• 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 the ‘The Media’ Category

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

Sunday, August 2nd, 2020

This letter should be of great importance whether you are a Republican or a Democrat or an independent. It goes to the heart of what we are and how we must get along with each other or else we will dissolve into a quagmire of hatred.

 

Harpers Magazine

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy
, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Mashek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt
, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria

Institutions are listed for identification purposes only.

 

US-China Confrontation Will Define Global Order

Friday, May 8th, 2020

China is the source of COVID-19 that is presently destroying our world. China is America’s most serious enemy both economically and militarily. Somehow, after the VIRUS are gone, we will need to deal with the Chinese. Victor Davis Hanson lays out some interesting ideas.

Victor Davis Hanson: US-China Confrontation Will Define Global Order

Monday, May 20, 2019

Hoover Institution, Stanford University

The United States is at a crossroads with an increasingly aggressive China, which could define America’s security and the international order for decades to come, Hoover scholar Victor Davis Hanson says.

Hanson, the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, studies military history and the classics. Last year, Hanson won the Edmund Burke Award, which honors people who have made major contributions to the defense of Western civilization. He is the author of the 2019 book The Case for Trump, and 2017’s The Second World Wars. He was recently interviewed on US policy toward China:

What is the Trump strategy behind these tariffs, short term and long term?

Hanson: Short term, Trump feels that he can take the hit of reciprocal Chinese tariffs, given that quietly his opposition, the Democrats, have been raging about Chinese cheating for decades, and, second, that the US economy is so huge and diverse that China simply cannot cause serious damage.

Remember the United States is a country one-third the size of China that produces over double China’s annual gross domestic product and fields a military far more formidable with far more allies—while enjoying a far more influential global culture and a far more sophisticated system of higher education and technological innovation. China’s Asian neighbors and our own European Union allies quietly are hoping Trump can check and roll back Chinese mercantilism, while publicly and pro forma chiding or even condemning Trump’s brinksmanship and his resort to fossilized strategies such as tariffs and loud jawboning.

Long term, Trump believes that if present trends are not reversed, China could in theory catch and surpass the US. And as an authoritarian, anti-democratic superpower, China’s global dominance would not be analogous to the American-led postwar order, but would be one in which China follows one set of rules and imposes a quite different set on everyone else—perhaps one day similar to the system imposed on its own people within China.

Is China a more formidable rival now than Russia was during the Cold War, and if so, why?

Hanson: Yes. Its population is five times greater than that of even the old Soviet Empire’s. Its economy is well over twenty times larger, and over a million Chinese students and business people are in European and American universities and colleges and posted abroad with Chinese companies. So, unlike the old Soviet Union, China is integrated within the West, culturally, economically, and politically. The Soviets—like Maoist China—never leased Western ports, or battled Hollywood over   unflattering pictures, or posed as credible defenders of Asian values or owned large shares of Western companies or piled up huge trade surpluses with Western nations. Soviet propaganda and espionage were crude compared to current Chinese efforts.

What is China doing in terms of cheating on trade and intellectual property as the Trump administration says, and how can the United States stop this behavior? 

Hanson: China does not honor patents and copyright laws. It still exports knock-off and counterfeit products. It steals research and development investment through a vast array of espionage rings. It manipulates its currency.

Its government companies export goods at below the cost of production to grab market share. It requires foreign companies to hand over technology as a price of doing business in China. And, most importantly, it assumes, even demands, that Western nations do not emulate its own international roguery—or else.

The result is a strange paradox in which the United States and Europe assume that China is an international commercial outlaw, but the remedy is deemed worse than the disease. So, many Western firms make enormous profits in China through joint projects, and so many academic institutions depend on China students, and so many financial institutions are invested in China, that to question its mercantilism is to be derided as a quaint nationalist, or a dangerous protectionist, or a veritable racist. China is an astute student of the Western science of victimology and always poses as a  target of Western vindictiveness, racism, or puerile jealousy.

Remedies? First, we must give up the 40-year fantasies that the richer China gets, the more Western and liberal it will become; or that the more China becomes familiar with the West, the greater its admiration and respect for Western values; or that China has so many internal problems that it cannot possibly pose a threat to the West; or that Western magnanimity in foreign policy and trade relations will be appreciated and returned in kind. Instead, the better paradigm is imperial Japan between 1930 and 1941, when Tokyo absorbed Asian allies; had sent a quarter-million students and attachés to the West to learn or steal technology and doctrine; rapidly Westernized; declared Western colonial powers and the US as tired and spent, and without any legitimate business in the Pacific; and considered its own authoritarianism a far better partner to free market capitalism than the supposedly messy and clumsy democracies of the West.

How is China able now to leverage its arguably less powerful military to confront the United States globally?

Hanson: Global naval dominance is not in the Chinese near future. Its naval strategy is more reminiscent of the German Kriegsmarine of 1939 to 1941, which sought to deny the vastly superior Royal Navy access at strategic points without matching its global reach. China is carving out areas where shore batteries and coastal fleets can send showers of missiles to take out a multibillion-dollar American carrier. And its leasing of 50 and more strategically located ports might serve in times of global tensions as transit foci for armed merchant ships. But for now they do not have the capabilities of the American carrier or submarine fleet or expeditionary Marine forces—so the point is to deny America reach, not to emulate its extent.

Why are the current administration policies different than those in the past in confronting China on many different fronts and levels?

Hanson: Trump believes that economic power is the key to global influence and clout. Without it, a military wilts on the vine. A country with GDP growth at a 3 percent annual clip, energy independence, full employment, and increasing labor productivity and trade symmetry can renegotiate Chinese mercantilism and reassure China’s Asian neighbors that they need not appease its aggression. Past administrations might have agreed that China violated copyright and patent laws, dumped subsidized goods, appropriated technology, and ran a massive global espionage apparatus, but they considered remedies either impossible or dangerous and so essentially negotiated a slowing of the supposed predestined Chinese global hegemony. Trump was willing to confront China to achieve fair rather than free trade and take the ensuing heat that he was some sort of tariff-slapping Neanderthal.

Any other thoughts?

Hanson: I think Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s State Department is the first to openly question the idea that China will eventually rule the world and has offered a strategic plan to check its trade and political agendas. In this regard, a number of Hoover Institution scholars, currently working with Hoover fellow Kiron Skinner, director of policy planning at the US Department of State, are offering alternatives to orthodox American approaches of the past, with the caveat that the most dangerous era in interstate relations is the transition from de facto appeasement to symmetry—given that the abnormalities of the  past had become considered “normal,” and the quite normal efforts of a nation to recalibrate to a balanced relationship are damned as dangerously “abnormal.”

Victor Davis Hanson is also the chairman of the Role of Military History in Contemporary Conflict Working Group at the Hoover Institution. 
:

 

Return to the Blog

Sunday, May 3rd, 2020

After a four-month hiatus, I am coming home to my blog. The hiatus was an attempt to finish, to my own satisfaction, my latest novel, Donovan’s Run. Although my attempt was partially successful, there still remain more to be done. However, given the enormous amount changes that are occurring all our world at this time, I thought it would be appropriate to return to the blog and inject it with some important elements now moving through our lives. So, I will thank in advance the few good friends who will continue to read this material and tell me when it is good, when it is bad, and when it is indifferent.

Abu Bakr al–Baghdadi is Dead

Monday, October 28th, 2019

 

Pres. Trump was quite elated by the death of Abu Bakr al–Baghdadi. However, caution is necessary and much more needs to be done as clearly outlined in Richard Viguere’s  latest issue of ConservativeHQ.com.

The Death Of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Was A Great Victory, But…

| 10/28/19

President Trump is to be commended for authorizing the successful operation to kill ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and he’s right the American military personnel who carried out the mission “are the very best anywhere in the world.”

But, now that al-Baghdadi is dead is the world a safer place as the President claimed? We’re skeptical, to say the least.

The problem is that we have been fighting the war Islam declared on the West by counting casualties and holding territory, while doing next to nothing to defeat the ideology of Islamism.

The truth is that the real enemy in the Near East is political Islam, and the only way to defeat it is to drop the fiction that “Islam is a religion of peace” and use all our national power to present an alternative worldview that undermines and eventually destroys Sharia-supremacism and Iranian “Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih” (Guardianship of the Jurist).

None of the generals who have been tasked with fighting and winning the wars in Syria and Iraq, and certainly none of the politicians who have advocated United States involvement in them, have been willing to accept and confront that truth, and as a consequence the war that was supposed to be a three month intervention to defeat the “JV forces” of the Islamic State became a seven year sinkhole of American lives and treasure.

One proof of this problem lies here; the United States designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization way back in 1997, but we have done nothing to defeat its ideology.

Indeed, as David Daoud of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy noted, Hezbollah remains the most successful and most prominent Iranian revolutionary export. And Mr. Daoud is not the only one to hold that view.

Gilbert Achcar of the University of London has called Hezbollah “the most prestigious member of the regional family of Khomeinism.” The Lebanon-based terrorist group is cut from the same ideological cloth as the Islamic Republic, which, according to former CIA intelligence analyst Kenneth Pollack, is Hezbollah’s model and inspiration. Eitan Azani, the deputy executive director of the Institute for Counter-Terrorism at IDC Herzliya, has said that Khomeini and his successors serve as Hezbollah’s ultimate source of religious, political, and ideological guidance and authority. Hezbollah fully accepts the concept of Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih, and openly acknowledges Khomeini as its faqih, leading Augustus Richard Norton of Boston University to call Khomeini Hezbollah’s “undisputed, authoritative leader.”

Yet, when Iranians have protested the failures of Khomeinism and Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih the United States has done little or nothing concrete to use that popular discontent to undermine the regime, once again substituting holding worthless real estate in the Middle East and killing a few thousand ignorant jihadis for fighting and winning the real war – which is the defeat of Sharia-supremacism and Iranian Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih.

Done right, U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war might have offered the possibility of a strategic defeat of Iran. If the United States acted to tip the balance of power in the civil war, Iran would have been weakened by the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, its single Arab ally and a vital link to their important clients – Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia.

Isolated, Iran would have become more vulnerable to international pressure to limit its nuclear program. As dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Vali Nasr observed for Bloomberg, if “Iran’s regional influence faded, those of its rivals — U.S. allies Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia — would expand.”

However, America through its generals and diplomats never fought that war, because they never engaged it on the most important battlefield – the battlefield of secularism versus Sharia-supremacism and Iranian Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih.

With Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi dead it is probably safe to leave others to mop-up the scattered remnants of ISIS and hold the territory once occupied by the Islamic State. So, let’s savor the victory, and praise our military, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that killing al-Baghdadi and a few thousand jihadis and retaking some desolate ground in the Near East ends the war political Islam, and Iran in particular, have declared on the West.

George Rasley is editor of Richard Viguerie’s ConservativeHQ.com and is a veteran of over 300 political campaigns. A member of American MENSA, he served on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle, as Director of Policy and Communication for then-Congressman Adam Putnam (FL-12) then Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, and as spokesman for Rep. Mac Thornberry former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

 

The Assault on Trump

Monday, October 28th, 2019

 

Richard Viguerie/ ConservativeHQ.com

The following is a very interesting paper concerning the reasons for the gross hatred of Pres. Trump by the Democrats, the media, and others(WSF).

 

The Assaults On Trump Explained

George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 10/28/19

Americans outside the Beltway have been struggling for almost three years to figure out what’s been going on in Washington, what to call it and how to explain it.

Have there really been dozens of small and large Trump scandals? Or is it all “fake news” and lies? Or is it all true and Donald Trump really is a Russian “asset” or puppet of Vladimir Putin? Or is he, as former Vice President Joe Biden claimed recently, “the most corrupt president in modern history?”

But how can there be a “scandal” if Trump has done nothing wrong, and the Mueller Report demonstrated that the charges of being corrupt and a Russian “asset” are demonstrably false?

The answer is that what we have been witnessing is not American politics as usual, but a sophisticated intelligence operation to destabilize and overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.

Each step along the path to impeachment is exactly what the CIA or the intelligence agency of a foreign power would do to use non-military means to destabilize and eventually replace the leader of an unfriendly government.

Consider for a moment that the “Resistance” to the Trump presidency and the questioning of its legitimacy began as soon as it was verified Hillary Clinton had been defeated.

As Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes documented in their book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, within twenty-four hours of Hillary Clinton’s concession speech Robby Mook and John Podesta assembled her communications team to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. They met at Clinton’s Brooklyn campaign headquarters to go over the script they would pitch to the press and the public to make the case that Trump’s victory was not legitimate and that Putin had specifically targeted Hillary Clinton and worked to throw the election to Trump was at the center of their argument. (page 395)

And they’ve never stopped pitching that narrative to this day, just as our intelligence agencies develop narratives and promote them to raise questions about the legitimacy of foreign opposition politicians.

Note also that for the first time in modern American history the party in opposition to the President has completely refused to cooperate with him – even when he expressed a willingness to work with Democrats on their own agenda, as President Trump did on immigration and infrastructure.

Complete non-cooperation is precisely the same strategy Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and the Bolshevik members of the Russian Parliament pursued with the Kerensky government in the lead-up to the Bolsheviks’ October 1917 Communist Revolution – and it worked.

The masses of Russian people were so fed up with a government that couldn’t get anything done that they were prepared to support, or at least acquiesce, to a government formed by a political party composed of a tiny fraction of the Russian people; no more than 200,000 out of a population of over 170 million.

Notice also the vast sums of dark money flowing to the Democrats and the Far-Left organizations opposing President Trump. George Soros alone accounts for tens of millions of dollars flowing to anti-Trump organizations to train agitators and political organizers to create opposition to the President.

This model was followed by the Communist International for many years, as hearings before the House Unamerican Activities Committee proved.

As Jack D. Meeks, Doctor of Philosophy, observed in his dissertation, FROM THE BELLY OF THE HUAC: THE HUAC INVESTIGATIONS OF HOLLYWOOD, 1947-1952, “communists were superb at identifying a worthy cause [to gain] the support of the American people, such as advocating for civil rights and unemployment insurance or resisting Nazism” and then building front organizations around them.

Examples of communist front organizations from the period studied by Meeks include such innocent sounding organizations as the American Slav Congress; the Win-the-Peace Congress; the Civil Rights Congress; the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy; the Council of African Affairs; the Council for Pan American Democracy; the Political Action Committee; the Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences and Professions; the Federation of Atomic Scientists; and the Southern Conference for Human Welfare.

Occasionally exposés of these organizations would hit the press, but most of the time, particularly after the House Unamerican Activities Committee was shut down, little of the Russian Communist interference in American politics came to public attention.

Are our opponents in today’s Russia, or China, or other members of the anti-American Axis using the same techniques today, particularly when presented with such a golden vehicle as the Clinton machine’s post-election narrative?

Most people, and certainly those in the establishment media, have forgotten or ignored Fox News reports that the Russians indicted for meddling in the 2016 presidential contest were also behind anti-Trump rallies after the election, revealing another aspect of Russia’s alleged interference as it worked to sow discord in the United States.

“After the election, the defendants allegedly staged rallies to support the president-elect while simultaneously staging rallies to protest his election,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a press conference.

“For example, the defendants organized one rally to support the president-elect and another rally to oppose him, both in New York on the same day,” said Rosenstein.

Facebook advertising Vice President Rob Goldman* said he was “very excited” to see the indictments outlining charges against 13 Russian nationals. However, Mr. Goldman’s excitement was largely ignored by the media and the public because, in a series of tweets, Goldman said that the “Russians stole the 2016 election away from Hillary Clinton” narrative is bogus.

As the late Bre Payton reported for The Federalist, Goldman tweeted that the social network shared with Congress the ads from Russian nationals to “help the public understand how the Russians abused our system.”

Tweeted Goldman:

The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election.  We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Trump and the election.

The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans.  It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.

Mr. Goldman was right, but you won’t see anything in the establishment media to help you identify and expose Russian intelligence activities we know have been going on for a century, or the intelligence operations of others interested in destabilizing our government, because, wittingly or unwittingly, the establishment media are part of the destabilization operation.

George Rasley is editor of Richard Viguerie’s ConservativeHQ.com and is a veteran of over 300 political campaigns. A member of American MENSA, he served on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle, as Director of Policy and Communication for then-Congressman Adam Putnam (FL-12) then Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, and as spokesman for Rep. Mac Thornberry former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

*Mr. Goldman has just left Facebook (departure announced October 22, 2019), his comments posted after the Russian indictments were retweeted by President Trump, which caused outrage on the Left. For telling the truth, and thereby giving aid and comfort to President Trump, Goldman was apparently forced to apologize to his colleagues on Facebook’s internal social network.

ConservativeHQ.com Officers:
Richard A. Viguerie – Chairman

Editor:

George Rasley

Writers:

Mark Fitzgibbons

Ben Hart

George Rasley

Richard A. Viguerie

Jeffrey A Rendall

 

 

 


William S. Frankl, MD, All Rights Reserved