Leftists want publishers to ban any books by Trump associates
Unfortunately, something I predicted here just days ago has come to pass...much quicker than even I expected. A number of academics and publishing professionals have come together to demand that companies refuse to publish books by Trump administration officials. (At least the ones who still support him.)
Leftist thugs also recently successfully pressured Simon and Schuster into canceling the publication of Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)'s book after he had the temerity to object to the certification of election results in a couple of key battleground states. (Hawley is now apparently going to have his book published by Regnery.)
More than 550 members of the publishing industry, including several professors, recently signed a letter averring that "our country is where it is in part because publishing has chased the money and notoriety of some pretty sketchy people." Ergo, they sniffed, "[a]s members of the writing and publishing community of the United States, we affirm that participation in the administration of Donald Trump must be considered a uniquely mitigating criterion for publishing houses when considering book deals."
If they were truly worried about "pretty sketchy people" being allowed to write books, they would bemoan the fact that Al Gore, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, and Michael Moore all wrote books the publishing industry gladly published. (As have several serial killers.) In any case, the First Amendment wouldn't mean much if "pretty sketchy people" were not allowed to speak or write.
The letter-writers continued: "Consequently, we believe: No participant in an administration that caged children, performed involuntary surgeries on captive women, and scoffed at science as millions were infected with a deadly virus should be enriched by the almost rote largesse of a big book deal. In that spirit, those who enabled, promulgated, and covered up crimes against the American people should not be enriched through the coffers of publishing." Talk about projection!
"Performed involuntary surgeries on captive women"? That sounds more like China, eggheads. But you don't care, as you wouldn't ban books by Chairman Mao or Xi Jinping, and most of your universities are rife with Chinese spies and infiltrators. "Caged children?" See also, Obama administration. "Scoffed at science?" Trump was right about hydroxychloroquine, UV light's ability to kill the coronavirus, and several other things science-related, while Dr. Fauci, the WHO, the CDC, and other assorted experts kept changing their message to fit a predetermined narrative...behavior that is utterly unscientific.
Tania James was one of those who signed the letter. n She is an associate professor at George Mason University and a novelist who has won awards from the New York Times, NPR, and the San Francisco Chronicle. (Imagine that.) I don't think these academic and publishing industry insiders should have been permitted to publish their letter. Furthermore, the New York Times has published demonstrably false and hurtful articles such as those on the "1619 Project" — articles that are nothing less than libelous against the United States and its founders...and which present a clear and present danger to the nation. Many other newspapers have as well.
I don't think these "monsters" should be allowed to enrich themselves through the coffers of publishing. Do you?
Image via Pixy.