All posts by Marshall Frank


Some may say that Scott McClellan is a traitor — not exactly a complimentary adjective — but my gut tells me he’s being truthful, traitor or not. McClellan will have to deal with his conscience and his loss of friendship. That’s his business. Sorting the truth, is our business.
McClellan is not the first Bush-insider to unload revelations in a book about White House staff manipulating intelligence data to support an invasion of Iraq. In 2004, “The Price Of Loyalty,” was penned by Ron Suskind as told by Paul O’Neill. In it, the former Secretary of Treasury unveiled a great deal about G.W. Bush’s obsession with Saddam Hussein in the first ten days of taking office, nine months before 9/11. Naturally, O’Neill was accused of being disgruntled since being fired by the prez for voting nay to the tax cuts. Yet, plans were already underway to find justification for the pre-emptive invasion. He says the evidence to support the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was “paltry” at best, as evidence to the contrary was ignored.
Perhaps O’Neill was disgruntled, but that doesn’t make him dishonest. Especially when other insiders have corroborated the same sordid attitudes.
Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism expert was a high level advisor to both presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. In his book, Against All Enemies, Clarke writes that Bush and his inner circle were more obsessed with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, than Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, not only before, but after 9/11. According to Clarke, the day after the terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people, Bush asked him to find evidence that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected. While there was no solid evidence that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, the administration cherry picked intelligence to support those findings and disregarded any information to the contrary.
Thus, McClellan’s expose`in his new book, What Happened — which basically asserts similar claims — is lent credibility. Some ask why he did not speak up earlier, when he was close to the president. In truth, his role was that of press secretary — to serve as the voice of the administration — not an advisor.
In a small way, I can clearly relate. I did not always agree with my command staff about certain decisions when I served as a captain for Miami-Dade P.D., but my role was to obey orders like a good soldier and represent my chief to the public in a good light. Behind the scenes, my disagreement was a matter between myself and by bosses.
In one instance, I was in charge of a case in which twelve uniformed cops were under investigation for the beating death of a black man who had been speeding on a motorcycle. The community was in an uproar. The news media went into a frenzy. Tensions were high. The black community demanded justice. And justice is what we were determined to achieve.
As the investigation unfolded, I determined that about half of that group were involved in the beating, while another two or three were present at the time without trying to intervene. Another two or three arrived after it happened. The Assistant Director (or assistant chief) chaired a meeting to discuss the administrative action to be taken. He said, “Fire them all.” I objected. Not all deserved to be fired. Obviously intent on pacifying media and the community, he reiterated, “Fire them all.” My words bore no weight.
What’s that old saying? “Not for me to question why, but to…”
All the cops were fired, including at least two that didn’t deserve it. When I finally retired years later, I wanted to unload the truth, to write about the inside story, not only about that Assistant Director, but how the department had allowed these volatile cops to fester in a violent group for months and years, knowing they were problem officers. In a sense, the department was equally at fault for that man’s death. A professional writer convinced me to write the story in fiction form. Thus, my novel titled, “Beyond The Call.” Believe me. It’s a great feeling of liberation when that muzzle comes off.
Scott McLellan is being censured for not speaking up at the time. He wore that same muzzle and remained loyal to the chief. Critics have not walked in his shoes, nor Rickard Clarke’s, nor Paul O’Neill’s. McLellan may have been a highly visible personality to America, but he was just a lacky to the president with no more voice than… “What do you want me to tell the reporters, sir?”
Judging his betrayal to the mouth that fed him…and to the man who made him famous, well…that’s another story. I know another organization that would handle that matter with cement shoes.
In the meanwhile, let’s listen to the message before shooting the messenger.
Imagine, if Colin Powell decided to write a book…Hmmmm


Free speech in America? Not according to the Muslim Students Association (MSA).
Figure this. In October of 2007, while in the U.S. on a diplomatic mission, the president of Iran was invited to speak at Columbia University and present his views. No jeering. No shouting. No gestures of hate. A world leader, Mahmãud Ahmadinej~ad, has openly supported genocide by declaring his intent to annihilate an entire nation, simply because it is a Jewish state. He refers to Israel as “baby eating Zionist pigs…a disgraceful stain that should be wiped off the map.” In 1979, this same hate monger was instrumental in the capture and imprisonment of 53 Americans from the U.S. embassy in Tehran, ridiculing and holding them hostage for 444 days. Despite all this, the Americans who attended his speech in Columbia University treated him with dignity and respect.
Contrast that to an American scholar who is invited to speak at the University of California, Santa Barbara about the status of world terrorism and Islamic jihad. David Horowitz, author and founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, was heckled, shouted down, jeered and cursed throughout his talk by a handful of rebel students. The MSA had written threatening letters to the university leaders threatening disruption if Horowitz came to talk. Degrading cartoons have been published in MSA literature depicting Horowitz much the same as Nazis depicted Jews in the 1930s. Everything possible was done to muzzle this man.
This is not an isolated incident. David Horowitz has been met with the same disruption at the university campus in Irvine, and in Milwaukee, and other college sites around the country. Same old, same old.
Muzzling the freedom of speech by the MSA is pervasive. They do not discriminate. Throughout America, those who come to college campuses to say anything that they construe as negative toward Islam, is met with screams, insults and threats.
The founder of American Congress For Truth, Brigitte Gabriel, is a noted journalist who immigrated to the U.S. from Lebanon in the 1980s. The author of “Because They Hate,” is an articulate, in-demand lecturer about the threat of radical Islamic extremism. In December of 2006, when Ms. Gabriel was scheduled to speak at the University of Michigan, the MSA sent out e-mails to all Muslim students urging “all Muslim brothers and sisters to do what they need to do to disrupt this event.” And try they did.
She’s used to it. No matter where she’s invited to talk, Ms. Gabriel is met with jeering, heckling, and threats, causing her to check into hotels under false names and be escorted by armed police on and off the speaker’s platform.
America…the land of the free. For now.
Walid Shoebat is a former Palestinian terrorist, now converted to Christianity. He gives speeches all over the country warning Americans of the impending threat of radical Islam. It comes from the horses mouth. We should be grateful. In February of 2007, he was giving a speech at the University of California-Davis, when a group of students began jeering and interrupting. It’s routine no matter what campus he is invited to.
Congressman Tom Tancredo was attacked and his speech disrupted at Michigan State University Law School. Daniel Pipes, Harvey Kushman, Wafa Sultan and Steve Emerson are other scholars who are met with the same fate — sometimes violent — from the MSA whenever they speak on campuses about terrorism and Islamic fanaticism. It is all part of the larger pattern of trying to silence and discredit through personal attacks anyone who dares speak up too strongly against the jihad and in defense of Western civilization.
The MSA has emerged as the most powerful student organization on university campuses throughout America. They were founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and most notorious extremist organization in the world. This is the same organization who, in 1982, issued the edict “The Project” which spells out their strategy for converting America and establishing an Islamic caliphate throughout the western world by the end of the 21st century, part of which includes its supporters posing as “moderates.”
Founded in Egypt in the late 1920s, the Muslim Brotherhood has long used violence as the primary means to its end — strict compliance to Sharia law. The ultra-radical organization lurks behind the scenes of Muslim Student Associations across the nation and should be of concern to every American!
These authors and scholars are national heros, speaking out and exposing the secret agenda of pro-terrorist supporters across the nation. They also provide information on how the Muslim Brotherhood is godfather to al Quaeda and Hamas, while helping to create the MSA and other Muslim student groups as part of its stealth jihad against American institutions
Fear and intimidation works. In a small way, I also experienced the muzzle. When my book Militant Islam In America was first released, I routinely set up book signings at various retail stores. Days later, I was contacted by management cancelling all signings. No reasons given. My book was not put on the shelf of any bookstore. The average American will not find books about radical Islamic jihad by Kushner, Horowitz, Emerson, John Sperry, and many more, on retail bookstore shelves for fear of reprisal from local Muslim groups. On several occasions I was explicitly warned by library management, “Talk about any of your books, but do not talk about Militant Islam. We don’t want any trouble here.”
My personal story is but a microcosm of how much muzzling is going on throughout America. Who does that affect? The American people, that’s who. The less informed we are, the better it is for our enemies. As the threat grows, inch by inch, day by day, very few in the media and in government have the courage to speak up.
Can anyone think of one time — in the last twelve months — where the spread of radical Islamic extremism within the borders of the U.S. was the subject of any presidential debate?
I’m a great believer in tolerance. But, like anything else, there’s a limit.
Meanwhile, let’s keep offering cordial invitations to our enemies to come and spread their propaganda on our college campuses, free from intimidation and fear of reprisal. America was a captive audience to Mr. Ahmadinej~ad who told us all that no homosexuals exist in his native Iran. Riiight. Thanks you sir, for that enlightenment.
It’s coming. No one is listening.
Inch by inch…without limits.


If America has an Achilles Heel, call it “Greed.”
Same with Western Europe.
Folks from American companies and universities can gripe all they want about the oil crisis, Arab intrusion, American politics and international Jihad, when it comes to waving money in front of their eyes, the response is Pavlovian drool. Who in their right mind can turn down $20 million, no matter the consequences to our country? Right?
University campuses all over the United States have been accepting huge donations from Arab nations, mainly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. What’s the big deal, you ask?
Well, money buys influence. Money buys compliance and capitulation. The enemies of America are slowly inching their way toward their stated goal: The Islamization of America, even if it takes 100 years. Meanwhile, America snoozes.
Organized Crime Bosses often pay professionals $50,000 up front for special services not yet rendered. It’s like insurance from “mob lawyers and mob doctors.” When they’re needed, no questions asked, the lawyers and doctors are there, no matter what. They’re paid big, and they owe back, big.
It’s no different than paying off Harvard and Georgetown for services asked.
Americans continue to lose sight of the big picture. The Muslim Brotherhood, most powerful Islamic fundamentalist organization in the world, has been striving for more than twenty years toward implementation of “The Project,” the master plan for establishing world dominion. One of their listed strategies (only one of which is inciting violence) is to establish financial networks to fund the work of converting the west. What better place to manipulate the fertile minds of our youth.Click here
In 2005, Harvard and Georgetown each accepted $20 million from the Saudis. Millions more, before and after, have funneled into Berkeley, U. Of Missouri, Rice, Arkansas, UC in Los Angeles, Columbia and so forth. It started in 1976 when the Saudi government gave one million dollars to USC. Since, no less than one hundred institutions of higher learning have come under the spell of Islamic financial influence.
What’s the payoff for the Islamic world? More Islamic study courses. More Islamic professors. More Islamic recruitment and conversion. More demands for Islamic foot baths, prayer breaks, Islamic dietary demands, and in the case of Harvard, closing the pool and recreation area for several hours a weeks to accommodate Muslim females.
The MSA (Muslim Students Association) didn’t exist before 1963. Today they are the largest and most influential student organization throughout the U.S., (and the world) firmly entrenched in hundreds of colleges and universities. In April of 2004, the Chicago Tribune exposed the radical student group as an American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Among other notable achievements, the Muslim Brotherhood took part in the murder of Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat as well as the shootings at the Temples at Luxor. Click here: Brotherhood in America
MSA is the same student group that often shows up at scheduled speeches by Brigette Gabriel and Daniel Pipes, and other experts on Islamic Jihad, a hootin’ and a hollerin’, disruptive and threatening the rights to free speech. Ms. Gabriel must often be escorted in and out by armed police and then check into lodging under an assumed name at a secret locale because the religion of peace isn’t so peaceful after all.
The endless well of Islamic wealth from petro-dollars is reaching out to European universities as well. At least eight schools in the UK have accepted monstrous donations in the hundreds of millions of pounds, including Cambridge and Oxford. Are we to assume that the world of Islam wishes to see better educated Brits? Or is there another motive?
I think we all know the answer.
But don’t tell that to the short-sighted greedy bastards inside the walls of higher learning who will sell our country down the river for the big bucks. Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood and their minions laugh all the way to the mosque, sharing stories about the rapacity of western civilization and how easy it is to bribe us all. It’s all about the money. Click here: Islamist Money Buying Clout
Government institutions, banks, prisons, big business and yes, many politicians, are equally guilty in accepting huge bundles of dough from those who would like to see America fall in one hundred years. But they don’t care about our grandchildren. They care about the moment.
It is all so clear, yet Americans everywhere don’t see it happening. It won’t be bombs and terrorists that bring down the west. It will be our own undoing, via the Achilles Heel.

Movie Critique: "88 Minutes"

Seeing as I’ve been an avid movie fan and lover of music since my crawling days in the crib, I thought I’d add a lighter side to my blog site. I’d be happy to hear what readers have to say.
If it weren’t for the presence of mega star and fine actor, Al Pacino, 88 Minutes would probably make most of it’s money being sold at Wal-mart in one of the $1 bins.
Good movies are tough to find these days, as the motion picture market caters mainly to children and young adults which feature gore, extreme violence, terror, plethora of smashed cars and buildings, million-bullet shoot-em-ups, raw sex, garbage humor and animated stories. Such is where the money is. Once in a while, a fine drama emerges, wins an Academy Award, then flops at the box office.
The problem with 88 Minutes is not action, drama or suspense. It has plenty of that. It’s the sheer absence of plausibility to the point of being absurd.
In a nutshell: Al Pacino is a Forensic psychiatrist whose testimony helped put a sadistic killer on Death Row nine years earlier. Naturally, the killer professes his innocence as his date with death nears. Suddenly new murders begin to emerge throughout the city using the same modus operandi; young women hoisted upside down, raped, tortured and then killed. Pacino is brought into the scene immediately by the FBI to help investigate. That’s when he receives a phone threat by a garbled voice telling him, he has 88 minutes to live.
From there, Pacino runs around in a panic as a number of other women are found killed, including his girl friend, and gives orders to police, FBI and other resource agencies to check this and that. The suspense comes, trying to figure out if the guy in prison is actually innocent, and who is behind the new onslaught of murders. The FBI begins to think Pacino, himself, may be the guilty party.
Sure, I was a thirty-year cop and I tend to see the flaws in a police-thriller movie. But I’m also a fiction writer, and I can live with a few non-sensible coincidences and some unlikely scenes, because folks…it’s fiction. But not this.
First, In my sixteen years working murder cases in Miami, I know of no detectives that ever consulted with a forensic psychiatrist during a murder case, yet work side by side with him in the streets. It just doesn’t happen. Lawyers may use them at trial, usually the defense type, for their expert opinion. Second, if and when a private psychiatrist is involved in an investigation, he certainly is not privileged to bark orders at police supervisors as though he were in command of the field. Third, other than crimes that cross state lines or where the murder occurred on federal property, the FBI is not in charge of any city/county murder case. They are handled by the local police agencies. So, why is the FBI there at all? (Head shaking)
But this is the kicker. Nine years earlier, the first victim is found hanging as her twin sister abruptly stumbles on the killing scene. Ah, a witness. She tells the police that the room was dark, and she didn’t get a good look at the subject. In legal terms, that usually means: No I.D.
As it turns out, the evidence upon which this man was convicted, was — of all things — the twin sister’s identification (who didn’t get a good look him in the dark) and,(get this) the expert opinion of the psychiatrist who said he was positive this guy did the killing, though he had no other evidence other than a personality profile. Well, that’s pushing it. If any defendant was put on trial based on personality profiles and poor visibility identifications, he’d be freed on a directed verdict by the judge in a New York minute.
There were other stupidities in the picture, but I think you get the idea.
So, friends, if you just want some suspenseful entertainment that makes no sense, but you’re an addict for Al Pacino’s acting, go for it. If you still seek a smidgen of authenticity in a police story, don’t waste your money on 88 Minutes.


Senator Barack Obama has been accused of speaking in ethereal terms, promoting hope and justice, rarely engaging in specifics about his proposed policies. That’s not exactly true.
There is a 52 second video floating around the Internet circuit in which the senator looks directly in the eye of the camera and announces his intentions about global weaponry and war systems, and what the United States would do if he were in the top position. 
Click here: YouTube
This is good. Now we know. Americans should listen closely to those 52 seconds because — in a few words — it tells us much about what to expect if this man ascends to the Oval Office.
Evaluate for yourself:
* He will end the war and immediately start pulling troops out. He’s already told us this. Ending the war is a good thing. We all want to see an end to the war. The questions remain, however: In what manner, how rapidly, will there be chaos, mass murders and destruction in the path, what will happen to the 100,000 civilian workers in Iraq, how will this affect the current government in place, and how will our image play out to the world community if we immediately abandon our commitment toward protecting and stabilizing the Iraqi people?
* He will impose massive cuts in defense spending, eliminate unproven missile systems, slow development of future combat systems and not weaponize space
* He will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, cease developing new weapons, seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and seek deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.
I must say, that sounds great. There could be nothing better than creating a world without war, without hate and without weapons, especially the nuclear variety.
If only the other nations would agree to do the same, and then keep their promises. If the governments of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas – plus the extreme factions of radical Islam everywhere — all agree to disarm and promise not to be aggressive, then we should believe what they say. Eh?
Does the name: Neville Chamberlain come to mind?
First of all, anyone who has read my writings knows I was opposed to the invasion from the start. That’s where my agreement with Obama comes to a halt. Right or wrong, we are there. We can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube. And as Colin Powell told us, “We break it, we have to fix it.”
A rapid departure from Iraq would exacerbate the situation by inciting a collapse of the Iraqi government which is not yet prepared to go it alone. Thousands of citizens would be sent to their deaths at the hands of rebels and al Qaeda, a blood bath between Sunnis and Shiites would ensue, and Iran — an avowed enemy of Israel — would be given an open door to take control. The people of the world — who already have a negative view of the United States — would loathe us even further for turning our backs and failing to keep the commitment we made to the Iraqi people.
“Sorry, Tariq. We changed our mind.”
Scaling down weapons and combat systems is also a great idea, if only everyone else would do the same. From all I have read, it’s doubtful that al Qaeda — nor other radical Islamic groups — will change their minds about bringing down the west. Iran’s leaders have sworn to destroy the state of Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are committed to driving the Jews into the sea, which is consistent with the intentions of Palestinians — and most of the Arab world — since the inception of Israel in 1948. Nothing has changed there. Those commitments are etched in concrete.
Of course, some of these nations and/or extremist organizations might tell us one thing, then do another. If our leaders haven’t learned the lessons of history at this point, then they should not be our leaders.
Most every scholar and politician agrees that the fall of the Soviet Union was primarily a result of an unwavering position of strength on the part of the United States. In the 1980’s, had we scaled down our military, or slowed development of combat systems, or cut defense systems and reduced missiles, we would still be dealing with the Soviets as an “evil empire.”
Mr. Obama suggests that we should weaken?
Today, we are still at war — maybe it’s against radical Islam, maybe Iraqi rebels, maybe al Qaeda, maybe even Iran, but to be sure, foreign enemies are out there who are sworn to destroy the United States, by violence or subterfuge, from within or from outside. They’ve made that crystal clear. Those voices of hate and power cannot be ignored any more than the world should have ignored Mein Kampf. They are well armed and well financed. To propose weakening our defense systems at a time when we are constantly in fear of being under attack as we were on 9/11, is naive at best and utterly incompetent at worst.
I’m like everyone else. The people of this planet would love to see the eradication of nuclear weapons. So…let’s just agree to do it, right? Seeking deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal in the hopes that other countries will do the same can only be proposed by someone who still believes in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
Madeline Albright is a liberal Democrat and no fan of George W. Bush. She said it best. In her book, Memo To The President Elect, the former Secretary of State writes, “If we disarm, and others cheat, we would be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail.”
Blackmail would not be the worst of it — should others cheat.
I hope U.S. Congressman Steve King was dead wrong when (should Obama be elected) he told the Daily Reporter, “The radical Islamists, the al-Qaeda … would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11th, because they would declare victory in this war on terror.”
It’s one thing to have varied views regarding government. It’s another to live in La-la Land and self-destruct. Forget about all the other domestic issues. That 52 seconds of video tells us why electing Barack Obama to be our president is tantamount to national suicide.
But…he speaks so good.