As the NCAA’s March Madness begins this week throughout the country, the extent of the scandal sweeping throughout college basketball continues to grow.

All four of the tournament’s No. 1 seeds—Virginia, Villanova, Kansas, and Xavier—have been mentioned in some form or another in an FBI investigation. Moreover, about 20 percent of the 68 teams in the competition also have been investigated.

DaTech3.jpgAs The Associated Press’ Eddie Pells points out: “There’s an undeniable chance the team cutting down the nets in San Antonio on April 2 could be forced to forfeit its title a few years down the road after the NCAA sorts through the damage.”

In fact, Louisville recently lost its 2013 title as a result of the FBI investigation, and the coach, Rick Pitino, was fired.

The investigation initially centered on Adidas and college basketball programs associated with the brand. In September, the FBI arrested 10 people, including basketball coaches and Adidas personnel, and charged them with bribery, money laundering, and wire fraud. The schools implicated in the original indictments included Arizona, Auburn, Louisville, Miami, Oklahoma State, South Carolina, and Southern California. But the charges have gone beyond these schools and Adidas.

In February, Yahoo Sports published a report, based on documents obtained by the FBI that named more than a dozen more schools and more than 25 current and former players as having been potentially involved in the scandal.

But college basketball is not alone in the cavalcade of corruption.

As The Atlantic noted several years ago: “With so many people paying for tickets and watching on television, college sports has become Very Big Business…. When you combine so much money with such high, almost tribal, stakes—football boosters are famously rabid in their zeal to have their alma mater win—corruption is likely to follow.”

Simply put, with a lot of money to throw around corruption flows through the system. But the athletes don’t get much of the cash. Sure, they get a scholarship and some walking-around money. But the best players spend a year or so in college before jumping to pro ball.

Here are just a few of the football scandals in recent years. In 2010, the NCAA sanctioned the University of Southern California after determining that star running back Reggie Bush and his family had received “improper benefits” while he played for the Trojans. Among other charges, Bush and members of his family were alleged to have received free airfare and limousine rides, a car, and a rent-free home in San Diego, from sports agents who wanted Bush as a client. The Bowl Championship Series stripped USC of its 2004 national title, and Bush returned the Heisman Trophy he had won in 2005. As Auburn University football stormed its way to an undefeated season and a national championship in 2010, the team’s star quarterback, Cam Newton, was dogged by allegations that his father had used a recruiter to solicit up to $180,000 from Mississippi State in exchange for his son’s matriculation there after junior college in 2010. Jim Tressel, the highly successful head football coach of the Ohio State Buckeyes, resigned after the NCAA alleged he had feigned ignorance of rules violations by players on his team. At least 28 players over the course of the previous nine seasons, according to Sports Illustrated, had traded autographs, jerseys, and other team memorabilia in exchange for tattoos or cash at a tattoo parlor in Columbus, in violation of NCAA rules. A University of Miami booster gave illicit cash and services to a dozen Hurricanes football players.

The NCAA, the “nonprofit” association that runs college athletics, takes in close to $8 billion a year. According to a Business Insider report, there are now 24 schools that make at least $100 million annually from their athletic departments. In 2015, the most profitable athletic department in the country was at Texas A&M, raking in over $192 million. The University of Texas wasn’t far behind with $183 million.

Champions Way, a new book by New York Times reporter Mike McIntire, is the latest inquiry into the seedy underbelly of college sports. The “corporate-athletics complex,” as he calls it, corrupts universities, skirts federal tax laws, bullies the IRS, relies heavily on private donors, and sets players up to fail after their sports careers are over by pushing them into academically vapid curriculums.

NCAA President Mark Emmert has stated the obvious. “If true, [the charges] point to systematic failures that must be fixed and fixed now if we want college sports in America.”

Don Jackson, an attorney who has worked on numerous college eligibility cases, told Yahoo Sports that the root of the problem is that the NCAA’s model of amateurism doesn’t work.

“This problem can be solved if players are compensated,” Jackson said. “The NCAA is not capable of adequately policing tens of thousands of athletes around the country.”

Some people argue that paying athletes would corrupt the system. That system is already corrupt and getting worse all the time.

by baldilocks

One Ring to rule them all.

With Louis Farrakhan’s well-known anti-Semitism, hatred of whites, and alliance with the Women’s March and the Congressional Black Caucus being in the news, I am reminded of something startling that I talked about back in 2012.

When I was on my way to church this morning, I saw something very interesting near my house.

The “Church” of Scientology has been building centers in and around South Central Los Angeles and in Inglewood — something that had previously been unheard of. Today, being Fathers’ Day, I guess there was some big event at the center near me.  But guess which organization was celebrating the day with them? The Nation of Islam.  FOI, bean pies, and white “garments” (similar to burkas) all over the place!

Did a little research when I got home.  There isn’t much to go on, but one website reports that, back in 2009, Louis Farrakhan said that there was some sort of “marriage” between the two organizations.  Marriage, eh? One wonders who will get to be on top in the end.

(I recall getting a funny look when one of the FOI tried to give me an unsuccessful hard-sell on a bean pie. Yes, I recall that they are delicious, but I can’t in good conscience give my money to that organization.)

A “marriage?” Between those two? Bizarre doesn’t begin to describe it.

I don’t live in that house anymore and, therefore haven’t had an up-close view of the evolution of this relationship. So, let’s see what’s out there. Continue reading “These are Some Really Strange Bedfellows”

by baldilocks

Sitting in for Fausta today and Friday.

Just a Utah kid doing some research.

ST. GEORGE– Police confirmed Tuesday that the device that caused the evacuation at Pine View High School Monday was a “homemade explosive device” left inside a backpack and the juvenile arrested in the incident has been charged with a first-degree felony related to the manufacture, possession or use of a “weapon of mass destruction.”

“After examining the device, bomb squad members indicated that if it had detonated; the device had the potential to cause significant injury or death,” the St. George Police said in a statement.

The backpack was left in the cafeteria of the high school during lunch where some students noticed it smoking. They alerted the resident school resource officer and faculty, which led to the school’s 1,100 students being evacuated to the football field for the rest of the school day. (…)

“Based on our investigation we can confirm this was a failed attempt to detonate a homemade explosive at the school,” the police said in the press release.

The police executed a search warrant at the home of the suspect, identified as a juvenile male attending Pine View High School, where investigators found “materials consistent with the materials used to build the device.”

Additional evidence was found linking the suspect to last month’s incident at Hurricane High School in which the school’s outdoor American flag was replaced with an ISIS flag and the words “ISIS is comi” were spray-painted on the side of the school walls.

Safe bet that this kid knew that there are laws against bringing a bomb to school, but he didn’t follow that law. Why not? Because those who would blow up – or shoot up – their classmates not only couldn’t care less about law, but look forward to the defiance of law, not to mention the glory of the slaughter.

This one failed, but there will be other lawbreakers. We are a species of lawbreakers and for many of us, no earthly statute will make a difference when we are dead set on defiance. But, especially where murder or attempted murder is involved, we are also defying a law from another jurisdiction: we defy God.

And that is the bottom line. The United States of America can make tons of new laws from federal to municipal, but they will not change the desperately wicked human heart.

Only God can do that.

(Thanks to Hot Air.)

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.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

If you’d like to continue to support independent journalism, help defray the $140 a month extra I’ll need for my new hosting site) and think my CPAC 2018 reporting is worthwhile please consider hitting DaTipJar here.

Consider subscribing. 7 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.

Choose a Subscription level

Finally might I suggest my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer makes an excellent Gift.

by baldilocks

There’s a reason that we Southern California conservatives have a hard time letting go of our failed state. It’s 78 degrees today in Los Angeles. The rest of California is difficult not to love – even the desert areas.

With California secession in the wind, Glenn Reynolds writes about one of several intrastate secessionist groups: New California.

Sweet dreams. Cite.

[A] plan to split the wealthy, coastal regions of California from the remainder, leaving the state of “New California” to be made up of most of the state’s rural areas. As CBS News reports, “unlike other separation movements in the past, the state of New California wants to do things by the book, citing Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and working with the state legislature to get it done, similar to the way West Virginia was formed. … The group is organized with committees and a council of county representatives, but say it will take 10 to 18 months before they are ready to fully engage with the state legislature.” The goal is to let the rural areas govern themselves in ways more suited to their needs, while the wealthy coastal regions do the same. (The New California movement already has chapters in 34 counties, according to its website.)

I’ll have to check the site out and see what’s going on, but they definitely sound like play-by-the-rule conservatives. That’s admirable, but don’t look for them to be successful. The Organized Left would never give up all that prime farmland and road access to the other states. They want all of California and, eventually, all fifty states.

But if it were to come true, would I move there? Probably not. My long-term goal is to be near members of my family, most of whom live in the Southwest and the South.

I am keeping an eye on what happens with this, however. Nothing wrong with trying.

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.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

If you’d like to continue to support independent journalism, help defray the $140 a month extra I’ll need for my new hosting site) and think my CPAC 2018 reporting is worthwhile please consider hitting DaTipJar here.

Consider subscribing. 7 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.

Choose a Subscription level

Finally might I suggest my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer makes an excellent Gift.

A majority of Americans wants the government to regulate technology companies—a significant change after revelations that Russia used online services such as Facebook to influence the 2016 election.

According to an Axios-Survey Monkey poll, concern about government inaction is up significantly—15 percentage points—in  the past three months.

Says Axios: “That’s a seismic shift in the public’s perception of Silicon Valley over a short period of time. It shows how worried Americans are about Russian meddling in the 2016 election, but it also reflects a growing anxiety about the potentially addictive nature of some of the tech companies’ products, as well as the relentless spread of fake news on their platforms.”

In a previous Axios-Survey Monkey poll in November, just after Facebook, Google, and Twitter testified before Congress, only about 40 percent of those polled were concerned that the government wouldn’t do enough to regulate the tech companies.

That number jumped to 55 percent in the latest poll. That includes 45 percent of Republicans, who are usually skeptical about government regulation. Independents showed the biggest shift with an increase of 20 percentage points.

The poll found a variety of other problems those polled see in the tech sector:

–More than eight out of 10, including significant majorities across party lines, blame the technology companies for not doing enough to safeguard their platforms against election interference.

–Fifty-five percent of those polled think social media do more to hurt democracy and free speech.

The online survey was conducted by Survey Monkey from February 21-23, 2018, among 3,574 adults in the United States. They were selected from the nearly three million people who take surveys on the Survey Monkey platform each day. The modeled error estimate for the full sample is 2.5 percentage points. Crosstabs available here.

A recent analysis in The Wall Street Journal described Facebook as “tone deaf.”

“It isn’t clear whether the Russian activity on Facebook made a difference in the election, a position some Facebook executives still privately maintain, and no evidence has emerged that it tipped the result to President Donald Trump. What is clear, however, is that the social-media giant’s months-long obliviousness to deepening public concern about its social impact has worsened a backlash against it and other Silicon Valley giants,” The Journal wrote. For more, see

Moreover, Google, Facebook, and other technology giants have a decidedly leftist tilt. Many top leaders give huge contributions to the Democrats.

A recent analysis found that “a majority of the most-engaged partisan Facebook pages are left-leaning or affiliated with Trump resistance movements, according to NewsWhip, a social analytics measurement company. The firm looked at the engagement (likes, comments, and shares) of partisan pages in Trump’s first full month as president. Even more telling is that most of the left-leaning pages are out-performing some of the most trafficked news competitors in overall engagement.”

Google, Facebook, and Twitter loomed large at last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference, where participants squeezed into a standing-room-only ballroom for a discussion called “Suppression of Conservative Views on Social Media: A First Amendment Issue.”

Moreover, a new film by Peter Schweizer, a journalist known for his investigations into Hillary Clinton, focuses on technology companies and their role in filtering the news. Even The New York Times noted the upcoming motion picture:

Although I am not a huge fan of government regulation, I just about have had it with the social media giants. I happy to know that I’m in the majority for a change.

The ongoing conflict between an individual’s privacy and the public interest heads to the U.S. Supreme Court when the justices hear oral arguments in a lawsuit in which Microsoft refuses to turn over data in a drug case.

The U.S. Constitution does not include the actual word privacy, but the Fourth Amendment, which prevents illegal searches and seizures, has become the basis for the definition of the issue.


This case involves Microsoft’s dispute with federal prosecutors over whether it must provide data hosted in a storage facility in Ireland. The dispute focuses on whether U.S. courts can compel a company to turn over an individual’s data when it is held overseas.

Simply put, the decision revolves around where “the cloud” exists. Cloud technology has become worth an estimated $250 billion.

If Microsoft wins, supporters will laud the decision as a victory for privacy. If the government wins, it will be seen as a victory of law enforcement. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. The company knows it will lose business if it cannot guarantee privacy to customers–much like the bankers who house drug money. The government as is its want is likely to overstep the boundaries if it wins.

The case has drawn extensive interest, including numerous briefs to the Supreme Court from abroad.

The showdown is unfolding on several fronts. Legislation in Congress would partially resolve disputes over law enforcement access to private data held across borders. The bills would obligate service providers to turn material over to prosecutors under certain conditions regardless of where in the world the material is stored.

Still, some mystery surrounds the legal dispute that was argued today in Supreme Court chambers. For one, prosecutors have never identified the person who was targeted in a warrant issued by a New York District Court judge in 2013.

Prosecutors demanded that Microsoft turn over all emails and information associated with the subject’s account, and the company responded that it could not be forced to turn over information stored overseas—in this case at a data center in Dublin.

Alternatively, prosecutors outside of the United States complain about obstacles to conducting investigations of criminal suspects using U.S.-based webmail.

“The cops in Brazil and the cops in India and the cops in France, all of the cops in the world, want to issue normal evidence orders in accordance with local law and they are frustrated or stymied by American rules,” Andrew Woods, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law, told Tim Johnson of the McClatchy Washington Bureau.

Woods cited a hypothetical case in which a Londoner is a suspect in the murder of a fellow Brit, a crime investigated by local police.

“Everything about that case is British,” Woods said, but police “cannot go to Google and compel Google to give them content of the suspect’s email account. They have to go through the mutual legal assistance process. That is not only slow it is also an affront to British sovereignty.”

The U.S. government has struck mutual legal assistance treaties, or MLATs, with about a third of the world’s countries. The mechanism, while useful, has its flaws.

Looming behind the debate is Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who stole secrets about U.S. surveillance programs in 2013 before fleeing to Moscow.

“In the wake of the Snowden revelations, levels of trust around the world in the American government went down,” Woods said. “American businesses ever since have been scrambling to reassure customers around the world that they resist the American government.”

The decision is expected to be announced in June.

For more on the case, see 

by baldilocks

Title sung to the melody of John Lennon’s Imagine, appropriately enough.

They always tell you what they’re planning and the plan always involves control of two things: you and your money.

From Aaron Sorkin at the New York Times:

Here’s an idea.

What if the finance industry — credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard and American Express; credit card processors like First Data; and banks like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America?

Collectively, they have more leverage over the gun industry than any lawmaker. And it wouldn’t be hard for them to take a stand.

PayPal, Square, Stripe and Apple Pay announced years ago that they would not allow their services to be used for the sale of firearms.

“We do not believe permitting the sale of firearms on our platform is consistent with our values or in the best interests of our customers,” a spokesman for Square told me.

The big financial firms don’t even have to go that far.

For example, Visa, which published a 71-page paper in 2016 espousing its “corporate responsibility,” could easily change its terms of service to say that it won’t do business with retailers that sell assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, which make semiautomatic rifles fire faster. (Even the National Rifle Association has said it would support tighter restrictions on bump stocks.)

If Mastercard were to do the same, assault weapons would be eliminated from virtually every firearms store in America because otherwise the sellers would be cut off from the credit card system.

There is precedent for credit card issuers to ban the purchase of completely legal products. Just this month, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America banned the use of their cards to buy Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

And there’s more.

There are other sectors of the finance industry that could step up. For example, Lloyd’s of London is the favored insurance company for gun shows. It could pull out.

You want a financial meltdown? This is how you get one. Most of those who would be against this and who can afford weapons can just pull their money out of these institutions. And what happens to the institutions?  And what happens next? And after that?

I’m not financially literate enough to predict the specific consequences of such thing, but I know that it’s a bad idea for this country. Real bad. And I think that Sorkin knows this, too. Feature, not a bug.

See, I’m one of those people who thinks that the leftist intelligentsia wants Leftism and they believe that creating large-scale financial chaos – or any other type of chaos — will fast-track the descent. To that end, this class keeps pushing and pushing.

Is all of this a pipe dream?

We’ll see. I’m betting it will be tried. Imagine a USA where only criminals and the government (BIRM) have guns.

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.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

The Boss is at CPAC, along with Stacy McCain, so be sure to scroll around the homepage here for exciting posts and videos, and of course you will also find some great posts from the other fabulous writers here too!

It is good to be back here at Da Tech Guy Blog and it is even better that Peter got his blog back online after GoDaddy shut him down (BTW, Peter could use some help moving this site to a better server so please hit his tip jar if you can).

There has been a whole lot of shutting down of right leaning people online lately, from the Twitter shadow bans and purges to the even longer running shenanigans from Facebook, to the creepy Google antics , and now Medium’s joining the ban the right bandwagon (banned wagon?), and again this year CPAC shut out Pamela Geller at the last minute because her panel on Free Speech was to include Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit. To add insult to injury, CPAC then stole Pamela’s work, claimed it for their own, and ran their version of a “Free Speech” panel, after banning some of the biggest advocates for the freedom of speech that we have.

Image from The Geller Report

Robert Spencer has a lot to say about this disgusting turn of events (and the years of hostility from CPAC to people who tell the truth about islamic supremacism and the jihad threat):

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has never been much interested in hosting honest discussion of the jihad terror threat. I was on a panel there in 2003, and in 2007 debated both Dinesh d’Souza and “moderator” Suhail Khan on Islam and the jihad threat (partial video here). I was on various AFDI panels while we were still able to have them there, but I haven’t been back since Suhail Khan flew into a hysterical rage at CPAC 2012 when I challenged him to debate, except for an appearance on Breitbart’s “Uninvited” panel in 2013.

Not only has CPAC consistently dissembled about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, but it has also shown a disturbing tendency to dance to the tune of the Left. Saul Alinsky’s 13th Rule for Radicals is “‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.” The Left consistently does this; in the case of counter-jihadis (including me), it presents our statements, however correct and demonstrable, as egregious and individual to us — that’s freezing and personalizing the target. Then Leftists move to “cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy,” demanding that others on the Right disavow and condemn, or at very least shun, the target. And establishment conservatives have always willingly played along, allowing their associations and allies to be dictated by their enemies.

I’ve been the recipient of both the Alinsky treatment and the shunning from caitiffs on the Right, including CPAC, for years, but I’ve never seen a more nauseating example of CPAC’s cravenness, cowardliness and dishonesty than what has played out with my colleague Pamela Geller over the last ten days. Since last September, Geller has been trying to get a room at CPAC for an AFDI event, even offering to pay sponsorship fees, which are pricey, since sponsoring organizations are given a room in which they can hold an event. CPAC stonewalled and ran out the clock. Finally on February 14, she submitted a proposal for a panel discussion entitled “Suppression of Conservative Views on Social Media: A First Amendment Issue.” She added a list of proposed speakers, including James Damore, Google whistleblower; Harmeet K. Dhillon, renowned free speech attorney; Dan Gainor, Vice President for Business and Culture, Media Research Center; Jim Hoft, Editor-in-Chief, Gateway Pundit; James O’Keefe, Project Veritas; and Marlene Jaeckel, Tech Entrepreneur. I know this because I consulted with Pamela Geller at the time about the focus of this panel and who the speakers should be, before she submitted this proposal to CPAC.

CPAC’s Dan Schneider and Matt Schlapp approved this panel, but would not let it be an AFDI event. Schneider and Schlapp insisted that the panel be sponsored by the American Principles Project (APP), which neither Geller nor I had ever heard of. Otherwise, however, they made no changes — until shortly thereafter, when Hoft enraged the Leftist establishment by noting what has been likewise observed by many people — that the pro-gun control students speaking out in the wake of the Florida school shooting appeared coached. As condemnations rained down on Hoft from the likes of Chelsea Clinton and Paul Krugman, CPAC again rushed to do the Left’s bidding. APP top dog Terry Schilling, a board member of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which hosts CPAC, demanded that Hoft be dropped from the panel. Geller refused to play lapdog for the Left, and so Schilling and CPAC canceled the panel.

And then they stole it.

Today at CPAC there is a panel entitled “Suppression of Conservative Views on Social Media: A First Amendment Issue” and featuring Damore, Dhillon, Gainor, O’Keefe, and Jaeckel. Hmmm, where did they get the idea for such an event? CPAC claims that it was all their idea. CPAC officials issued CPAC staffers talking points on various issues, so that they would march in lockstep in the media (very conservative, that). One of these talking points stated: “CPAC sponsor APP is hosting a panel discussion on conservative voices being silenced on the internet. APP invited Pamela Geller to participate on the panel. She initially accepted but she then made her participation contingent on APP including another person who was obviously a poor choice. Pamela is actively promoting a version of events that are intentionally inaccurate designed to mislead and mischaracterize the construction of this presentation. She is no longer a participant, her claims that the panel is cancelled are false and the panel will move forward as intended.”

This is, to put it politely, a pack of lies. APP did not originate this panel. It did not invite Geller to participate. She did not make her participation contingent on anyone else being included. She is not promoting a false version of event; they are. In reality, Geller originated the panel. APP was added on by CPAC. Hoft was on the panel from the beginning, with CPAC’s agreement. When CPAC insisted that Hoft be dropped because the Left was angry with him, Geller refused, whereupon CPAC canceled the panel. I know all this because I have been involved with this imbroglio at every step of the way.  (MORE)

CPAC may still be a big opportunity for conservatives to meet with like minded people and to hear speeches from important leaders on the right, and for bloggers to snag great interviews, but it is becoming increasingly tainted by its hostility to the counterjihad movement, to Trump supporters, and its habitual folding to the whims of leftism and leftism’s enablers who claim to be on the right. Remember, even our current (and fantastic) President refused to play their game just two years ago.

It might not seem like a big deal to some people, the way Pamela Geller and others who fight for free speech and freedom from islamic totalitarianism tyranny get jerked around by CPAC, but as more organizations are shutting down access for right minded people to get their messages out to the public, we need to realize that an attack on one of us is an attack on us all. Whoever the left unjustifiably howls about next is likely to be the next to be shut out by the establishment right. It is getting harder to hear voices of those who need to be heard the most. The voices we need to hear the most are always the ones that will be silenced first, so that you will never hear the warnings they tried to give you until it is too late.


MJ Stevenson, AKA Zilla, is best known on the web as Zilla at She lives in a woodland shack near a creek, in one of those rural parts of New York State that nobody knows or cares about, with her family and a large pack of guardian companion animals. 

If you want an example of the alt-left, The Daily Kos is it.

As the mainstream media criticize conservative websites, Kos generally receives praise.


I have been monitoring Kos over the past few weeks, and I found a hateful, hysterical example of what’s going on with the left.

Here is a recent example from the website’s front page—a reprise of a commentary from a few years ago.

“In the idealized version of the GOP primary, establishment Republicans would curry favor with their Wall Street pals while sending coded dog whistles to their foot soldiers—on race, immigration, reproductive freedoms, etc. Those dog whistles would motivate the GOP base without revealing their true radical nature to the American mainstream. It was a genius system while it worked, one that saw no parallel on the progressive side…. Republicans laugh about electrocuting immigrants who will cut off your head in the desert if they’re not stopped, while passing laws openly hostile to brown people. Attacks on homosexuals have escalated to new hysterical highs as society becomes more tolerant and open to equality.”

Instead of cautioning readers about the hyperbole of Kos, media outlets like The Huffington Post tout the website’s importance. “The liberal site has acquired a new relevance in the era of Democratic resistance to President Donald Trump,” the HP wrote recently.

Markos “Kos” Moulitsas Zúniga started the blog in 2002. Since then, it has become the most important website on the left, with email list of more than three million subscribers and 18 million unique readers every month. Moreover, Kos raised more than $3 million for Democrat candidates last year. He also is a founder of Vox Media, another generally leftist website.

Moulitsas is from the Chicago area and joined the U.S. Army in 1989. A one-time Republican who opposed gays in the military, he switched parties after attending law school in Boston in the late 1990s. He moved to the San Francisco area to work as a project manager for a web development company.

Simply put, Kos makes The Daily Caller look tame. A recent spate of headlines included the following:

–How many times has Trump cheated on Melania?

–Jared Kushner’s finances are in shambles and he’s a threat to national security

–Why are media ignoring the fact that Nikolas Cruz is a Trump supporter?

But there’s more. A recent edition showed a cartoon of Donald Trump eating cheeseburgers and drinking Diet Coke in his bathrobe. Another depicted the president as a supporter of sexual abuse.

Kos, George Soros, and others like them should be taken to task for the hateful outrages they spew. Each of them has done far more damage to the U.S. election process than any Russian troll.

It’s a good thing that Nick Foles’ Christian faith doesn’t prevent him from playing football on a Sunday, particularly last Sunday.

The MVP and Super Bowl champion has never shied away from his belief in God.

His Twitter bio reads: “Believer in Jesus Christ, husband, father, son, brother.”

More than a few sports reporters cringed when Foles held his postgame news conference after the Super Bowl. “I wouldn’t be out here without God, without Jesus in my life. I can tell you that, first and foremost in my life, I don’t have the strength to come out here and play a game like that,” he said.

Few Eagles fans and even fewer journalists expected that Foles could bring Philadelphia a single victory in the playoffs, let alone a Super Bowl victory.

But his unbelievable performance in the big game is a continuing saga of perseverance. Foles almost quit football after a crisis of confidence over his future when he fell from a superb year in 2013 with the Eagles to a backup role with the Los Angeles Rams.

But his belief in God continued to pull him through. “It took a lot more faith to come back and play than it would’ve to go in the other direction,” Foles told The Associated Press. “Either way would’ve been fine. Either way, I would’ve trusted in God. I would’ve done something else and glorified God in that instance. I knew as a person that the more growth I’ve had and the more opportunity I would have to glorify God and trust in him would be to go back and play football.”

Foles said he wants to become a pastor once his playing career is over–a career that looks a lot brighter than it did only two months ago when he took over as quarterback when Carson Wentz suffered a knee injury.

The Eagles quarterback is a graduate student at Liberty University where he studies religion. In fact, the school, which preacher Jerry Falwell founded, turned on the Rawlings School of Divinity in Eagle midnight green to honor Foles.

Screen Shot 2018-02-05 at 10.56.13 AM.png

It’s worth noting that Wentz, the quarterback Foles replaced after an injury, is a devout Christian. Even offensive coordinator Frank Reich is an ordained Presbyterian minister.

According to FaithWire, the Eagles even conducted a baptism in a hotel pool. “A photo posted to Twitter shows wide receiver Marcus Johnson being baptized in a hotel pool while surrounded by his teammates,” the site reports, calling the Eagles “possibly be the most spiritually active NFL team around.”

Foles was among that group, as was Wentz. ESPN has also chronicled the team’s devotion to religion, indicating that players hold Bible studies. “The presence of faith is not unique to the Eagles, though the way in which it has manifested might be,” reported ESPN.

Maybe the Eagles did have God in their corner. Foles and some of his fellow Christians helped answer the prayers of downtrodden Eagles fans who suffered through a nearly six-decade championship drought. Thanks, Saint Nick!