Prison Planet Cites Truth About Kos Blog Exposing MAMZ's CIA Roots

 Transcript of Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ) Interview 

In Which MAMZ Says He Spent 2 Year Training at the CIA, between 2001 and 2003, 

while he started his DailyKos Blog in 2002.

Today, after the shooting of Arizona Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords,  Alex Jones' Prison Planet blog and Infowars, by Kurt Nimo, wrote about the corporate and corporate blogs' media coverage of articles, blog posts and commentary about the shooting, pointing out that

 In a Tweet, suspected CIA operative Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos wrote sarcastically: “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.”

I appreciate Prison Planet's recognition and InfoWars acknowledgement that the known CIA past and present activities of any public official or member of the public should be noted when writing about that official or person.  Readers need to know when reading MAMZ's comments that "suspected CIA operative" Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga's (MAMZ´s) past includes, by his own audio-taped account, (see Trancript) two years of training and working with the CIA, from 2001 until 2003.

Prison Planet gives its readers the opportunity to weigh MAMZ's CIA involvement so that readers can give his comments all of the weight they deserve, and also better understand MAMZ's possible motives in making these comments.  When we read MAMZ's comments we must always "take them for what they are worth," as judges take evidence in criminal and civil trials.

I personally believe that MAMZ's short and quotable accusantion against Sarah Palin in this instance is meant to increase his credibility in the mainstream media and among self-professed "progressives", "liberals" and "leftists".  MAMZ wants to get out in front and make a comment that his target audience will take as the words of a "leftist", even if this "leftist" was trained at the CIA to infiltrate groups as a "Clandestine Operations" CIA-staffer.

I personally think it's fair to assume that when MAMZ started DailyKos (2002) while training with the CIA (2001-2003), MAMZ availed himself of the help of some of his CIA co-workers'.  I cannot prove the veracity of my belief, but I believe the rabid defenses of MAMZ, at DailyKos and elsewhere, is bought and paid for. 

It certainly is relevant that a public figure was trained for two years by the CIA, and the Prison Planet website recognizes that relevance when describing MAMZ as a "suspected CIA operative" and then links to a the Truth About Kos Blog article to a Commonwealth Club audio-taped interview of June 2006.  In a verbatim transcript of that interview MAMZ is shown to have said,

Here’s a little secret I don’t think I’ve ever written about: But in 2001, I was unemployed, underemployed, unemployed. You know I was in that . . You all have been there “dot com” people? Kinda like, in between jobs, doin’ a little contract work and . . . kinda. So, you know. That’s where I was: in this really horrible netherworld of ‘will I make rent next month’ and . . .

So, I applied to the CIA and I went all the way to the end, I mean it was to the point where I was going to sign papers to become Clandestine Services. And it was at that point that the Howard Dean campaign took off and I had to make a decision whether I was gonna kinda join the Howard Dean campaign, that whole process, or was I was going to become a spy. (Laughter in the audience.) It was going to be a tough decision at first, but then the CIA insisted that if, if I joined that, they’d want me to do the first duty assignment in Washington, DC, and I hate Washington, DC. Six years in Washington, DC [inaudible] that makes the decision a lot easier.

[ . . .] This is a very liberal institution. And in a lot of ways, it really does attract people who want to make a better, you know, want to make the world a better place . . . Of course, they’ve got their Dirty Ops and this and that, right but as an institution itself the CIA is really interested in stable world. That’s what they’re interested in. And stable worlds aren’t created by destabilizing regimes and creating wars. Their done so by other means. Assassination labor leaders . . . I’m kidding!

[ . . . ] I don’t think it’s a very partisan thing to want a stable world. And even if you’re protecting American interests, I mean that can get ugly at times, but generally speaking I think their hearts in the right place. As an organization their heart is in the right place. I’ve never had any problem with the CIA. I’d have no problem working for them . Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA at the Commonwealth Club.

 I think it is fairly obvious why the mainstream press does not print the above information which MAMZ has acknowledged and why they don't ask him to explain his comments more fully:  The mainstream press of the left and the right has an unwritten rule that it does not "out" CIA agents and does not report and who has or is working with the CIA, particularly within the United States of America.

If the mainstream media reports MAMZ's self-described CIA history then he would no longer be a credible "leader of the left" because the general public would assume that MAMZ is an infiltrator of the Left rather than dedicated leader of public "progressive" opinion.   Prison Planet website recognizes that relevance and importance of an employment history that includes CIA training and work in the past and a declaration that the same person that:

I’ve never had any problem with the CIA. I’d have no problem working for them in the present.  Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA at the Commonwealth Club.

Isn't MAMZ effectively telling us that he DOES work for the CIA, since he has never subsequently addressed this topic and has never said that he does NOT work for the CIA?  Why doesn't the mainstream press report this question and its relevance to his role in American politics?

That unwritten mainstream press rule that the press will not "out" CIA agents is followed both in the corporate so-called "liberal" news outlets as well as in the right-wing mainstream media.  And so when MAMZ calls himself a leader of public opinion, most people are not able to weigh the truth of that against the fact that he was trained by and worked for the CIA at the same time that he opened a "leftist blog".

'I Never Got Into the Whole Anti-Gay Thing.'

A good friend commented to me today,

Francis,

Maybe your personal attack on that guy who runs Kos is not working. I never got into that whole anti-gay thing that you put out on him anyway.

Yours Truly,

XXXX

I regret that my friend has perceived my approach as potentially anti-gay, rather than exposing MAMZ as virulently anti-gay in his college years, so I explained my approach:

'I'm not anti-gay. I just published a letter of his from 1993 in which he opposed all gays in the military.  Maybe I've bashed him so much about it that I seem like the culprit rather than him.

I think most people find out about my research on MAMZ through other blogs that have published  my information verbatim.

They've published MAMZ's  letter against gays in the military in many places, but they haven't published my attacks on him about this and my questions about his sexuality based on his screwy letter opposing all gay participation in the military interests only a few blogs.

Francis

In addition, I would observe that sex sells in America and, unfortunately, people come to this site in the hopes of discovering whether MAMZ is gay or not.  If people come here for that reason, but then read additional pages about more pressing issues, then that's a victory to me.

They come here and discover that MAMZ is a hypocrite who admittedly voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992; voting against Bill Clinton; and then immediately fought against Clinton's plans to let gays serve in the military in 1993; and later attacked Hillary Clinton from the political left,  in a WaPost published commentary, "Hillary Clinton: Too Much of a Clinton Democrat?", by Markos Moulitsas, WaPost, Sunday, May 7, 2006.  This all is just more than I can take, and I hope a few others will feel the same way.


First MAMZ opposed the Clinton's for wanting to open the military to gays and then he opposed the Clintons for not be as "progressive" as he had become after spending two years in Washington, training with the Central Intelligence Agency.  When Hillary Clinton said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy, MAMZ was certainly a part of that conspiracy in 1993, and then the continued to oppose Hillary Clinton until 2010.

MAMZ Admits He Was An "Asshole" When He Campaigned Against Gays in the Military.  I also think it's worth remembering that MAMZ once outed a Republican operative in a way that made the operative seem gay, and the operative was therefore forced to resign from his Republican political work.  Considering that recent history of MAMZ outing an apparent curiosexual man, and MAMZ's belief that the Republican's sexual history was relevant to his political work, I believe that MAMZ's 1993 letter stating MAMZ vehement opposition to ALL gays in the military is at least as important as MAMZ's outing of the Republican operative.  "Online Reporter Quits After Liberals' Exposé, By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 10, 2005; Page C04, which says:

Jeff Gannon, who had been writing for the Web sites Talon News and GOPUSA, is actually James Dale Guckert, 47, and has been linked to online domain addresses with sexually provocative names.

Apparently, the proposed rule is that, 'Outing is fine, if you're outing a Republican newspaper writer.  But if you're outing a CIA-trained "progressive blogger" than you should pull your punches?'  I believe CIA-trained bloggers should be outed regardless of their sexuality, but if they out others based on sexuality and write homophobic screeds against gays, then they have it coming when the same thing happens to them.

It's entirely possible that much of the serious public will find MAMZ's 1993 homophobic letter, and what he says about himself in it, to be uninteresting.  However, I predict that the 1993 anti-gay letter will seem to have been a prophetic gem of research by Truth About Kos when MAMZ's P.R balloon finally bursts.  But, his family is outrageously wealthy in El Salvador and surely MAMZ doesn't lack for money in the United States.  It's his "credibility" that he wants to build and exploit, but to me his credibility was indelibly marked "zero" when I learned that he had trained for two years with the CIA.

When I first began researching and MAMZ, I was angry at the pseudo-progressive blogger for taking to the pages of the Washington Post to attack Senator Hillary Clinton, the only candidate for president who was not a white man at that time.  I correctly advocated toward the end of the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency;  I was write and those at DailyKos, who hated both Clinton and Obama, but loved John Edwards, turned out to have very poor political judgment.

An anonymous someone left a comment at the Francis L. Holland Blog, encouraging me to read Glenn Greenwald's articles at Salon.com 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 @ Gmail.com (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."

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.

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 door.  My 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.

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

This account is currently under review

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.

"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 MoveOn.org 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.

Does it Matter if Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ) is Gay ?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Was MAMZ's Homophobia Associated with Homosexual Arousal?

Why does MAMZ seem to be wearing red lipstick in the photo above?

Marcos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ of DailyKos) wrote this "letter to the editor" of his college newspaper, vehemently opposing ALL gay participation in the US military.  (If the Northern Illinois University Northern Star archive link no longer works, for the fifth time in three years, then you can still see a screen shot of the letter here.)

I wonder if that letter was related to, or in some way inspired by, this:

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

The MentalHealth.Net site further explains:

It would seem that the findings lend support to the Freudian defense mechanism called "reaction-formation," in which anxiety-producing or unacceptable emotions and impulses are mastered by exaggeration of the directly opposing tendency. In other words, the homopobic young man who has violent urges is really hiding strong homosexual feelings and impulses that cause him so much anxiety that he must cover them up by acting violently. Most probably these young men are unaware of their homosexual wishes.

So, is MAMZ gay? I frankly wonder whether he is not trying to look gay in the above photograph.  He appears to be wearing red lipstick to match his red shirt and he has a sly coquette-like look on his face.  Am I right or wrong?

MAMZ has never denied being gay, and his letter provides significant support for a growing public perception and belief that he could be gay. He is married with at least one child, but we all have learned over the last two decades that there is nothing about marriage and children that prevents a man from being gay.

We will only know for certain when and if he or one of his lovers comes forth to tell his story. Until then all we have is speculation and the very strangely homophobic letter he wrote and published at his college newspaper.

I don't think its strange that we don't know of any gay lovers he might speculatively have had.  We know with certainty that he has a biological family, and yet he has never acknowledged the name of a single one of his biological family members.  He has even denied being Latino.  So, we know that his silence on a subject doesn't mean that the whole story has been told.  We never learned about the above homophobic letter until I personally read all three-dozen or so articles he published at his college newspaper.  (Warning:  links to these articles no longer work and Google does not point to them, so you will have to search for Moulitsas' name among the archives of his college newspaper.)

We only learned the names of his family members by searching online records, and googling the telephone number of his "family hotel" to see who else was using that telephone number.   That is how we found Carlos Alberto Delgado Zúñiga .

We also may have learned the names of his mother and step-father (Charles Almond), but they have proved to be nowhere near as interesting as Carlos Alberto Delgado Zúñiga .  Aside from having names that are remarkably similar and being parties in the same "family hotel", everything we have learned about Carlos Alberto Delgado Zúñiga has only served to disprove MAMZ's habitual assertion that he is "not from wealthy or influential family.

As this link shows, MAMZ is part of what may be one of the most wealthy and influential oligarchy families in El Salvador. And that makes MAMZ an habitual liar, when taken in the context of his own story of his past.

By the way, Congressman Barney Frank is a "good gay."  He's progressive in his politics and fights for more rights for gays, immigrants and the public at large.  MAMZ, if he is gay, is a "bad CIA-gay."  I'll write about his sexual preference if that's what the reading public most wants to know about, but I think it is far more important that he says he was training to be a "secret agent" for the CIA's Clandestine Services at the same time (in 2002) when he started his DailyKos blog.  If MAMZ is gay, he's a "bad gay."


Some people claim to see no contradiction and have no cognitive dissonance when informed that MAMZ admittedly was training to be a CIA agent in 2002, while starting an ostensibly "leftist" blog.  People who claim not to see the contradiction are either lying, or are hopelessly lost in John Edwards version of MAMZ's past, or are perhaps just idiots.  Some people just cannot seem to compare fact to self-serving campaign public relations fiction:

On Tuesday, former John Edwards aide Andrew Young and his wife Cheri were ordered to spend up to 75 days in jail for contempt of court. The contempt charge stems from the couple's handling of an alleged sex tape filmed during Edwards' campaign featuring the former presidential candidate and his mistress Rielle Hunter.

Hunter sued Young for possession of the purported sex tape, which Young claims involves Edwards performing oral sex on a pregnant Hunter. The judge handling the case, Abraham Penn Jones, now believes that the Youngs are withholding relevant items from the court including additional copies of the tape, ABC News reported.

 Many of those who still support MAMZ are among those who still support John Edwards.

Are Some Peaceful Foreign and Domestic Protest Groups Funded and Led by the CIA and Related Entities?

As soon as I saw the street demonstration in Iran on the news, I believed that it was funded and organized by the CIA. The protests and the national attention they received, along with the protesters' uncanny ability to get themselves into the international news day after day, and to use the Internet with such acumen in their first time out seemed askew to me.

I haven't read all of what's below so I can't vouch for its truthfulness, but I know a lot of people come to this Truth About Kos Blog to understand how elites manipulate and distort the news that we read and the opinions that we form.  This has been particularly true, in my opinion, of the non-violent activists' efforts to overthrow the Government of Iran.  It's my personal opinion based more on history than on knowledge of this particular situation, that the CIA and other associated organizations are behind the street protests that have been in the news over the last year against the government of Iran.

The protests reminded me of the wealthy Chileans banging in the streets on metal puts with metal spoons, trying to show that they, the bourgeoisie, were victims of the eventually-CIA-overthrown elected Government of Chile's Salvador Allende.  It's worth noting that his party made gains in the national Congress just before he was overthrown.

I'm not against non-violent spontaneous protests against dictatorial regimes.  I just believe it's relevant when and if these protests are organized and funded by the CIA and/or other associated groups, in the same way that the USA's TeaBaggers have been funded by the billionaire Koch Brothers and international newspaper publisher Rupert Murdoch.  I definitely believe that funding from these three particular billionaires is relevant to the work of the teabaggers.  Frank Rich at the Washington Post says,

There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of [Tee-Bagger] America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel” warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans.

The Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch must be very pleased today with their ability to influence elections across the United States by pouring unlimited and even anonymous monies into the American political system.

(Parenthetically, in gay lingo a "tea-bagger" is a man who likes to suck the scrotum of another man or men, so calling the Koch/Murdoch protesters "tea-baggers" is an insult both to gay men and to the bought and paid for right-wing "Tea Party" organizations.)

Below is an article that alleges that specific media are controlled by dubious interlocking right-wing and military directorates and that foreign "human rights groups" are sometimes funded and directed by the CIA.  If readers can prove something in the article below to be definitely true or definitely false, or certainly dubious or clearly probable, then I readers to go to the comment section below and provide links to the information that forms the basis of their opinions and facts.

I take no position on the following, except to say that proving or disproving the following may be interesting to our readers, based on the number of hits our Site Meter shows for phrases like "media manipulation" and "gatekeeper blogs".

Likewise, I take no position on this author's personal "credibility", because I deem that to be irrelevant to the question of whether the facts asserted are true of not.  Likewise, I wouldn't want anyone to say that an assertion is definitely true, simply because they read it at the Truth About Kos Blog.  I hope readers will read my citations (and those in the article below) and decide for themselves.

I must admit that I do not give credence to assertions that are made without evidence (links to credible sources or links that tie together people in groups), and I do read links to see if they prove the facts asserted: 

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Fake Peace Activism Tied To The Military and CIA

This won't be the most coherent entry. Apologies in advance. The following only recently came to my attention through reading an obscure blogger named Stu Piddy. He posted most of the following links and connections. There is a group of people and institutions who are posing as activists promoting velvet revolutions, those that are non-violent. On the surface it seems like a noble cause. But a closer look shows their intentions are actually insidious. A side story is that one of the founders of this cause has had glowing words for Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos. Seeing how Markos has called the CIA a liberal institution he'd have no problem working for, there is further albeit circumstantial evidence that Moulitsas has been running a fifth column blog.

The following is by Socrates, who considers himself an Internet manipulation conspiracy sleuth. He says:

I have eight links to provide.

Link #1:
The Fund for Authentic Journalism

Narco News and Al Giordano run something called The School of Authentic Journalism. This is a donation page. Matching support of up to $20,000 per contribution is made by International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. This appears to be a classic example of right co-opting left. We can intuit this through taking a closer look at the ICNC.


Link #2:
The ICNC- Who We Are

JACK DUVALL, President
DR. PETER ACKERMAN, Founding Chair

The International Center on Nonviolent Conflict is an independent, nonprofit educational foundation that develops and encourages the study and use of civilian-based, nonmilitary strategies to establish and defend human rights, democracy and justice worldwide. It accepts no grants, contracts or funding of any kind from any government or government-related organization or from any other foundation, corporation or institution. It is funded entirely by the family philanthropy of the founding chair.

Ok, Mr. Peter Ackerman is providing the entire funding. He must be filthy rich. Maybe we need to know who this guy is along with Jack Duvall. Let's start with Duvall.


Link #3:
Who the hell is Jack Duvall? by Jacob Levich

If anyone knows the real story behind Jack Duvall and his International
Center for Nonviolent Conflict, I'd be extremely grateful to hear it.

This guy, who purports to be some kind of pacifist, travels around the world with a dog-and-pony show centering on movies he's produced called "Bringing Down a Dictator" and "A Force More Powerful." His current position on Iraq, which he is selling heavily to college and university crowds, is that the peace movement has no right to oppose the invasion unless it offers an alternative way of getting rid of Saddam. (His suggestion -- don't laugh -- is that the Iraqi people should be encouraged to rise up in a Gandhi-style nonviolent mass movement.)

So far as I can tell, he intervenes whenever the US wants to bring down a government by military force, attempting to refocus any First World opposition away from opposing imperialism and toward "bringing down dictators by non violent means."

I suspect Jack Duvall is a fraud and possibly some kind of spook (see weird career details below) whose aim is to divide the antiwar movement.

The other day, unbidden, he sent a nasty little email screed to the mailing list of the campus antiwar group I belong to. It attacked ANSWER as a tool of Iraqi government propaganda. I won't bore you with further details of the ensuing email exchange, but suffice it to say he seems on the brink of achieving exactly what he desires -- driving a wedge between campus pacifists and leftists. The students who had seen his very slick presentation, it seems, were swept off their feet and reacted furiously to our attempts to criticize him.

Turns out his background is very odd for a "pacifist."

He's a TV producer and PR flack, and a member of the Washington establishment who:

* served in Air Force counterintelligence(!)
* worked in the Nixon White House
* wrote speeches for major-party Presidential campaigns, and
* raised money for warmaker Bill Clinton and Homeland Security architect Gary Hart.

Moreover, Duvall is currently a director of a consulting business called The Arlington Institute (http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/), which does weird "scenario building" for business and government clients. An excerpt from their site:

"Some of our clients want to know about the future of their marketplace, or a major contributing factor to their operating environment, like technology. Others are concerned about possible big surprise events - wild cards - that might blow in unexpectedly and fundamentally shift the status quo. Perhaps your concern is a geographic area - like Africa, or you are considering the purchase of a major asset and want to have a sense of what might change the present situation that makes that a good decision -- all of these are good candidates for scenario planning."

This suggests Arlington is in the business of helping its clients predict and defend against political events and popular movements that might harm their investments.

Most tellingly, here's a list of Arlington's clients:

U.S. Navy
U.S. Marine Corps
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Coast Guard
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Boeing
Honda
Andersen Consulting
New Directions for News
Project Voyager / OneCosmos


What kind of pacifist sits on the board of directors of a company that does consulting work for the Department of Defense and four branches of the US Military?

Again, if anyone knows the story behind this guy (or knows someone who does) please send word fast. If someone could get a reading from Dellinger that would be helpful -- I suspect his view would mean a lot to the pacifist students.

Jake

The CIA is mentioned in this blog entry's title. Here is that connection.

Link #4
A Force More Powerful:
Promoting 'Democracy' through Civil Disobedience by Michael Barker

In 1989, Dr Ackerman's coauthor Jack Duvall helped found another notable non-profit 'democracy promoting' research center, the Arlington Institute. Like many of the people involved in the previous 'democratic' groups the main person behind this venture, John L. Petersen, is a military man through and through, [17] and the center boasts amongst its cofounders former head of the CIA, James Woolsey. [18] Furthermore, the Arlington Institute's website notes that they specialize 'in thinking about global futures and trying to influence rapid, positive change', which ties in neatly with Jonathan Mowat's description of the Arlington Institute as strategists for the new postmodern coup. [19]

This blog was created in honour of Dave Weintraub who did a lot of good work in exposing Markos Moulitsas. Here is the Kos connection. Above Al Giordano of Narco News was mentioned. This is what he has had to say about the CIA loving founder of Daily Kos. I realise that this and other connections could be seen as guilt by association. But my thinking is that is a strawman argument. If we are what we eat, then we can also be said to be part and parcel of those we associate with. How does one separate Brad Friedman from the Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin? How can Michael Rivero separate himself from Curtis Maynard, Alex Jones and the Birdman? How can Patrick Minnis of NASA separate himself from the founder of Chemtrail Central? How can Tinoire of Progressive Independent separate herself from military intelligence? I could go on. But you get the point.

Link #5:
Kos And Alinsky And Election 2008 by Stephen C. Rose'

In a lengthy review of Taking On The System, coming out tomorrow, Al Giordano commends the new book's author, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the influential lefty blog Daily Kos, as "our era's very own Saul Alinsky" and calls the his work "the must-read political book of the year."

Let's get back to discussing the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. Why is this important? This is how Michael Barker puts it.


Link #6
Peace Activists, Criticism, and Nonviolent Imperialism

Paradoxically, one of the main problems of liberal foundations is not that they have colluded with the Central Intelligence Agency, or have and continue to support the work of elite planning groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, but rather that they support all manner of progressive causes -- as a quick perusal of their annual reports (pdf) will demonstrate. Most progressive groups only receive a small proportion of their funding from liberal foundations, but, as many of these groups are regularly on the brink of financial bankruptcy, the money that is distributed by liberal philanthropists is much sought after and has formidable (if rarely acknowledged) influence -- even when there are 'no strings attached' to the funding -- on the contours of civil society.

Earlier criticisms of liberal foundations appear to have simply washed off their backs. However, in the past few years a groundswell of new activists and researchers are openly questioning the antidemocratic nature of liberal philanthropy, so now is the perfect time for activists, all over the world, to really get to the bottom of the funding/activism nexus: only then can concerned people start to create and sustain grassroots movements that will be able to truly challenge capitalism and successfully promote peace.

Peter Ackerman, whose family philanthropy is behind the ICNC, is also the head of something called Freedom House. Stephen Gowans claims that it is a "CIA-interlocked think-tank." He cites Chomsky in the footnote as the basis for this factoid. The following is from an article concerning the recent democratic upheaval in Iran. Wow. There is so much to social reality. There are so many complexities. This is how propagandists get away with their shenanigans. Now I am unsure what has really been going on in Iran the last year. My gut told me a we the people campaign was taking ascent there. I saw those who belittled that movement as being a part of the Joos Own The World crowd. And of course many of those bloggers are part of that bullshite. However, the following by Gowans is certainly a big plate of food for thought. (excerpt)

Link #7:
War and Terror: The US' attempted color revolution in Iran

As the head of Freedom House, a CIA-interlocked think-tank [1] that promotes free markets, free enterprise and free trade, Peter Ackerman has been at the forefront of efforts to topple foreign governments that place more emphasis on promoting the welfare of their citizens (and often their own bourgeoisie) than providing export and investment opportunities to US corporations, banks, and investors.

An ex-Wall Street investment banker who was once junk bond trader Michael Milken's right-hand man, Ackerman's speciality these days is regime change civil disobedience –training activists in the use of civil disobedience destabilization techniques to bring down foreign governments.

A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Washington-Wall Street insiders' group that brings together corporate CEOs and lawyers, scholars, and government and military officials to recommend foreign policy positions to the US State Department, Ackerman also heads the International Center for Non-Violent Conflict (ICNC). Working in parallel with billionaire financier George Soros' Open Society Institute, the ICNC deploys civil disobedience specialists to teach "activists how to agitate for change against" governments on Washington's regime change hit list, "going everywhere from Eastern Europe to train Belarusians to Turkey to coach Iranians." [2]

Ackerman and other civil disobedience imperialists, like Stephen Zunes, a self-styled progressive who acts as chief apologist for Ackerman among leftists who have romantic illusions about popular uprisings, [3] give their efforts to topple foreign governments the deceptively reassuring name "democracy promotion." Democracy promotion, a Bush administration official once said, is a rubric to get people to support regime change without saying the words. [4] Zunes has also sprung to the defense of Gene Sharp, the head of the Albert Einstein Institution, who advised right-wing Venezuelans on how to use civil disobedience to overthrow Hugo Chavez. [5]

And that will lead us to the final link in this humble blog entry. What is up with the US trying to destablise Chavez in Venezuela? Is it mostly about a new wave of fake peace activists (ever hear of Carol Rosin?) with various military and CIA ties whose main goals concern attempts at perverting democratic principles in sovereign nations? Does Kos' support of Ronald Reagan, the CIA, and the El Salvadoran oligarchy add up now or what?


Link #8:
US projects for Venezuela, by Eva Golinger

By the way, I will marry Eva Golinger, no questions asked. (excerpts)

NOVEMBER '07 - FEBRUARY '08

US PROJECTS FOR VENEZUELA

Another ‘Orange Revolution’ after the Ukrainian and Yugoslavian ones, a destabilization plan made in USA

In these days, Venezuela lives a big destabilization plan aiming to overthrow Chavez government and to pave the way for an international intervention. This plan follows a way already putted in practice on other countries like Yugoslavia to overthrow Milosevic, or Ukraine with the ‘Orange Revolution’. This plan was also used in Georgia for the ‘Rose Revolution’.

The text of this plan, written by Gene Sharp, promoter of the Albert Einstein Institution of the United States, promotes the utilization of the civil non-violent resistance to make radical political changes in a country. But Sharp’s plan contains almost 200 actions and strategies for the social, political and economic destabilization; ....


The pupil of Sharp, Ackerman, is now the president of Freedom House financed by the State Department to ‘promote democracy’ in the world by the American way; it has a seat in Venezuela from September 2004, after the revocation referendum against Chavez. Peter Ackerman took up his engagement replacing James Woosley, ex-director of CIA representing the US intelligence and security forces. Also Ackerman is a promoter of the International Centre for Non-Violent Conflict, organization that produced documentaries like ‘Bringing down a dictator’, ‘Orange Revolution’ and books like ‘Strategic Nonviolent Conflict’ and ‘A Force More Powerful’.....

These US organizations, with the Freedom House, its centre of Venezuela and the funds of the State Department, are working for a new ‘coloured revolution’. This last week was the proof that this plan is in progress. Groups like ORVEX (organization of Venezuelan self-exiles in USA), Ofensiva Ciudadana and the Comando de Resistencia Nacional are trying to put in practice the ‘Gene Sharp’ plan to create chaos and insecurity in the country, causing repression to promote the international intervention. With their ‘guarimbas’ actions (sabotages, provocations of groups of people that make blocks and clashes with the police), their violence in the streets (1) and the utilization of the young Venezuelan people faces, they manipulate the world public opinion, obtaining the effect that multilateral organisms, like OAS (Organization of American States), European Community, US government or international associations for the human rights, are making critical statements about the Venezuelan government and support the destabilizing groups.

Though they didn’t carry out their objectives, the proofs show that they will keep on applying these strategies to obtain international support and the power to attack once again the Venezuelan democracy and the welfare of the people. Put an end to the actions of groups like Freedom House and the International Republican Institute would be the right way to defend the nation. These organizations are used by the State Department and CIA and are working freely in Venezuela.

116 comments:

Marines Commander Express Same Anti-Gay Attitude as Moulitsas Did on DADT

Marines' leader: Keep policy on gays in military

Having come to office with a promise to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that requires gays in the military to pretend that they are heterosexual, now President Obama should request and accept the resignation of Gen. James Amos, Assistant Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corp, because James Amos is unable to carry out the mission set by the President, his Commander in Chief.

The decision to get rid of DADT, is a political one made in the 2008 Democratic Primaries and General Election.  But, like Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ), Asst. Commandant Amos says:

"There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women - and when you talk of infantry, we're talking our young men - laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers," he said. "I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that's what we're looking at. It's unit cohesion, it's combat effectiveness." 

That sounds an awful lot like what MAMZ wrote and published at his college newspaper against ALL gay participation in the military back in 1993:

Under military circumstances, as much has to be done as possible to focus the unit's mission and keep disciplinary problems to a minimum. Worrying about whether the known homosexual sleeping next to you is watching as you change your underwear may seem trivial as you read this, but to the soldier who's short-tempered after three weeks in the field and four hours of daily sleep, it becomes a matter of great importance to his pride and sensibilities.  (If the above link doesn't work, look here the MAMZ article whose URL address has changed four times in three years.)

The nonsense is the same although it's now seventeen years since the implementation of the DADT policy, which itself was a compromise between those who support equal rights and responsibilities, on the one hand, and those who opposed gay service in the military.


MAMZ also agreed with the most rightward members of the military when he wrote in the same letter:

And in any case, there aren't many people who would change clothes in a group of co-workers if members of the opposite sex were in the same room watching. There is something inherently uncomfortable about it.

I've always found this to be a strange attitude, since men have to undress in front of women, and women must become undressed with men in or to engage in heterosexual coitus. Is MAMZ saying that he doesn't engage in sex with women men or men at all, or that he only does so with his clothes on.

And what are the circumstances in life when "members of the opposite sex [are] in there watching?" Does MAMZ really believe that women want to watch him undress, or that gays want to look at his underpants.  Even if that were so, would that really make him so uncomfortable?  It seems to me that MAMZ was acknowledging that there was no one at all in front of whom he would feel comfortable getting undressed.

Trying to find the sexual logic in this, without any information except that which MAMZ himself provided in his letter to the editor, it seems more likely to me that MAMZ's real fear is that he, himself, will become attracted or aroused by seeing other soldiers changing "their underpants."  Like so many of MAMZ's statements, he criticizes gays without ever clearly stating whether or not he, himself, is gay.  Whether or not he is gay is relevant to determining whether MAMZ is a homosexual homophobic hypocrite, like Senator Larry Craig.  MAMZ has never, to my knowledge, stated that he, himself, is NOT gay. 

It is not unusual for MAMZ to deny the public even the most basic information about himself, to the point of refusing to tell the public what the "C" in the name "Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga stands for.  Where there's smoke there's fire.

Getting back to President Obama, there are two ways that the Administration can honor its commitment to overturning DADT:

1. The administration can stop defending DADT in Court and file a brief agreeing with the plaintiffs who opposed the rules against gay service in the military,or
2. The president can overturn DADT during the lame duck Congressional season, where Republican-minded Democrats have nothing to lose by supporting the president.

Strong Rebuke Follows Moulitsas' Student Newspaper Article Against All Gays in the Military

[UPDATE] of 11/08/2010:  The Northern Illinois University's Northern Star Student newspaper link to the letter below has changed not just three but now FOUR times in three years since my first publication of this letter at various blogs, but it can currently be found here.

MAMZ appears to try to represent the views of the whole military in the above letter, but a female military person tells him he should try to mature rather than focus his sexual immaturity on gays in the military.



Cheryl Anndel, a senior at Northern Illinois University when MAMZ was a freshman there wrote the above letter to the editor, disagreeing with MAMZ's contention that gays in the military would hurt cohesion, etc.

Full-size screenshot can also be found here.