theamericanconservative--2020-08-29--Esper’s Lame Attempt to Save Money Off the Backs of Troops and Families

To deal with what he believes will be either a flat or declining defense budget , Secretary of Defense Mark Esper this year initiated a cost-cutting review of what he calls the Department of Defense ’ s “ fourth estate.
” These consist of the defense-wide agencies and activities that are not part of one of the three military departments .
They include the Defense Health Agency ( DHA ) , the Missile Defense Agency ( MDA ) , the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency ( DARPA ) , the Defense Logistics Agency ( DLA ) , and the Special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies currently account for about $ 100 billion out of a defense budget of $ 740 billion , and the secretary asked his staff to identify possible areas of savings there over the next five years .
In February , Esper announced that the first iteration had netted about $ 5.7 billion in savings and then launched a second review .
Since DHA accounts for about one-third of the total budget of the fourth estate , it was not surprising that in the second review Esper ’ s staff targeted $ 2.2 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care .
However , when Politico made that recommendation public on August 16 , , there was pushback over the next two days .
It came first from Esper himself , then President Trump , and then finally , the Democratic nominee for the White House , Vice President Joe Biden .
Esper even claimed that the story was inaccurate .
The president tweeted that the proposal by Pentagon officials had been firmly and totally rejected by him .
Biden argued that gutting the military healthcare system , particularly during a global epidemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s managers should always be looking for ways to spend taxpayers money more efficiently and effectively , proposing cuts to the military health care system , which currently cares for about 10 million people in the midst of a pandemic that has affected active duty personnel , retirees , and their families , does not make sense either morally , practically , or politically .
Despite Esper ’ s denials , Politico reported that he and his deputies believed that America ’ s private health system could pick up the slack .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the civilian health care system is already overwhelmed ?
Looking at the specifics of the proposal should raise even more concerns .
During the Trump administration the Pentagon has already made significant cuts to the Defense Health System .
For example , even before the review , it announced that it would be cutting the active duty medical corps by 20 percent or 17,000 people over the next five years .
Moreover , DHA is already one of the most efficient and effective Pentagon organizations .
It has already saved the Pentagon and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improved the quality of health care available to military personnel and family members since its creation in 2013 .
It has done this by reducing such functions as administration , IT , logistics and teaching that existed in tripartite across the three service medical commands .
And even with these additional responsibilities the DHA budget has remained flat in nominal dollars at about $ 35 billion .
It did this in spite of the fact that , as a result of legislation passed in 2016 , Congress placed DHA in charge of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the operations run by the service medical commands .
Not surprisingly , the military services have tried to reverse and stop this transfer , which for the hospitals and clinics in CONUS , was completed in October 2019 and for the overseas bases is expected to be done by October 2021 .
While the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed the transfer , OSD remains committed to it .
This is not the first time that the Pentagon ’ s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation ( CAPE ) office , which takes the lead in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the budget , has targeted the DHA .
Previously it tried to close the Uniform Services University of Health Service , which prepares women and men for the military ’ s medical corps and the Murtha Cancer Center at Walter Reed .
If Secretary Esper and the Trump administration really want to cut defense spending there are several other areas they should look .
Do we really need to modernize all three legs of the nuclear triad at a cost of $ 1.7 trillion ?
As former Secretary of Defense William Perry and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we can save at least $ 10 billion a year and still provide credible deterrence by reducing our deployed nuclear weapons to 1,000 from 1,550 and adopting a no first use policy .
Do we really need to continue to use the Overseas Contingency Budget ( OCO ) as a war slush fund , even as we begin to reduce our forces in Afghanistan and the region ?
Do we really need to build three more of the next generation Ford Class super aircraft carriers at a cost of at least $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that the late Senator John McCain and Esper ’ s predecessor , Patrick Shanahanthought made sense .
Fortunately , some officials in the Pentagon , by leaking to Politico , made Americans and the president aware of the misguided attempt to save money off the backs of military health before it was too late .
Dr. Lawrence J. Korb is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress , and served as assistant secretary of defense from 1981 through 1985 .

To deal with what he believes will be either a flat or declining defense budget, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper this year initiated a cost-cutting review of what he calls the Department of Defense’s “fourth estate.”
These consist of the defense-wide agencies and activities that are not part of one of the three military departments. They include the Defense Health Agency (DHA), the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and the Special Operations Command (SOCOM).
These agencies currently account for about $100 billion out of a defense budget of $740 billion, and the secretary asked his staff to identify possible areas of savings there over the next five years. In February, Esper announced that the first iteration had netted about $5.7 billion in savings and then launched a second review. Since DHA accounts for about one-third of the total budget of the fourth estate, it was not surprising that in the second review Esper’s staff targeted $2.2 billion, to come directly from military health care.
However, when Politico made that recommendation public on August 16,, there was pushback over the next two days. It came first from Esper himself, then President Trump, and then finally, the Democratic nominee for the White House, Vice President Joe Biden. Esper even claimed that the story was inaccurate. The president tweeted that the proposal by Pentagon officials had been firmly and totally rejected by him. Biden argued that gutting the military healthcare system, particularly during a global epidemic, is unacceptable.
While the Pentagon’s managers should always be looking for ways to spend taxpayers money more efficiently and effectively, proposing cuts to the military health care system, which currently cares for about 10 million people in the midst of a pandemic that has affected active duty personnel, retirees, and their families, does not make sense either morally, practically, or politically. Despite Esper’s denials, Politico reported that he and his deputies believed that America’s private health system could pick up the slack. Really? Have they not noticed that the civilian health care system is already overwhelmed?
Looking at the specifics of the proposal should raise even more concerns. During the Trump administration the Pentagon has already made significant cuts to the Defense Health System. For example, even before the review, it announced that it would be cutting the active duty medical corps by 20 percent or 17,000 people over the next five years.
Moreover, DHA is already one of the most efficient and effective Pentagon organizations. It has already saved the Pentagon and the country substantial amounts of money and improved the quality of health care available to military personnel and family members since its creation in 2013. It has done this by reducing such functions as administration, IT, logistics and teaching that existed in tripartite across the three service medical commands.
And even with these additional responsibilities the DHA budget has remained flat in nominal dollars at about $35 billion. It did this in spite of the fact that, as a result of legislation passed in 2016, Congress placed DHA in charge of all military hospitals worldwide, as well as the operations run by the service medical commands.
Not surprisingly, the military services have tried to reverse and stop this transfer, which for the hospitals and clinics in CONUS, was completed in October 2019 and for the overseas bases is expected to be done by October 2021. While the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed the transfer, OSD remains committed to it.
This is not the first time that the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, which takes the lead in helping the Secretary of Defense on cutting the budget, has targeted the DHA. Previously it tried to close the Uniform Services University of Health Service, which prepares women and men for the military’s medical corps and the Murtha Cancer Center at Walter Reed.
If Secretary Esper and the Trump administration really want to cut defense spending there are several other areas they should look. Do we really need to modernize all three legs of the nuclear triad at a cost of $1.7 trillion? As former Secretary of Defense William Perry and his colleague Tom Collina have pointed out, we can save at least $10 billion a year and still provide credible deterrence by reducing our deployed nuclear weapons to 1,000 from 1,550 and adopting a no first use policy.
Do we really need to continue to use the Overseas Contingency Budget (OCO) as a war slush fund, even as we begin to reduce our forces in Afghanistan and the region? Do we really need to build three more of the next generation Ford Class super aircraft carriers at a cost of at least $15 billion each? This is not something that the late Senator John McCain and Esper’s predecessor, Patrick Shanahan thought made sense.
Fortunately, some officials in the Pentagon, by leaking to Politico, made Americans and the president aware of the misguided attempt to save money off the backs of military health before it was too late.
Dr. Lawrence J. Korb is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and served as assistant secretary of defense from 1981 through 1985.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-29--Trump’s Land of Opportunity and Darkness

U.S. President Donald Trump ( C ) reacts as he stands with his family members after delivering his acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination on the South Lawn of the White House August 27 , 2020 in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images ) Who was your favorite speaker at the Republican National Convention ?
Mine was Rachel Maddow .
The left-wing cable host wasn ’ t technically on the convention schedule , but she may as well have been , given how often she butted into MSNBC ’ s coverage with an epic fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other political convention , had plenty of lies and exaggerations .
But that ’ s also why every major newspaper now has a battalion of fact checkers , all of whom , rather importantly , leave you alone until after the speeches have finished .
Maddow ’ s annotations were like watching Star Wars with that one friend who interrupts every ten seconds to point out some prop inconsistency on Tatooine .
But that ’ s just so much kvetching .
This was the 2020 Republican National Convention , dammit , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weren ’ t during the proceedings , you sure were afterwards , as the Washington skyline exploded with color while patriotic hymns blared over the loudspeaker .
America hadn ’ t seen that many fireworks since Gavin Newsom tried to ban them .
The pyrotechnics were as much about spectacle as they were about braggadocio : I can do this and Joe Biden can ’ t .
It was a theme of the convention , the devil-may-care exercise of ostentatious power , the flaunting of our national monuments before the camera .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was otherwise a very American affair , as the showmanship of the Trump family was conflated with the power of the state and with our national health .
It was all a bit unseemly , not that anyone cares in this year of our edgelord 2020 .
Last week , I said I didn ’ t so much mind the conference call feeling of the Democratic National Convention .
I still think that , as it turns out , yet it ’ s also impossible to deny that the Republicans put the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re supposed to host a pandemic-era pageant , dispensing ( mostly ) with the live audience while still maintaining a star-spangled , date-with-destiny feel .
Incredibly , not only did the GOP claim the entertainment advantage , they also came equipped with far more substance than the Democrats ever mustered .
This can be difficult to do in politics : you have to advertise your policies and accomplishments through the stories of others , lest you come off as too wonkish or too egotistical .
The Democrats had the second part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal narratives without ever seeming to cohere them into a concrete agenda .
The Republicans , over and over again , pulled off this vertical integration with aplomb .
This was a convention that somehow made political hay out of right-to-try , a libertarian health care hobbyhorse that Trump signed into law two years ago , mostly unnoticed .
Yet out to the podium came a bone cancer survivor who said she owed her life to this oft-overlooked reform .
A lobsterman from Maine hailed a recent negotiated reduction in European Union tariffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose sentence to life in prison was commuted by Trump , spoke of the need for criminal justice reform .
It all made for compelling viewing , with far more salt and earth than , say , Andrew Yang awkwardly throwing to Julia Louis-Dreyfus .
Indeed , one of the RNC ’ s accomplishments was to get Trump out of his own way , to remind voters that he ’ s implemented more policy than his endless Twitter soap operas would suggest .
Association health plans , opioid prescription reform , funding for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform blitz , but he ’ s done more than he gets credit for .
The convention mostly took place outside the GOP ’ s comfort zone .
Anyone who ’ s ever been to CPAC knows the familiar litany of causes that dominate the speeches and B-roll : protect our guns , protect our borders , protect Israel , protect Israel ’ s borders , protect our guns , have you heard about the guns ?
And while the RNC did subject us to the dreary and mildly appalling spectacle of Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also made a real bid for political independents and others outside the conservative base .
This was no “ Fox News prime-time segment , ” as the New York Times sneered after night one .
It was surprisingly heterodox , which led to some accusations of inconsistency .
How could Republicans thunder about law and order one minute , then tout criminal justice reform the next ?
The answer is that the public tends to support both and the two don ’ t have to be mutually exclusive .
I thought the bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ponder was a fine attempt to reconcile them , with Ponder declaring that “ we live in a nation of second chances , ” while a former FBI agent he ’ d befriended heralded Trump ’ s “ support for law enforcement.
” Yet despite all these divergences , it was still in many ways a very traditional Republican convention .
The American carnage of 2016 was retired ; wink-wink dissenters like Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz were excommunicated .
Instead , there was the O-word , once scrubbed into every Republican convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : opportunity .
You heard it often , and with Senator Tim Scott , the event ’ s best speaker , you almost felt it , as he told of his rise from poverty to the Senate .
Republicans have gotten much wrong over the past 20 years , but one thing they ’ ve always seemed to understand , one thing that sometimes eludes their opponents , is that Americans want to get where they ’ re going on their own .
They don ’ t like being nudged by government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction they need to go ; they don ’ t want to feel like they ’ re taking handouts , even if they ’ re on federal assistance .
Hence opportunity .
The GOP ’ s social contract was : “ we ’ ll provide the school choice , the fair trade , and the low taxes ; you do the rest.
” While Democrats touted the American idea of progress , Republicans tapped into our independence and self-reliance .
That wasn ’ t necessarily appealing in every corner of the political right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights types griped that the convention had stiffed their pet issues , talking up tax cuts and deregulation while ignoring tariffs and trade .
That might be true , though it ’ s likely because support for free trade has risen and the GOP is eager to avoid spooking farmers , who have been hurt by Trump ’ s trade war and whom Biden is courting .
The Republican approach was instead to place American businesses and workers on the same side , in opposition to the government and the Chinese , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though Trump ’ s headline speech did spend plenty of time on his trade policies , even threatening to slap tariffs on any company that sent jobs overseas .
I thought that address , by the way , was among the weakest at the convention , not because of its substance but its style .
It was flabby , at 70 minutes long , and lacked the brute force that got the president elected in the first place .
By the end , its hyperbolic tropes seemed stale .
“ This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our country !
” Mmm .
Joe Biden is a Trojan horse stuffed with socialists !
Maybe .
Yes , this convention—before Rachel Maddow starts tracking changes in my column—had its falsehoods .
It is not true , as Trump claimed , that the Iran nuclear deal was “ one-sided ” in favor of Tehran ; it imposed on the Iranians one of the strictest arms control verification schemes in history .
It is also not true , as another speaker declared , that “ President Trump has accomplished more for the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president in history.
” Yet the RNC also grasped at an important truth , one Democrats have spent weeks trying to avoid .
It is this : the riots in our city streets are not some flare-up at the margins , “ fiery but mostly peaceful protests , ” as a CNN chyron put it .
They are real , violent , prevalent , and damaging to people ’ s livelihoods .
For Trump , this is a risky issue to harness , since it ’ s happening on his watch .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instincts and a political base that literally wants to defund the police , the challenge is arguably much greater .
And then it happened again , as demonstrators gathered in D.C. and mindlessly attacked Rand Paul , the most prominent advocate for criminal justice reform in Congress .
If there ’ s any issue that can save Trump , if there ’ s anything that can mitigate the political damage caused by the coronavirus , it will be this .

Who was your favorite speaker at the Republican National Convention? Mine was Rachel Maddow. The left-wing cable host wasn’t technically on the convention schedule, but she may as well have been, given how often she butted into MSNBC’s coverage with an epic fact check! Certainly the RNC, like any other political convention, had plenty of lies and exaggerations. But that’s also why every major newspaper now has a battalion of fact checkers, all of whom, rather importantly, leave you alone until after the speeches have finished. Maddow’s annotations were like watching Star Wars with that one friend who interrupts every ten seconds to point out some prop inconsistency on Tatooine.
But that’s just so much kvetching. This was the 2020 Republican National Convention, dammit, and were you not entertained? If you weren’t during the proceedings, you sure were afterwards, as the Washington skyline exploded with color while patriotic hymns blared over the loudspeaker. America hadn’t seen that many fireworks since Gavin Newsom tried to ban them. The pyrotechnics were as much about spectacle as they were about braggadocio: I can do this and Joe Biden can’t. It was a theme of the convention, the devil-may-care exercise of ostentatious power, the flaunting of our national monuments before the camera. It gave a weird monarchical overlay to what was otherwise a very American affair, as the showmanship of the Trump family was conflated with the power of the state and with our national health. It was all a bit unseemly, not that anyone cares in this year of our edgelord 2020.
Last week, I said I didn’t so much mind the conference call feeling of the Democratic National Convention. I still think that, as it turns out, yet it’s also impossible to deny that the Republicans put the Democrats to shame. This was exactly how you’re supposed to host a pandemic-era pageant, dispensing (mostly) with the live audience while still maintaining a star-spangled, date-with-destiny feel. Incredibly, not only did the GOP claim the entertainment advantage, they also came equipped with far more substance than the Democrats ever mustered. This can be difficult to do in politics: you have to advertise your policies and accomplishments through the stories of others, lest you come off as too wonkish or too egotistical. The Democrats had the second part down but not the first, spinning personal narratives without ever seeming to cohere them into a concrete agenda. The Republicans, over and over again, pulled off this vertical integration with aplomb.
This was a convention that somehow made political hay out of right-to-try, a libertarian health care hobbyhorse that Trump signed into law two years ago, mostly unnoticed. Yet out to the podium came a bone cancer survivor who said she owed her life to this oft-overlooked reform. A lobsterman from Maine hailed a recent negotiated reduction in European Union tariffs on lawbstahs. Alice Marie Johnson, whose sentence to life in prison was commuted by Trump, spoke of the need for criminal justice reform. It all made for compelling viewing, with far more salt and earth than, say, Andrew Yang awkwardly throwing to Julia Louis-Dreyfus. Indeed, one of the RNC’s accomplishments was to get Trump out of his own way, to remind voters that he’s implemented more policy than his endless Twitter soap operas would suggest. Association health plans, opioid prescription reform, funding for HBCUs—Trump might not be on a Macron-style reform blitz, but he’s done more than he gets credit for.
The convention mostly took place outside the GOP’s comfort zone. Anyone who’s ever been to CPAC knows the familiar litany of causes that dominate the speeches and B-roll: protect our guns, protect our borders, protect Israel, protect Israel’s borders, protect our guns, have you heard about the guns? And while the RNC did subject us to the dreary and mildly appalling spectacle of Mike Pompeo cutting in from Jerusalem, it also made a real bid for political independents and others outside the conservative base. This was no “Fox News prime-time segment,” as the New York Times sneered after night one. It was surprisingly heterodox, which led to some accusations of inconsistency. How could Republicans thunder about law and order one minute, then tout criminal justice reform the next? The answer is that the public tends to support both and the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I thought the bit where Trump pardoned convicted bank robber Jon Ponder was a fine attempt to reconcile them, with Ponder declaring that “we live in a nation of second chances,” while a former FBI agent he’d befriended heralded Trump’s “support for law enforcement.”
Yet despite all these divergences, it was still in many ways a very traditional Republican convention. The American carnage of 2016 was retired; wink-wink dissenters like Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz were excommunicated. Instead, there was the O-word, once scrubbed into every Republican convention mouth right down to the janitorial staff: opportunity. You heard it often, and with Senator Tim Scott, the event’s best speaker, you almost felt it, as he told of his rise from poverty to the Senate. Republicans have gotten much wrong over the past 20 years, but one thing they’ve always seemed to understand, one thing that sometimes eludes their opponents, is that Americans want to get where they’re going on their own. They don’t like being nudged by government, even if it’s in a direction they need to go; they don’t want to feel like they’re taking handouts, even if they’re on federal assistance. Hence opportunity. The GOP’s social contract was: “we’ll provide the school choice, the fair trade, and the low taxes; you do the rest.” While Democrats touted the American idea of progress, Republicans tapped into our independence and self-reliance.
That wasn’t necessarily appealing in every corner of the political right. Some economic nationalists and workers’ rights types griped that the convention had stiffed their pet issues, talking up tax cuts and deregulation while ignoring tariffs and trade. That might be true, though it’s likely because support for free trade has risen and the GOP is eager to avoid spooking farmers, who have been hurt by Trump’s trade war and whom Biden is courting. The Republican approach was instead to place American businesses and workers on the same side, in opposition to the government and the Chinese, rather than pitting them against each other. Though Trump’s headline speech did spend plenty of time on his trade policies, even threatening to slap tariffs on any company that sent jobs overseas. I thought that address, by the way, was among the weakest at the convention, not because of its substance but its style. It was flabby, at 70 minutes long, and lacked the brute force that got the president elected in the first place. By the end, its hyperbolic tropes seemed stale. “This is the most important election in the history of our country!” Mmm. Joe Biden is a Trojan horse stuffed with socialists! Maybe.
Yes, this convention—before Rachel Maddow starts tracking changes in my column—had its falsehoods. It is not true, as Trump claimed, that the Iran nuclear deal was “one-sided” in favor of Tehran; it imposed on the Iranians one of the strictest arms control verification schemes in history. It is also not true, as another speaker declared, that “President Trump has accomplished more for the American people in four years than any other president in history.” Yet the RNC also grasped at an important truth, one Democrats have spent weeks trying to avoid. It is this: the riots in our city streets are not some flare-up at the margins, “fiery but mostly peaceful protests,” as a CNN chyron put it. They are real, violent, prevalent, and damaging to people’s livelihoods. For Trump, this is a risky issue to harness, since it’s happening on his watch. Yet for Biden, torn between his personal instincts and a political base that literally wants to defund the police, the challenge is arguably much greater.
And then it happened again, as demonstrators gathered in D.C. and mindlessly attacked Rand Paul, the most prominent advocate for criminal justice reform in Congress. If there’s any issue that can save Trump, if there’s anything that can mitigate the political damage caused by the coronavirus, it will be this.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-31--The Case that Put Vigilante Violence Front and Center in NYC

The 1984 subway shooting divided the city and the nation , making Bernie Goetz a hero to some and a villain to others .
History repeats itself .
UNITED STATES - APRIL 24 : Bernhard Bernie Goetz gets Courageous Citizenship Award from Jerry Preiser , President of the Federation of NY State Rifle and Pistol Clubs .
( Photo by Anthony Pescatore/NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images ) How many times can something be divided before it permanently breaks ?
In a matter of months , the edifice of a United States has become more and more cracked , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , state-imposed lockdowns , mass unemployment , police shootings , and subsequent riots .
The national mood is one of exhaustion and frustration , if not outright anger .
On August 25 , Americans were given another thing to divide themselves over .
In response to yet another contested police shooting , riots erupted in the city of Kenosha , Wisconsin .
During the ensuing chaos , video was taken of an individual in possession of an AR-15 rifle being chased by a group of people , falling to the ground , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of whom was armed with a handgun ) .
The shooter , 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse , was permitted by police to leave the scene , while two of the other men lay on the ground , dead .
Twitter threads , Facebook feeds , and newsrooms are at vitriol capacity as they argue the merits of the shooting .
In conditions marked by social upheaval , and as burning buildings lick the background of city streets , the contentious issues of vigilantism and self-defense are being relitigated .
The discussions happening right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rittenhouse and the Kenosha shooting could prove to be a contemporary version of the 1984 New York City subway shooting , but with much more deleterious social consequences .
City dwellers still recount horror stories about the New York City of the 1970s and 1980s , when “ Fear City ” became synonymous with the dangers of urban living .
At the start of the period rapes and burglaries tripled , while by the end of the 70s the percentage of fires started through arson had septupled .
The homicide rate fluctuated between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and by 1980 the New York City subway had become the most dangerous transportation system in the world .
It was in these circumstances that millions of New Yorkers struggled to go through their daily lives , including a mild-mannered electrician named Bernhard “ Bernie ” Goetz .
After an attempted mugging left him injured and his assailants unpunished , Goetz resolved that he would not again be the victim of such routine criminality .
When the city rejected his request for a concealed carry permit , due to “ insufficient need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caliber revolver out-of-state and smuggled it back home .
On December 22 , 1984 , three days before Christmas , Bernie Goetz sat in a New York City subway car when four black teenagers—three 19-years old and one 18—approached .
Surrounding him , one of them demanded , “ Give me five dollars.
” Goetz pulled out his revolver and proceeded to shoot all four teens , two of them in the back .
He fled the train , and then the state .
Three of the teenagers had previously been convicted of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and all four were already scheduled to appear at either a trial or criminal hearing .
Sharpened screwdrivers were found on their persons , although Goetz was unaware of this .
Months after the incident one of the boys confirmed to a reporter that they had intended to rob Goetz .
Mistaking him for “ easy bait , ” the confrontation left all four wounded and one paraplegic .
Stories about “ the Subway vigilante ” swept both the New York City media and the public ’ s imagination .
Comparisons were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wish , where after the rape and murder of his family , Charles Bronson ’ s Paul Kersey goes on a one-man killing spree to clean up his city—including shooting attempted muggers on the subway .
Instead of tips to help catch the at-large shooter , police hotlines were inundated with hundreds of calls of support for the still unidentified Goetz .
New York Governor Mario Cuomo condemned this “ vigilante spirit ” among the public .
“ In the long run , that ’ s what produces the slaughter of innocent people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31 , Bernie Goetz surrendered himself to authorities .
He was charged with several offenses , including attempted murder .
Sympathy for Goetz ’ s actions was widespread among the contemporary public .
Working class New Yorkers , both black and white , knew what it was like to walk in fear on the streets of their own city .
In the perception of citygoers , Goetz became a figure of cathartic retribution , and the four teenagers became cutouts for the petty harassment and crime that had enveloped New York .
Others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the incident .
” I ’ m not surprised that you can round up a lynch mob , ” said Benjamin Ward , the first black Police Commissioner of New York City , regarding Goetz ’ s supporters .
” We were always able to do that in this country .
I think that the same kind of person that comes out and applauds the lynching is the first that comes out and applauds someone that shoots four kids.
” “ In this country , we no longer employ firing squads , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed that Goetz ’ actions went far beyond anything appropriate in the criminal justice system .
Bleeding hearts had difficulty comprehending the public enthusiasm .
“ Don ’ t they know the danger that ’ s unleashed when someone starts shooting in a crowded place , when someone takes the law into his own hands ?
” asked a rhetorical New York Timeseditorial , diagnosing a fed-up public .
“ Of course they do , but they also know something else , bitterly .
Government has failed them in its most basic responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law into your own hands implies taking it out of official hands .
But the law , on that subway car on Dec. 22 , was in no one ’ s hands.
” It is difficult not to come to a similar conclusion today .
Police forces nationwide seem incapable of performing at an expected standard .
On one hand , police are satisfied to lord over citizens who easily submit , as they regularly bully , harass , and brutalize legions of law-abiding and respectful Americans .
But on the other hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police are quick to drop their “ protect and serve ” mantra and abandon whole neighborhoods to the mob ’ s torch .
When the state fails , we should not be surprised when individuals act to fill the void .
“ This was an occasion when one citizen , acting in self-defense , did what the courts have failed to accomplish time and again , ” wrote New York Senator Al D ’ Amato .
“ The issue is not Bernhard Hugo Goetz .
The issue is the four men who tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Goetz , should be on trial.
” In February 1985 , a grand jury declined to prosecute Bernie Goetz for attempted murder .
Outside the courthouse , some people protested the leniency , chanting “ Bernhard Goetz , you can ’ t hide ; we charge you with genocide.
” In fact , the only charge brought against him , which he was later convicted of , was carrying an unlicensed firearm .
He was sentenced to one year in prison , of which he served eight months .
Thirty years after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major libertarian social event in the Big Apple .
During a break between scheduled speakers , the MC took to the stage to spontaneously announce that Bernie Goetz , “ the Batman of New York City , ” was in attendance .
I was unaware of who Goetz was at the time and could only identify him as the man on the other side of the room who was suddenly being rushed by people wanting to shake his hand .
We don ’ t know how Kyle Rittenhouse will be received thirty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line ( like Goetz ) to his native Illinois , Rittenhouse was arrested on Wednesday and charged with first-degree ( premeditated ) murder .
More details about what preceded the video tape and ignited the confrontation can be expected to come to light in the coming days .
The helplessness that New Yorkers felt decades ago has , due to the untampered riots , exploded in every part of the country .
Except now , the political left and right fear each other more than they do an anonymous specter of crime .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not be given to Rittenhouse , who is already being labeled either a rightwing terrorist or a man rightfully defending himself .
And now , on Saturday night , a Trump supporter in Portland was shot and killed for unknown reasons .
Was the vigilantism in Kenosha just the beginning ?

How many times can something be divided before it permanently breaks? In a matter of months, the edifice of a United States has become more and more cracked, after repeated blows from a pandemic virus, state-imposed lockdowns, mass unemployment, police shootings, and subsequent riots. The national mood is one of exhaustion and frustration, if not outright anger.
On August 25, Americans were given another thing to divide themselves over. In response to yet another contested police shooting, riots erupted in the city of Kenosha, Wisconsin. During the ensuing chaos, video was taken of an individual in possession of an AR-15 rifle being chased by a group of people, falling to the ground, and then shooting three of his pursuers (one of whom was armed with a handgun). The shooter, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, was permitted by police to leave the scene, while two of the other men lay on the ground, dead.
Twitter threads, Facebook feeds, and newsrooms are at vitriol capacity as they argue the merits of the shooting. In conditions marked by social upheaval, and as burning buildings lick the background of city streets, the contentious issues of vigilantism and self-defense are being relitigated. The discussions happening right now are downright déjà vu.
Kyle Rittenhouse and the Kenosha shooting could prove to be a contemporary version of the 1984 New York City subway shooting, but with much more deleterious social consequences.
City dwellers still recount horror stories about the New York City of the 1970s and 1980s, when “Fear City” became synonymous with the dangers of urban living. At the start of the period rapes and burglaries tripled, while by the end of the 70s the percentage of fires started through arson had septupled. The homicide rate fluctuated between 21 and 25 murders per 100,000 residents, and by 1980 the New York City subway had become the most dangerous transportation system in the world.
It was in these circumstances that millions of New Yorkers struggled to go through their daily lives, including a mild-mannered electrician named Bernhard “Bernie” Goetz. After an attempted mugging left him injured and his assailants unpunished, Goetz resolved that he would not again be the victim of such routine criminality. When the city rejected his request for a concealed carry permit, due to “insufficient need,” Goetz purchased a 5-shot .38 caliber revolver out-of-state and smuggled it back home.
On December 22, 1984, three days before Christmas, Bernie Goetz sat in a New York City subway car when four black teenagers—three 19-years old and one 18—approached. Surrounding him, one of them demanded, “Give me five dollars.” Goetz pulled out his revolver and proceeded to shoot all four teens, two of them in the back. He fled the train, and then the state.
Three of the teenagers had previously been convicted of crimes (the other only arrested), and all four were already scheduled to appear at either a trial or criminal hearing. Sharpened screwdrivers were found on their persons, although Goetz was unaware of this. Months after the incident one of the boys confirmed to a reporter that they had intended to rob Goetz. Mistaking him for “easy bait,” the confrontation left all four wounded and one paraplegic.
Stories about “the Subway vigilante” swept both the New York City media and the public’s imagination. Comparisons were instantly made to the 1974 film Death Wish, where after the rape and murder of his family, Charles Bronson’s Paul Kersey goes on a one-man killing spree to clean up his city—including shooting attempted muggers on the subway.
Instead of tips to help catch the at-large shooter, police hotlines were inundated with hundreds of calls of support for the still unidentified Goetz. New York Governor Mario Cuomo condemned this “vigilante spirit” among the public. “In the long run, that’s what produces the slaughter of innocent people,” he said. On December 31, Bernie Goetz surrendered himself to authorities. He was charged with several offenses, including attempted murder.
Sympathy for Goetz’s actions was widespread among the contemporary public. Working class New Yorkers, both black and white, knew what it was like to walk in fear on the streets of their own city. In the perception of citygoers, Goetz became a figure of cathartic retribution, and the four teenagers became cutouts for the petty harassment and crime that had enveloped New York.
Others could not overlook the racial aspect of the incident. ”I’m not surprised that you can round up a lynch mob,” said Benjamin Ward, the first black Police Commissioner of New York City, regarding Goetz’s supporters. ”We were always able to do that in this country. I think that the same kind of person that comes out and applauds the lynching is the first that comes out and applauds someone that shoots four kids.”
“In this country, we no longer employ firing squads,” said future Mayor David Dinkins, who believed that Goetz’ actions went far beyond anything appropriate in the criminal justice system.
Bleeding hearts had difficulty comprehending the public enthusiasm. “Don’t they know the danger that’s unleashed when someone starts shooting in a crowded place, when someone takes the law into his own hands?” asked a rhetorical New York Times editorial, diagnosing a fed-up public. “Of course they do, but they also know something else, bitterly. Government has failed them in its most basic responsibility: public safety. To take the law into your own hands implies taking it out of official hands. But the law, on that subway car on Dec. 22, was in no one’s hands.”
It is difficult not to come to a similar conclusion today. Police forces nationwide seem incapable of performing at an expected standard. On one hand, police are satisfied to lord over citizens who easily submit, as they regularly bully, harass, and brutalize legions of law-abiding and respectful Americans. But on the other hand, when their authority is challenged, police are quick to drop their “protect and serve” mantra and abandon whole neighborhoods to the mob’s torch. When the state fails, we should not be surprised when individuals act to fill the void.
“This was an occasion when one citizen, acting in self-defense, did what the courts have failed to accomplish time and again,” wrote New York Senator Al D’Amato. “The issue is not Bernhard Hugo Goetz. The issue is the four men who tried to harass him. They, not Mr. Goetz, should be on trial.”
In February 1985, a grand jury declined to prosecute Bernie Goetz for attempted murder. Outside the courthouse, some people protested the leniency, chanting “Bernhard Goetz, you can’t hide; we charge you with genocide.” In fact, the only charge brought against him, which he was later convicted of, was carrying an unlicensed firearm. He was sentenced to one year in prison, of which he served eight months.
Thirty years after the subway shooting, I was attending a major libertarian social event in the Big Apple. During a break between scheduled speakers, the MC took to the stage to spontaneously announce that Bernie Goetz, “the Batman of New York City,” was in attendance. I was unaware of who Goetz was at the time and could only identify him as the man on the other side of the room who was suddenly being rushed by people wanting to shake his hand.
We don’t know how Kyle Rittenhouse will be received thirty years hence. After crossing the state line (like Goetz) to his native Illinois, Rittenhouse was arrested on Wednesday and charged with first-degree (premeditated) murder. More details about what preceded the video tape and ignited the confrontation can be expected to come to light in the coming days.
The helplessness that New Yorkers felt decades ago has, due to the untampered riots, exploded in every part of the country. Except now, the political left and right fear each other more than they do an anonymous specter of crime. The broad public sympathy that Goetz received will not be given to Rittenhouse, who is already being labeled either a rightwing terrorist or a man rightfully defending himself.
And now, on Saturday night, a Trump supporter in Portland was shot and killed for unknown reasons. Was the vigilantism in Kenosha just the beginning?
Hunter DeRensis is Assistant Editor at the Libertarian Institute and a regular contributor to The American Conservative. You can follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis.


theamericanconservative--2020-09-01--When Violence is Justified to Defend Civil Society

A police officer stands next to a building buns during a riot as demonstrators protest the police shooting of Jacob Blake on Monday , August 24 , 2020 in Kenosha , Wisconsin .
( Photo by Joshua Lott for The Washington Post via Getty Images ) Teenager Kyle Rittenhouse ’ s shooting of three men in Kenosha , Wisconsin , has sharpened the debate between left and right over whether rioting can be justly met with violence .
Opinions about Rittenhouse ’ s attempt to interpose himself and his AR-15 between rioters and buildings in Kenosha have become entangled with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ versus people , a juxtaposition dishonestly advanced by the left .
Writing in The Nation , R.H. Lossin captured the Left ’ s point of view artfully , proclaiming : “ Plateglass [ sic ] windows don ’ t bleed .
They don ’ t die and leave loved ones grieving .
They don ’ t contribute to the collective trauma and terror experienced by their communities .
They just break , and then , at some point , they are replaced by identical sheets of glass.
” Leaving aside her comical lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheets of glass come from , Lossin expresses a widespread sentiment , and it has a certain indisputable logic : things are not , after all , people .
The response of too many on the right , unfortunately , has been to take the bait .
They ’ re ably represented by National Review editor Rich Lowry , who argued that the person-property distinction neglects how people depend on their property for shelter and sustenance .
Destroy or steal it , and you inflict physical harm .
This argument , while true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shell game , wherein we must weigh the value of property against the cost of harming someone who wants to take it .
Whether a store owner can resist people trying to burn down his business suddenly turns on whether he has insurance .
Or his track record in the community , as when the author of the newly released book , In Defense of Looting ( on sale in soon-to-be looted stores near you ! )
told NPR that small , locally owned businesses don ’ t do enough for workers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection than large chain stores .
This property versus people framing pushes conservatives into a losing corner : if you ’ re really pro-life , how can you justify firing a shotgun at someone who just wants to smash a window and take some of your stuff ?
As with so many other debates , conservatives lose the moment they adopt the left ’ s materialism .
What ’ s at stake in these riots is not property , but the civic order .
The most honest , ardent leftists admit as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lossin , “ not because property destruction has any moral or political value in itself , but because it is coercive .
It is an actual threat to order and a very real threat to capital.
” Describing looting advocate Vicky Osterweil ’ s point of view , her fawning NPR interviewer exclaims that rioters “ are engaging in a powerful tactic that questions the justice of ‘ law and order , ’ and the distribution of property and wealth in an unequal society.
” This calls to mind Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of the Russian revolution : “ Revolutionary truths have a great quality : even hearing them with their own ears , the doomed don ’ t understand.
” While we quibble with a leftist intellectual vanguard about the relative value of plate glass windows versus human life , mob rule is being solidified as the new norm in our cities .
The question is not whether this should be met with force because of the inherent damage it inflicts on property .
The question is whether civil society is worth preserving with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When civil society disappears , individualized violence is the only means of resolving disputes .
In the state of nature , red in tooth and claw , might makes right .
Withdraw the police long enough , and you get Kyle Rittenhouse .
The shame of it is that so many able-bodied men in Kenosha relied on a boy from Illinois to defend their streets .
The danger is that masses of them will begin to feel similarly responsible for confronting hoodlums—as witnessed recently in the streets of Portland .
Rittenhouse is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newest monster .
The sleight of hand their spokesmen play , as they demand his prosecution , is to assert a cardinal ordering of rights in which personhood trumps property .
But this can only arise out of the very civic order they make no secret about wanting to destroy .
The claim that a carjacker ’ s life is worth more than my car depends for its enforcement on an undergirding agreement about values and mutual submission to democratic processes that enforce those values .
Abolish this order , and we each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Am I immoral for shooting him ?
Who ’ s to say ?
The law ?
God ?
My carjacker has abandoned the former , and now he ’ s free to seek redress with the latter .
No peace , no justice .
Violence is justified against marauders not because of the relative value of property versus life , but because of the essential purpose and fragile composition of civil society .
For centuries , we in the West have largely forsaken arms , trusting the state to protect us and adjudicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a set of democratic institutions to keep the state , in turn , at least somewhat accountable .
Most of us , at any given time , have a litany of complaints about the results of our democratic processes , but this is itself proof our civic order works fairly well .
Now the left demands we sit idly by while they smash that order , pleading a primacy of human life that only finds actualization in its midst .
They are “ modern barbarians , ” according to political philosopher Willmoore Kendall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live off our Civilization and benefit from the commitments it imposes upon others , but not live within them.
” “ Any civil authority , ” Andrew Sullivan wrote recently , “ that permits , condones or dismisses violence , looting and mayhem in the streets disqualifies itself from any legitimacy.
” The appearance of a makeshift militia in Kenosha , and MAGA truck caravans in Portland , suggests at least a few Americans agree .
What happens when thousands more decide they agree , too ?
Absent courage on the part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriate leeway to use violence against the violent—we will return to armed citizen militias .
The Second Amendment will once again be justified for a purpose many thought antiquated .
And people will die .
Many more will die , most likely , than would be the case if our civil officials performed their chief duty .
The question is whether enough of them have the moral fortitude to do so .
Or will they stay cowering in their offices , persecuting a Kyle Rittenhouse when they can , bleating that defenders are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war is peace ?
Tony Woodlief is a writer who lives in North Carolina .

Teenager Kyle Rittenhouse’s shooting of three men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, has sharpened the debate between left and right over whether rioting can be justly met with violence. Opinions about Rittenhouse’s attempt to interpose himself and his AR-15 between rioters and buildings in Kenosha have become entangled with beliefs about the relative value of property versus people, a juxtaposition dishonestly advanced by the left.
Writing in The Nation, R.H. Lossin captured the Left’s point of view artfully, proclaiming: “Plateglass [sic] windows don’t bleed. They don’t die and leave loved ones grieving. They don’t contribute to the collective trauma and terror experienced by their communities. They just break, and then, at some point, they are replaced by identical sheets of glass.”
Leaving aside her comical lack of curiosity about where, exactly, sheets of glass come from, Lossin expresses a widespread sentiment, and it has a certain indisputable logic: things are not, after all, people.
The response of too many on the right, unfortunately, has been to take the bait. They’re ably represented by National Review editor Rich Lowry, who argued that the person-property distinction neglects how people depend on their property for shelter and sustenance. Destroy or steal it, and you inflict physical harm.
This argument, while true, is the ante in a utilitarian shell game, wherein we must weigh the value of property against the cost of harming someone who wants to take it. Whether a store owner can resist people trying to burn down his business suddenly turns on whether he has insurance. Or his track record in the community, as when the author of the newly released book, In Defense of Looting (on sale in soon-to-be looted stores near you!) told NPR that small, locally owned businesses don’t do enough for workers, and are therefore no more deserving of protection than large chain stores. This property versus people framing pushes conservatives into a losing corner: if you’re really pro-life, how can you justify firing a shotgun at someone who just wants to smash a window and take some of your stuff?
As with so many other debates, conservatives lose the moment they adopt the left’s materialism. What’s at stake in these riots is not property, but the civic order. The most honest, ardent leftists admit as much. Looting is imperative, writes R.H. Lossin, “not because property destruction has any moral or political value in itself, but because it is coercive. It is an actual threat to order and a very real threat to capital.” Describing looting advocate Vicky Osterweil’s point of view, her fawning NPR interviewer exclaims that rioters “are engaging in a powerful tactic that questions the justice of ‘law and order,’ and the distribution of property and wealth in an unequal society.”
This calls to mind Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s observation in The Red Wheel, his history of the Russian revolution: “Revolutionary truths have a great quality: even hearing them with their own ears, the doomed don’t understand.”
While we quibble with a leftist intellectual vanguard about the relative value of plate glass windows versus human life, mob rule is being solidified as the new norm in our cities. The question is not whether this should be met with force because of the inherent damage it inflicts on property. The question is whether civil society is worth preserving with violence.
This question answers itself. When civil society disappears, individualized violence is the only means of resolving disputes. In the state of nature, red in tooth and claw, might makes right. Withdraw the police long enough, and you get Kyle Rittenhouse. The shame of it is that so many able-bodied men in Kenosha relied on a boy from Illinois to defend their streets. The danger is that masses of them will begin to feel similarly responsible for confronting hoodlums—as witnessed recently in the streets of Portland.
Rittenhouse is, of course, the left’s newest monster. The sleight of hand their spokesmen play, as they demand his prosecution, is to assert a cardinal ordering of rights in which personhood trumps property. But this can only arise out of the very civic order they make no secret about wanting to destroy. The claim that a carjacker’s life is worth more than my car depends for its enforcement on an undergirding agreement about values and mutual submission to democratic processes that enforce those values. Abolish this order, and we each choose the restraints that suit us. Am I immoral for shooting him? Who’s to say? The law? God? My carjacker has abandoned the former, and now he’s free to seek redress with the latter. No peace, no justice.
Violence is justified against marauders not because of the relative value of property versus life, but because of the essential purpose and fragile composition of civil society. For centuries, we in the West have largely forsaken arms, trusting the state to protect us and adjudicate our disputes. We’ve crafted a set of democratic institutions to keep the state, in turn, at least somewhat accountable. Most of us, at any given time, have a litany of complaints about the results of our democratic processes, but this is itself proof our civic order works fairly well. Now the left demands we sit idly by while they smash that order, pleading a primacy of human life that only finds actualization in its midst. They are “modern barbarians,” according to political philosopher Willmoore Kendall, characterized by “the wish to live off our Civilization and benefit from the commitments it imposes upon others, but not live within them.”
“Any civil authority,” Andrew Sullivan wrote recently, “that permits, condones or dismisses violence, looting and mayhem in the streets disqualifies itself from any legitimacy.” The appearance of a makeshift militia in Kenosha, and MAGA truck caravans in Portland, suggests at least a few Americans agree. What happens when thousands more decide they agree, too? Absent courage on the part of elected officials to deploy police—and give them appropriate leeway to use violence against the violent—we will return to armed citizen militias. The Second Amendment will once again be justified for a purpose many thought antiquated.
And people will die. Many more will die, most likely, than would be the case if our civil officials performed their chief duty. The question is whether enough of them have the moral fortitude to do so. Or will they stay cowering in their offices, persecuting a Kyle Rittenhouse when they can, bleating that defenders are attackers, marauders are demonstrators, and war is peace?
Tony Woodlief is a writer who lives in North Carolina.


theamericanconservative--2020-09-01--Dear Joe Biden, Please Accept Your Loss When It’s Time

Joe , I ’ m writing to ask a favor .
Don ’ t be a bum , a palooka .
If you lose the election , lose it graciously .
Don ’ t drag a damaged America through a long fight designed to cripple the next Trump term , the way Democrats did in 2016 .
Those same voices are gon na want you to never concede , to “ sue ’ til it ’ s Blue ” but you got ta do the right thing .
Don ’ t be the guy to wreck America .
While two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t look like November 3 is gon na be your night , kid .
So far you got nothing to offer but you ’ re Not Trump , and because I know you play some poker , that ’ s stretching a pair of twos too far .
Pennsylvania new voter registrations added 150,000 more Republicans than Democrats .
Trump is beating you on Latino outreach , Joe , and owns the Cuban vote ( as well the formidable Jewish vote ) in crucial Florida .
A pollster on our podcast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect is even stronger today than in 2016 .
I ’ ve seen it myself .
I know the way many Trader Joe Americans noodle around when they want to see if it ’ s OK to talk about Trump .
They ’ ve done well in the economy .
They ’ ve noticed the wars have tapered down .
Once they open up , they say they ’ re afraid you ’ ll lose control to the progressives nipping at the party ’ s heels .
When Elizabeth Warren childishly sneaks in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t see the justice they titularly support , they see chaos .
And the looting they roll their eyes over happening in New York is now in Wisconsin and Minnesota .
Swing states , Joe , on literal fire under Democratic gubernatorial leadership .
I know you are counting on the left behind , out of work Americans without 401ks as your people , but Joe , they aren ’ t .
Those folks are Trump ’ s base .
They don ’ t blame him , they think he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can have a lo-carb beer alongside a little Maalox , or maybe just some nice Jell-O , after you retire and try to make sense of that , but you can ’ t say it ain ’ t so , Joe .
So whattaya got ?
Russiagate was a lie built on falsified FISA documents , sleazy CIA-aligned operatives , and paid-for propaganda .
Impeachment failed .
None of that screams “ trust me.
” Large numbers of voters don ’ t blame Trump for COVID , and statistics show the worst economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Democratic governors willing to act against their own citizens to politically damage Trump .
A Democratic governor keeps kids from school and you want the parents to blame Trump ?
Your party Goebbels ’ are down to whimpering about violations of the Hatch Act most non-Beltway American know nothing of and care less about , and the Post Office .
The Post Office , Joe ?
That ’ s your big talking point two months out ?
You sound like Jan Brady trying to snitch on her brothers .
Seriously , enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handles 472.1 million mailpieces a day .
There are only 153 million registered voters in the U.S. , and typically only about 60 percent of them even bother to vote .
You still get your paper Lands End catalog ; handling the ballots is nothing .
You aren ’ t the only candidate using the Not Trump strategy .
Your real opponent is Stay Home ; that ’ s where a lot of the Never Trumpers may end up .
Last election 42 percent of eligible voters stayed home and likely cost Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t vote were more Democratic-leaning than the registered voters who turned out .
In 2020 most of your younger “ Democrats ” aren ’ t .
They hate Trump more than they hate you , but they ’ re not part of your party .
They ’ d really like a third party , for change , but until then they ’ ve made it pretty clear they won ’ t vote for crappy candidates like you ( or Hillary ) just because Rachel Maddow scolds them .
They told you all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party stiffed them .
More ?
You didn ’ t get any post-convention bounce , not even with both Obamas .
Nice try with Kamala , by the way , but the only people who vote based on the VP choice are thinking you won ’ t make it past 100 days .
And talk about a plan backfiring , research suggests the more Democrats message democracy is dead and Trump is going to win by cheating no matter what , the lower Democratic turnout will be .
That ’ s on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( which drives turnout ) for you lags Trump in key battleground states .
And you have to privately admit , Trump ’ s mantra about you—that Joe sent your jobs to China and your sons to war—cuts pretty deep across those all-important Midwestern states .
And that brings me to the favor I ’ m asking for .
If you really lose , concede .
Thank everyone , promise Kamala will be back fighting in 2024 , and affirm the system worked .
Don ’ t gin up a Konstitutional Krisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fraud , lay it all out in one splash , no weeks of leaks and hearings , and make sure it is clear enough all but the most committed ideologues have to admit you are right .
You will save America .
Because if the message is “ burn it down ” people just might .
Everybody sees what those around you are planning .
Even you warned Trump will steal the election .
Rep. James Clyburn said he believes the president “ plans to install himself in some kind of emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Hillary dictated you should not concede under any circumstances because “ eventually I do believe he will win.
” Her strategy for you is a lengthy legal battle after the election , a sue ’ til your blue which envisions November 3 as only an opening act , followed by counts and recounts of mail-in ballots , followed by court challenges , all in hope of shifting public opinion toward not accepting the election .
Hillary made a good run at that four years ago , convincing a fair number of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College didn ’ t count .
But in the end she failed , Trump took office , and America slipped deeper into division .
The poster child for being a Good Loser , Al Gore , is teeing it up for you as well .
Gore believes the military will eventually have to remove Trump from office .
That was the headline .
But pay attention to Gore ’ s whole statement , the part when he said “ there ’ s no intermediate step between a Supreme Court decision and violent revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dragging something out , tearing the country apart , mobilizing partisans against one another in the streets , but it is not a wise course for our country.
” Gore of course is talking about Trump doing that , but I ’ m talking about you , Joe .
America can ’ t handle it so please don ’ t bring it on us .
Don ’ t listen to the voices saying you have to save democracy by refusing to accept the election results .
We are so divided that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fanning the flames by claiming the popular vote is controlling , insisting racism lost you the election or otherwise playing to the hate could set off something that will be hard to control .
It could ruin whatever confidence Americans have left in our system , flawed as it may be .
You won ’ t inspire people , you will inflame them .
Your opponent will fight a nasty campaign .
Fight hard back .
But when it is over , don ’ t fake losing , own losing .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is people ’ s conditioned readiness to believe it does not work anymore .
Joe , we ’ re both old enough to love the movie On the Waterfront , starring Marlon Brando at his most perfect .
You remember the key scene , in the car with his mobster brother .
Brando , a prize fighter who could have gone all the way , took a fall to make the mob money betting against him .
Brando realizes giving in , doing what the dark forces wanted him to do even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruined him .
He made some money , sure .
But he knew he was a bum , a palooka , when he maybe could ’ ve had class , could have been somebody .
Leave Hillary and Stacey Abrams in the history books as bitter losers .
Fight your fight , Joe , and then do the right thing for yourself , your legacy , for America .
Peter Van Buren , a 24-year State Department veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the 99 Percent .

Joe, I’m writing to ask a favor. Don’t be a bum, a palooka. If you lose the election, lose it graciously. Don’t drag a damaged America through a long fight designed to cripple the next Trump term, the way Democrats did in 2016. Those same voices are gonna want you to never concede, to “sue ’til it’s Blue” but you gotta do the right thing. Don’t be the guy to wreck America.
While two months can change a lot, it doesn’t look like November 3 is gonna be your night, kid. So far you got nothing to offer but you’re Not Trump, and because I know you play some poker, that’s stretching a pair of twos too far. Pennsylvania new voter registrations added 150,000 more Republicans than Democrats. Trump is beating you on Latino outreach, Joe, and owns the Cuban vote (as well the formidable Jewish vote) in crucial Florida. A pollster on our podcast believes the “shy Trump voter” effect is even stronger today than in 2016.
I’ve seen it myself. I know the way many Trader Joe Americans noodle around when they want to see if it’s OK to talk about Trump. They’ve done well in the economy. They’ve noticed the wars have tapered down. Once they open up, they say they’re afraid you’ll lose control to the progressives nipping at the party’s heels. When Elizabeth Warren childishly sneaks in a pro-BLM message during your convention, they don’t see the justice they titularly support, they see chaos. And the looting they roll their eyes over happening in New York is now in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Swing states, Joe, on literal fire under Democratic gubernatorial leadership.
I know you are counting on the left behind, out of work Americans without 401ks as your people, but Joe, they aren’t. Those folks are Trump’s base. They don’t blame him, they think he fights for them. You and I can have a lo-carb beer alongside a little Maalox, or maybe just some nice Jell-O, after you retire and try to make sense of that, but you can’t say it ain’t so, Joe.
So whattaya got? Russiagate was a lie built on falsified FISA documents, sleazy CIA-aligned operatives, and paid-for propaganda. Impeachment failed. None of that screams “trust me.” Large numbers of voters don’t blame Trump for COVID, and statistics show the worst economic damage to individual wallets has been done by Democratic governors willing to act against their own citizens to politically damage Trump. A Democratic governor keeps kids from school and you want the parents to blame Trump? Your party Goebbels’ are down to whimpering about violations of the Hatch Act most non-Beltway American know nothing of and care less about, and the Post Office.
The Post Office, Joe? That’s your big talking point two months out? You sound like Jan Brady trying to snitch on her brothers. Seriously, enough with the post office. The USPS handles 472.1 million mailpieces a day. There are only 153 million registered voters in the U.S., and typically only about 60 percent of them even bother to vote. You still get your paper Lands End catalog; handling the ballots is nothing.
You aren’t the only candidate using the Not Trump strategy. Your real opponent is Stay Home; that’s where a lot of the Never Trumpers may end up. Last election 42 percent of eligible voters stayed home and likely cost Hillary the election; registered voters who didn’t vote were more Democratic-leaning than the registered voters who turned out. In 2020 most of your younger “Democrats” aren’t. They hate Trump more than they hate you, but they’re not part of your party. They’d really like a third party, for change, but until then they’ve made it pretty clear they won’t vote for crappy candidates like you (or Hillary) just because Rachel Maddow scolds them. They told you all, twice, they wanted Bernie and the party stiffed them.
More? You didn’t get any post-convention bounce, not even with both Obamas. Nice try with Kamala, by the way, but the only people who vote based on the VP choice are thinking you won’t make it past 100 days. And talk about a plan backfiring, research suggests the more Democrats message democracy is dead and Trump is going to win by cheating no matter what, the lower Democratic turnout will be. That’s on top of recent polls suggesting voter enthusiasm (which drives turnout) for you lags Trump in key battleground states. And you have to privately admit, Trump’s mantra about you—that Joe sent your jobs to China and your sons to war—cuts pretty deep across those all-important Midwestern states.
And that brings me to the favor I’m asking for. If you really lose, concede. Thank everyone, promise Kamala will be back fighting in 2024, and affirm the system worked. Don’t gin up a Konstitutional Krisis. If you really really have unambiguous proof of fraud, lay it all out in one splash, no weeks of leaks and hearings, and make sure it is clear enough all but the most committed ideologues have to admit you are right. You will save America. Because if the message is “burn it down” people just might.
Everybody sees what those around you are planning. Even you warned Trump will steal the election. Rep. James Clyburn said he believes the president “plans to install himself in some kind of emergency way to continue to hold onto office.” Hillary dictated you should not concede under any circumstances because “eventually I do believe he will win.” Her strategy for you is a lengthy legal battle after the election, a sue ’til your blue which envisions November 3 as only an opening act, followed by counts and recounts of mail-in ballots, followed by court challenges, all in hope of shifting public opinion toward not accepting the election.
Hillary made a good run at that four years ago, convincing a fair number of people her popular vote win meant the Electoral College didn’t count. But in the end she failed, Trump took office, and America slipped deeper into division.
The poster child for being a Good Loser, Al Gore, is teeing it up for you as well. Gore believes the military will eventually have to remove Trump from office. That was the headline. But pay attention to Gore’s whole statement, the part when he said “there’s no intermediate step between a Supreme Court decision and violent revolution. You can always explore the option of dragging something out, tearing the country apart, mobilizing partisans against one another in the streets, but it is not a wise course for our country.” Gore of course is talking about Trump doing that, but I’m talking about you, Joe.
America can’t handle it so please don’t bring it on us. Don’t listen to the voices saying you have to save democracy by refusing to accept the election results. We are so divided that you refusing to go along with the vote, fanning the flames by claiming the popular vote is controlling, insisting racism lost you the election or otherwise playing to the hate could set off something that will be hard to control. It could ruin whatever confidence Americans have left in our system, flawed as it may be. You won’t inspire people, you will inflame them. Your opponent will fight a nasty campaign. Fight hard back. But when it is over, don’t fake losing, own losing. The critical tool for the ending of democracy is people’s conditioned readiness to believe it does not work anymore.
Joe, we’re both old enough to love the movie On the Waterfront, starring Marlon Brando at his most perfect. You remember the key scene, in the car with his mobster brother. Brando, a prize fighter who could have gone all the way, took a fall to make the mob money betting against him. Brando realizes giving in, doing what the dark forces wanted him to do even when he knew it was so wrong, ruined him. He made some money, sure. But he knew he was a bum, a palooka, when he maybe could’ve had class, could have been somebody.
Leave Hillary and Stacey Abrams in the history books as bitter losers. Fight your fight, Joe, and then do the right thing for yourself, your legacy, for America.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-09-02--Another MEK Sock-Puppet? Conservatives Should Care About Pro-War Disinformation

Maryam Rajavi , the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran ( NCRI ) holds a statement signed by 31 U.S. dignitaries and former officials in support of the NCRI and its fight for freedom in Iran on July 17 , 2020 , in Ashraf-3 , Albania .
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani ( LED screen ) one of the signatories , presents it to Ms. Rajavi .
( Photo by Siavosh Hosseini/NurPhoto via Getty Images ) There is at least one more foreign policy opinion writer from the Mujahideen-eKhalq ( MEK ) whose existence is dubious , based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and statements from a defector from the group .
Amir Basiri , who contributed to Forbes 9 times , the Washington Examiner 52 times , OpenDemocracy , Algemeiner , and The Hill once also appears to be a fabrication .
The MEK is an Iranian exile group for which John Bolton , Rudy Giuliani , and other foreign policy luminaries have given paid speeches .
Dems like Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean have also spoken on their behalf .
But the group has American blood on its hands , has been accused of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system has been described as a mixture of Marxism and Islamism .
Its supporters claim they , and their front group the National Council of Resistance of Iran , are a sort of government-in-exile , despite nearly nonexistent support for the group within Iran .
They also have waged a substantial disinformation campaign in the Western press , in particular targeting conservative media .
“ Amir Basiri and Heshmat Alavi are two fake accounts , ” Hassan Heyrani , an MEK defector told TAC .
“ At Camp Liberty , near the BIAP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political unit of the organization with some of the persons who grew up in America and Canada .
We worked as a team to write the articles analyzing the Iranian regime .
The MEK put them in The Washington Post and all the newspapers in Western countries.
” Basiri ’ s op-eds focus on the need for regime change in Iran which he claimed is “ within reach.
” The thrust of Basiri ’ s writing – last placed at the Examiner in October of 2018 – is to encourage American readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plight of Iranian protesters and dissidents .
Basiri consistently argued against the Iran nuclear deal , downplayed terrorism against Iran , called for tougher sanctions as a method of regime change and highlighted the necessity of Trump working with the Iranian opposition .
“ We are currently looking into the matter , so I won ’ t comment on this specific byline , ” Philip Klein , Executive Editor and Commentary Editor of the Washington Examiner told TAC .
“ But I will say that we have recently instituted more rigorous vetting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited to asking for photo identification if necessary .
We are especially on guard when it comes to unsolicited foreign policy commentary.
” A request for comment from OpenDemocracy , a site greatly concerned about disinformation campaigns , has not been returned as of press time .
Basiri ’ s articles on Forbes are no longer online .
The list of MEK disinformation tactics also includes fake online since-deleted sites such as PersiaNow and ArabEye and questionable sites such as Iran Focus whose domain was formerly registered under the name of an NCRI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MEK ’ s recent influence campaign on Facebook spearheaded by the National Council of Resistance of Iran ( NCRI ) was recently reported on last year by Lachlan Markey at the Daily Beast .
Markey explained how NCRI lobbyist Soheila Aligholi Mayelzadeh has helped place paid ads on Facebook reaching between 500,000 to 1.4 million users as part of the campaign to sway US public opinion in favor of MEK and intervention in Iran .
The list of outright fakes recently in the realm of foreign policy analysis is significant : there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MEK sock puppet Alavi , first revealed by The Intercept , to deepfake non-existent anti-Palestinian activist Oliver Taylor , whose work was placed at highly-respected publications in the United States and Israel .
As Adam Rawnsley wrote for the Daily Beast , “ Badani is part of a network of at least 19 fake personas that has spent the past year placing more than 90 opinion pieces in 46 different publications .
The articles heaped praise on the United Arab Emirates and advocated for a tougher approach to Qatar , Turkey , Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lebanon.
” Geoff Golberg is the founder of Social Forensics , which tracks and monitors online social media networks and disinformation campaigns .
Golberg ’ s run-in and exposure of various pro-MEK personas , sock puppets and boosters came just prior to his Twitter suspension in July of 2019 , the official reason for which was calling an account he believed to be fake and interfering in Canada ’ s elections a “ moron.
” “ Rather than suspending accounts that blatantly violate Twitter Rules , Dorsey instead opted to silence my voice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with The Intercept , I helped out ‘ Heshmat Alavi ’ as a sockpuppet propaganda operation run by the MEK .
Remarkably , despite initially suspending the fake account , ‘ Heshmat Alavi ’ has been reinstated by Twitter and continues to disseminate propaganda , ” Golberg said , adding that Basiri – whose account is currently suspended by Twitter – is another fake persona which has been on his radar for some time .
He produced the following graphic demonstrating the interconnectedness of the two accounts : Golberg said he knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was led to investigate sock puppet accounts fomenting war with Iran because he noticed many oddities about their networks , followers and tweeting patterns .
His further research and analysis led him down a rabbit hole of connections and resulted in death threats , mass reporting of his account and accusations that he sympathized with the Ayatollah ’ s regime .
Rather than the hype over Russian bots , the real danger on platforms like Twitter is fake accounts and troll farm accounts which amplify hashtags , spread lies and bolster the desired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Despite media coverage that tends to focus on ‘ bots , ’ which simply means fully-automated accounts , Twitter ’ s much larger problem is actually fake accounts .
There are more than 100K fake accounts that exist solely to create the illusion of widespread sentiment that the US should go to war with Iran , ” Golberg told TAC , adding , “ Take ‘ Sheldon , ’ @ patrick_jane77 , for example , an account that reflects having nearly 120K Followers .
Very few of the account ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter refuses to enforce their own rules , it is easy to mistake “ Sheldon ” for being a popular account .
Twitter ’ s entire platform is propped up by misleading or inflated Followers/Following counts .
Twitter ’ s CEO , Jack Dorsey , has built a house of cards and continues to commit ad fraud at a massive scale.
” Golberg sued Twitter earlier this year , alleging that the platform engaged in “ deceptive practices ” and hasn ’ t stood by its own terms of service .
Accusations from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative itself and senior editor Daniel Larison act as a mouthpiece for the mullahs are part of a broader campaign aimed at maligning the reputation and integrity of anyone who opposes regime change in Iran .
Tweets calling for investigations of TAC also came from noted MEK sock puppet Alavi , MEK spokesman Shahin Gobadi and NCRI ’ s Ali Safavi .
A barrage of accounts retweeted Jazayeri ’ s accusations , many with only a few followers and which solely tweet boosting the MEK and supporting regime change in Iran .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was following Heshmat Alavi prior to his suspension , as were others closely connected to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies such as Jerusalem Post Iran hawk Seth Frantzman , @ sfrantzman , Jazayeri and a number of other pro-MEK shills .
It is a hall of mirrors amplifying the case for war with Iran , and the ad money from NCRI and pro-MEK accounts seems to have dampened Twitter ’ s desire to crack down .
A request for comment from Twitter was not returned as of press time .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaging in systematic dishonesty like this has provided a very good reason to blacklist them .
Failing to do so will encourage other foreign interests to do the same in the future , so conservative publishers should decline all content and interviews from the MEK in the future .
This is not a matter of foreign policy differences : if you wish to see the U.S. pursue regime change in Iran , the MEK does not help make that case .
Any publishers or think tanks who are aware of this dishonesty and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group should be considered part of a campaign not wholly different from the last time we were lied into a Mideast war .
Arthur Bloom is the managing editor of TAC .
Paul Brian is a freelance journalist .
He has reported for the BBC , Reuters , and Foreign Policy , and contributed to The Week , The Federalist , and others .
You can follow him on Twitter @ paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com .

There is at least one more foreign policy opinion writer from the Mujahideen-eKhalq (MEK) whose existence is dubious, based on a study by a social media analyst and statements from a defector from the group. Amir Basiri, who contributed to Forbes 9 times, the Washington Examiner 52 times, OpenDemocracy, Algemeiner, and The Hill once also appears to be a fabrication.
The MEK is an Iranian exile group for which John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and other foreign policy luminaries have given paid speeches. Dems like Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean have also spoken on their behalf. But the group has American blood on its hands, has been accused of practicing forced sterilization, and their belief system has been described as a mixture of Marxism and Islamism. Its supporters claim they, and their front group the National Council of Resistance of Iran, are a sort of government-in-exile, despite nearly nonexistent support for the group within Iran. They also have waged a substantial disinformation campaign in the Western press, in particular targeting conservative media.
“Amir Basiri and Heshmat Alavi are two fake accounts,” Hassan Heyrani, an MEK defector told TAC. “At Camp Liberty, near the BIAP airport in Iraq, I was in the political unit of the organization with some of the persons who grew up in America and Canada. We worked as a team to write the articles analyzing the Iranian regime. The MEK put them in The Washington Post and all the newspapers in Western countries.”
Basiri’s op-eds focus on the need for regime change in Iran which he claimed is “within reach.” The thrust of Basiri’s writing – last placed at the Examiner in October of 2018 – is to encourage American readers to take an interest and sympathize with the plight of Iranian protesters and dissidents. Basiri consistently argued against the Iran nuclear deal, downplayed terrorism against Iran, called for tougher sanctions as a method of regime change and highlighted the necessity of Trump working with the Iranian opposition.
“We are currently looking into the matter, so I won’t comment on this specific byline,” Philip Klein, Executive Editor and Commentary Editor of the Washington Examiner told TAC. “But I will say that we have recently instituted more rigorous vetting of outside contributors, including but not limited to asking for photo identification if necessary. We are especially on guard when it comes to unsolicited foreign policy commentary.”
A request for comment from OpenDemocracy, a site greatly concerned about disinformation campaigns, has not been returned as of press time. Basiri’s articles on Forbes are no longer online. (Update: Julian Richards, managing editor of OpenDemocracy, writes, “This article was submitted to us through our normal process and our editor corresponded with Amir Basiri about the text. In light of the allegations you have made, we have removed the article text from our site for the time being and I have written to the email address that Amir Basiri used to ask for confirmation of his identity.”)
The list of MEK disinformation tactics also includes fake online since-deleted sites such as PersiaNow and ArabEye and questionable sites such as Iran Focus whose domain was formerly registered under the name of an NCRI spokesperson and is now anonymously held.
MEK’s recent influence campaign on Facebook spearheaded by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) was recently reported on last year by Lachlan Markey at the Daily Beast. Markey explained how NCRI lobbyist Soheila Aligholi Mayelzadeh has helped place paid ads on Facebook reaching between 500,000 to 1.4 million users as part of the campaign to sway US public opinion in favor of MEK and intervention in Iran.
The list of outright fakes recently in the realm of foreign policy analysis is significant: there is the apparent Emirati fabrication Raphael Badani to MEK sock puppet Alavi, first revealed by The Intercept, to deepfake non-existent anti-Palestinian activist Oliver Taylor, whose work was placed at highly-respected publications in the United States and Israel.
As Adam Rawnsley wrote for the Daily Beast, “Badani is part of a network of at least 19 fake personas that has spent the past year placing more than 90 opinion pieces in 46 different publications. The articles heaped praise on the United Arab Emirates and advocated for a tougher approach to Qatar, Turkey, Iran and its proxy groups in Iraq and Lebanon.”
Geoff Golberg is the founder of Social Forensics, which tracks and monitors online social media networks and disinformation campaigns. Golberg’s run-in and exposure of various pro-MEK personas, sock puppets and boosters came just prior to his Twitter suspension in July of 2019, the official reason for which was calling an account he believed to be fake and interfering in Canada’s elections a “moron.”
“Rather than suspending accounts that blatantly violate Twitter Rules, Dorsey instead opted to silence my voice. Specific to Iranian-focused platform manipulation, along with The Intercept, I helped out ‘Heshmat Alavi’ as a sockpuppet propaganda operation run by the MEK. Remarkably, despite initially suspending the fake account, ‘Heshmat Alavi’ has been reinstated by Twitter and continues to disseminate propaganda,” Golberg said, adding that Basiri – whose account is currently suspended by Twitter – is another fake persona which has been on his radar for some time. He produced the following graphic demonstrating the interconnectedness of the two accounts:
Golberg said he knows little of geopolitics or political aspects and was led to investigate sock puppet accounts fomenting war with Iran because he noticed many oddities about their networks, followers and tweeting patterns. His further research and analysis led him down a rabbit hole of connections and resulted in death threats, mass reporting of his account and accusations that he sympathized with the Ayatollah’s regime.
Rather than the hype over Russian bots, the real danger on platforms like Twitter is fake accounts and troll farm accounts which amplify hashtags, spread lies and bolster the desired propaganda of their paymaster, Golberg says.
“Despite media coverage that tends to focus on ‘bots,’ which simply means fully-automated accounts, Twitter’s much larger problem is actually fake accounts. There are more than 100K fake accounts that exist solely to create the illusion of widespread sentiment that the US should go to war with Iran,” Golberg told TAC, adding, “Take ‘Sheldon,’ @patrick_jane77, for example, an account that reflects having nearly 120K Followers. Very few of the account’s Followers are authentic accounts, yet given Twitter refuses to enforce their own rules, it is easy to mistake “Sheldon” for being a popular account. Twitter’s entire platform is propped up by misleading or inflated Followers/Following counts. Twitter’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, has built a house of cards and continues to commit ad fraud at a massive scale.”
Golberg sued Twitter earlier this year, alleging that the platform engaged in “deceptive practices” and hasn’t stood by its own terms of service.
Accusations from MEK supporter Hanif Jazayeri that The American Conservative itself and senior editor Daniel Larison act as a mouthpiece for the mullahs are part of a broader campaign aimed at maligning the reputation and integrity of anyone who opposes regime change in Iran. Tweets calling for investigations of TAC also came from noted MEK sock puppet Alavi, MEK spokesman Shahin Gobadi and NCRI’s Ali Safavi.
A barrage of accounts retweeted Jazayeri’s accusations, many with only a few followers and which solely tweet boosting the MEK and supporting regime change in Iran.
It’s worth noting that Heshmat Alavi was following Amir Basiri prior to his suspension, as were others closely connected to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies such as Jerusalem Post Iran hawk Seth Frantzman, @sfrantzman, Jazayeri and a number of other pro-MEK shills. It is a hall of mirrors amplifying the case for war with Iran, and the ad money from NCRI and pro-MEK accounts seems to have dampened Twitter’s desire to crack down. A request for comment from Twitter was not returned as of press time.
As a matter of journalistic ethics any organization engaging in systematic dishonesty like this has provided a very good reason to blacklist them. Failing to do so will encourage other foreign interests to do the same in the future, so conservative publishers should decline all content and interviews from the MEK in the future. This is not a matter of foreign policy differences: if you wish to see the U.S. pursue regime change in Iran, the MEK does not help make that case. Any publishers or think tanks who are aware of this dishonesty and still treat them like a legitimate opposition group should be considered part of a campaign not wholly different from the last time we were lied into a Mideast war.
Arthur Bloom is the managing editor of TAC.
Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for the BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to The Week, The Federalist, and others. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com.
Arthur Bloom is editor of The American Conservative online.