He's unreadable and insignificant. So, he doesn't matter. He only matters in that he's part of this corrupt relationship. What really matters here is once again I call Michelle Malkin a coward and it's Michael Gaynor attacking me. He also did it very early in the morning which is interesting.
Clearly, however, Michelle Malkin can't fight her own battles. Instead, she has Michael Gaynor attack for her. That's cowardly. That's her M.O. Malkin will attack the New York Times, Washington Post, and other media mercilessly. They have a higher profile and they don't respond. In this case, she can't bring herself to respond herself and instead has Gaynor attack me himself.
The only thing I gathered from the article was that I am protecting President Obama. Anyone that's read my work knows I generally have no use for President Obama. My motivations have nothing to do with that. I wouldn't call Anita Moncrief a whistle blower under any circumstances since I've done many stories about whistle blowers and there's simply a huge difference between the heroism exemplified by a true whistle blower and Moncrief's opportunism. Gaynor refers to an article I wrote months ago, and I simply didn't know her whole story then. She wasn't the subject of the piece, ACORN was. Of course, ACORN was and is targeting her. After all, her theft was less than $2000 whereas Dale Rathke's was in the neighborhood of one million dollars. When a group goes after the $2000 theft but not the one million dollar embezzlement, I'd say they're targeting someone. That ACORN is targeting Anita Moncrief doesn't make her actions heroic. Frankly, she's given that organization plenty of ammunition to target her with. After all, she committed theft and fraud and wrote about it in admission.
Frankly, if someone refers on occasion to Anita Moncrief, or anyone, and calls her a whistle blower, I wouldn't care. It wouldn't matter. Both Gaynor and Malkin write about Anita Moncrief obsessively and they obsessively refer to her as a whistleblower. They have a duty then to provide proper context. Pointing to some article I wrote months ago doesn't provide context. In my last article, I pointed to the story of Dr. David Gossman. He noticed that his employer, Lahey Clinic, had ties to a medical device firm, Medtronics, that was inappropriate. He reported this relationship to administration and he was fired. Anita Moncrief did no such thing. While working at Project Vote, she didn't report on any wrongdoing. In fact, she, herself, engaged in wrongdoing. It was only after she was fired that she reported on the wrong doing. So, if Gaynor and Malkin insist on writing obsessively about her, they must explain to the audience what they mean by whistle blower. That carries an aura of courage and integrity. Moncrief's actions were neither courageous nor had any integrity, but were full of opportunism.
Frankly, this is going round and round at this point, it's boring having a back and forth with Michael Gaynor since his work is unreadable.
Every time Michael Gaynor writes about me, I refer to Bobby Knight. That's because in the movie about him he chewed a player out. The player was dejected. Then a teammate came over and said not to worry. You only need to worry when Knight ignores you. It's when they ignore me that I worry. I'd also suggest to Gaynor that blogging protocol requires that you link to a piece when you write about it. I have no problem linking to his pieces. He should have no problem giving his audience, all four people, the opportunity to read my work in whole.
MGM (that's an acronym for Malkin, Gaynor and Moncrief) have been making this thesis. They believe that ACORN 8 is too blinded by ideology to go after the president and that's why they refuse to get on board with Anita Moncrief about her expose of the connection between Obama and ACORN. ACORN 8 are all current and former board members of ACORN. They are true believers in the cause of ACORN. In fact, to this day, they want to see ACORN reformed not destroyed.
Yet, this ideology didn't stop them from taking on the leadership of ACORN. They all risked their positions on the board of ACORN to challenge the leadership for a series of crimes and wrongdoings they discovered. So, MGM would have us believe that the same group of people that risked their place on the board of ACORN to expose its corruption are now simultaneously hiding a key piece of ACORN corruption because that would be bad for the president. They are blinded by ideology. Ideology didn't blind them from taking on ACORN but it is from taking on the President. Some of ACORN 8 have been associated with ACORN for two plus decades. That long history didn't stop them from putting ideology aside to take on ACORN. Yet, these same people can't bring themselves to take on the president even though that would take on ACORN as well.
Beyond that, Michael Gaynor has both indicated that he and Michelle Malkin do maintain contact and that they aren't in contact. Here's what he said in a previous piece about me.
I emailed Ms. Malkin making the same point THE DAY BEFORE!
Then, he said this in his latest piece.
If Ms. Malkin and I were co-conspirators, that biography would have been updated to include Culture of Corruption and I'd have an autographed copy of Culture of Corruption, but we are not, it is not and I do not.
The next time I have the pleasure of meeting Ms. Malkin will be the first time.
So, it appears as though whether Michael Gaynor knows Michelle Malkin depends on the point he's making. Both have said they are in constant contact with Anita Moncrief. No other journalists write nearly as obsessively about her as the two of them. If they aren't in constant contact, maybe Anita Moncrief should make an introduction. Furthermore, if they don't know each other, then why is Michelle Malkin quoting Michael Gaynor, without identifying him, while Gaynor attacks a third party.
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, there's only two possibilities. Malkin doesn't know Gaynor. In that case, she quoted someone she doesn't know, didn't identify him, and didn't allow the party, Michael McCray, Gaynor was attacking to respond. On the other hand, the three of them are in constant contact and in that case they have been orchestrating and coordinating these attacks all along. Pick your corruption.
Finally, I like the title of Gaynor's piece, The ACORN 8 Schill is Really Shrill, but he makes the insinuation that I am beholden to ACORN 8 and this is all really being written on their behalf. Keep in mind that Gaynor has no other sources near ACORN, besides Moncrief, and neither does Malkin. I just finished three interviews with Wade Rathke. Let's just say he and ACORN 8 don't see eye to eye. For Gaynor to make that accusation at me is the height of absurdity. He's written obsessively about Anita Moncrief since last spring and he says I'm a shill for someone. I just finished doing three interviews with Wade Rathke and I'm supposed to be a shill for ACORN 8. Is that really a serious accusation?