I'd respond but Gaynor's writing is difficult to follow. So, it's difficult to know what he's saying. There's a couple things I noticed. At the end, he claims that time constraints have stopped him from writing the last two weeks. (I said he stopped writing about Moncrief because of my expose) That's not accurate. He's written the last two weeks just not about Anita Moncrief. For the last four plus months, he's dedicated about two to three articles a week to Anita Moncrief. The last two weeks he's dedicated none. He's written several articles about O'Keefe/Giles and their lawsuit. So, he had time for that just not Moncrief. He also claims my information about Fox News is inaccurate. It's isn't. Fox News found out about Moncrief's theft and soon enough they cut ties. That's the truth.
He calls me an ACORN 8 defender. That's interesting because my article doesn't even mention ACORN 8. Most importantly, the article isn't about him. He seems to know a lot about the situation but the article criticized Michelle Malkin, not Michael Gaynor. So, why is Michael Gaynor responding to an article attacking Michelle Malkin? Michelle Malkin is a big girl. If she wants to respond to an attack, she should respond. If the attack isn't worthy of her response, then she should leave her sidekick out of it as well. Here's what Malkin said on October 5th.
Michael Gaynor noted at the time in response to McCray: “Tellingly, Mr. McCray did NOT complain about keeping the information from prosecutors and the public. Perhaps that is because ACORN 8 leaders also kept important information from prosecutors and the public and put off the possibility of legal action to protect then presidential candidate Obama’s election prospects. Incredibly, Mr. McCray essentially claimed that bad leadership is ACORN’s only problem. Mr. McCray admitted that the ACORN 8 are out to replace the current ACORN control group, but the ideological difference is limited…Mr. McCray and the ACORN 8 did not complaint that ACORN has functioned wrongfully as an unofficial arm of the Democrat Party for many years. Instead, Mr. McCray celebrated ACORN’s “effectiveness” and complained only about ACORN leadership corruption.
So, one of two things are in play. Either, Michelle Malkin knows Michael Gaynor or she doesn't. Everyone will agree on that. If she doesn't know him, she has no business quoting him in attacking someone else. That's totally corrupt. You can't quote someone you don't know with such an explosive quote. So, if Malkin doesn't know Gaynor, then that quote I just referenced is totally corrupt. If she does know him, then the big bad conservative blogger can't take me on herself but let's Gaynor do it for her. She allows Gaynor to do her bidding for her. That's even more corrupt. That's the thesis of this expose and Gaynor just unwittingly proved the thesis.
This is cheap and its obvious. Michelle Malkin doesn't want to respond to anything I say because that would raise my profile. If Michelle Malkin responded, then attention would be put to the story and all facts would be scrutinized. When Michael Gaynor does it, no one needs to check any of his facts. So, Michael Gaynor attacks me. He acts as though he knows a lot about all this. How does Michael Gaynor know so much about the dynamic between Michelle Malkin and Anita Moncrief unless he's in contact with both of them? So, what this really means is that Michelle Malkin is weak. She doesn't like being attacked but will take on something like the Washington Post herself whereas a blogger, she'll let someone else do her dirty work.