Mediaboss Marketing

Photo: Mary Altaffer/AP/Shutterstock

Mondaire Jones was first elected in 2020 to represent parts of Westchester County and Rockland County in Congress, becoming one of the first Black and openly gay members of Congress. But this year, a fiercely debated redistricting process merged his district with that of another fellow progressive, Jamaal Bowman. Rather than challenge Bowman, Jones moved 30 miles south to Brooklyn, where hes running in the newly redrawn Tenth Congressional District.

As a result, the congressman has drawn predictable allegations of carpetbagging in his race against a large field of primary candidates, including City Councilmember Carlina Rivera, State Assemblymember Yuh-Line Niou, former congresswoman Liz Holtzman, and veteran federal prosecutor Dan Goldman (who was recently endorsed by the New York Times editorial board).

In his bid, Jones has been backed by the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and many of his congressional colleague,s including Representatives Jamie Raskin and Pramila Jayapal and Senators Cory Booker and Ed Markey. I spoke to Jones about his decision to run in another district, what actions should be taken on student-loan debt, and how Democrats need to improve their messaging to voters.

It goes without saying that redistricting forced a lot of people to change their campaign plans. For you, that resulted in you choosing to run in the Tenth District. What went into that decision?New Yorks redistricting has been a disaster. The Republican acting Supreme Court judge adopted a Republican gerrymander intended to reduce the number of Democrats in New Yorks congressional delegation and reduce the number of progressives of color. My residence was drawn into the same district where Jamaal Bowman had announced his candidacy. My options were to run against a fellow Black progressive and one of the few people who fully appreciates the threats that we face as a nation in this moment or to run against the chair of the DCCC, whose primary job responsibility it is to help us keep our majority and defeat fascism in America. It was an impossible situation. I decided to run to represent a community that has given me a lot to me. One that helped me come out as an openly gay man in America and live an authentic life. A community that I have worked in and that I now live in. And, most importantly, one whose communities I have already been fighting for and delivering for as a sitting member of Congress.

What would you say to voters who might know and respect your work in Congress but wonder if you know the district well enough to represent it?I have been working diligently with stakeholders throughout lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, diving into issues like the BQE and Gowanus Canal and the Lower East Side Coastal Resiliency Project, as well as having done a listening session with leaders in Chinatown around public safety, anti-AAPI hate, and our broken economy. Im proud to be endorsed by four different labor unions as well as the Grand Street Democrats and tenant-association leaders like Dereese Huff in Campos Plaza.

Why are you the best choice to represent the Tenth District?Voters in the Tenth want and deserve a progressive champion with a track record of actually delivering results. I am that candidate in this race. I am a leading progressive member of Congress who has helped bring billions of dollars to New York City for schools, housing, and health care. I also played a key role in getting not just Build Back Better passed through the House last fall but in enacting the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law through bringing progressives like myself and our conservative Democratic colleagues together to pass both of those bills. Now, billions of dollars are coming to New York City for infrastructure and I am running, in part, to bring as many of those dollars to lower Manhattan and to Brooklyn as possible. Im also the guy who had the vision to introduce legislation to expand the Supreme Court, long before it became popular, because I knew that we would find ourselves in this moment. My Democratic colleagues scoffed at me at the time, but now the American people are on my side. We need bold, visionary leaders like me in Congress who are willing to fight with Republicans while pushing our fellow Democrats to fight harder for the things that we say we believe in.

What did you make of the Times endorsement of Dan Goldman?Many people who read the New York Times endorsement, which featured more favorable references to the work Ive done as a sitting member of Congress, were left wondering why the endorsement was not explicitly of me rather than Mr. Goldman. Since the publication of that endorsement, New York Citys press corps is abuzz with discussion of the publisher potentially having intervened and overruled the editorial board with an instruction to endorse Dan Goldman over me in this hotly contested race. [A Times spokesperson says theres no connection between Goldman and the papers publisher.] My job is to run the strongest possible race and to let journalists do whatever investigatory work that they want to do about this.

You recently just teamed up with one of your opponents in the race, Yuh-Line Niou, for an event urging voters to support anyone but Goldman. Why?This is one of the most progressive districts in the entire United States. The idea that a self-funder who supports abortion restrictions and opposes progressive priorities like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and my legislation to expand the Supreme Court could buy his way into Congress is horrifying. It is especially horrifying at a time when we face overlapping crises requiring bold progressive leadership to get us through the climate crisis and the assault on fundamental rights as well as rising wealth inequality and wage stagnation. Can you imagine Mr. Goldman, who would become the richest member of the House, and who has not been civically engaged during the time he has not been spending at one of his many summer homes, representing NYCHA residents in Congress?

Congress just passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes significant funding for climate initiatives. What other actions should be taken to further address climate change?We need more than rebates and tax credits. We need affirmative mandates on the business community so that we can accelerate our reduction of carbon emissions by the year 2030 and by the year 2050. We also have to do more to make clean, renewable energy affordable for working-class people. We need to retrofit our public housing, and we need to create millions more electric-vehicle-charging stations. We need the Department of Defense to do the things that Ive been calling for it to do, which is reduce its carbon emissions.

An issue thats on the top of the minds of many voters is that of student-loan debt. President Biden has already taken some steps with debt relief, particularly dealing with for-profit schools, but do you believe Biden should tackle student-loan debt in a more substantial way?I am proud to have helped get this president to a point where he will now cancel some student debt. I think all of it should be canceled. We have reached a legislative impasse that requires executive action, specifically under the Higher Education Act. When I met with the president in the Roosevelt Room a few months ago, I told him that student-debt cancellation isnt just an issue of racial justice and of gender justice. It is also an issue of LGBTQ+ justice. We know that members of the LGBTQ+ community disproportionately have student-loan debt because their families are more likely to disown them and not provide the support that other people in our society received from their family members.

That is the value of having bold progressive leaders like me in Congress who are able to pivot to other ways, outside of the legislative process, of accomplishing progressive goals while still fighting hard legislatively in Congress. I also did this with Cori Bush and AOC last August when we rallied outside the Capitol on those steps for days on end calling for the president to reverse his position and instruct the CDC to extend the nations eviction moratorium, which he did. Thats the kind of savvy progressive leadership that I have already demonstrated. Many people have asked the question, Why would you not send someone like that back to Congress? Especially in such a time as this when on-the-job training is not something we should be accommodating.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, theres been a push to codify abortion rights on the federal and state level.What steps are you personally advocating for?I have called for a Supreme Court expansion to restore balance, integrity, and a pro-fundamental-rights majority to a rogue, far-right institution. I have also been leading the fight to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Most cases decided by the Court, the Court is only able to decide because Congress has specifically legislated jurisdiction for it to do so. I have pushed to include provisions in the Womens Health Protection Act and in my legislation with Jerry Nadler, called the Respect for Marriage Act, to deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to review matters arising under those statutes and to channel jurisdiction to more favorable courts like the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. I think that kind of creative, aggressive energy is needed now more than ever to protect fundamental rights. We know that Justice Thomas and his majority are not stopping with the issue of abortion. He said as much in his concurring opinion in Dobbs.

Public safety is a significant issue for many New Yorkers, but, at the same time, there are some who are concerned that some moves to improve safety could come at the expense of criminal-justice reform. How should lawmakers try to balance those two concerns? New Yorkers deserve to feel and actually be safe. Black and brown communities also deserve to not be overpoliced and brutalized. We need a member of Congress from this district who is going to push state, local, and federal governments not to be reactionary but rather to address the root causes of crime. That means investments in education, housing, and mental-health support. It also means ending the epidemic of gun violence through common-sense federal action, like the assault-weapons ban that I helped pass in the House as a very active member of the Judiciary Committee. And it means giving law enforcement the tools to address the rise in white-supremacist domestic terrorism, whether against our AAPI brothers and sisters, our Jewish brothers and sisters, or other communities of color.

You mentioned making reforms to mental-health care in this country. What are some actions that the federal government could take there that it hasnt so far?The federal government could pass Medicare for All, which I am proud to co-sponsor and be a champion for, unlike my opponent, Daniel Goldman, who opposes Medicare for All. It would make sure that people have the mental-health support they need as a human right, regardless of their employment status or how much money they have in their pockets or bank accounts.

Theres speculation that the Democratic Party could lose control of the House following November. How are you feeling about your partys chances in the midterms?Im feeling optimistic, especially given the climate and health-care bill we passed last Friday (the Inflation Reduction Act), which the president will sign today. However, we need to be able to message our accomplishments to the American people in a way that is galvanizing. We also have to assure people that, if we retain the majority, we will continue to make transformational change. Those two projects have not been well executed this congressional term. Weve got to tell people not only to vote but what were going to do if they vote us back in. It means weve got to tell people were going to pick up just at least two more Democratic Senate seats to make future filibusters an impossibility.

So you feel that theres sometimes this disconnect between what the party can and has accomplished and how much voters know about that and understand that?There is that disconnect. There is also a disconnect among many people in the House Democratic Caucus and how Democratic voters in particular are feeling. Its not enough, as I have reminded some of my colleagues, to tell people that we are better than the other folks. Most Americans know that. Most Americans also agree overwhelmingly with the policies that we propose.

The issue is that people dont trust us to get these things done. They see unified Democratic control of the federal government in this moment, and they wonder why we havent passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act after the largest protest movement in generations a few summers ago. They wonder how it could be that we couldnt get Build Back Better through the House last fall when weve got a majority in the Senate, the majority in the House, and a president of the United States who is moderate yet proposed that legislation. This is why we need people like me to continue to give people hope that there are folks within the House Democratic Caucus and within the broader Democratic Party who get what is at stake and what we need to be fighting for in this moment. Not folks like Dan Goldman who think Donald Trump started all of our problems and that all of our problems will go away once hes out of the picture.

I ran for Congress last cycle because I knew firsthand based on my upbringing and based on being an openly gay Black man in America that we had a lot of problems in this country even before Donald Trump was elected president of the United States in 2016. For me, policy is personal.

So you think there is too much focus on Donald Trump?As I said during the last debate, the Republican Party was an anti-democratic, racist party long before the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Donald Trump didnt happen overnight. Voters in the modern-day Republican Party were prepared to vote for a figure like Donald Trump and are prepared to reelect him in 2024, despite all of the evidence of his criminality and mismanagement of our economy during his first presidency.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

Read the rest here:
Mondaire Jones on the Need to Meet Progressive Expectations - New York Magazine

The Manly Sea Eagles rainbow jersey saga represents the new progressive Holy Trinity of diversity, inclusion, and equality with a steep social penalty for failing to toe the line.

Anyone declining to affirm this new godhead, even if remaining neutral, find themselves denounced as heretics and subjected to public shaming. Progressives claim to promote tolerance but hypocritically exclude those with different views or beliefs, including those who do not actively demonstrate allegiance to progressive orthodoxy.

Identity politics has been weaponised to divide the believers from the non-believers and manufacture divisions that create unnecessary polarisation within society.

The Australia of today is accepting, open-minded, and very far from the bastion of homophobia and transphobia that fringe rainbow activists would have you believe. In 2017, over 60 per cent of the population (myself included) voted in a plebiscite to approve changes to the Marriage Act 1961allowing same-sex couples to marry. Same-sex couples now enjoy equal rights with heterosexual couples under the law, and many Australians have celebrated the joy of seeing loved ones able to marry their same-sex partners.

People with same-sex orientation are protected from discrimination under an array of federal and state laws. They also enjoy significant funding and support from all levels of government in addition to the private sector contributions.

Prominent LGBTQ+ charity ACON receives over $12 million annually from the New South Wales Minister for Health to promote their agenda, with an additional $12 million earmarked earlier this year specifically for the New South Wales LGBTQ+ Health Strategy including gender-affirming care. The City of Sydney is hosting World Pride in 2023, assisted by a generous grant of $500,000 from Lord Mayor Clover Moore. The annual Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (that has its roots in 1978 when gays and lesbians were shamefully subjected to police brutality and arrested on Oxford St simply for protesting for equal rights under the law) is now a fully corporatised, sponsored, family-friendly televised event that is attended by politicians, businesses, and government departments. During Pride Month, the Sydney CBD and Town Hall are festooned with the ever-more inclusive Progress flag. On Transgender Day of Remembrance, New South Wales Police fly the trans flag over their headquarters for a week. The taxpayer-funded ABC also has an entire platform, ABC Queer,dedicated to LGBTQ+ issues.

The battle for LGB rights has been won with the achievement of equality under the law, yet fringe activists operating under the ever-expanding LGBTQ+ rainbow umbrella are acting as if we are back in the dark ages of the 1970s when being gay or lesbian meant you could lose your job, be shunned by your community, excommunicated from your faith, denied healthcare or housing, lose custody of your children, be arrested, bashed, or even murdered.

Activist groups needed to pivot their ideology to continue to justify their oppression status, bloated taxpayer-funded budgets, and generous remuneration packages for professional activists.

Adding the T, I, Q, A, and thepluswas a stroke of marketing genius as it created new oppressed minorities to fight for. The legacy sympathy of the general public was capitalised upon, meaning that the previous acceptance of ordinary Australians for the legacy movement was no longer enough. Fringe activists using the rainbow as a cultural sword have morphed into an aggressive and retaliatory movement that denounces anyone as transphobes, homophobes, or bigots if they do not actively demonstrate allegiance to their ideological zealotry.

The demands of the LGBTQ+ movement know no bounds and they wield an inordinate amount of power in both public and private institutions through Diversity and Inclusion programs.

In New South Wales, ACON uses their Pride in Diversity program to lobby for ubiquitous influence within organisations, corporations, and government departments. Organisations that have signed up to the scheme are ranked on ACONs Australian Workplace Equality Indexwith trophies handed out at a glittering annual awards night.Points are earned for the index by the implementation of policies and procedures detailed in a lengthy compliance form that embeds an LGBTQ+ centric worldview.

Sport is not immune from this activism. ACONs Pride in Sport program, launched in October 2020, saw the NRL sign on as one of the nine major sporting codes to get involved. This has resulted in the prioritisation of LGBTQ+ activism about above all other minority groups. It has also had the unexpected consequence (from the publics perspective) of removing sex as the basis for sporting categories while granting access to facilities and resources on the basis of a self-declared gender identity. Women and girls are no longer assured of female-only teams, competitions, or change rooms.

Ian Roberts is an NRL champion who had the courage to come out in the 1990s when the gay community was still suffering the aftershocks of the AIDS epidemic. It was a tumultuous time for Roberts, exacting a personal toll with some players and sections of the media refusing to accept him. Roberts was recently used as the spokesperson for the Manly Sea Eagles Pride jersey announcement. Reportedly, it was an initiative of the marketing department where the shock announcement was foisted on players without consultation and, apparently, without the knowledge or consensus of the Sea Eagles players, the teams board, or major sponsors.

This tale should come as no surprise to those who are familiar with themodus operandifor institutional capture by Pride activists. Policies and campaigns are deliberately negotiated by stealth to avoid scrutiny or criticism, then presented as a fait accompli a common tactic used to prevent the involvement of other stakeholders who may object. Arguably, little or no consideration is given to other minority groups.

There is no suggestion that the Manly Sea Eagles marketing department was lobbied by ACONs Pride in Sport, but Roberts was a spokesperson for the Pride in Sport launch in 2020 when nine major Australian sporting codes, including the NRL, announced policies displacing biological sex as the characteristic for sporting categories in favour of self-declared gender identity.

Australia is a liberal democracy, and people are free to hold beliefs and practise religion without interference by the state, even if that includes offending those who believe in the LGBTQ+ orthodoxy.

Professor Peter Kurti said:

Religious discrimination bills that were presented in the last Parliament were not about upholding the right to religious freedom but rather provided an anti-discrimination framework that would protect religious people from discriminatory practises in public life.

Kurti added:

In a modern society such as ours, such legislation really should not be necessary, however, Christians are being singled out for attack and vulnerable to discrimination.

Other religious practises do not attract the same opprobrium when their followers make decisions based on the tenets of their faith. AFLW player Haneen Zreika, for example, did not attract the same level of vitriol when she declined to wear the Pride jersey due to her Muslim beliefs earlier this year.

According to professor Jioji Ravulo, the practise of the Christian religion in Pasifika culture is intertwined and indivisible from family and community. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, same-sex relationships were not shamed or othered, but regarded as an expression of connecting socially and relationally with others. The notion of fear and shame about homosexuality was imported into Pasifika culture by the colonisation of the West.

Kat Karena, a Maori woman of Rangitne and Ngti Kahungunu, Lesbian, and founder of LGB Defence said:

With many Polynesians, Christianity is a major part of family life and culture. If these Pacific Islanders choose family life and culture over sports, its their right of choice. It seems strange to me that Westerners are quick to cast slurs on those of a Polynesian culture who have had a longer history acceptance of homosexuality, than they.

Karena went on to add:

And it wasnt so long ago, it was the waving of the crosses and demands by their forefathers to kowtow. Nothings changed, now people are waving rainbow symbols instead of crosses and behind all of it is still about compliance over choice. I know that NRL signed up to ACONs Pride In Sports compliance audit. Under that rainbow audit most club players and members arent aware that public marketing of LGBQTIA is not a choice, as well as allowing males in womens changing rooms is not a choice for clubs, allowing me in womens sports, celebrating the many days of LGBQTIA, are not choices either under that audit. As a gay woman those are my reasons to reject Pride in Sports rainbow agenda, its not good for women, culture, or freedom of choice.

To their credit, Manly coach Des Hasler and the Manly Sea Eagles acknowledged that they had made a mistake in being insensitive to the culture and religion of the Manly Seven, although it came too late for the games against St George Illawarra Dragons, where the benching of those key players resulted in a 20-6 loss.

Australians overwhelmingly support LGB rights and are entirely comfortable with people of same-sex orientations, but the forced teaming of LGB with the T and the mandatory demonstrations of allegiance are creating a backlash. It is no longer possible to accept the existence of difference in our multicultural society. The Pride flag has morphed from representing gays and lesbians into a catchall Progressive banner which now includes self-declared Woke identities trans, queer, intersex, asexual, questioning, two-spirit, and any of the multitude of gender identities to be found in social media bios or on Tik Tok.

Rainbow activists profess to represent the most vulnerable and oppressed. Yet the refusal of the Manly Seven Pasifika men of faith to acquiesce to activist demands drew abuse, and they were sidelined. The hopes of Sea Eagles fans may have been dashed for the season, demonstrating to us all that LGBTQ+ activists are not the exemplars of diversity, inclusion, and equality that they claim to be. Rather, they are nothing more than authoritarians draped in rainbows and glitter.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Read the original post:
The progressive Holy Trinity is far from divine - The Spectator Australia

Commentary

Minister Pablo Rodriguezs Heritage Department is in a mess of its own creation.It just had to suspend an anti-racism project for which it had granted over $133,000 last year to the non-profit Community Media Advocacy Centre (CMAC) under the rubric of the departments Anti-Racism Action Program.

One of CMACs senior consultants is Beirut-based Laith Marouf, a longtime political actor, whose recently exposed hateful Twitter history has gone viral. Marouf, who appears to be Marxist, routinely expresses contempt for the West. Visiting the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Marouf tweetedthat he wish[ed] it was much bigger with the names of a few million dead corpses of USian dirt baggs (sic). His selfie at the Lincoln Memorial has Marouf telling [Lincoln] what I think of his [expletive] colony. Marouf also abhors the Qubcois. In one Twitter string, Marouf writes, originally in French: French frogs are very tasty roasted, Go back to your franco gutter and lol, I think Frogs have much less IQ than 77, and French is an ugly language.

But Maroufs disdain for everyone else pales beside his malignant loathing for Jews. Here, disdain turns to sewage. Samples: Life is too short for shoes without laces, or for entertaining Jewish White Supremacists with anything but a bullet to the head. He writes that Jewish White Supremacists are loud mouthed bags of human feces. Marouf falsely blamed the murder of a Muslim London family on Jews. He has excoriated Ukraines pretend-Jewish president and Nazi-Zionist alliance.

CMAC has a particular interest in enhancing the indigenous presence in media. But Marouf has demonstrated in public talks that Canadas indigenous people are merely tools for legitimizing discourse around his real passion, hatred for apartheid Israel.

At the Heritage-sponsored National Summit on Antisemitism, presided over by Irwin Cotler, Canadas Special Envoy for Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism (whom Marouf has publicly described as the Grand Wizard of Zionism in this Colony), a First Nations woman opened the proceedings with a ritual blessing. Marouf punished her with a vicious tweet, calling her a whacko Indigenous House-Slave of Apartheid Canada. This occurred in July 2021, two months after the CRTC awarded $16,815.10 to the CMAC. Of that amount, nearly $13,000 was paid to Marouf and his fellow consultant Gretchen King, allegedly experts in combatting hate and racial prejudice, at a rate of $225 per hour each.

Mark Goldberg, an independent telecom analyst and consultant and co-founder of the Canadian Telecom Summit, has followed Maroufs trajectory closely, sharing his opinions on his blog. He alerted Heritage to the Marouf problem in April, but nothing was done to prevent Maroufs featured participation in CMACs forthcoming anti-racism series of programs across Canada, now in progress. In retaliation, Marouf has done his best to discredit Goldberg withwhat else?accusations on Twitter that he is a Zionist (evil by definition) who would love it if [Goldberg] had the power to steal Palestinian children from their families and put them in Infanticide Camps like in Apartheid Canada or Apartheid Israel.

Marouf is all talk now, but he began his activist career with disruptive action. In 2001, Marouf was barred from Concordia University in Montreal for vandalizing university property with anti-Israel slogans and threatening a security guard. In 2003, Marouf drew swastikas on an Israeli flag at a pro-Israel demonstration on Montreals Concordia University campus. At a hearing, he testified he had drawn the the inverted swastika, the Hindu circle of life, not the Nazi swastika. His student advocate said Maroufs action had been a political statement regarding the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government, not a symbol of hate. Add cowardice to his rap sheet.

Since Concordia days, Marouf has been failing upward, constantly purveying hate on the public dime, Mark Goldbergs assessment.

On Aug. 19, Heritages Diversity and Inclusion Minister Ahmed Hussen finally denounced as unacceptable the behaviour of this individual, adding he has asked Canadian Heritage to look closely at the situation. But why only now when embarrassed into it by Twitter outrage?

Aside from Goldbergs warnings, Liberal MP Anthony Housefather raised the issue with Minister Hussen and his staff months ago. Housefather told me in response to a query that he and other colleagues have persistently continued to do so. He stated: [Marouf] was hired as a consultant by an organization which demonstrated extremely poor judgment to say the least. The funding and contract should be halted immediately. Antisemitism needs to be treated with the same concern as any other type of racism or prejudice.

Antisemitism at high government levels isnt responsible for the long silence. Prime Minister Trudeau has unequivocally denounced even the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as a form of antisemitism. But Trudeau and his ministers are all progressives. If the cretinous Marouf had been an antisemite of the kind progressives are comfortable dealing with from a moral high grounda white neo-nazithey would have kicked him to the curb with the speed of summer lightning. As an extreme left-winger, he presents a conundrum for progressive politicians.

But also to influential anti-racism thought leaders.

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), for example, which previously received a $250K grant from Heritage to fight racism for the grant period that ended in March, offers no hint in its name that its policy is only to challenge Jew hatred from the right. In this case, the story was too big to ignore, so they mounted a scrupulously neutral reportage of Maroufs history on their website. This included Maroufs lawyers statement that his client doesnt have any animus toward the Jewish faith as a collective group and that his tweets clearly refer to Jewish white supremacists and not Jewish people in general.

But Maroufs often-expressed definition of a Jewish white supremacist includes all Israeli Jews plus all Jews who express attachment to their homeland (only antisemites refer to Jews indiscriminately as Zios as Marouf does). Yet the CAHN made no judgment about the lawyers demonstrably risible defence, nor did it respond to my request for a comment, nor did they denounce Marouf on Twitter, as they invariably do at any hint of right-wing antisemitism.

Progressive politicians at Heritage, as well as racism thought leaders on racism and other cultural elites, who resist holding hard-core antisemitism arising from the extreme left to the same standard as they do antisemitism from the extreme right, must grasp the nettle on their moral failure.

Sheer incompetence, although a glaring factor, does not explain the Marouf scandal, and an apology will not bring closure to it. An investigation is in order.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Follow

Barbara Kay is a columnist and author. Her latest writing project is co-authorship with Linda Blade of the book Unsporting: How Trans Activism and Science Denial are Destroying Sport.

See the article here:
Barbara Kay: Progressive Politicians Must Grasp the Nettle on Their Moral Failure After Canadian Heritage's Laith Marouf Debacle - The Epoch Times

Democrats pitch in the midterms: More IRS audits to target you, and fewer police to protect you. What could go wrong?

As Nancy Pelosi readies the so-called Inflation Reduction Act and its $80 billion to add 87,000 agents to the IRS, Punchbowl reports that progressive Democrats have succeeded in killing the police-funding bill:

The Houseis scheduled to return Friday to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, setting up a big win for PresidentJoe Bidenand the Democrats.

But Speaker Nancy Pelosiand House Democratic leaders are unlikely to move ahead with a series of bills to boost police funding, according to lawmakers and aides.

While vulnerable Frontlinersand Democratic moderates are pressing the leadership for a floor vote on these measures, opposition from progressives and the Congressional Black Caucus has derailed this effort.

Progressives and the CBCwere concerned about the lack of accountability languagein the bills before the House left for the August recess, so a floor vote was delayed. The hope among Democrats at that time was they could work out their differences and take up the measures when the House returned to take up a reconciliation.

But its not happening apparently.And its not at all clear it can happen in September either, despite Pelosis support for the effort.

Supposedly, House Democrats planned to pass the police funding along with the so-called assault weapons ban. That plan reportedly fell apart late last month, only to be revived momentarily and pushed off until after Labor Day. The House passed its AWB bill on July 29 while still promising to iron out the police funding.

Now, however, it appears that progressives have reneged on their pledge to moderates on police funding. Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal told Punchbowl that she didnt want to step on the Democrats message of unity, or something:

We have communicated to all of leadership exactly where we are. We communicated it last week that there simply wasnt the votes. It would be a very, very divisive thing to do. We need to be disciplined as Democrats and not step on our success, not snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Lets focus on this massive victory for the American people this week.

This could be a little bit of payback. After months of holding the bipartisan infrastructure bill hostage to the $5 trillion Build Back Better plan, progressives finally allowed a vote on the former while being promised a vote on the latter by moderates. That didnt work out for Jayapal at the time, and shes likely looking for a chance to stick it to the moderates this time around.

If this is the opportunity progressives choose, though yikes. Americans are facing generational-high crime rates, especially in the cities, while progressive efforts to defund police and roll back criminal prosecutions worsen their lived experience. Rather than take a moment for a slam-dunk way to protect at-risk incumbents in this cycle, House Democrats will instead spend anenormous amount of money to double the IRS and demand greater intrusion into the lives of ordinary Americans.

Thats quite the juxtaposition: funding tax audits rather than crime prevention. It should pay off handsomely, too for Republicans, assuming they publicize this choice widely.

View post:
Priorities: House progressives torpedo police-funding bill while adding ...

Its being called the Great Realignment. Allahpundit mentioned it yesterday at the end of this post. In short, the most recent NY Times polls shows that Democrats have more support among college-educated whites than they do among minorities. In a piece about this phenomenon for Axios, Josh Kraushaar writes:

Shifts in the demographics of the two parties supporters taking place before our eyes are arguably the biggest political story of our time

Democrats are statistically tied with Republicans among Hispanics on the generic congressional ballot, according to a New York Times-Siena Collegepollout this week. Dems held a47-point edge with Hispanics during the 2018 midterms

Democratic strategists say the partys biggest vulnerability is assuming that the priorities of progressive activists are the same as those of working-class voters.

So whats going on here? Over at his Substack site, Ruy Teixeira takes a look at some recent data from Echelon Insights which strongly suggests a small but noisy group of strong progressives who tend to be white and college educated are setting the tone for the Democratic Party, but that tone is turning off a lot of blue collar people including many Hispanic voters. Look at this data and see if you dont recognize the people who make up this strong progressive group:

2.Racism is built into our society, including into its policies and institutions vs. Racism comes from individuals who hold racist views, not from our society and institutions. Strong progressives are very, very sure of Americas systemic racism, endorsing the first statement by an amazing 94-6 margin. But Hispanics disagree, endorsing the second statement that racism comes from individuals by 58-36, as do working class voters by 57-33

4.Transgender athletes should be able to play on sports teams that match their current gender identity vs. Transgender athletes should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth gender. Strong progressives overwhelmingly endorse allowing athletes to play on the sports team that matches their gender identity by 66-19. But Hispanic voters by 64-22 say athletes should only play on teams that match their birth gender; working class voters are almost identical at 63-22.

5.We need to reallocate funding from police departments to social services vs. We need to fully fund the budget for police departments. Strong progressives want to reallocate police funding by 87-12. In contrast, Hispanic voters want full funding of the police by 50-41 and working class voters are even stronger on full funding by 59-31.

Thats just 3 of the 6 questions Teixeira considers but the others are all similar. For instance, the last question is about upward mobility and the value of hard work. The strong progressives overwhelmingly dont believe hard work matters (88%) but a majority of blue collar workers and Hispanics (55% of each group) say it does.

Hopefully from the outlines of all this you recognize the type.These folks are still a small percentage of the electorate (about 10%) but they tend to be highly educated, white and very online. The so-called strong progressives are basically weve come to know as the woke left. They are on the far left of every one of these wedge issues and are probably on Twitter arguing about it. They are also way out of step with the country as a whole. For example, a recent poll of support for defunding the police (transferring money from police budgets to other priorities) showed it was down to 31% overall but in question 5 above the strong progressives support it at 87%.

So the impression you get from all of this is that the white, woke left has become if not the face of the Democratic Party at least its most strident voice. They have emphasized issues with which a majority of blue collar and Hispanic voters just disagree. And thats arguably what is driving the Great Realignment were seeing now.

If you look at what this means for the Democratic Party in any poll taken this year, its clearly a disaster. Democrats are poised to lose the House in a red wave and are still likely to lose the Senate, though thats a closer thing. The woke left probably hurt the party in 2020 election as well. Remember they were expected to gain seats in the House and wound up losing them instead.

Ive been struggling with whether to say it because it has become a clich on the right at this point, but based on the above the phrase get woke, go broke seems to apply. The Democratic Party has emboldened the woke left and now it looks like that has broken, or at least fractured, their long-standing coalition of minority groups. Theres no telling where that will go from here but in the near term it seems like its going to cost Democrats quite substantially.

Note: For those who dont recognize her, thats Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, in the photo above. I think she represents the white, woke movement were talking about here.

Read this article:
The Great Realignment: Woke, white progressives are defining the ...