing and dangerous trend toward criminalizing policy differences? Does it endanger the free speech rights of contributors? Will it constrain the legislative branch from serving as a check and balance on the executive?

These questions are now being raised in the context of the prosecution of New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, as they previously were in several other ill-advised prosecutions including those of former agriculture secretary Mike Espy, former presidential candidate John Edwards, the late Senator Ted Stevens, former Congressman Tom Delay and former Texas governor Rick Perry.

The reason these questions arise is not because there is no corruption in government. It is because the laws distinguishing between constitutionally protected political activities and illegal payments to office holders are vague and indeterminate. These laws give prosecutors enormous discretion to determine whether to prosecute questionable transactions. And the courts refuse to second guess prosecutorial decisions even in cases where selective prosecution based on improper considerations seems evident.

It is absolutely essential therefore, that prosecutors take responsibility for assuring that every prosecution of a public figure – most especially of public figures who are in disagreements with the executive branch– is based on hard, incontrovertible evidence that conclusively demonstrates that the elected official deliberately, willfully and knowingly crossed the line from constitutionally protected activity to felonious criminality. It is not enough to base prosecutions on the old saw that “where there’s smoke there’s fire.” In cases involving public figures, the smoke may simply be a manifestation of politics as usual—the sort that allows political fundraisers and bundlers to make significant contributions in exchange for what they hope and expect will be access, support and patronage. Those prosecuting Senator Menendez seem not to have applied this rigorous test.

In a wide ranging 68 page indictment, Menendez is accused of accepting gifts—such as airline flights and hotel rooms—as well as PAC contributions from a Florida ophthalmologist, Salomon Melgen, a close personal friend many years. The government contends that, in exchange for these gifts, Senator Menendez met with administration officials in an effort to advance Dr. Melgen’s interests in a Medicare billing dispute and a port security contract in the Dominican Republic. He is also accused of helping his friend’s “girlfriends” obtain travel visas to the U.S But because of the long friendship between the Senator and Dr. Melgen, the government will have difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Senator’s efforts on behalf of his friend were specifically motivated by gifts rather than by an

understandable, if not entirely praiseworthy, desire to help an old friend. Would it be enough if there were mixed motives? Motives are notoriously difficult to establish and a dangerous basis on which to rest a prosecution. I am reminded of the chicken who hoped for a world where his fellow chickens could cross a road without having their motives questioned!

The Supreme Court has recognized that political contributions are an aspect of freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. In the Citizens United case, the Court said that “influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. . . .” In other words, just because a donor contributes money and gives gifts does not mean that a politician must studiously ignore the donor’s interest—financial or otherwise – in particular policy decisions. It should not be enough for the prosecution to show that a donor’s contributions may have given him access to or influence over the Senator. Prosecutors should have to show that the donor and the Senator made an explicit agreement that a contribution was made in exchange for an official act. The prosecution should have to prove that Senator Menendez took actions that benefitted Dr. Melgen not because he thought the action was right, not because it was in keeping with his consistent positions in the past, not even because they were friends. The government should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those actions were taken pursuant to an agreement that they were given in exchange for the contributions. This will not be an easy burden to satisfy.

Until such time that campaigns are publicly funded, candidates will seek financial support from contributors, who contribute because they want to support a candidate who agrees with their goals, priorities or financial interests. Large contributions get the donor or bundler access and consideration that others lack. They sometimes get them ambassadorships or other political plums. This may not be the best system, but it is, in fact, our current lawful, if not commendable, system. Because so many contributions are motivated by the desire for personal gain, a prosecutor has enormous discretion to decide in any particular case whether prosecution is warranted, thus making such cases subject to politics.

The Menendez prosecution also threatens the role of congressional oversight. Our system of checks and balances depends on each branch being free to check the others. Senator Menendez has challenged the Administration’s policy toward Cuba, expressed concerns over a nuclear deal being brokered with Iran, questioned why an agency would condone throwing good medicine in the garbage, and asked whether a foreign government or the private sector is better at port security. Senators should not have to fear that the Executive Branch will unleash prosecutors to go after politicians who are critical of the administration. Equally dangerous are prosecutors who seek to curry favor with the administration by prosecuting its enemies without even being told to do so.

To protect against unchecked power by the executive, the framers included the “speech or debate” clause in our Constitution, protecting Members of Congress from being prosecuted for exercising their legislative power, including oversight. These protections are fundamental to our system of checks and balances. A questionable prosecution against a disfavored legislator, based on campaign contributions from an old friend followed by actions that might benefit that friend, threatens this balance of power.

That is why all Americans, regardless of party affiliation, must be concerned about the criminalization of policy differences and the excessive discretion vested in those who prosecute elected officials.

Serious Cracks Within the Presbyterian Church

Tuesday, April 14th, 2015

Despite the never ending, strident march of the leftists in our country to cut religion out of our culture and create a strict secular society in which the state substitutes for religion, a recent event in the Presbyterian church suggests that there is still hope.

34,000 black churches cut ties with the Presbyterian Church USA after it backed same-sex ‘marriage’

April 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The National Black Church Initiative (NBCI) – a coalition of 34,000 black churches from 15 denominations representing almost 16 million black Americans – has cut all ties with the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) [PC- USA… ironic] after the denomination voted to embrace same-sex “marriage.”

The PCUSA voted last June to jettison the traditional definition of marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman. Instead, its Book of Order now defines marriage as a union “between two people,” with no mention of biological sex. At the same time, the PCUSA voted to allow its pastors to officiate at homosexual “weddings” in states where they have been made legal.

These controversial decisions came just three years after a 2011 vote allowing homosexuals who are openly sexually active to be ordained as PCUSA pastors. [What a sham.]

The marriage votes were apparently the last straw for the NBCI, which released a prophetic statement, condemning the PCUSA and calling the denomination’s redefinition of marriage a “universal sin” that placed the church’s teachings well outside Christ’s message.

“NBCI and its membership base are simply standing on the Word of God within the mind of Christ,” said Rev. Anthony Evans, the president of NBCI. “We urge our brothers and sisters of the PCUSA to repent and be restored to fellowship.”

“PCUSA’s manipulation represents a universal sin against the entire church and its members,” Evans added. “With this action, PCUSA can no longer base its teachings on 2,000 years of Christian scripture and tradition, and call itself a Christian entity in the body of Christ. It has forsaken its right by this single wrong act.” [I like this language!]

“Apostle Paul warns us about this when he declared in Galatians 1:8 that there are those who will preach another Gospel,” Evans continued.

“No church has the right to change the Word of God,” [Which is why I hope all these zealous people will soon become the Catholics they were intended to be!] Evans said. “By voting to redefine marriage PCUSA automatically forfeits Christ’s saving grace.”

“There is always redemption in the body of Christ through confession of faith and adhering to Holy Scripture,” he added. [And, I hope one day, formal membership in the Body of Christ, the Church that Christ founded.]

Still, Evans called on faithful Christians to show the PCUSA tough love by refusing to associate with the denomination until it changes its ways.

“In this case, PCUSA deliberately voted to change the Word of God and the interpretation of holy marriage between one man and one woman,” Evans said. “This is why we must break fellowship with them and urge the entire Christendom to do so as well.” [Well done! Someone should send that letter to every member of the Synod on the Family coming up in October…. “holy marriage between one man and one woman”. That’s it.]

All well said. And Reverend Evans, please come to us on the conservative side. We agree with you and your parishioners. In 2016 help us get back on the long trail to what our culture once was.

A Possible 21st Century Preamble to the Constitution

Thursday, April 9th, 2015

This is probably the best e-mail I’ve seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to Lewis Napper, a Jackson, Mississippi computer programmer. He didn’t expect his essay — a tart 10-point list of “rights” Americans don’t have — to become an Internet legend.

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.’

You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of dummies, and probably always will be.

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you get the blue juice.

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it!


You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, sorry if you are uncomfortable with it.

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don’t have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don’t. I just think it’s about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States must speak out because if you do not, who will?

William S. Frankl, MD, All Rights Reserved