(By Joanne Galloway)

Immigration reform is now poised to take center stage in American politics.  Hastened by the signing of an immigration reform bill, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, along with seventy percent of Arizona’s residents, have lit the fire under what may well prove a wicked brew of partisan politics, racist rhetoric and violent protest.  They made it illegal to be illegal.

Actually, the Arizona bill only reinforces, if not just reaffirms, what is already on the books at the Federal level.  In the simplest of terms, the very definition of “illegal” is to break a law – ergo, there must be a law that they have already been breaking.  So why then would the POTUS shout down the new law as “misguided”? (ABC News has video of Obama’s reaction).  At the very least, Obama admits that had there not been a failure to enforce our immigration laws at the Federal level, this would not have been necessary.

So we all agree.  “Something” must be done about immigration.  We’ve been using the word reform so much lately, the word seems to have lost all meaning.  Reform, in fact, is not what is needed – we just need to begin enforcing laws already on the books.  No one is saying we don’t want people to emigrate to this great nation, we just want it to be done legally. Get in line.  Fill out your paperwork.  Take your turn.

John Hawkins on Townhall.com

outlines five key points that opponents of any amnesty bill should be emphasizing. In a nutshell Hawkins suggests:

1. Security – we need a border fence, what’s to stop someone from just carrying over drugs and weapons now?  Ask the ranchers in Arizona how they feel about their land and security without it.
2. Jobs – we don’t have enough jobs for the citizens we have now.  With amnesty, by some estimates as many as 47 million more people would need work.
3. We’re broke – with only 47% of the population paying taxes, how many more will that 47% be paying for?  How many of the newly naturalized would find jobs paying enough?  How many would add to our unemployment and welfare burdens?
4. Amnesty is not fair to immigrants – what message is this sending to those who took their turns, paid thousands in legal fees and sometimes years in their foreign nation to gain lawful entry?
5. We’ve tried this before and it didn’t work – this lat one was a reminder of the Reagan amnesty, “They allowed roughly 2.7 million illegal aliens to become citizens and in exchange, we are supposed to carry out security measures to fix the system. Guess what? We never fixed the security problem and today, we’re talking about giving citizenship to roughly 4 times as many illegals.”

All of these are extremely important truths to consider when it comes to any amnesty bill.  Once legalized, up to an estimated 47 million people now qualify for welfare, unemployment, healthcare and social security (which they never put into).  Even if your heart bleeds for people in search of a better way of life, common sense should warn that adding what’s tantamount to an entire nation of people suddenly  isn’t sustainable in our economy, our healthcare or our natural resources.  What effect will it have on your taxes?  Your retirement?  Your social security?  Your job?

Do you remember when Obama promised us that the healthcare bill wouldn’t cover illegal aliens?  We all knew that we simply couldn’t afford to offer preventative medical coverage for up to 47 million illegals.  The republicans knew it… remember Joe Wilson? (here is the video). Yet if we were to naturalize these illegal immigrants, that’s exactly what will come to pass – and we simply cannot afford it.

Governor Brewer and the People of Arizona’s passage of the alien bill spawned protests against such law enforcement.  It is already clear that the MSM (main stream media) have taken a side – even taking extra time to further demonize the Tea Party.  Some protestors have actually smeared swastikas into buildings using re-fried beans.

(NewsBusters has more…)

So, it’s clear  – the line is in the sand – people are taking sides. This is a unique opportunity for the Obama administration and democrats embattled in re-election woes.  If the democrats are the party for Amnesty, it may follow in large majority that these 47 million freshly minted citizens would likely throw their votes to those that gave them their new freebies, and will continue to give them their freebies ala Joe and Jane taxpayer.

Hawkins sums it all up in his article, “What politicians want is more illegal workers to pad the bottom lines of businesses that give them campaign contributions and more potential voters for the Democratic Party. What they don’t want is to fix the problem because they’re worried about what’s good for them personally, not what’s good for the country.”

(By Nathan R. Jessup)

“It is said that power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.” ~David Brin

Like any good mystery it takes time to solve the puzzle.  Since Obama’s swearing-in an avalanche of clues have surfaced and a mad frenzy to connect the dots has begun.   The latest ethical “oversight” in the young administration’s life is that of Cathy Zoi and her financial interest in newly recognized green companies.

Pajamas Media has more…

Surprising documents made available to this author reveal that Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.

Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.

Among Zoi’s holdings are shares in Serious Materials, Inc., the previously sleepy, now bustling, friend of the Obama White House whose public policy operation is headed by her husband. Between them, Zoi and her husband hold 120,000 shares in Serious Materials, as well as stock options. Reporter John Stossel has already explored what he sees as the “crony capitalism” implied by Zoi being so able to influence the fortunes of a company to which she is so closely associated.

In addition, the disclosure forms reflect that Zoi holds between $250,000 and $500,000 in “founders shares” in Landis+Gyr, a Swiss “smart meter” firm. She also still owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in ordinary shares.

“Smart meters,” put simply, are electric meters that return information about customer power usage to the power company immediately and allow a power company to control the amount of power a customer can consume. These smart meters are a central component of the Obama administration’s plans to reduce electricity consumption as part of the “smart grid.”

In a rare moment of candor, Obama “Energy Czar” Carol Browner said to US News & World Report last year: “We need to make sure that …[e]ventually, we can get to a system where an electric company will be able [sic] to hold back some of the power so that maybe your air conditioner won’t operate at its peak, you’ll still be able to cool your house, but that’ll be a savings to the consumer.” (emphasis added)

Clearly, DoE funding to encourage the adoption of “smart meters” would very likely lead to much increased sales by Landis+Gyr — and a potential windfall for Zoi. But surely Zoi doesn’t participate in the relevant “energy efficiency” policy?

In fact, as a condition of her employment with the Obama administration, while Ms. Zoi maintained significant security holdings in Serious Materials and Landis+Gyr, she promised to “not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on the[ir] financial interest” without obtaining a waiver first.

If I were grading Obama and his clever crew, the report would look something like this: “A+” for tactical positioning and foresight, and “F” for character, conscience and execution of the job for which you were elected.   Please tell me this whole Presidency isn’t simply one big, giant power-grab-is it? As is often said, “only time will tell”-well…time is about to speak.

(Posted by Nathan R. Jessup)

For the past five days I have been neck-deep in IT shenanigans far beyond my pay grade.   Next week the Raw Deal will take on a new, sleeker and more reader-friendly look.  During the changeover I immersed myself in other blogs for inspiration.  Often, I enjoy taking a break from the norm and find myself reading things of a completely different nature.  This evening I stumbled upon a most unique and entertaining post by Sam Sommers, Ph.D. and Social Psychologist at Tufts university.  Here’s what I found:

(“The Greatest Blog Post Ever” by Sam Sommers)

Sex. Discussion of young, attractive people having sex. Allusions to young, attractive people having sex. Anything even tangentially related to the possibility of that, at some point in time, people of even moderate youth or attractiveness had themselves a bit of sex.

Marriage and its inevitable ups and downs. Communication in marriage, or lack thereof. Sex in marriage, or lack thereof.

Infidelity. How to detect it. How to prevent it or get over it. Why you’re currently engaged in it. Why men can’t help it and why women can’t help but let them do it.

It’s been 18 months now that I’ve been blogging on the psychology of daily life, or the science of small talk as the title of my Psychology Today anthology suggests. It’s been quite the interesting experience. Two or three times a month I sit down at my computer, type something up, format it on the website, and then in an act of blind faith, click the button to send it out to into the increasingly overcrowded marketplace of web ideas.

Happiness. How to be happy. Why you aren’t happy enough. Why you even shouldn’t care about being happy in the first place.

Politics. Why Obama is the second coming. Why Obama is ruining the world. Why I thought Obama was the second coming, only to find out later that he has decided to ruin the world. Oh, and maybe something about Palin too.

You see, you’re never quite sure how the 1,000 words you type up in private are going to play once they get out there and have to fend for themselves. But you find out pretty quickly. Sometimes the entries you throw together quickly end up with thousands of views in just a few days. Other times, an idea hits you like a lightning bolt, you take you time to craft a sure winner, and the post flatlines right out of the gate.

Anything about reality TV. Or Facebook. Or Twitter.

Absolute statements regarding the evolutionarily-dictated nature of human behavior, supported by unfalsifiable or circular reasoning. Also usually about sex. Like why literally everything a man does is aimed to increase his chances of having sex. Why every single stereotype you’ve ever heard about men and women is, in actuality, an unavoidable, Darwin-sanctioned truth.

Or more genetics lessons like why promiscuous men are more likely to have twins. Why middle siblings are disproportionately gay. Why attractive people are smarter and better and taller and funnier than you. And, while we’re at it, why these attractive people have middle children who want to have sex with your less intelligent, short, unfunny, gay twins–preferably posted as a seven-part serial.

But after 18 months, I’m beginning to catch on. In looking at the number of views each of my own entries has inspired–as well as the most widely read efforts from my fellow bloggers on the site–I’ve started to discern some of the common elements of a popular blog post. It’s an interesting psychological question to ponder, after all. And rather than ration out these common ingredients for popular posts by sprinkling them into my own work over the course of the next few months, I’ve decided to go for broke and throw them all into just one entry in the effort to assemble the single greatest blog post of all time. You’re reading it right now.

Pictures of celebrities in the news. Pictures of attractive female celebrities whether or not they’re in the news. Pictures of attractive females whether or not they’re celebrities or in the news.

Pictures of anyone notorious. Pictures of anyone who just died. Pictures of anyone who allegedly had sex with people who are notorious and/or just died.

But definitely somewhere, somehow, lots and lots of pictures.

Of course, you might argue that number of hits is not the only way to gauge the greatness of a blog post. Touché. I concede that on a website devoted to entertaining, but also helping and educating readers, a blogger may have grander objectives than mere popularity. Like, for instance, the not unrelated goal of pissing people off. By that measure, too, I have high aspirations for the greatness of what you’re now reading. For example…

Global warming. Nothing particularly controversial or groundbreaking about the idea, mind you, just a willingness to use the phrase and recognize its existence.

Race. The mere suggestion of racial bias. The idea that race could have influenced an ongoing current event or might shed some light on a societal issue. The audacious insinuation that we have not achieved the post-racial holy land, and still, from time to time, have to wrestle with issues of race.

Gay marriage. Health care. Religion. Socialism. Vaccination.

But mostly, race.

To be fair, the lessons on how to elicit angry responses didn’t take me a full 18 months. On that count, I proved to be a quick learner–it took all of two weeks before I had been referred to in reader responses as a “racist,” a “knave,” and a “smug, narcissistic fraud.” And you should’ve seen what the comments of non-family members were like.

Why you have to see the movie everyone’s talking about because it reveals deep truths about human nature. Why the movie everyone’s talking about gets it all wrong, psychologically speaking.

A list, preferably numbered, of how to improve yourself or achieve success in an important domain.

The problems with schools and parents today. Also numbered in a list.

Something with a vaguely-camouflaged obscenity in the title. Something with the word “lover” in the title. Something pretty similar to what someone else posted a week ago, but with a catchier, sexier, or more vaguely obscene title.

Tiger.

So there you have it: my shot at the greatest blog post of all time. Only time will tell if the grand experiment has succeeded. For now, though, it’s back to the drawing board for me for new ideas. If you have suggestions, you know how to find to me–I’ll be the knave scouring Google Images for pictures of Obama and Al Gore initiating the interracial climate change conspiracy… in bed.

(By Joanne Galloway)

There is a bill that has cleared the House of Representatives and is now being debated in the Senate.  This bill, sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, labeled a “Financial Reform Bill” , which according to President Obama, will clear corruption from Wall Street and large insurance firms, investment firms and banking institutions.  Obama’s own words:

“These are reforms that would put an end to taxpayer bailouts; that would bring complex financial dealings out of the shadows; that would protect consumers; and that would give shareholders more power in the financial system.”

Well, that all sounds good.  But what does all this really mean? What in basic terms is really going on here?  Will this “Financial Reform” just mean more ongoing bailouts from the taxpayers, but just with a different name?  Or will we finally see just desserts for those who greedily bled us to this crisis to begin with?

The first page of the Bill states it’s overall intentions:

“… to provide for effective bank supervision through the establishment

of the Financial Institutions Regulatory Administration, to enhance

the regulation of consumer financial products and services through the

establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, to allow

the Federal government to better coordinate and monitor insurance matters

through the establishment of the Office of National Insurance in

the Department of Treasury, to improve the regulation of derivatives,

securities, securities products, credit rating agencies, and hedge funds,

to increase investor protections, and for other purposes”

So basically, this bill sets a course for 3 new federal agencies – all of whom have the job of basically investigating mortgage loans, investments, banking transactions, stock trading – amongst a litany of other fiduciary transactions.

The main point of the bill allows the three agencies better access to information about large market participants whose failure may have a negative effect on our entire financial system.  The hope in such micromanagement would be to prevent a financial institution deemed “too big to fail” from making unethical and unwise financial decisions before they culminate in “needing a bailout”, in very general terms.

This on it’s face doesn’t seem too bad.  The last thing tax payers want is to subsidize another “too-big” bank bailout.  But the bill goes one step farther.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, “The bill would establish a liquidation fund financed by the industry and authorize the appointment of FDIC as receiver for insolvent companies, with SIPC acting as trustee for broker-dealers…..The government is to take over not only defaulting financial companies but those “in danger of default”. Five conditions are listed to define default and in-danger-of-default. Two are straightforward—the company will be filing for bankruptcy shortly or its board or shareholders agree to a government takeover.

The other three conditions allow the government to take over even when a company is not filing for bankruptcy and its board/shareholders do not consent. What it means is that the secretary of the Treasury can decide that a company is about to collapse even if it does not look that way to other people.”

So, in plain terms, it would give the Secretary of the Treasury the right to take over an institution if they “thought it looked” like it might fail – even if no one else thinks so.

There are “oversights” in the bill for this power.  The Treasury has to get the OK of a panel consisting of several bankruptcy judges.  The FDIC and the Federal Reserve also have a say. One can only hope these judges, the FDIC and the Fed all have ethics enough not to play politics with private enterprise institutions – and that’s a huge bet when it comes to big government.

I think the most interesting (or disturbing) thing I read about this proposed legislation came from Senator Dodd himself, “This legislation will not stop the next crisis from coming. No legislation can…”  Read for yourself at the HuffPo.

Really Senator?

His statement begs the question, If this legislation, in fact no legislation, can ever stop the next crisis from coming, then why are we even discussing this legislation?  Why are we building three new federal agencies with the potential to essentially confiscate and dissolve private enterprise in the name of “heading off a crisis”?  These agencies headed by individuals are appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate. The agencies have unlimited funding by the Fed, and what’s more, the Fed cannot deny their funding per the Bill (in the Bill’s current form).

I must assume then, per Sen. Dodd’s statements, that this Bill is not more than a blatant governmental power grab over private free enterprise.  Much like the healthcare bill  – most Americans do agree that we need some genuinely better oversight of our financial institutions,  but once again the government appears to be using Americans’ own good intentions, and twisting them into thicket overweening bureaucracy of governmental control doing anything but the first stated intent.

Ok, so what’s a real solution?  I went in search of that as well…

Per Karl Denninger, there is a 17 page bill, repealed by Bill Clinton in 1999, called the  Glass –Steagall bill, which essentially forbade financial institutions from getting “too big to fail” in the first place.

“Re-impose Glass-Steagall.  17 pages of legislation that kept the system safe and sound for FIFTY YEARS.

We started dismantling it in the 1980s by circumventions and outright unlawful acts including Alan Greenspan granting an illegal waiver to legitimate an illegal merger.

This culminated in Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act – the latter overruling anti-bucket-shop laws put in place to prevent the precise same acts that caused the meltdown in 1929.  As one would expect, we got the same result we had in the 1920s. “

Denninger’s article parses President Obama’s April 22, 2010 speech to Wall Street, and gives a Stock Trader’s perspective on what caused these meltdowns in the first place.

Seventeen pages sounds a lot easier fix than 1300+ pages that by it’s own author will admittedly not prevent any further meltdowns.

So there you have it:  The opinions of both the author of the bill, and a former CEO and current trader in the market.

A bill that won’t work, and a bill that did work.  More bureaucracy , more government intervention, or a 17 page guard rail to stop the corruption, in the simplest of terms.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has new information on the bill

(By Nathan R. Jessup)

Ever wonder what happens at that moment when al-Qaeda martyrs realize they made a big mistake? Fortunately, an increasing number of these murderous radicals are finding out what is really in store for them, death. Today, two more were disappointed…

The Washington Post has the story:

BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced Monday that the two leaders of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq have been killed.

THIS STORY
2 al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders killed, prime minister says
Council on Foreign Relations: Background on al-Qaeda
In a televised news conference, Maliki said Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group that includes al Qaeda in Iraq, were killed in a recent raid.

American officials did not immediately confirm the death of the top insurgent leaders.

Iraqi officials have previously falsely claimed to have captured and killed top al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders. They announced last summer that Baghdadi, a shadowy figure, was in custody — a claim they supported at the time with a video and photos of the alleged insurgent.

On Monday, Maliki said the raid where the leaders were killed occurred in recent days at a house in Salahaddin Province in northern Iraq. He said a team of Iraqi troops working with American soldiers carried out the operation.

Maliki said the two suspected insurgent leaders were found dead in a ditch after an air strike conducted by American forces.

“We have found a lot of documents, and hand-written letters,” that implicated the men, Maliki said.

Maliki presented photos allegedly showing the slain leaders during Monday’s news conference.

The Islamic State of Iraq has taken credit for a series of powerful attacks that have targeted government buildings, hotels, embassies and other targets in recent month. The group said it sees the Shiite-led government as an illegitimate byproduct of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.

Also Monday, Iraqi electoral officials bowed to a request from Maliki and announced that they will manually recount the votes cast in Baghdad during last month’s parliamentary election.

The move was decried by officials with Iraqiya, the coalition that narrowly beat Maliki’s State of Law bloc during the March 7 vote. It is likely to raise questions about the independence of Iraq’s judiciary and prolong the formation of a new government.

“This decision is a result of pressure from the Maliki government,” said Dhafer al Ani, a member of the outgoing parliament who was barred from running in the recent election on the Iraqiya list. “If they keep compromising our institutions, we shall end without an independent, reliable, unbiased authority we can fall back on.”

In order to get reappointed, Maliki would need to win over swing blocs that have been critical of or ambivalent about his government’s performance.

THIS STORY
al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders killed, prime minister says
Council on Foreign Relations: Background on al-Qaeda
Maliki has questioned the legitimacy of the election results, and on Monday Iraqi electoral officials agreed to a rquest from him to manually recount the votes cast in Baghdad, the capital city.

during last month’s parliamentary election.

The move was decried by officials with Iraqiya, the coalition that narrowly beat Maliki’s State of Law bloc. It is likely to raise questions about the independence of Iraq’s judiciary and prolong the formation of a new government.

“This decision is a result of pressure from the Maliki government,” said Dhafer al Ani, a member of the outgoing parliament who was barred from running in the recent election on the Iraqiya list. “If they keep compromising our institutions, we shall end without an independent, reliable, unbiased authority we can fall back on.”

Baghdad has 68 seats in the 325-member parliament. Iraqiya won 91 seats nationwide, just two more than Maliki’s slate.

Maliki has charged that as many as 750,000 votes were manipulated, which he said could have given Iraqiya its edge. The prime minister asked the electoral commission’s judicial panel to recount the Baghdad votes manually, contending that the most serious cases of fraud occurred in the capital.

United Nations officials, who worked closely with Iraq’s electoral commission, have said they found no evidence of widespread fraud.

In recent weeks, Iraqi politicians have begun exploring alliances that would yield the 163 parliamentary votes required to appoint a new prime minister.

Maliki and Ayad Allawi, the leader of Iraqiya, have been aggressively courting the Kurdish politicians and those loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, in an effort to come out on top.

Allawi has accused the Maliki administration of resorting to unlawful means to weaken his bloc. A commission run by Shiite politicians barred several Iraqiya candidates from running after branding them as loyalists of Saddam Hussein’s outlawed Baath Party.

(By Nathan R. Jessup)

So I gave into a guilty pleasure or two by posting this silly video-most likely, I’d do it again. Anyone willing to expose the arrogant “Box” deserves a little face-time. Further, to have it done by Colonel Jessup himself is simply icing on the cake!

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has more on the “Box”

(By Nathan R. Jessup)

After watching the video of the dog eating crackers on youtube, I decided to make my version with Juno (my dog).  Juno was reluctant to eat her dinner until I threw a little peanut butter in the mix.  As you can see from the video, peanut butter makes all the difference.

(By Nathan R. Jessup)

After watching the video of the dog eating crackers on youtube, I decided to make my version with Juno (my dog).  Juno was reluctant to eat her dinner until I threw a little peanut butter in the mix.  As you can see from the video, peanut butter makes all the difference.

(By Nathan R. Jessup)

After watching the video of the dog eating crackers on youtube, I decided to make my version with Juno (my dog).  Juno was reluctant to eat her dinner until I threw a little peanut butter in the mix.  As you can see from the video, peanut butter makes all the difference.

(By Nathan R. Jessup)

When I first saw this video I watched it four times in a row-the more I watch, the harder I laugh.  I hope it makes your day a little brighter.  (If anyone decides to make their own video of “dog eating crackers”, be sure and post a link in the comments section!)

UPDATE: See MY version of the video with MY dog Juno!