Mediaboss Marketing

Thats the law. Nothing can be done about it.

And thats the liberal reaction to any rational action to stop the stampede of unruly, fractious, antagonistic masses toward and over the U.S. southern border. Liberals call law-enforcement unlawful. Or, they shoehorn the act of holding the line into the unlawful category.

Prevent uninvited masses from entering the country: Unlawful.

Tear gas marauding migrants for stoning Border Patrol personnel: Illegal, possibly even criminal.

Unconstitutional. Immoral. Un-American. These are some of the refrains deployed by wily pitchmen to stigmatize and end any action to stop, disincentivize and summarily deport caravans of grifters, bound for the U.S. in their thousands.

Our avatars of morality and legality seldom cite legal chapter-and-verse in support of their case for an immigration free-for-all.

To go by the law, as professed by the liberal cognoscenti, claims-makers must be allowed to make their claims.

Could the cuddly treatment mandated be predicated on the Christine Blasey Ford standard? Brett Kavanaughs accuser claimed she had A Story to tell. So, the country had to hear her tell it. A compelling standard.

Thats what happens when feelings and fancy replace reason and facts.

No wonder the noise-makers are drowning-out the authentic claims-makers in society. Against the sainted noise-makers on the border all laws appear to be null and void or tantamount to torture

The Left is creating reality on the ground, all right. But the prime real estate liberals hope to colonize is in every Americans head.

Ruffians are breaching the U.S. border near Tijuana, demanding access to the American Welfare State. Thats the reality! Helped by the American lefts monopoly over the intellectual means of productionthe average American is being encouraged to look at this aberrant apparition and think:

Awesome. This is who we are. American laws are amazing for inviting this.

Illegal, immoral, un-American: These are all pejoratives reserved not for the grifters making claims against Americans; but for the Americans resisting their claims.

To listen to the liberal propagandist class is to come away believing that breaking into America is legal so long as you call yourself a refugee or an asylee and are seeking a better life. Moreover, provided an asylee, refugee or saint in disguise appears at a port of entry (San Ysidro, in our case), then he must be admitted into America.

So, is The Law an ass or are those lying about the law the real asses?

A bit of both.

The Center for Immigration Studies provides something of a corrective. The gist of it is simple:

The Border Patrol has the authority to not only arrest those who enter illegally, but also to dissuade their entry. There is nothing in the law that requires the Border Patrol to allow aliens to enter the United States illegally, and then arrest them. Simply put, aliens do not have a right to illegally enter the United States.

Essentially, the opportunity to assert "a credible fear" of persecution, as explained by Andrew R. Arthur of the CIS, doesnt give a scofflaw the right to enter the country and claim asylum.

To the contrary: The credible fear provision, evidently being misused and misconstrued, doesnt exist to facilitate asylum claims. Rather, it exists to facilitate the removal from the United States of aliens who have attempted entry through fraud or without proper documents.

This charitable interpretation struggles to convince. Notwithstanding a defense of lousy and lax lawit nevertheless seems true to state that U.S. laws governing the admission of asylum-seekers and refugees will still process people based on a tale told at a port of entry, and despite disqualifying conduct: the brazen, even criminal, behavior evinced by the Central American caravanners rushing our border.

As practiced, the law is worse than an ass. Its perverse in the extreme.

In the context of law misconstrued or reinvented, the chant about the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act is as telling. Its the excuse parroted by almost everybody, Republicans included, for a lack of vigorous military action against an en masse breach of the southern border.

With their Posse Comitatus chant, the no-borders crowd is claiming that sending the U.S. Military to the border is tantamount to deploying the military for civilian purposes.

If an ongoing, sustained, intentional and international invasion of U.S. territory by foreign nationals is considered a domestic dispute to be handled by civil authoritiesthen America, plain and simple, is both defenseless and borderless; there is, seemingly, no law thatll defend American borders.

What those liberals colonizing our heads are attempting to convey is that a good America, a just America, a moral America is de facto and de jure a borderless America.

In truth, and according to the Congressional Research Service, as relayed by the Military Times, Posse Comitatus means that the U.S. military is not to be used to control or defeat American citizens on U.S. soil.

The hordes amassed on the border with Mexico, and rushing the port of entry in San Ysidro, California, are not American citizens. They are not even very nice.

More here:
Liberals Want America To Go Borderless - townhall.com

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

I have offended some liberals in the past by referring to Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke as a "failson." I understand now why this might have come across as dismissive of his totally awesome campaign to skateboard his way into a Senate seat. So in the future I will be more measured in my language.

Beto is not a "failson." He is, in fact, the successful son-in-law of a billionaire real estate developer whose low-key contempt for barrio grandmas puts him squarely within the mainstream of the Democratic Party. His seemingly inevitable attempt to secure his party's presidential nomination in 2020 will be only slightly more embarrassing to himself and his delusional followers than his recent loss to the most loathed senator in the United States.

I don't mean to make light of Beto's chances here. Going straight from the House of Representatives to the White House by way of a Senate campaign isn't unheard of. I mean, James Garfield did it in 1880, though nitpickers might observe that he actually managed to win the seat in the upper chamber he was running for alongside the presidency. In more recent times, Ron Paul ran some very successful campaigns while representing a Texas district in the lower chamber of our federal legislature. Dr. Paul's followers raised millions of dollars for him on the internet, handed out lots of very neat stickers and buttons, had concerts, and annoyed millions of their fellow Americans with their gushing enthusiasm. With any luck, Beto, who is much younger than Paul was at the time of his third and least unsuccessful campaign, will be able to run unsuccessfully for president as many as five times, assuming the money keeps rolling in. The more I think about it, in fact, the more "Like Ron Paul, except less interested in gold nuggets" seems like the most even-handed characterization of O'Rourke's role in American politics. Here's hoping he has a mop-headed son who can translate his father's nationwide following into a safe seat in Hawaii or someplace like that in a couple decades.

In all seriousness, though, I have no idea why anyone is taking the idea of O'Rourke's presidential campaign seriously. It's as mystifying to me as erotic tweets about him, which are as surprisingly common as they are unquotable in a family periodical. The biggest obstacle to his success will almost certainly be the crowdedness of the Democratic field. Beto might be the favorite of billionaire mega-donors and a man who came marginally close to becoming a U.S. senator, but he is going to have a hard time making headway against actual billionaire mega-donors like Tom Steyer and actual U.S. senators like Kamala Harris. And that's ignoring the off chance that Democrats might opt for a progressive instead, like Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown, in which case Beto will definitely be out of luck.

The news that party insiders in Iowa cannot wait to throw money and resources at Beto is the best early Christmas present President Trump's re-election committee could ask for. O'Rourke is never going to make it further than a San Francisco fundraiser or a CNN debate stage, but even if he did, he would lose in a landslide of proportions unseen since Ronald Reagan's second victory in 1984. I know this might be hard for alleged adults who consider his Instagram posts about cooking an aphrodisiac, but the aesthetic that gets Austin dog park goers racing to the polls will not go over as well in the Midwestern states that Democrats actually need to win in 2020. People in Mahoning County, Ohio, do not care how many indie rock EPs you have performed on or how totally sweet your Instagram feed is. They will also resent your opposition to President Trump's trade policies and your indifference to actual bread-and-butter issues in favor of a vague ethos of "cool" and "nice."

My advice to Democrats is that it's better to sound the wake-up call now. Let some formidable old hack like Dick Durbin, whose political fortunes do not depend upon the crucial WhatsApp constituency, just come out and say it now: Losers are not welcome in our party unless their last names rhyme with "Glinton."

More here:
Liberals' infantile Beto fantasy - theweek.com

The Liberal government released its fall fiscal update Wednesday, making the bold pre-election claim that the land is strong even if it may not feel that way if youre trying to sell a house or work in the oilpatch.

In fairness things are going pretty well, on the back of surging demand from the U.S. But there appears to be a supreme confidence that it will ever be thus. Scant provision is being made for the recession rumbling towards us inexorably, like a winter storm.

The government gave itself a clean bill of health, pointing out GDP growth is forecast at 2 per cent for the next two years, before slowing to a still respectable 1.6 per cent.

Unemployment is forecast to be below 6 per cent over the next two years, while the federal debt-to-GDP ratio is predicted to continue to tick downward.

The government concluded its reelection pitch by claiming it has fulfilled a third of its mandate promises, with progress made on the other two-thirds.

For a government heading back to the polls next year, it is, at first blush, a solid base from which to launch a campaign for another mandate.

Finance minister Bill Morneau said Wednesday that a middle-class family of four is now $2,000 better off, thanks mainly to the Canada Child Benefit.

When it comes to specific measures the fall update, given the title Investing in Middle-class Jobs, is a modest document, with much to be modest about.

But it did introduce a number of measures aimed at addressing U.S. President Donald Trumps corporate tax cuts, including tax incentives to encourage businesses to invest in new assets like machinery and equipment.

The new plan will give Canadians the help they need to succeed, making smart investments to grow our economy for the long-term, while we bring the books back towards balance, Morneau said the first time anyone can remember a Liberal finance minister talking about balanced budgets since the days of Paul Martin, the deficit-slayer.

On the basis of the spin, were an election held tomorrow there would be line-ups at the polling booths to laud the Liberals for their incredible feats of economic alchemy.

Needless to say, while the fiscal update tells the truth it doesnt tell the whole truth.

On the basis of the spin, were an election held tomorrow there would be line-ups at the polling booths to laud the Liberals for their incredible feats of economic alchemy

Tax revenues for the first six months of the fiscal year were up 10 per cent, or a whopping $13 billion, but growth is patchy. The housing market for so long a driver of economic growth has recorded three quarters of contraction.

The oilpatch appears to be going through something of an existential crisis, as jobs and investment continue to bleed south of the border. In the Financial Post this week, former Encana CEO Gwyn Morgan noted with alarm how his former company has exported itself to the U.S. He blamed Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government for a litany of bad policy decisions from the oil tanker ban, to killing the Northern Gateway pipeline; from the introduction of upstream emissions in pipeline regulatory hearings to bill C-69, the impact assessment act that have all but killed Canadas most economically important industry.

The fall update offers little in the way of comfort for producers, or for Albertas provincial government, faced as they are with a price differential that is reaching record highs.

What it does contain is a range of tax changes to encourage business investment in Canada. Arguably, the measures should have been included in the spring budget, flush from the windfall of 3-per-cent growth in 2017.

But since business investment and exports will be relied on to make a greater contribution to economic growth, it is timely that the Liberals have finally acknowledged that the golden goose wont keep laying without some encouragement. This has not been a government overly concerned about wealth generation during its first three years in office.

Business groups had called for Morneau to reduce the corporate income tax rate across the board but the finance minister deemed his room for manoeuvre was limited, given the need to keep the fiscal anchor, the debt-to-GDP rate, ticking down. The new measures will cost $14 billion over the next five years, so this is not chump change. But the money appears to be targeted, since it allows Canada to market itself as the lowest marginal effective tax rate (METR) in the G7.

For many international companies, it is the METR, the cumulative rate of taxes that affect businesses, that is a key determinant of where they will invest.

It is a creative solution that will help businesses write-off assets in a range of industries at a faster rate including intangibles like computer software even if it doesnt address the specific problems facing the oil industry.

Needless to say, while the fiscal update tells the truth it doesnt tell the whole truth.

At the very least, it is investment that may have a productive outcome unlike many of the tax dollars that have been tossed hither and thither in the last three years. You only get it if you invest.

The real problem is that, for all the confidence in Canadas economic future the document expressed, a downturn is coming as surely as winter follows fall.

When it does, the debt-to-GDP ratio will not keep falling, because GDP will shrink. That is when a reckoning will take place.

The measures announced in the fall update will add to a deficit that is set to remain in double figures as far out as the Department of Finance projects.

The much-vaunted $2,000-a-year bonanza for the family of four is paid for with borrowed money. It is not just Conservatives who see that as a raid on future generations.

For all the billions being added to the national debt, the benefits are not being felt by everyone.

These are the good times but for many people, they dont feel that good. The government boasts about rising wages but for the past three years, real wages averaged gains of just 0.3 per cent, versus 1 per cent for the previous decade.

Rising interest rates are also making life tougher.

But there is none of this nuance in the sunny days document tabled by the government. In a self-assessment of their own brilliance, the Liberals judged their commitment to balance the budget by 2019-20 as a measure where action has been taken and progress made, even if, sadly, it is facing challenges.

That blatant nose-stretcher comes just 25 pages after the summary statement of transactions that says the deficit in 2019-20 will be $19.6 billion. Some progress, some challenge.

The entire document should come with a warning sticker: Caution stormy objects in your mirror are closer than they appear.

Email: jivison@nationalpost.com | Twitter:

See more here:
John Ivison: Liberals' fiscal update an exercise in self ...

What does it mean to say that a person is a liberal, or to say that a thing may be described with this word? The answer, as is so often the case with the English language, is it depends.

'Liberal' shares a root with 'liberty' and can mean anything from "generous" to "loose" to "broad-minded." Politically, it means "a person who believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change."

Liberal can be traced back to the Latin word liber (meaning free), which is also the root of liberty ("the quality or state of being free") and libertine ("one leading a dissolute life"). However, we did not simply take the word liber and make it into liberal; our modern term for the inhabitants of the leftish side of the political spectrum comes more recently from the Latin liberalis, which means of or constituting liberal arts, of freedom, of a freedman.

We still see a strong connection between our use of the word liberal and liber in the origins of liberal arts. In Latin, liber functioned as an adjective, to describe a person who was free, independent, and contrasted with the word servus (slavish, servile). The Romans had artes liberales (liberal arts) and artes serviles (servile arts); the former were geared toward freemen (consisting of such subjects as grammar, logic, and rhetoric), while the latter were more concerned with occupational skills.

We borrowed liberal arts from French in the 14th century, and sometime after this liberal began to be used in conjunction with other words (such as education, profession, and pastime). When paired with these other words liberal was serving to indicate that the things described were fitting for a person of high social status. However, at the same time that the term liberal arts was beginning to make 14th century college-tuition-paying-parents a bit nervous about their childrens future job prospects, liberal was also being used as an adjective to indicate generosity and bounteousness. By the 15th century, people were using liberal to mean bestowed in a generous and openhanded way, as in poured a liberal glass of wine.

The word's meaning kept shifting. By the 18th century, people were using liberal to indicate that something was not strict or rigorous. The political antonyms of liberal and conservative began to take shape in the 19th century, as the British Whigs and Tories began to adopt these as titles for their respective parties.

Liberal is commonly used as a label for political parties in a number of other countries, although the positions these parties take do not always correspond to the sense of liberal that people in the United States commonly give it. In the US, the word has been associated with both the Republican and Democratic parties (now it is more commonly attached to the latter), although generally it has been in a descriptive, rather than a titular, sense.

The word hasfor some people, at leasttaken on some negative connotations when used in a political sense in the United States. It is still embraced with pride by others. We can see these associations with the word traced back to the early and mid-20th century in its combination with other words, such as pinko:

Thanks to The Dove, pinko-liberal journal of campus opinion at the University of Kansas, a small part of the world last week learned some inner workings of a Japanese college boy. Time: the Weekly Newsmagazine, 7 Jun., 1926

"To the well-to-do," writes Editor Oswald Garrison Villard of the pinko-liberal Nation, "contented and privileged, Older is an anathema. Time: the Weekly Newsmagazine, 9 Sept., 1929

Pinko liberalsthe kind who have been so sympathetic with communistic ideals down through the yearswill howl to high heaven. The Mason City Globe-Gazette (Mason City, IA), 12 Jun., 1940

The term limousine liberal, meaning "a wealthy political liberal," is older than many people realize; although the phrase was long believed to have originated in the 1960s, recent evidence shows that we have been sneering at limousine liberals almost as long as we have had limousines:

Limousine liberals is another phrase that has been attached to these comfortable nibblers at anarchy. But it seems to us too bourgeois. It may do as a subdivision of our higher priced Bolsheviki. New York Tribune, 5 May, 1919

Even with a highly polysemous word such as liberal we can usually figure out contextually which of its many possible senses is meant. However, when the word takes on multiple and closely-related meanings that are all related to politics, it can be rather difficult to tell one from another. These senses can be further muddied by the fact that we now have two distinct groups who each feel rather differently about some of the meanings of liberal.

One of these definitions we provide for liberal is a person who believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change; it is up to you to choose whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. In other words, We define, you decide.

Follow this link:
What Exactly Is a 'Liberal'? | Merriam-Webster

After Trump announced that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, an op-ed in The New York Times termed it "a radical break ... a major provocation," one that would cause "irreparable harm" to his plans for Middle East peace. But the issue has largely disappeared, even as the opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem approaches. Trump's denunciation of NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem led columnist Al Hunt and others to brand him a race-baiter, but now the most famous black male musician of this moment, Kanye West, calls him "my brother." He has faced derision from some quarters, but he doesn't appear to buy the liberal line on Trump and race.

You might sympathize with liberal politicians and journalists, not to mention conservative Never Trumpers, who can't understand how this so-called farce-presidency can go on. They don't realize something about themselves though: They are a crucial factor in the Trump ascendancy.

See the article here:
Trump's in his glory, and it's driving liberals nuts ...