Tom Brady’s Disappointment Easily Explained

Posted: November 21, 2019 by datechguy in Uncategorized

Why don’t we just kick the field goal?…40 yarder and the game’s over. 

Tom Brady to Bill Belichick Superbowl LIII

Everyone in the sports world seems to want to psychoanalyze Tom Brady’s disappointment in the play of the offense after their 17-10 win over the Eagles last week and are all reading a million things into it when it all boils down to simple offensive math. Plus Nine.

If you hold a lead of 9 points or more, then as an offense you have more room for risk. You can try a running play or a short pass that consumes time simply for the sake of clock management, or risk a pass play to a receiver who is less sure or reliable because you don’t risk losing the lead,

With such a lead the need for opposing defense to recover the ball or generate a score is large and gains urgency as the game continues. Such a lead forces a defense to take risks that might turn one of those short time consuming plays into a big score.

Finally with such a lead even if the ball is turned over due to an interception or a punt the need to score twice forces an offence into situations that favors your defense and if worst comes to worse and they score anyway after the ensuing kickoff your offense in general and the Quarterback in particular still has control their own destiny.

If however your lead is 8 or less then any mistake has the potential of costing you the lead. If you throw into coverage the ball is intercepted the ball can at worst be run back for a lead changing score and at best gives the ball back to the other side with a chance to take the lead or win the game while you have to sit on the bench, completely helpless relying on your defense to make the stop.

Brady isn’t frustrated because of ego, he’s not frustrated because he wants to be the star, he’s frustrated because he knows what it’s like to sit on a bench and watch a game slip away due to a mistake (think Miami miracle) , or an impossible catch. (think Superbowl XLII) or even just an offense on a roll (Superbowl LII). Sure your defense might hold like last week against the Eagles or even make an impossible play to preserve the win (think Superbowl XLIX).

It’s not that he doesn’t have trust in his defense, he’s frustrated because the offense, his offense, is placing a burden on the defense that has the potential to cost them wins in the short run and a championship in the long run and he takes that responsibility seriously.

If you doubt this for one moment compare the reaction of Tom Brady after he put up spectacular MVP class numbers while losing Superbowl 52

And his reaction after being held to 13 points and one touchdown in winning Superbowl 53

This isn’t about ego, it’s not about money, it’s not about a contract. Tom Brady wants to win. That what it’s all about.

Robert Spencer Nails It, Kruiser Nails it, Byron York Nails it, Jazz Shaw Nails it and Devin Nunes Nails it too Under The Fedora

Posted: November 20, 2019 by datechguy in Uncategorized

To say “Robert Spencer Nails It” is a rather redundant thing as he has made a career of “Nailing it” when it comes to Islam but if you read only one paragraph this month from him, this is it

What is noteworthy also about The History of Jihad is something that it does not contain. As the jihadis move against non-Muslim states without any letup, pause, period of coexistence, period of tolerance, reformation, or reconsideration, there never appears any force of Muslims to oppose them. While it is undoubtedly true that not all Muslims in any given age have ever waged jihad, there has never been in Islamic history an Islamic entity or organization that was opposed to waging jihad and dedicated to stopping those who were waging it.

In fairness for a Muslim to oppose these things would likely prove hazardous to their health and the health of their immediate family.

On hearing the Chick-Fil-A had decided to cut off the Salvation Army at a time when the left is going after them I tweeted my displeasure along with many other conservatives. Chick-Fil-A insists that they are simply refocusing their giving, but some are suspicious. Steven Kruiser explains why:

Many conservatives remained unmoved because, while Chick-fil-A said donating money to help homelessness, they had cut off funding to the Salvation Army, which is huge, nationwide, and helps the homeless. It seemed to them that the move was made purely due to Salvation Army’s stance on LGBTQ issues.
There are any number of reasons that Chick-fil-A could have for cutting ties with the Salvation Army. We will only know if this was truly a capitulation to the rabid wokesters when we see who the company gives money to going forward.

The irony of course is that the primary reason that Chick-Fil-A’s incredible growth over the last few years to this point was because it was a delicious way to hit back in the culture wars. And they should know that if you pay the danegeld you never get rid of the dane. So until I know for sure which way their wind is blowing, I’ll stick to the better tasting Wendy’s Chicken sandwich, although I’ll miss their 1st rate soup until they do

Like Robert Spencer Byron York regularly nails it and his explanation as to why the Democrats have been very careful to shut down GOP members who has difficult questions at the impeachment hearings is spot on:

Should the whistleblower have connections to prominent Democrats, exposure of his identity could be embarrassing to the party. And perhaps most of all, reading through the impeachment investigation depositions that have been released so far, it’s clear that cutting off questions that could possibly relate to the whistleblower has also allowed Democrats to shut off any look at how the Trump-Ukraine investigation started. Who was involved? What actions did they take? Why did some government employees think President Trump’s July 25 call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky represented a lost opportunity, or poor judgment, while others thought it represented wrongdoing requiring congressional investigation?
Democrats do not want the public to know. And in that, their position is familiar to anyone who has watched Washington for the last two years: The Democrats’ determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Ukraine investigation is strikingly similar to their determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. In both cases, they fought hard to keep secret the origins of investigations that have shaken the nation, deeply divided the electorate, and affected the future of the presidency.

I think Glenn Reynolds has been right from day one. The entire impeachment farce is not about getting rid of Trump but about forestalling any investigation of their activities to keep him from being elected.

Jazz Shaw did not explicitly quote any of DaTechGuy’s Laws of Media Outrage in this piece on a Mass shooting in California but all those principles are there when he notes how fast it went down the memory hole:

 this mass shooting is uninteresting to much of the media because it fails all the normal tests and doesn’t fit in with the narrative. Had the men at least been using “assault rifles” they might have merited a bit more coverage. But those events are vanishingly rare because most gang members are well aware that it’s tough to hide a long gun when walking down the street to attack someone or while fleeing the scene afterward.
Further, if initial reports prove accurate, this was an incident of adult Asian people shooting other adult Asian people. And most of the press has about as much interest in that story as one where black gang members are shooting other black people. In short… basically none. It’s reminiscent of the Bunny Friend Park shooting in New Orleans back in 2015. It was the second-largest mass shooting of the year in the United States.
Seventeen people were shot in the middle of a public festival but if you didn’t live in New Orleans or subscribe to the Times-Picayune, you probably never heard about it. Why? Because it was two rival gangs composed primarily of African-Americans settling a turf war. Unfortunately, they were such poor marksmen that almost all of the victims were bystanders, including a young boy who was shot through the spine and will likely spend his life in a wheelchair.

Unless the right people are shooting or being shot the media has no interest in mass shootings, period!

Finally if you want to know what impeachment is you won’t do better than Rep Devin Nunes

“But if the Democrats in the media are suddenly so deeply concerned about bribery, you would think they would take some interest in Burisma paying Hunter Biden $83,000 a month. And you think they would be interested in Joe Biden threatening to withhold U.S. loan guarantees unless the Ukrainians fired a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. That would be a textbook example of bribery. The media, of course, are free to act as Democrat puppets and they’re free to lurch from the Russia hoax to the Ukraine hoax at the direction of their puppet masters. But they cannot reasonably expect to do so without alienating half the country who voted for the president they’re trying to expel. Americans have learned to recognize fake news when they see it. And if the mainstream press won’t give it to them straight, they’ll go elsewhere to find it, which is exactly what the American people are doing.”

This is why most people actually seek political power, to get those perks

Gang Warfare

Posted: November 19, 2019 by julietteochieng in Always look at the bright side of Trump, elections, politics, Uncomfortable Truths, war
Tags: , , , ,

by baldilocks

I estimate that everything we’ve seen since the assassination of President Kennedy has been Government-by-The-People Theater. No doubt, this charade goes much further back than that point in time, however, let’s call that event a conflagration – a reminder to all observers of who really runs things. Yes, I’m aware of the implication that I’m making: that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy by unseen actors, but don’t get it twisted; I’ve seen all the other conspiracy theories about it and I don’t subscribe to any of them. And it’s not my point anyway.

This is: I contend that every president from Lyndon B. Johnson to Barack H. Obama has walked in step with and/or been controlled by the bureaucracy, the secret cabals, the military-industrial complex (thank you, President Eisenhower), and the various other gangs that undergird this country. Yes, even Ronald Reagan.

And yet, somehow, we managed to elect one that refuses to walk in that path.

The gangs that began conspiring against him even before he won the nomination knew that he was the most dangerous choice for president — dangerous to them. He had made his money outside of government, had been in the public eye for decades and had a checkered private life that he didn’t try to hide. And, most frightening of all, he had claimed to be one of them: a Democrat. He entertained them, partied with them, listened to them.  He had probably seen and heard all manner of foul things that his “friends” prefer to remain private. And he had done so while drinking no alcohol and doing no drugs.

They had given him awards and begged him for jobs and for money.

Then, “out of the blue” he runs for president. In reality, he signaled what he was going to do back in the 1980s and did so again in 2012.

So, the gangs had to have something prepared just for him. However, it appears that he was ready for this, and for the next attack, and the next one and the one after that.

One of his missions is to expose the various means which the gangs have of enriching themselves on monies gotten from the pockets of the tax-payers. Ukraine seems to be both a means of thievery and a huge storage space for the loot.

This is why the government gangs will do anything to get him out of office. But before that happens, his reputation must be blasted to smithereens.

He knows this, which is why he will not be silent about it. As they use to say about a totally unrelated topic, silence equals death.

But he also keeps talking because it distracts the gangs from his more meaningful action against the gangs. While they continue to attempt to ruin his legacy before driving him out — or worse — he is on offense as well.

Everything will come to a head in one year or less.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on Facebook, Twitter, MeWe, Patreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

Bribery and the Constitution

Posted: November 19, 2019 by chrisharper in Uncomfortable Truths
Tags: ,

By Christopher Harper

Bribery?

That’s the latest means the Democrats have tried to get rid of Donald Trump.

But there’s a Democrat congressman, Alcee Hastings, who might make a useful addition to the witness list because he’s only one of three federal officials who’s been charged with bribery under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Hastings, who is one of the longest-serving representatives in Congress, was elected in Florida in 1992. In fact, he almost got elected in 2006 as head of the House Intelligence Committee now holding the impeachment hearings.

But here’s what Hastings doesn’t want everyone to remember.

In 1981, Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence against two defendants when he was a federal judge in Florida. He also was accused of perjury in his testimony about the case. 

In 1983, Hastings was acquitted by a jury after his co-conspirator refused to testify in court. 

In 1988, the Democrat-controlled House took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury a vote of 413–3. He was then convicted on October 20, 1989, by the U.S. Senate on eight articles of impeachment. 

His co-conspirator, attorney William Borders, went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Hastings’s conviction and removal were upheld.

Hastings’s impeachment and removal had to do with an out-and-out bribe. No similar comparison can be made with the current investigation of Trump.

Nancy Pelosi and some Obama lawyers are trying to peddle the notion that the founding fathers had some other definition of bribery, but I’ve been unable to find the distinctions in my research of sources on the Constitution.

The past precedents for bribery under the impeachment clause, particularly that of Democrat Hastings, were clear cut examples of taking money for doing something that was illegal. 

Hastings would make an excellent example of what bribery really is under the U.S. Constitution!

Older Entries
Newer Entries