Mediaboss Marketing

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 ...

Given how skeptical many Democrats generally are of empowering law enforcement agencies with more authority or resources, their enthusiasm for spending $80 billion to bolster the Internal Revenue Service as part of the Inflation Reduction Act is odd.

Certainly, it makes sense that progressives would be excited about mobilizing an army of revenuers to make the rich pay their fair share. Nonetheless, such exuberance should at least be tempered given the agencys institutional tendency to target disadvantaged individuals and communities rather than lawyered-up millionaires and billionaires.

Perhaps sensing that an army of 87,000 new IRS agents (more than doubling the current workforce) might not be an inherently popular way to spend money during tough economic times, Democratic leadership has assured the American people that average middle-income Americans have nothing to fear.

Audits, we are told, wont increase in regularity for anyone making less than $400,000 per year.

Such an assurance would be more believable had those very same Democrats not torpedoed an attempt to codify such language in the bill. Ultimately, theres no reason to believe the IRSs expansion wont land more average Americans in the agencys crosshairs other than a few promises made by Democratic politicians facing a potentially brutal midterm election year.

And if we cant trust the word of politicians pandering for votes, what can we trust?

Of course, even tax the rich progressives ought to have enough political cynicism to doubt one of the nations most feared law enforcement agencies will use its new resources to laser focus exclusively on auditing Americas share of billionaires. After all, the Inflation Reduction Act changes none of the institutional or systemic deficiencies of the IRS it merely gives the agency more resources to enforce the same complex web of loophole-riddled tax law currently being gamed by the wealthy.

Indeed, we are now learning that the Joint Committee on Taxation has even estimated the Inflation Reduction Act is likely to increase taxes for households earning between $50,000 and $75,000, while households earning more than $1 million might actually get a tax break. (So much for sticking it to the rich.)

And beyond the potential for new taxes, according to the editors at The Wall Street Journal, the Joint Committee on Taxation also says 78 to 90 percent of the money raised from under-reported income money raised by all those new agents conducting audits will likely come from Americans earning less than $200,000.

None of this is terribly surprising, given the fact that the IRS routinely targets the poorest Americans at a rate similar to that of the top one percent. Lower income individuals, as it turns out, have less ability to contest such audits and are therefore easier targets for a law enforcement agency whose sole mission is to raise revenue.

Moreover, the tactics used by the IRS to recover what it determines to be under-reported income are already brutal and intimidating even when they arent employed against Americans struggling to cope in difficult economic times.

When the IRS determines an individual owes a sum of money, for example, that first dreaded letter in the mail is just the beginning of a nightmarish administrative process. Without a robust and expensive cadre of high-priced attorneys, most middle-and low-income Americans can quickly find liens placed on their property, bank accounts frozen and wages garnished punitive actions that are often taken long before anyone has a chance to substantively contest the charges or defend themselves in court.

And, unfortunately, targeting lower income workers is not likely to stop being a routine part of the IRS policing practice. For example, low-income households receiving certain tax credits or occupations that depend largely on cash tips are routinely investigated by an already ruthless and unresponsive army of revenuers. Its therefore not unreasonable to believe that adding a stadium-full of personnel to the department will merely accelerate the institutionalized methods of harassment and intimidation aimed at vulnerable Americans.

Which is why the progressive lefts applause for expanding such an agency seems like an egregious example of political cognitive dissonance especially given what staunch critics most progressives are of other efforts to bolster law enforcement budgets. Such support for the IRSs budgetary windfall is akin to the kind of blind support conservatives all too often give local police departments that promise to get tough on crime.

As a result, progressives who pride themselves on being skeptical of law enforcement should be just as dubious of the IRS expansion as the most conservative anti-tax crusaders making appearances on Fox News and talk radio. The nations top one percent, after all, will continue to have access to their own army of lawyers and accountants ready to wage war against a newly energized (and funded) IRS but the most disadvantaged among us will continue to be easy prey for the slew of federal agents hired to, quite literally, separate Americans from a portion of their hard-earned money.

Those 87,000 new IRS employees arent going to be sending out larger refunds to working-class Americans or ensuring individuals receive every tax break to which they are entitled. Instead, theyll be doing what the IRS has always done: Performing audits, launching investigations and garnishing wages. And low- and middle-income Americans will not magically be spared simply because a bunch of politicians made some promises while trying to court votes during an election year.

Believing such promises is as foolish as having believed in the 1970s that the war on drugs would only inconvenience cartels, criminals and addicts. Progressives, more than anyone else, should know better.

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding consultant based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He is the former communications director for Nevada Policy Research Institute and has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary as a columnist, political humorist, and radio talk show host. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.

Originally posted here:
Yes, progressives also should be worried about 87,000 new IRS agents The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent