Jim Patterson and Vice President Mike Pence

Jim Patterson, left, with Vice President Mike Pence, Washington, D.C.

Ukraine, Iran and Trump

James Patterson 

At a recent Washington meeting, Vice President Mike Pence and I talked about several current issues, including the Trump administration’s economic sanctions against Iran, Democrat California Rep. Adam Schiff’s secret impeachment hearings, Ukraine, and the administration’s enforcement of laws against international financial crimes.

Iran recently celebrated the 40^th anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Iranians blame the U.S. for supporting the Shah of Iran until he was overthrown by revolutionaries. The Shah died in exile in Egypt in 1980.

Former President Barack Obama endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran to control nuclear production. This “Iran deal” was never authorized by Congress and Iran was never in technical compliance with Obama’s deal. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said the JCPOA was a “disaster” and pledged to withdraw from it once he was elected. President Trump fulfilled his promise.

Since President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, Iran has advanced meddlesome military adventurism including seizing oil tankers in international waters, using drones to hit Saudi Arabian petroleum refineries, and actively destabilizing the government of Yemen. Iran’s extreme and hostile actions appear designed to draw the Trump administration into a conflict.

President Trump has successfully practiced steady diplomacy with increasingly hard economic sanctions aimed at discouraging Iran from military conflict. How long this can last is anyone’s guess. In recent days, Iran has expressed a desire to improve relations with Saudi Arabia. This represents progress. Whether this is real progress, is another matter.

Vice President Pence told me that he feels the sanctions are the right economic tools to use against Iran and he estimates their economy has shrunk by as much as 10 percent due to sanctions. Various news sources, including CNBC, agree the Iranian economy is suffering due to sanctions.

President Donald Trump is not worried he will be impeached, the Vice President said. Neither is the Republican controlled U.S. Senate or Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is trading at records highs.

Readers know I served at the Republican National Committee during the House impeachment of Bill Clinton. The House impeached Clinton for sodomizing Monica Lewinsky and lying about it under oath. Clinton was disbarred. The U.S. Senate, under Democratic control, acquitted Clinton with an important vote against impeachment by then-Senator Joe Biden.

Rumor is that President Trump may watch and tweet (Tweet Watch) the televised House Impeachment Hearings. Trump considers impeachment a joke and he is readying to get laughs at the expense of the comical Congressman Adam Schiff and, very likely, millions of votes. Schiff is no match for Donald Trump. I believe the identity of the government whistleblower should be disclosed to the public. President Trump and the American people need to see and hear the whistleblower.  

In 1991, Ukraine gained independence when the Soviet Union collapsed. It has struggled and openly sought political and economic alliances with Europe. This angered Russia’s Vladimir Putin and he invaded the Ukraine and annexed Crimea. See http://www.breakingpointfilm.com/ for information on Ukraine’s fight for democracy and statements former Ukrainian Ambassador Bill Miller and I made about the documentary.

Ukraine asked the Obama administration for military aid to fight the Russian invasion. Cowardly Obama and cowardly Secretary of State John Kerry shamefully turned their backs on Ukraine. President Trump provided the vital U.S. government assistance, including financial aid, that Ukraine needed.

After European intervention, Ukraine began to stabilize. Then came former Vice President Joe Biden who allegedly intervened to aid a corporation on which his son Hunter was a board member. In the final years of the Obama administration, Washington had no greater influence peddler than Joe Biden. From the looks of things, Biden was also engaged in international influence peddling in China, and Romania, as well as Ukraine.  

Joe Biden is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Due to his age, questions about his mental status, and a strong field of younger and brighter candidates, I do not believe Biden will be on the November 2020 ballot.

Financial crimes are among the largest growing criminal activity and U.S. citizens are targeted by international criminals. Insist that Washington take more steps to combat financial crimes like money laundering, and tax evasion.

Vice President Pence was the campaign trail for Republicans prior to the Nov. 5 elections in Mississippi, Kentucky, Virginia and elsewhere. He is ready for the Main Event: Trump/Pence 2020! If you support President Trump, write your friends in other states and tell them of your support and ask them to vote Trump/Pence 2020!

-30-

Writer/Speaker Jim Patterson is a member of Alabama’s State Society in Washington, D,C.  JEPDiplomat@gmail.com

Jim Patterson is a member of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations and Friend of the Israeli Defense Forces.


I mailed President Trump a copy of my recent New York Post, Letter to the Editor.

Jim Patterson Commentary on Global Political Advertising By Social Media Re: San Francisco Chronicle Editorial

San Francisco Chronicle Nov. 2, 2019
EDITORIAL On Political Advertising

A social network disconnect


This fall, Facebook announced that the company wouldn’t fact-check advertisements from politicians, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has faced a tsunami of political and media criticism ever since.

On Wednesday, he faced the most interesting rebuke so far — from one of his peers.

“We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally,” tweeted Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey. “We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.”

Dorsey went on to explain what he believed to be the difference between free expression and political advertising: “Paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle,” he wrote.

He added that it was “not credible” for Twitter to say that it was working hard to stop people from “gaming our systems,” but that they “can say whatever they want” should they pay Twitter for a targeted ad.

Both statements were a clear swipe at Zuckerberg, who has insisted that Facebook’s policy is about democratic free speech, and that the company’s investments in election security are working to prevent bad actors from spreading misinformation on the platform. (Dorsey certainly drove the point home by making his announcement just a few minutes ahead of Facebook’s quarterly earnings call.)

It’s certainly entertaining to watch two tech titans duke it out in the court of public opinion, but this battle is bigger than both of them.

Political misinformation on social media platforms warped the 2016 presidential election. In the years since then, technological improvements in artificial intelligence and “deep fake” video have increased the sophistication of misinformation campaigns, while inaction on Capitol Hill and loopholes in platform policy have ensured that bad actors will continue finding ways to deceive voters.

The landscape is complicated, and there are no easy answers.

Zuckerberg’s refusal to engage with the realities of political propaganda and platform responsibility is sophomoric and dangerous. Free speech is not the same thing as paid speech. Neither is the same as misinformation. It’s galling enough that Facebook has chosen to profit from the latter; pretending that it’s doing so for the good of the republic is simply outrageous.

Hundreds of Facebook’s own employees agree — in a letter they recently sent to Zuckerberg, they wrote “this policy has the potential to continue to cause harm in coming elections around the world,” and urged him to hold political ads to the same standards as other ads. Vocal internal dissent is relatively rare at Facebook. The public opposition of both employees and competitors should encourage Zuckerberg to reconsider this decision — ideally as soon as possible.

But Dorsey’s approach carries risks of its own. How will Twitter judge what kind of advertising should be labeled political? Could the policy have a disproportionate impact on advocates for social causes, or new candidates seeking to challenge incumbents?

When an increasing number of issues carry political overtones, simply banning political advertising is a more complex task than it may first appear.

-30-

Jim Patterson comment: I agree with Jack Dorsey that “Paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle.” I'd substitute "global political infrastructure" for "democratic infrastructure." If an entity, such as a Communist government, can control elections around the world, and I believe they continue to do so, then Social Media could lead to increased Communist influence and, possibly, domination. This should alarm everyone. Those seeking to use social media platforms, like Twitter, for political misinformation campaigns will work to find ever more subtle ways to influence political systems and gain broader control.