Saturday, June 28, 2014


Continuing a decades-old tradition of the Commander-In-Chief's circumventing Congress for approval on declaration of war, President Obama announced last week that he was sending 300 military advisers to Iraq.

Apparently, the President does not remember his recent history, or he'd have a clear picture of how our "military adviser" actions generally turn out...

Instead, it appears that Obama is not satisifed with his emporer status, and wants to be known as a conqueror, so he's thinking of the last time in recorded history that 300 soldiers made a difference...

...and perhaps, thinking of himself in more lofty terms...

And it really doesn't matter how this turns out, since the media will continue to kiss his ass, allowing him to continue to fall back on his stock explanation for his screw-ups...

Sadly, this screw up will cost more of our young men their lives.

And that's a helluva price to pay just so Obama can build up his legacy.

Thursday, June 26, 2014


Wow-talk about extremes.

It was not that long ago, on my now-inactive sports-themed blog, Jacques Strappes Sports, where I talked about how violent the world of soccer was, after a referee stabbed a player and the fans beheaded the referee.

Yep, you read that right.

And this was an amateur soccer game in Brazil, not the Al Quaeda League Championship Game.

Now at the other end of the spectrum comes the news from the FIFA World Cup is that a Uruguay star has been banned from play for 9 games and four months.

Wow-did he main someone?

Nope-this was a biting incident.

You remember biting, right? 

Something you may have done in kindergarten before peer pressure solved that little problem. 

Apparently in Uruguay, they've not adopted the custom that little boys do not bite, which leads the country to produce grown men who bite.

Luis Suárez, the striker from Uruguay who has also starred for Liverpool in England’s Premier League, was suspended for nine games and barred from all soccer-related activities for four months Thursday after FIFA’s disciplinary committee determined that he bit an opponent in Uruguay’s 1-0 World Cup victory over Italy. 

Additionally, Suárez, who has been suspended twice previously for biting opponents, was fined 100,000 Swiss francs, or about $112,000.

Suárez’s ban is the longest World Cup suspension issued for an on-field action (surpassing the eight games Mauro Tassotti of Italy received for a vicious elbow in 1994), and it will begin immediately.

Suárez was barred for seven games in 2010 after biting an opponent while playing for the Dutch team Ajax; that incident earned him the nickname Cannibal of Ajax from a Dutch newspaper. 

Suárez was sold to Liverpool just as that ban ended, and in 2013 he was caught on video biting Chelsea’s Branislav Ivanovic during a match. That produced a 10-game suspension and a rebuke from Premier League officials for not appreciating the “seriousness” of the charges after he argued that he deserved a lighter sanction.

Suarez has been suspended for biting before.

That makes him a serial biter.

Someone needs to explain to Suarez that "taking a bite out of the competition" is just an expression.

While Uruguay’s coach and some of Suárez’s teammates staunchly defended him, reaction from soccer officials around the world seemed to indicate little patience with Suárez considering his history.

His teammates are sticking up for him.


Guys-he bites!

Maybe he's just been spending too much time watching Twilight movies, but seriously-you want this ass on your team?

My question is why is this pussy still playing soccer? 

Why would any grown man want to be on the field with this baby?

It is rumored that Suarez has also been accused of taking his ball and going home, but there has been no word from FIFA confirming those charges, which would undoubtedly carry a harsher penalty.

Thursday, June 19, 2014


Redskins owner Snyder

The latest blow in the war against political incorrectness has been struck!

The US Patent And Trademark Office announced that the team’s trademark will be cancelled because the team’s name is disparaging to Native Americans.

Is it a coincidence that President Obama thinks the name should be changed and a Federal agency has taken action?

Why that would be like the IRS going after Tea Party members!

That’s crazy talk!

As a result, the team may have a harder time protecting its name and logo if other people use them without permission on, say, sweatshirts and hats, the Associated Press reported.

"This puts a big dent in their business model of trying to gain revenue from a disparaging term of slur," Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wa.) told ESPN. "I find it very unlikely that someone is going to overrule the patent office on this. This is a huge decision by a federal agency."

Ms. Cantwell, who is obviously of Native American stock...
Since when can you be offended on someone else's behalf?

Allegedly, five Native Americans filed a petition that prompted the Federal agency’s action.

The familiar arguments are fundamentally the same as in Harjo et al v. Pro-Football Inc., a trademark suit filed in 1992 that wound its way through the courts for 17 years. 

If these people are really offended, why don't they sign on to the complaint?
Or did a politician with an agenda hand them a sign and pay them to pretend to protest?

Suzan Shown Harjo and six petitioners won that case before the trademark board in 1999 but lost on appeal, largely on a technical argument that they had waited too long to assert their rights.

Where I object to all of this is, of all of the tribes in the United States, some 5.3 million people claiming Native American descent, only SEVEN found it objectionable enough to be part of Harjo's lawsuit, and only FIVE signed the complaint that the patent office acted on.

Let’s assume both groups are mutually exclusive. That means ELEVEN out of FIVE MILLION were offended.

Since “Native American” can cover a lot of ground, I have not seen confirmation that the complainants are, in fact, red-skinned.

After all, I am a Native American.

And isn’t someone who spends too much time in the sun “red-skinned?” 

I have, at times, been red-skinned. I do not find the team name offensive. 

Reportedly, neither do 95% of Native Americans who are descendants of the indigenous tribes that lived here before the descendants of these politically-correct pinheads arrived here from Europe.

In fact, only 0.0002% of Native Americans found the name offensive enough to sign on to the complaints.

If the name change were to be made, it would be a windfall for Snyder and the NFL.

Gratuitous cheerleader photo

Sales of new team merchandise would undoubtedly propel the fourth most valuable NFL franchise up a notch or two.

I respect Snyder for standing his ground against what appears to be a small minority.

If an overwhelming number of Native Americans had signed on, I might feel differently, but at what point do you stop trying to make a warm and happy place for everyone (except for Christians of course-they should be fed to the lions)?

I have the best solution for Snyder.

Move the team. I hear Los Angeles may be in the market for a team.

That way, it makes sense to do a name change.

All those idiots in Washington can explain to the DC market why they no longer have a football team.

Or, if you’re hell-bent on staying in DC but are going to cave to the pressure, might I suggest re-naming the team the “Politically Correct Liberal Pussies?”

Proposed Uniforms For The Washington Pussies

You can have pink uniforms (which would go over big in October), and a nice little fluffy kitty as the team logo.

New Logo For Washington D.C. NFL Franchise

Monday, June 16, 2014


With the Treasury needing another $1.5 trillion in debt to finance the anticipated federal budget deficit, the Obama administration is obviously scrambling to find new ways to sell government debt cheaply, without having to raise interest rates.

Two years ago, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Treasury Department held joint hearings on whether government lifetime annuity options funded by U.S. Treasury debt should be required for private retirement accounts, including IRAs and 401(k) plans.

Now I ask you-can you point to the clause in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to tell you how to invest your money?

I do not seem to remember that amendment.

But our Kenyan Emporer is starting to grease the skids.

Packaged as a new retirement-savers plan designed for workers whose employers do not offer IRAs or 401(k), President Obama announced in his State of the Union address earlier this year an initiative that allows first-time savers to start building up their savings in Treasury bonds that could eventually be converted into traditional IRAs or 401(k) plans.

While it is not as onerous as an Obama administration directive demanding a certain percentage of individual retirement savings must be invested in U.S. Treasury bonds, it may be a first step in that direction.

With the Obama administration having run federal budget deficits in the range of $1 trillion every year in office since 2009, somebody has to buy all the Treasury debt the Obama administration plans to issue.

In January 2013, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau suggested it should play a role in helping Americans manage the $19.4 trillion they have put into retirement savings. “That’s one of the things we’ve been exploring and are interested in terms of whether and what authority we have,” bureau director Richard Cordray told Bloomberg in an interview.

Under the direction of the Obama White House, the Treasury and Labor departments have increasingly pushed the investment theory that because government bonds carry a sovereign guarantee against default, any IRA or 401(k) funds placed in a Treasury R-Bond would constitute, in effect, a government annuity that would pay the retiree a lifetime income, regardless how stock and bond markets might independently perform.

The government’s argument is that IRA and 401(k) investors lost principal from their retirement savings accounts when the housing bubble burst and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell from a closing high of 14,164.53 on Oct. 9, 2007, to a closing low of 6,547.05 on March 9, 2009.

That is true.

My 401K plummeted. 

And as soon as I was permitted (I was governed by insider rules, even though I only saw a small fraction of my company’s results), I put every dime into my company’s stock at $8 per share.

My logic was, if the stock kept going down, retirement was the least of my worries, but there was no reason it should not go up to it’s former value.

I moved it out at $40 a share within a year, and it has since been as high as $90.

Fidelity Investments estimated the average 401(k) fund balance dropped 31 percent between the end of 2007 and March 2009.

With the stock-market rally that began in March 2009, Fidelity noted 401(k) account balances increased 28 percent by the end of the third quarter 2009.

Since 2009, most IRA and 401(k) investors have registered substantial gains.

So the people who were at retirement age who were in risky investments may have suffered, but most people had the opportunity to recover.

Without the help of our government.

And without investing in bonds backed by a government whose spending is out of control.

A government who would have to sell more bonds to pay us back.

Which is the equivalent of paying Visa with a Mastercard.  

Retirement savers in nations with high debt that have demanded retirement savings be placed into government debt have fared badly, taking huge losses as debt crises deepened and bond markets began selling the debt at serious discounts.

The Argentine state took control of the country’s privately managed pension funds in a dramatic move to raise cash.

In 2008, Argentine sovereign debt was trading at 29 cents on the dollar, reflecting the devalued state of the Argentine peso, with the result that private pensioners holding government debt in their retirement accounts could not be assured those bonds would have any meaningful value at maturity.

Think it can’t happen in the US?

Reuters reported last year that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced a government decision to transfer to the government pension system all bond investments in privately owned pension funds within the state-guaranteed system in an effort to educe Polish national debt and allow the Polish government to resume borrowing in international markets.

By confiscating, or otherwise “nationalizing” the bonds held in Polish citizen private retirement accounts, the Polish government, with public debt currently standing at approximately 52.7 percent of GDP, circumvents restrictions that deter the government from allowing debt to rise to over 50 percent of GDP.

By shifting bonds held in private retirement accounts into government accounts, the assets are held on the state balance sheet to offset public debt, giving the government more scope to borrow and spend.

As is the case with other nations in the European Union, Poland faced with slowing economic growth, a grim job situation, and declining tax revenues, has been forced to borrow to maintain the nation’s large social welfare system without imposing austerity measures.

The international reaction among private investment advisers was one of shock and dismay.

Poland’s move follows a similar move taken by the Mediterranean island of Cyprus earlier this year.

The Cyprus government confiscated 10 percent of the amount in all bank accounts in a move calculated to raise 6 billion euros to meet a condition set by international bankers, including the International Monetary Fond, as a condition of finalizing a proposed Eurozone bailout.

Still think it can’t happen here?

Americans live with an illusion that their retirement, guaranteed by Social Security, is safe.

As I showed readers in a previous post, the taxes that were withheld from you and your employer have been spent-there is no money set aside for you.

The government plan is to tax your children to pay for your Social Security.

I was speaking to a lady friend recently who is retiring this year, and she thinks she is secure because she had filed for her benefits. 

Her actual statement was that I am at risk while she is not because her benefits have been approved.

She has no concept of the fact that she is dependent on future tax revenue streams to continue her benefits.

Nor does she understand that in fifteen years or so (give or take), when we are both retired, we will both be supported by those tax revenues from the younger Americans who are still working, a situation that will be strained by the demographic reality.

And she is pretty much the mainstream. Americans are oblivious to this.

For most Americans, Social Security is a primary part of their retirement plan (even though it was never intended to be so).

They are counting on Uncle Obama to care for them.

I would even argue that the below chart is unrealistic-I believe most people in the bottom income tier have nothing but Social Security, and that the same is true for the middle income tier.

In fact, because Social Security benefits are capped, I would further argue that the percentage of the top income tier's portfolio for Social Security is far less than the 37% illustrated below.

The government encourages that "Uncle Obama Will Provide" mindset because it makes you more dependent on them and gets them closer to their goal, which Stephen T. McCarthy explains in several posts like this one HERE. 

Why else is Obama considering stealing private retirement funds?

He knows the federal government can't pay everyone who will be demanding benefits by the end of the decade, so he wants to steal your personal savings from you to repay the money he took from you during your working life.

In the Obama vision, your retirement will look like this:

An interesting statistic from a friend who works at a brokerage firm-85% of all boomers are woefully under-funded for retirement.

 Yet according to the above graph, not even half of all Americans are worried about it.

Now I know that it's a fact that 67% of all statistics are bullshit 50% of the time, but don't you think Americans ought to WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!

Especially since they won't be able to afford coffee in retirement.

No, I take that back-for a few hours a day they'll be able to get coffee for free...

My thanks to Robin at Your Daily Dose for the idea for this post....

Sunday, June 8, 2014


The Obama administration has come under fire for its May 31 deal to exchange five Taliban terrorists being detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who has been held by the Islamist guerrilla movement for five years.

Setting aside the fact that once again, Obama has exceeded his authority and will get away with it, let’s look at the fact that he made a deal with the Taliban.

A bad deal.

A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that there was “incontrovertible evidence” that Sgt. Bergdahl had walked away from his unit, although the report didn’t formally accuse him of desertion, according to the Associated Press.

Heck, I'll say it. Obama traded five high ranking Taliban members for a deserter.

Now I am not saying we should have abandoned Bergdahl.

But I find it awful convenient that this exchanged happened at JUST THE EXACT TIME that our illegal-alien-in-chief needed the VA scandal pushed off the front page.

President Obama asserted that we have made “an ironclad commitment to bring our prisoners of war home” because “it’s a profound obligation within our military.”

Funny-what took him all these years? Didn’t the Taliban make the same offer years ago?

Either Obama is an opportunist who made a bad deal for political points, or he’s a moron.

Maybe both.

The phrase “We don’t negotiate with terrorists” is a mantra in our political lexicon.

Ronald Reagan said it, probably at the same time his transition team negotiated the Iranian hostages’ release. 

Later, the Iran-Contra affair showed our president who didn’t negotiate with terrorists negotiating a deal that gave the terrorism-sponsoring state more than 2,000 anti-tank missiles.

Every president since has said we don’t negotiate with terrorists. 

And every president has.

So I am not condemning Obama for that hypocrisy. 

I am condemning him for another example of incompetence. 

And condemning him for another instance of putting lives at risk to bolster his public image.

Obama is a liar. And a fraud. And this farce that all of his critics are racist is bull.

His blind supporters are the racists.

I'm sure the Republicans will not follow through with their impeachment rhetoric, and Obama will finish his term. 

But this administration has been a joke.

And the joke is on the American people.