Monday, December 27, 2010

An anonymous someone left a comment at the Francis L. Holland Blog, encouraging me to read Glenn Greenwald's articles at I looked at Greenwald's post of today and it is about the secretive interactions and relationships between well-known bloggers, FBI employees, and the other employees of the US Justice Department.
But what is incontrovertibly true is that a Wired contributer -- who just so happens also to be Poulsen's prosecutor and long-time source -- played a key role in putting Lamo in contact with government authorities in order to inform on Manning. Poulsen never mentioned any of that, and -- even once Rasch's role was publicly reported -- never once disclosed his multi-faceted relationship to Rasch in all the times he's written about Manning and WikiLeaks. What's also true is that while many convicted hackers had very rigid restrictions placed on them when leaving prison (Kevin Mitnick, for instance, was originally barred from using the Internet entirely), Poulsen not only quickly began writing online as a journalist about the hacker world, but did so at the very same publication -- Security Focus -- that also repeatedly published articles by his prosecutor, Mark Rasch.

The article said that Kevin Poulson of the Wired blog has said that he has secret chat logs that detail information about the source of the recent famous WikiLeaks. Poulson of Wired refuses to publish what he says he has and Glenn Greenwald therefor doubts Poulson bona fides as an independent journalist.

I haven't read the WikiLeaks that people have been speaking about. Nonetheless, Greenwald's account is one that expresses grave doubts about who is working or collaborating with Government officials and when and why. It's conceivable that Poulson refuses to release the truckload of other documents, because to do so would identify Government informants, Government human assets within the blogging community, and other facts that we might never otherwise even imagine.

Poulson's reason for his refusal to divulge the Government documents might be pretty simple: there are laws against secret Government agents divulging names and other information about secret government assets and agents.

I believe that we have to recognize the likelihood some of the bloggers we read and some of the "facts" we read on the Internet are placed there by Government trained bloggers, as is the case with MAMZ.  Take heart. Just as we have learned the facts about a photographer of Martin Luther King, Jr. also being on the FBI payroll, the time will come when the names and identities of Government-compromised bloggers will become common knowledge.  In the mean time, Google the hell out of everything you hear or read, anywhere and everywhere, before you accept anything as fact or "background information".

Everyone must be considered suspect.  Even me.  So don't believe anything I report here until you've followed the links that prove the facts I assert. 

I don't believe in "credibility" as a reason to believe what a bloggers says.  I believe that individual blog articles gain credibility as readers track the citations and sources and come to the conclusion there is sufficient foundation to support the facts asserted.

As much as anything else, the Truth About Kos blog is a source of citations to foreign and domestic newspapers, magazine articles, corporate websites, US Government press releases, statements against interest (confessions) and other sources about MAMZ and his family, which information, particularly when gathered in one place, enables people on the Internet to simply drop a link to this blog in the comments sections at other blog in order to prove the facts about MAMZ. 


Drop a Dime on Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA ("MAMZ" a.k.a. "Kos" of DailyKos)!

If you have a new and demonstably accurate fact about Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA (MAMZ), or even just a hunch, please post these in the comments of any post here at Truth About Kos, or e-mail me at FrancisLHolland @ (no spaces).  Hunches often prove to be about demonstrable facts.  That's why I Googled the names of everyone and everything mentioned in MAMZ's now invisible honeymoon photo album, which is how we learned that MAMZ's family is part of the Salvadoran oligarchy.  (See right sidebar for links.) 

The Truth About Kos doesn't follow MAMZ's daily histriconics because the purpose the the Truth About Kos blog was and is to utterly discredit MAMZ's effort to be seen as a "leftist", "liberal" or progressive".  This blog accomplished that task back in 2007, with The Indictment of Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA (MAMZ) by Justice and History (Updated with Additional Information and Counts).

Once we realized that MAMZ claimed to have, e.g., two years of CIA training under his belt, we knew that no one who thinks as we do could ever believe anything MAMZ said about the past, the present or the future.

In my opinion, this is at least part of why "YearlyKos" was renamed "Netroots Nation"; with MAMZ-minions insisting the exposure of MAMZ's history did not discredit the work of the hundreds of eager and ignorant participants at DailyKos.  In my opinion, Kos was forced to distance himself from YearlyKos at least partially because "Kos" himself has been discredited.

Please send us those links that confirm (or do not confirm) what you have read when you've followed the links at the Truth About Kos.  If new information is discovered, I'll write a post about it.  If any statement of fact at this blog can be proved untrue, then I'll write a post about that as well.  (No one has ever proved anything at this blog to be untrue, except by demonstrating that MAMZ spent two years and not just six months at the CIA, according to a recording and a transcript of his own words of June 2, 2006, when addressing a question about the CIA and his blog's strange defense of the CIA.)

Some MAMZ minions back in 2007 argued that there was doubt about whether the fact that MAMZ "trained" at the CIA for two years proved that he "worked" there.  The CIA says that when you "train" at the CIA you "work" there.  If this distinction between "trained" and "worked" is the only defense MAMZ's minions can offer in the face of proof that MAMZ was at the CIA (2001 - 2003) when he started DailyKos (2002), then obviously MAMZ is defenseless in the face of the facts of his and his family's once-secret history and ongoing right-wing behavior in El Salvador. The Secret "Family Business" of Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga (DailyKos)

To my knowledge, MAMZ has never denied that he currently works at the CIA, or is an asset of the CIA, receives payments from or provides resources to the CIA. Since he said he was at the CIA for two years, I think he should address the question of his present relationship with the same organization. The fact that a MAMZ family member received a one million dollar loan guarantee from the US Government's Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) is indicative of the level of contact and mutual support between MAMZ's family and the US Government.

If you want to know if MAMZ is gay, I can't answer that.  However, I CAN point you toward his public confessions about his own sexuality and you can derive from that what you will.

One Google user came to this blog while looking for a photograph of MAMZ "shirtless." If anyone has such a picture, please post a link or location for it. If it's a real photograph then it constitutes "truth about Kos."

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Truth About Kos Has No Photographs of "markos moulitsas shirtless"

Who wants to see MAMZ shirtless?
One reader has begged me to stop discussing Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga ("Kos" of DailyKos') sexuality at this blog, because it detracts from reader knowledge about MAMZ' connections to the CIA and extreme right-wing politics (See two screenshots of DailyKos discussions in which readers discuss and MAMZ acknowledges that he was a right-wing political activisits before he was trained at the CIA and then became a leftist leader, just months after he voted for a Bush and against Bill Clinton for president).  Is it possible to include more cognitive dissonance and incredible and a more infiltrator-like political cover story in one sentence?

So, yes, I acknowledge that there are for more important aspects of MAMZ's history than his possibly homosexual and certainly homophobic letter to his college newspaper.

Nonetheless, when people search Google for "Markos Moulitsas shirtless" I have to acknowledge that some possibly homosexual men see Markos Moulitsas as a sex object.  Why in the world would anyone want to see MAMZ "shirtless" if not because they were a homosexual man who finds MAMZ attractive.  Can anyone imagine a woman doing a shirt for MAMZ "shirtless".  One of the truths about Kos is that a significant number of people, many of whom may be gay men, show a consistent interest in MAMZ real sexual orientation, whatever it is.  Well, calm those hormones and ask yourself whether you would really like to get with a man like MAMZ, in spite of who he really is, who his family is, and what he has really has done with the years of his life that he wants us to ignore or even endorse while believing that, "He's evolved."

DailyKos minions endeavor to cover all these obvious contradictions by saying, "he's evolved."  If so, MAMZ had an incredibly quick evolution, because he acknowledges voting for Bush in 1992, and then says he went  to work on the Howard Dean Democratic leftist campaign in 1993!  Does anyone and can anyone believe that MAMZ voted for Bush in November (while being trained at the CIA) and then became a leftist Dean activist by Christmas of the same year?

Here's a hint:  The same MAMZ-minions who claimed to believe in what we now know was John Edwards presidential-sized campaign of extra-marital cheating and cover-up are the people who are still participating in DailyKos today, insisting that there is nothing contradictory about training at the CIA while starting a blog for leftists.  MAMZ himself acknowledges the obvious contradictions when he jokes about the CIA assassination of overseas union leaders and why he wanted to work for them anyway.

If you still want information about MAMZ's sexuality, at least we know that he no one--male or female--is watching when he changes his "underpants." However, if anyone does have a photograph of MAMZ shirtless, I would be happy to post it here for those who want to climax.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Truth About Kos on "We See You" Link List

It seems like a decade ago, but I was once posting on MyLeftWing, providing "the truth about Kos."  I remember that two supporters of Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga ("MAMZ,"--but don't call him "Zúñiga" because he's white, not Latino, he says) consoled each other, by saying that it seemed as though I had printed all of MAMZ's hidden background, and so there would be no more embarrassing discoveries.

I had written and published my eventually 31-Count Indictment, so they thought the story was over.

What they didn't count on is that blogs from across the blogosphere would continue to print this information as they became aware of it, and we would never be completely comfortable that an (ex?) Republican operative who was training at the CIA when he started DailyKos, could nonetheless be the leader of the American left.

The Truth About Kos blog would have had no influence on the blogosphere's knowledge of MAMZ, were it not for all of the other blogs, like We See You, that picked up the information and engaged in discussions about it.  And so we are grateful to all of the blogs (see right side bar) that have seen it appropriate to link to the Truth About Kos, both through their linklists and through articles and comments.  It is because of these blogs that the truth about Kos can never be hidden again.

Were it not for these links, many fewer people would know that MAMZ once wrote a letter to the editor opposing ALL gay service in the military.

Truth About Kos found some MAMZ articles in the Northern Start so be so utterly absurd, offensive and insensitive that  Truth About Kos has assembled a list of all but one of them, for readers to peruse.

I personally found the summation article about "racism" and the letter to the editor expressing homophobia to be the most interesting.  What's most interesting about the series on "racism" is that MAMZ immediately disavows the series in a personal note published at the paper, in which

MAMZ Denies Being Latino in Spite of "ZÚÑIGA" Maternal Surname:

"Sure, I could always talk against racism, fight ignorance and prejudice wherever I ran into it, yet I would always be looking in from another room and I could always close the door. My life, in my world, in my own detached selfishness. And as I left the ugly reality of racism behind, it struck me that what was such an easy and trivial exercise for me would be impossible for anyone whose skin color or religious persuassion (sic) made them the target of bigotry and discrimination. THEY would never be able to escape who THEY were." (Emphasis added.)
Aren't Latinos targets of bigotry, or is MAMZ not Latino?  The constant use of the word "they"and the assertion that he will not be the target of bigotry seem like a definitive statement that MAMZ believes he is simply a white man:  nothing more and nothing less. He wrote a series about bigotry on campus and then he immediately disavowed the series as a "trivial exercise", and said that, for his part, he could and would go back to "my own detached selfishness"  while forgetting about people who face bigotry every day.
And this is the man who wants to "crash the gates" of the Democratic Party and remake it in his own image?  I believe he should crash the gates of the Republican Party, because he will feel much more at home there.

Actually, even MAMZ claims that he first worked for the Republican Party as a young teenager, supporting Ronald Reagan, and then he voted for George Bush instead of Bill Clinton  in 1992. 

And then just a few months later voting against Bill Clinton, MAMZ criticized Bill Clinton strongly for Clinton's efforts to end the policy of restricing gays' participation in the US Military. When you vote for Republicans and criticize Democratic Party politics, that make you a Republican in my book.  MAMZ disagrees and we all will have to come to our own conclusions whether a MAMZ who voted for George Bush and was trained by the CIA should nonetheless be allowed to remake the Democratic Party in his own image.

Please read his statement that, "I would always be looking in from another room and I could always close the doorMy life, in my world, in my own detached selfishness. And as I left the ugly reality of racism behind . . . " And now ask yourself whether that paragraph should be part of the Democratic Party Platform in 2012?  If you disagree with that paragraph as part of the Democratic Party platform, then you understand why MAMZ has to be stopped before he gets that far.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

New Black Leaders, Old Civil Rights Groups Conflict in Net Neutrality Debate

RE:  Net Neutrality Issue Heats Up

Please remember that the First Amendment to the US Constitution prevents the US Government and the states from abridging our right to free speech, but it does not oblige huge communications corporations like newspapers and Internet providers to carry our content.  It does not prevent corporate giants from limiting or discontinuing our speech. 

francislholland's Channel


I was an active participant at Now Public, with my articles drawing hundreds of reads, until Now Public was bought by a Phillip Anschutz, a billionaire Republican who donated to people like Senator "Wide Stance" Larry Craig, John McCain and state Republican parties.  (See my article entitled, "Billionaire Republican Campaign Donor Buys "Now Public" Site").

About three days after this Republican billionaire bought Now Public, my posting privileges were withdrawn and placed "under review" and have remained withdrawn and "under review" for over a year now.

I understand what happens when billionaire pro-Republican individuals and groups get control over Internet content, and I don't want to see that happen to the entire Internet. 

If they do get content control over the Internet, then I think you can kiss groups like BlackNetAction and Color of Change goodbye.  Since we do not agree with large Republican Corporations about many things, we may find that our groups' accounts are "under review" as well.

I am no expert on Net Neutrality or the proposals before the Federal Trade Commission, but I do understand major corporations trying to gain monopoly control over the Internet and then use it to squelch Black people's and Democrats' communication with each other.  Why should they carry our content if we are disagreeing with them at every turn?

At this point, cable corporations control the speed of each of our Internet connections, but not the content.  What I have read is that a few big cable corporations want the green light to, for example, charge the public one price if we  want access only to commercial sites, but charge more if we want access to send or receive messages from non-profit groups like Color of Change and Black Net Action.  Or charge Color of Change more if it wants access to e.g. send and receive e-mails from people in the 50 states.

Although I haven't heard these specific proposal, I can well imagine it happening, particularly if groups like ours continue to challenge these major corporations, as we do when we see color-aroused antagonistic and anti-Black commercials on television and in print.

The entire Internet could become like a privately-owned newspaper, where the editorial board decides what will be published and what will not.

Over the last two decades, "letters to the editor" have become practically irrelevant compared to the power of our communications over the Internet, our blogs and websites.  But, if corporate giants get editorial control over our Internet content, then we will effectively be back to writing letters to the editor and hoping the publisher agrees with our message enough to publish it.

That would be a gargantuan defeat for us and our communities and it is a battle that we must fight to our last breath.

Monday, December 6, 2010

"Civil Rights" Groups Being Used to Limit Blacks' Access to Internet

A Key, Unknown Player in Civil Rights Groups' Attack on the Open Internet

By James Rucker, Color of Change

Last Wednesday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed Network Neutrality rules that he claims will save the open Internet.

As another FCC commissioner has attested, these ruleswill do no such thing. Instead, they will allow the big broadband companies, like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, to erect toll booths on the Internet that will result in segregated online communities where wealthy content and application providers will pay a premium for carriage, with everyone else discarded to a secondary, lower quality tier.
Such a policy would be disastrous for the Black community. Today, the Internet — unlike cable television, broadcast radio, or print — is the sole medium where we can communicate with each other nationally and globally, pushing back on the political and social status quo without the interference of corporate gatekeepers.
If Chairman Genachowski succeeds in letting the big phone and cable players carve up the Internet, the day will come when many in the civil rights community will realize and regret their role in making it happen.
Net neutrality is a core principle that is largely responsible for the Internet being such a powerful and transformative tool. It requires that content gets carried by Internet service providers with the same priority and speed regardless of the sender. It's the way the Internet has worked since the beginning. Those who are arguing for net neutrality are simply trying to maintain the status quo — a status quo that has enabled the Internet to flourish in a way that no other communications technology has.
Without net neutrality, Google, Facebook, the Huffington Post and would not exist; neither would Barack Obama be President. And it's an open Internet that has made the campaigns that we've run at ColorOfChange possible — everything from holding Fox News accountable for the likes of Glenn Beck, to stripping away Beck's advertisers, to telling the story of the Jena 6, or advocating for the rights of Katrina survivors.
For over a year, several of the most prominent civil rights groups have been aligned with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast — whether knowingly or not — in those companies' efforts to end net neutrality. But they have not acted alone. In my conversations with many groups and individuals inside the Beltway, one man emerges as the nerve center for much of the action we've seen on the part of the civil rights groups. His name is David Honig.
David is the executive director of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC). He is in many ways the face and voice for Black America in Washington, D.C. on Internet issues, and perhaps the most influential person from the civil rights community representing our interests on media and telecom policy.
For years, national civil rights groups have relied on his counsel on what positions to take on key communications issues. And for years, he has been regarded as an honest and helpful broker when it came to addressing broadcasting issues.
But when it comes to Internet policy, David is writing a new and different chapter. Over the past couple of years, Honig's positions and statements seem to align him with the phone and cable companies who are set on undermining the open nature of the Internet. And those statements repeatedly appear in filings endorsed by the major civil rights groups. In my opinion, Honig is leading many of the respected civil rights groups he is advising off of the digital cliff.
Two weeks ago, I made a fact-based argument in a letter to House Majority Leader Pelosi about my concerns regarding a Black member of Congress, who has been aligned with AT&T and Comcast in opposing net neutrality and is vying for a subcommittee post with oversight over the Internet. The Congressman's response was to attack me personally, and to side-step my arguments.
Shortly thereafter, Honig and his organization appeared on a letter with every civil rights and black legislative group you can imagine to counter my letter with their own letter to Pelosi (Honig has organized groups around letters and FCC filings in the past; I presume this time is no different).
Did they engage any of the arguments I put forth? No. Not one.
After personally attacking me for allegedly being "uncivil," Honig then asserted that the Congressman's "position is on all fours with the Open Internet policy endorsed by the labor unions, all the minority intergovernmental organizations and virtually every national civil rights organization except ColorofChange."
Honig doesn't mention that he himself has been a driving force in getting these organizations to sign on to letters of support for the policy he mentions, and, in my opinion, using weak and debunked arguments. He also doesn't mention that the groups to which he's referring have been recipients of millions of dollars from AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast (I don't know if MMTC has received financial support from AT&T, Verizon or Comcast, but if it has, it should disclose that as well). While one can argue that these dollars don't have influence, the disclosure is important when making such statements, as is providing a characterization of an organization's funding picture and any other evidence to show how these dollars don't introduce influence.
Along with many others, I have written pieces here and elsewhere that have described the relationship between corporate dollars from AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, advocacy groups, and Black members of Congress. And I've deconstructed the core, faulty logic in the arguments carried by these messengers: that if we let these large corporations have their way and do away with net neutrality, they'll take their increased profits and suddenly invest in our communities where they traditionally haven't (historically they simply haven't done so, despite already seeing profit margins as high as 80 percent). It's a cynical trickle-down argument that defies the basic logic of how businesses operate. And it's the core sentiment that seems to anchor the anti-net neutrality statements in the filings and statements authored by Honig.
Some in Honig's camp also like to say that net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. To say that, or to defend someone else's doing so, is to ignore statements made by the major players expressing their desire for a tiered system; instances where they've been caught attempting to censor or control content and applications on the Internet; and the obvious business incentives the companies have for doing so.
I'm interested in an honest debate and discussion about this issue but I still can't find, after almost a year of trying, arguments that hold water or that justify the civil rights groups' opposition to net neutrality. I've also had the good fortune of talking with David Honig directly and will continue to do so, but none of the arguments he has presented to me thus far have altered my perspective on the core issues I've raised here and elsewhere. In the meantime, I hope to get as much sunlight as possible on the dynamics I see in play.