Bug-Eyed Revenge By Charles Taylor
The crazed elites are plotting revenge on Trumpers. But do the Trumpers care, being already vilified for so long? Who will care if a bunch of pathetic soy drinkers make a list? Sure, you may not get a job in academia, but who cares? Really, who cares about a job anyway?
“In any event, some Democrats and other leftists are actually calling for reprisals and retribution against fully one-quarter of the country — the 73 million Americans who count themselves as backers and supporters of President Trump.
Only, doing so could cost them dearly instead, in terms of financial fallout.
Ronald Reagan’s presidential biographer, Craig Shirley, wants people like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to digest a piece of advice over their threats of political and economic revenge against Trump supporters: You’d be better off keeping such threats to yourself.
“Tortious interference has been a law since before the Constitution. It is illegal, and has been for years for a third party to interfere with the legal commerce between one party and another,” Shirley told The Epoch Times last week.
“If she is responsible for even one person in the United States not getting a job or getting fired and the boss says, ‘I’m not hiring you because of what AOC said,’ or ‘I’m not hiring you because of your politics,’ she has committed tortious interference and has opened herself up to massive litigation,” he said.
Shirley offered his perspective after Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter three days after the Nov. 3 elections: “Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future.”
Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future
She followed that up with: “Lol at the ‘party of personal responsibility’ being upset at the idea of being responsible for their behavior over last four years.”
The purpose, of course, is to keep track of Trump’s supporters and then ‘dox’ them or otherwise pressure companies not to hire them.
Other libtards took the bait.
“You better believe it. We just launched the Trump Accountability Project to make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did,” Hari Sevugan, a former Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokesman responded.”
“Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has called to list down people who supported President Donald Trump for “accountability.” In a Nov. 7 tweet, the congresswoman asked: “Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity [with the president] in the future?” Michael Simon, a former official in the administration of former President Barack Obama, answered in the affirmative. “Yes, we are,” Simon responded, adding that “every [Trump administration] staffer, campaign staffer, bundler, lawyer who represented them” was included in the so-called Trump Accountability Project.
The project’s website exhorted: “[We] must never forget those who helped further the Trump agenda.” It added that the world should never forget people who “when faced with a decision, chose to put their money, their time and their reputations” on “separating children from their families, encouraging racism and anti-Semitism and … causing the unnecessary loss of life and economic devastation [brought about by the U.S. response] to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The site describes itself as a permanent record of those who helped put Trump in the White House from 2016 to 2020. Names listed on the site included Trump campaign staffers, Republican National Committee members, Trump-affiliated political action committees (PACs) in 2016 and 2020 and donors who gave $1000 or more to Trump’s re-election campaign. Other people who worked in the Trump administration, were appointed to federal boards, commissions or the judiciary by Trump and represented the Trump name in any capacity were also listed.
However, the project received sharp criticism on social media platforms, which prompted the organizers to revise the reason for the site’s existence. They clarified that the list intended to expose paid backers of the Trump administration, removing the stipulations referencing those who “served,” “represented,” and “supported” him.
In a later tweet, Ocasio-Cortez laughed at how Republicans were “upset at the idea of being responsible for their behavior over [the] last four years.”
This “name-and-shame” behavior is reminiscent of Communist purges
Several figures who opposed the president expressed support toward the Trump Accountability Project.
Emily Abrams, a former campaign operative for erstwhile Democratic presidential nominee Pete Buttigieg, tweeted before making her account private: “We’re launching the Trump Accountability Project to make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did.”
Attorney Ben Meiselas of the Geragos & Geragos warned in a Nov. 7 tweet: “If you hire someone who remained with the Trump admin after the election, be on notice [as] you will be held accountable … and we will ensure you are exposed.” Along with his two brothers, Meiselas established the MeidasTouch PAC, which aims to stop Trump’s 2020 re-election.
Conservative news site The GatewayPundit said the Trump Accountability Project’s “name-and-shame” strategy had some similarities with the Great Purge in Russia from 1936 to 1938. The Russian campaign involved the persecution of wealthy peasants and ethnic minorities, arbitrary executions, the purging of the Red Army, the Communist Party and government officials, and widespread police surveillance. The Great Purge eliminated people considered enemies of the state by Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union during that period.
The site added: “We are watching history repeat itself.”
The Trump Accountability project follows in the footsteps of a similar effort to name and shame Trump supporters. Donald Trump Watch allowed users to search a list of people who donated to Trump’s campaign and find their addresses online. One can even search by ZIP code or street address and find a clickable map showing people who supported a “racist” with their cash donations.
However, not all Trump supporters were cowed by the intimidation.
Elijah Schaffer, who hosts the Slightly Offens*ve podcast, said in a now-deleted tweet: “A sitting congresswoman, Rep. Alexandria [Ocasio]-Cortez, threatened 69 million voting American citizens who support President Trump. The Second Amendment was created to protect us from people like her.”
Schaffer ended the tweet by saying he and other Trump supporters were not afraid of the New York state lawmaker, and issued a challenge: “Try us.””
“We have been discussing the call for blacklists and the campaign of harassment against Trump supporters, lawyers, and officials after the election. Now Harvard students are asking for the university to establish a preemptive bar on former Trump officials and consultants from entering the campus until they are reviewed and vetted. Rather than see universities as an opportunity for dialogue and understanding of our deep divisions, the students seem to be following the lead of Democratic leaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) who are calling for lists of anyone “complicit” with the Trump Administration. The students demand that any Trump officials be barred pending a review of their record to “hold them fully accountable for that complicity.”
Harvard University students wrote a letter addressed to Harvard president Lawrence Bacow and other leadership calling for the action against Trump consultants and officials. It acknowledges the potential impact on free speech but declares:
We acknowledge this situation is nuanced as many appointees and career officials chose to join this administration to pursue the public good in spite of these norm violations. Others might claim to have upheld these norms from within. We are simply asking the school to create and share with students transparent guidelines of accountability that ensure its full commitment to the principles American democracy is built upon.
We remain fully committed to free speech and debate of difficult subjects — especially the damage being done to democratic governance around the world. We do not believe, however, that individuals who engage in this behavior should be legitimized or rewarded by the university. An institution dedicated to the fostering of good democratic government should remain apart from those who were willing to bring it down for their own benefit.
Notably, Harvard regularly hears from academics, including former foreign government officials, from some of the most repressive nations on Earth. I support such engagement because it allows for a full and robust discussion of core issues and policies. Yet, the students are demanding a special rule for Trump officials.
The controversy reminds me of the New York Times denouncing the publication of a column from Sen. Tom Cotton while publishing the views of dictators and their surrogates. The New York Times on published an opinion column by Regina Ip, the Hong Kong official widely denounced as “Beijing’s enforcer.” Ip declared “Hong Kong is part of China” and dismissed the protesters fighting for freedom in their city. I had no objection to the publishing of the column. Ip is a major figure in Hong Kong and, despite her support for authoritarian rule and crushing dissent, there is a value to having such views as part of the public debate. Rather, my concern is that the New York Times was denounced by many of us for its cringing apology after publishing a column by Sen. Cotton and promising not to publish future such columns. Ip recently mocked the protests as every pro-democracy legislator left the Hong Kong legislature.
The point is not to call for blocking a wider array of views but embracing the value of having the free exchange of all views. Trump officials were supported by roughly half of this country. The last election resulted in the Republicans picking up seats in the House and likely holding the election. Indeed, President-elect Joe Biden carried a series of states with a narrow margin. Yet, the students want any Trump consultant or official to face an immediate, preemptive hold depending review of their background.
What is most disturbing is that some faculty support this effort. The letter disregards the many fellow citizens — and presumably students — who supported the Trump Administration. While professors have systemically reduced conservatives and libertarians on top faculties to a small minority, they continue to maintain that they are not showing the same bias against conservative or libertarian students. Yet, these letters isolate not just Trump officials, but Trump supporters who are part of the Harvard community.”
This is just a sample of the way the Left operates, all the while we have the counter-claim of the call for “unity.” There can be no unity with such creatures.
Comments