What A Mess

One day after proclaiming on national television that allowing the would be terrorist on the Northwest flight wasn't a security breakdown, Secretary Napolitano backtracked.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has backed off comments she made on Sunday on CNN saying that "the system worked" in response to questions about how a would-be-bomber got explosive material aboard a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day. "Obviously this individual should not have gotten on the plane carrying that material. And we can explain all of the reasons, but they're not satisfactory," Napolitano said on CBS' "The Early Show" Monday.

Meanwhile, it took all of twenty four hours for conservatives to put the blame square on the shoulders of the Obama administration.

There is a reason why Obama hasn’t given a public statement. It’s strategy.Here’s the theory: a two-bit mook is sent by Al Qaeda to do a dastardly deed. He winds up neutering himself. Literally.

Authorities respond appropriately; the President (as this president is want to to) presides over the federal response. His senior aides speak for him, letting reporters know that he’s videoconferencing regularly, that he’s ordering a review of terrorist watch lists, that he’s discoursing with his Secretary of Homeland Security.

But an in-person Obama statement isn’t needed; Indeed, a message expressing command, control, outrage and anger might elevate the importance of the deed, would generate panic (because Obama usually DOESN’T talk about the specifics of cases like this, and so him deciding to do so would cue the American people to respond in a way that exacerbates the situation

That, coincidentally, is how long it took for the Obama administration to declare that this was NOT part of a larger terrorist plot. That's 22 hours more than it took the Obama administration to initially declare that the Fort Hood shooting was NOT an act of terror. Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin claims this is proof that Jihadis aren't motivated by poverty.

The Nigerian elite enginnering student studied at one of Britain’s leading universities, “lived a gilded life” and “stayed in a £2m flat.”

The Independent says Abdulmatallab’s privileged status is “surprising” — “a very different background to many of the other al-Qa’ida recruits who opt for martyrdom.”

Actually, there’s nothing surprising about it. The only surprise is that so many supposedly informed people — from British journalists to our own commander-in-chief — continue to perpetuate the myth of the poor, oppressed jihadist.

Note to Michelle Malkin, UBL is worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million. If the folks that believe this nonsense aren't swayed by UBL's personal fortune, they aren't going to be swayed by this particular story.

There's calls for investigations everywhere. Yet, we still don't know how this guy got on the plane. This guy's own father turned him in. If that's not a red flag, nothing is. Of course, this is a system wide breakdown.

What we have now though is complete and total political posturing and opportunism. Pundits, pols, and editors alike are all jumping over themselves to draw a higher analysis from this. Surprise, surprise, eveyone's analyses are pretty much in line with their own preconceived notions. Republicans are dying to call this a failure of homeland security by an incompetent White House. Liberals are dying to call this an isolated incident by one lone nut.

It's not even 72 hours. How can anyone draw any conclusions yet? Yet, they all are. Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Mike Volpe and Bobby Knight V

Introduction: If you're unfamiliar with the backstory, you may be confused in the beginning. Please bear with the piece. It all comes together at the end.

Michael Gaynor is at it again. In a piece that starts out attacking Breitbart, moves to attacking Marcel Reid and ACORN 8, he ends up attacking me, though he never mentions me by name.

The scurrilous claim promoted by the ACORN 8 and its blogger tools that Ms. MonCrief has not been back because Fox News suddenly discovered that Ms. MonCrief had put some personal expenses on a company credit card without permission is demonstrably false.

I am the "blogger". The facts are the facts. It's true that Moncrief had mentioned her theft before April however, Fox News didn't know it until Beck's people discovered after more rigorous research. In fact, Beck was willing to let all of it go when Moncrief told him she couldn't be on his show and wound up on another the same day. Then, he cut her off and Fox News cut her off with it. That comes from two sources that have spoken with Beck and his staff fairly regularly.



In fact, most of the piece is a response to this piece of mine in which I ask a series of questions of Gaynor, Michelle Malkin and Anita Moncrief. He once again tries to pad the so called ACORN resume of Anita Moncrief. Moncrief is the former employee of Project Vote that spoke to New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom about email lists that were shared between ACORN and the Obama administration.



Moncrief is also the source of the only seven pages in Michelle Malkin's book, Culture of Corruption, that you couldn't read anywhere else. Both Malkin and Gaynor have written obsessively about Moncrief since May, for Malkin, and April, for Gaynor, of this year.

This is all the latest reincarnation of what started as an investigative series by me into media corruption between Anita Moncrief, Michelle Malkin, and Michael Gaynor and it devolved into a pseudo blog war between Gaynor and myself. That's because everytime I wrote a piece in the series, it was Gaynor acting as the protector, defender, and attacker. Malkin has continued to, in my opinion a totally cowardly manner, sit idly by and allow Gaynor to speak for her in all of this.

This all started when I commented on an October 5th piece by Michelle Malkin. In that piece, Malkin both dishonestly propped up Anita Moncrief and quoted Michael Gaynor in attacking a third party, Michael McCray of ACORN 8.

Former ACORN/Project Vote worker Anita MonCrief — the independent whistleblower who worked closely with NYTimes reporter Stephanie Strom on exposing ACORN financial shenanigans last year before Times editors “cut bait” just weeks before Election Day — informed Strom that the true figure was $5 million.

...

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.

The true figure is NOT $5 million. It might be five million dollars, but in fact, only the very top of the ACORN hierarchy know how much the embezzlement was. That figure was one of many mentioned at an ACORN board meeting. Anita Moncrief isn't on the board of ACORN. So, she only knows about this figure because someone on the board told it to her. Her information is second hand and it's not definite. Neither of those things were mentioned by Malkin as she systematically mislead her audience.

On top of this, she never identified who Michael Gaynor is. He's attacking Michael McCray and it's a tough attack. The audience needs to know what his standing is to attack McCray. In fact, besides being someone that has attacked McCray, Michael Gaynor has no standing. Michael McCray is a former ACORN board member and current ACORN 8 communications director. Michael Gaynor is a blogger that speaks to Anita Moncrief often. So, besides being someone that attacks Michael McCray, there's absolutely no reason to quote Gaynor here.

That's the sort of systematic misinformation that Gaynor and Malkin have routinely put up on their websites in support of Moncrief and in attacking Moncrief's enemies, real or perceived. Both have claimed that Moncrief is of major significance to the ACORN story. In fact, she was a low level staffer, a development associate, in an office of Project Vote. The former chief organizer, Wade Rathke, told me that he may have met her but didn't remember it. In other words, while both claim that she's the key to the story, she wasn't actually known by the head of the organization.

Both have claimed that Moncrief is a major source for media like Fox News, the Washington Examiner and others. In fact, Fox News cut her off months ago after discovering her theft, fraud, and subsequent firing from Project Vote. The Washington Examiner will quote her from time to time but she's often the second or third person quoted and almost always at the end of the piece where most don't even read. That's of course BECAUSE SHE WAS A LOW LEVEL STAFFER.

More than that, both claim that the key to the ACORN story runs through Anita Moncrief because she provides the connection between the Obama administration and ACORN. In fact, she claims to have email lists shared by both. I say claims because while both refer to these lists neither will release them. (ironic since Gaynor then demands that other groups like ACORN 8 release all sorts of documents) Even if this is true, this is the key to nothing. That's a violation of FEC rules. I won't minimize the corruption. It's there. Yet, it would lead to a fine of $1 million. That's it. ACORN has been implicated in a mountain of wrongdoing, and if all you have on Obama are these lists, you don't have much. Beyond that, the only person that can corroborate what Anita Moncrief is saying is Anita Moncrief. No one else is making these charges or claiming to have this evidence.

Then, there's Anita Moncrief's theft, fraud, and firing. Both conveniently almost never mention any of the three. When Malkin mentions it, she links to Anita Moncrief explaining them. She never details herself what happened. In fact, Anita Moncrief was working for Project Vote when she falsely applied for a Project Vote credit card, used that credit for personal purchases, and then was fired. Only after she was fired did Moncrief begin to "blow the whistle" as both Malkin and Gaynor call it. Both Malkin and Gaynor use the term "whistleblower" to apply to Moncrief in a courageous manner. In fact, Anita Moncrief blew the whistle in a manner that was no different than Henry Hill and Sammy The Bull. Unless both are willing to call them "courageous", they are misleading the audience when they refer to her as a whistle blower.

This has been the game they've been running and the entire thing is for the benefit of Anita Moncrief. It's also for the benefit of Michelle Malkin. After all, if Anita Moncrief isn't viewed favorably, a lot of people would sour on her book. It's for the benefit of Michael Gaynor because no one of importance will speak to him besides Moncrief. That's why, suddenly, Michelle Malkin has written 30 blog posts about Anita Moncrief since May and Gaynor is at near 100 since April.

You'd think that such blatant corruption would be something a lot of media would cover. Instead, I'm the only one. Now, you could say that's because I am seeing ghosts, but that would assume that our media isn't corrupt itself. Instead, Michael Gaynor uses every opportunity to attack me. Michelle Malkin ignores me, sort of. Since I started this series, she's written about Anita Moncrief 5 times. That's in nearly two months. In the month prior to the series, she wrote about her 13 times. That also just happened to be a critical time for her book. She's also only called her a whistleblower twice out of the five times prior to that she referred to Moncrief as a whistle blower about 90% of the time. Once she referred to her as a "development associate". So, either Malkin suddenly, and coincidentally, lost her appetite to write about Moncrief, and call her a whistle blower, or she's taking her marching orders from me, all while pretending not to acknowledge me. Like I said, Malkin is the height of journalistic cowardice.


That brings me back to Gaynor's latest piece. In it, he starts out talking about Breitbart and ends up talking about Anita Moncrief. What's the connection? There is none, except an excuse for Gaynor to again point out how courageous Anita Moncrief is. In a similar fashion, Michelle Malkin quotes Anita Moncrief, who talks about the New York 23rd district race though that's really an excuse for Moncrief to attack ACORN 8.

ACORN is a Democrat scandal and it is hard to separate one from the other. Corruption is the overriding theme and it comes mostly from the left. Another particularly odd pairing continues to be the radical reformers of ACORN and top Conservatives and Republicans. The ACORN 8, a group of former ACORN board
members, have formed a Scozzafava-like partnership with the Republicans. In attempting to expose ACORN, some appear to have ignored key facts and overlooked a pattern of withholding key information to coincide with opportunistic timing aimed at aiding Democrats. An example of this is the complete removal of two longtime Obama ACORN cronies from a complaint filed with the United States Justice Department last January by the ACORN 8. Madeline Talbot is described by Stanley Kurtz of the National Review Online as “the woman who first drew Obama into an alliance with ACORN.” And Keith Kelleher is Talbot’s husband, the Chief Organizer of SEIU Local 880 in Chicago

Some conservatives ask me why I write this series. Look at this corruption. Only Jayson Blair on his worst days could have boasted to being more corrupt. Michelle Malkin just quoted Anita Moncrief as Anita Moncrief attacked ACORN 8 during the course of a piece on the New York 23rd election. To be clear, ACORN 8 had nothing to do with the New York 23rd district race. They're an activist group working to reform ACORN and also working on behalf of whistleblowers. Just as support for Anita Moncrief has no business in a piece on Andrew Breitbard, so to an attack on ACORN 8 has no business in a piece on New York's 23rd. Why is Anita Moncrief attacking ACORN 8? It's because they wouldn't support her when she wanted to link Obama to ACORN and they soured on her after they found out about her theft. For this, Moncrief turned on ACORN 8 and Malkin allows her to use Malkin's pages to attack them.

Conservatives should be furious. If this what passes for journalism on our side, we have no business criticizing the left. On their worst day, the New York Times couldn't dream of anything this corrupt. It's not only corrupt but amateurish. It isn't some small time journalist, but the mainstay conservative blogger, Michelle Malkin. She's broken every rule. When Gaynor attacked McCray, she never reached out to McCray for comment. When Moncrief attacked the ACORN 8, she never reached out to ACORN 8 for comment. She uses Anita Moncrief both as a source and as an author. She routinely lies about Moncrief's worth to the ACORN story. She routinely refers to Moncrief as a "whistleblower" without providing context to that description. She does all this knowing that the fate of Anita Moncrief's reputation is intertwined with the fate of her book, and her own reputation with it. She never discloses the plethora of conflicts all of this creates. (all while criticizing other's conflicts with righteous indignation and all while criticizing the left media for their corruption) To top it off, she gets into bed with a total hack that passes off gibberish for journalism. (that's Gaynor)

All the while, Malkin sits back while Gaynor attacks me and pretends to know nothing about it. Just conveniently, she changes entirely her pattern of reporting on Anita Moncrief in response to my writing. What a coward? What a totaly disgrace to the profession that's made her. If this were happening on the left, she'd be screaming for heads from every mountain top. Instead, she engages in the worst sort of media corruption all while having the gaul to write a book called Culture of Corruption. If she had an ounce of integrity, she'd immediately do a Mea Culpa and donate all that she's made on the book to her favorite charity. Instead, she sits knowing exactly how corrupt she is and pretends she didn't do anything wrong. She hopes that some hack, Gaynor, attacking me a few times will make it go away and hopes my stature doesn't grow so that some people actually notice what I'm writing. Like I said, it's exactly the sort of corruption that the same Michelle Malkin would be screaming about if it happened on the left. So, besides cowardly, she's also a total hypocrite.

Questions for Michelle Malkin, Michael Gaynor and Anita Moncrief

For the last several weeks, I have been writing a series of exposes on the corrupt relationship between Michelle Malkin, Michael Gaynor and Anita Moncrief. Back in May, Michelle Malkin first began writing about Anita Moncrief obsessively. Since May of this year, Michelle Malkin has written about Anita Moncrief 30 times. Prior to that, Malkin wrote about Moncrief once. Michael Gaynor has been writing about Anita Moncrief since April of this year obsessively. He's written about her almost a hundred times since. In the prior two years, Gaynor wrote about Moncrief 18 times, according to Gaynor. Gaynor writes nearly as obsessively about ACORN 8, and some of its members including Michael McCray and Marcel Reid. (both of whom I've spoken with about this topic and many others for full disclosure) He's mentioned Marcel Reid, Michael McCray and ACORN 8 more than one hundred times each. Always, Gaynor has mentions them in the subject of attacks on each of the three. He's never had a conversation with anyone in ACORN 8.

Not coincidentally, Anita Moncrief used to be friends with Reid and other members of ACORN 8., but she's since turned on that organization. Both Gaynor and Malkin write glowing articles about Anita Moncrief. Gaynor lauds her courage.

Anita Moncrief is likeable as well as brave, bright, young, maternal, passionate, artistic, and black. Now, ACORN and the Obama administration must destroy her because Anita's not an ACORN slave and Anita decided to reveal what ACORN and the Obama administration want to conceal.

Meanwhile, Malkin lauds Moncrief's contributions to the ACORN story.

Former ACORN/Project Vote worker Anita MonCrief — the independent whistleblower who worked closely with NYTimes reporter Stephanie Strom on exposing ACORN financial shenanigans last year before Times editors “cut bait” just weeks before Election Day — informed Strom that the true figure was $5 million.

Both make similar descriptions over and over. Even if the descriptions were true, making this case ad nausea would be inappropriate. Yet, it's much worse because the descriptions are dubious at best. First, there's nothing courageous about anything Moncrief has done. When she work for ACORN affiliate Project Vote, she witnessed all sorts of crimes. Moncrief then decided to falsely apply for a company credit card and then used that card for personal items. She got caught and fired. It was only after she lost her paycheck did Moncrief turn into a "whistle blower". A courageous whistle blower blows the whistle on corruption when they see it. They risk their pay checks, livelihood and careers to do it. Anita Moncrief waited until the paychecks stopped before blowing the whistle. She's the sort of whistle blower that Sammy the Bull Gravanno and Henry Hill were. There's nothing courageous about any of the three.

Furthermore, no one but Malkin and Gaynor consider Moncrief anything but a minor source. Fox News cut ties with her months ago. Because of her fraud and theft, most news organizations are weary of using her as a source of anything. Furthermore, Anita Moncrief was a "development associate" while at Project Vote. In other words, she was a low level staffer. When I asked Wade Rathke about her, he told me her personally and only knew her through media reports. He did however know Marcel Reid and other members of ACORN 8. So, this supposed wealth of information never met or knew the person responsible for turning ACORN into what it is.

Malkin and Gaynor rarely mention her fraud, theft and eventual firing. When they do, it's often quoted as "Anita has always been open and honest about her mistakes"and then there will be a link to Moncrief's own explanation for what she did. In other words, Malkin will laud her openness and honesty and allow Moncrief herself to explain her criminal behavior. That's the sort of one sided and biased reporting that the same Malkin will excoriate when an organization like the New York Times does it.

Worst of all, Gaynor has quoted Malkin in praise of Moncrief and vice versa, and to top it off, Malkin has quoted Gaynor and Moncrief as they attack ACORN 8.

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.

and...

ACORN is a Democrat scandal and it is hard to separate one from the other. Corruption is the overriding theme and it comes mostly from the left. Another particularly odd pairing continues to be the radical reformers of ACORN and top Conservatives and Republicans. The ACORN 8, a group of former ACORN board members, have formed a Scozzafava-like partnership with the Republicans. In attempting to expose ACORN, some appear to have ignored key facts and overlooked a pattern of withholding key information to coincide with opportunistic timing aimed at aiding Democrats. An example of this is the complete removal of two longtime Obama ACORN cronies from a complaint filed with the United States Justice Department last January by the ACORN 8. Madeline Talbot is described by Stanley Kurtz of the National Review Online as “the woman who first drew Obama into an alliance with ACORN.” And Keith Kelleher is Talbot’s husband, the Chief Organizer of SEIU Local 880 in Chicago.

Beyond that, since I started this, Gaynor has attacked me on three different occasions. During the course of blog attacks, he's never once provided a link to any of the articles of mine he quotes from so that his audience of four can see if he's taking my words out of context and he's attacked a recently dead blogger named Nancy Armstrong twice. Meanwhile, Ms. Malkin can't decide if Anita Moncrief is or is not a whistle blower. Prior to my reporting, that moniker was used 90% of the time. Since I pointed out that such a moniker applied to Moncrief is dubious at best, Malkin has gone back and forth. First, she's written significantly less about her since I started the expose. (five times in a month plus) Second, she's used that moniker only two of those five times. Malkin has never responded to me directly, and Gaynor claims the two of them never communicate, though on one occasion he appeared to speak on her behalf.

Even if hell does freeze over, Volpe should not expect to win any attention from Ms. Malkin.

All while claiming to not know Malkin, Gaynor quotes her repeatedly, has said he's emailed her, has been quoted by Malkin, and is very proud of the fact that Malkin acknowledged him in her book, Culture of Corruption. Of course, they both speak to Anita Moncrief regularly. So, if in fact, he doesn't know Malkin, he ought to take that up with Moncrief since she could have introduced the two of them months ago.

Meanwhile, throughout, I've been emailing all sorts of questions to all three. None have ever responded to any of the questions. So, since none want to answer any of my questions directly, the only thing left is to ask these questions here.

1) (for both Malkin and Gaynor) Do you consider Anita Moncrief the sort of courageous whistle blower like Dr. Gossman, who I featured recently? Dr. Gossman found corruption between his employer, Lahey Clinic, and Medtronics, a medical parts company. He blew the whistle on this corruption and was fired. Or, do you consider Anita Moncrief an opportunistic whistle blower like Henry Hill and Sammy the Bull, who blew the whistle on corruption when it was opportunistic and convenient?

2) Anita Moncrief discovered that email lists were being shared, at least according to her, between ACORN and the Obama administration. ACORN has been accused of voter registration fraud, ERISA violations, tax evasion, union busting of its own employees (all while being in bed with unions), multi million dollar embezzlement by the founder's brother, co mingling of government funds, among a host of allegations. Why do both of you consider her discovery the one that everyone needs to focus on? Even if true, it's a violation that would come with a fine of somewhere in the neighborhood of a million dollars, and that fine would have been paid by the Obama campaign. A source told me that they believe that such lists have been shared by ACORN since the Gore administration. So, this is neither new or shocking. Why are the both of you fixated on it?

3)(this is to Malkin and Gaynor) Do you two communicate? Gaynor says you don't but also says he has emailed you, has quoted you, Malkin has quoted him, and Gaynor is acknowledged in Malkin's book. Of course, both of you speak to Moncrief regularly. That's an awful lot of contact without speaking to each other. Is there a reason why you make all this contact without contacting each other?

4)I've said that Anita Moncrief has exhibited several sociopathic tendencies. For instance, she saw chaos at Project Vote and used that chaos to commit criminality. She once considered Marcel Reid a mentor. Then, she turned on Reid. She also conveniently became a conservative just in time to make two conservative journalists, the two of you, her main sources of media attention. In fact, Gaynor once outed Moncrief in October of 2008 and in that email, that Gaynor shared without Moncrief's permission, Anita Moncrief said that Michelle Malkin "scared" her. She was none too happy with Gaynor then. She was scared of Malkin then. She now considers both her two most loyal journalists.

If I'm right and Moncrief is a sociopath, doesn't everything else make sense. Moncrief didn't have any evolution from a radical to a conservative. She was merely doing it for your benefit and the benefit of others like you. Can't you see that when both of you are no longer useful to her, she'll turn on you the way she turned on Project Vote and Marcel Reid? Goodness, Michael Gaynor has been writing nothing but propaganda on Moncrief's behalf, and where has that gotten him. It's gotten him nowhere. While Moncrief gets invited to appear with Andrew Breitbart and CSPAN and she rubs shoulders with some prominent conservatives, Gaynor, you're still writing on your insignificant site. If I was forced to write propaganda on behalf of someone, I would hope I'd get something in return. You've gotten nothing. Doesn't it appear as though she's played you. That's SOP for a sociopath. Doesn't this chain of events give anyone pause that they've gotten into bed with a sociopath? Has anyone asked Moncrief why she didn't blow the whistle at Project Vote but only waited until after they fired her? Malkin, did you ask Anita Moncrief why she would talk with someone who outed her? Gaynor, did you wonder why someone who you outed suddenly became so cozy with you?

5)Ms. Malkin, you say you've seen and reviewed the evidence that Anita Moncrief has against Project Vote. If that evidence is as strong as you claim, why haven't you released it? Why do you insist on propping up Ms. Moncrief rather than releasing the evidence and allowing it to speak for itself?

6) Ms. Moncrief, upon discovering that Project Vote was working closely, and illegally, with the Obama administration, you went straight to the media. You didn't go to the Justice Department, the Federal Election Committee, or anyone else with subpoena power. Why is that? How did you come upon this evidence? Did you obtain it legally? What do you know about a missing computer at Project Vote?

7) For Mr. Gaynor and Ms. Malkin, what ethical guidelines do bloggers have? For instance, Ms. Malkin, you began featuring Ms. Moncrief on your blog a lot in anticipation of your book's release. Ms. Moncrief provides the only seven pages in the book that anyone can't find through searching the internet. Do you feel you should have shared that conflict with your audience when you began to write obsessively about her? Do you think it's appropriate that you consider Ms. Moncrief a source, an individual you write obsessively about, and an author that you allow to write for your sister site Hot Air? Mr. Gaynor, do you think it's appropriate to release email threads when the other party gives you no permission. When I interviewed Wade Rathke, before the interview began, he wanted to make sure that I wouldn't do the same thing with our emails that you did. Clearly, he never gave you permission. You also released emails of exchanges with Anita Moncrief. Do you feel any ethical bounds to hold private conversations private?

8)Ms. Moncrief, I'm confused as to how you became a conservative. You say it's because of the corruption you discovered in the Obama administration. Are you unaware of the corruption surrounding Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, George Ryan, Duke Cunningham, and Jack Abramoff? If corruption is your problem, then radicals have no monopoly. The radicals I know are true believers. Normally, it would take a lot more than the discovery of email lists to change their minds. So, how did you become a conservative?

9)Ms. Malkin and Mr. Gaynor, didn't you think it was convenient that this one time radical was suddenly a conservative just in time to speak to two conservatives? (that's you two)

10)Mr. Gaynor, you called me obsessed with Michelle Malkin. I've mentioned her 79 times in 3071 pieces. You've written about Anita Moncrief in about 80% of your pieces since April. You've mentioned Marcel Reid, Michael McCray, and ACORN 8 over one hundred times each. What does that make you about Anita Moncrief, ACORN 8, Marcel Reid and Michael McCray?

11)Ms. Malkin, you've quoted both Michael Gaynor and Anita Moncrief as they've attacked ACORN 8 and members of ACORN 8. You've never even attempted to try and get a response from either. What if the New York Times had quoted Arianna Huffington disparaging you? Are we to believe that such a piece wouldn't be the subject of a front page story on michellemalkin.com? Are we to believe that you wouldn't use such a blind side attack as the subject of an example of how the so called MSM is corrupt? Doesn't that make you no better than the people you criticize?

12)Ms. Moncrief, have you ever had a mentor before? What does it say about you when you turn on your mentor the way you turned on Marcel Reid? My mentor in mortgages hit on not one but two of my former girlfriends, and not only did I forgive him, but frankly, I felt there was nothing to forgive. That's how strongly I feel about the bond between mentor and protege. Why was it so easy for you turn on Marcel Reid and ACORN 8 given what they did for you?

13)Ms. Malkin what makes you think that Fox News uses Anita Moncrief as a source? You know she hasn't appeared there in months. You know that Glenn Beck was furious when he found out third hand that Moncrief committed theft and fraud. You know that Fox News has wanted nothing to do with her since. What makes you think that the Washington Examiner uses her in any serious way? In the article you linked in this piece, she's the third person quoted, behind Marcel Reid and Karen Inman. In fact, you rarely mention them at all in any piece, and when you do, it is to attack them. Are you saying that Anita Moncrief, a low level staffer at Project Vote, knows more about the ACORN scandal than Inman and Reid, two former ACORN board members?

14)to all three, if Anita Moncrief is so critical to the ACORN story, why is it that Wade Rathke only knows of her? Wouldn't it stand to reason that the founder and person singly most responsible for the organization would know Moncrief personally if she's so important to the story?

15)Mr. Gaynor, you claim that ACORN 8 won't run with Moncrief's story because they want to protect President Obama. Some of these folks were board members of ACORN and yet that didn't stop them from blowing the whistle on ACORN, while they were still members of the board. Are you saying that while they have no problem putting ideology aside toward ACORN, they refuse to put ideology aside toward the president?

16) To all three, if Anita Moncrief's information is so solid and critical, why has no one, NO ONE, corroborated it?

17)Ms. Malkin, on June 24th, at 5:06 in the morning, you published a piece in which you corrected an earlier post in which you falsely claimed that ACORN had changed its name. What was so critical about this piece that you wrote it in the middle of the night? You mentioned that you initially got it wrong but never mentioned how you figured out you were wrong. How did you concluded that you were wrong initially and how did that conclusion come to you in the middle of the night? I wrote a piece the evening before that went viral. That piece was finished at 11 PM my time the evening before. I excoriated media like yourself, and mentioned you by name, and called all of you out for getting this very issue wrong. If it wasn't my piece that lead you to conclude that you were wrong initially, what was it? Why didn't you share with the audience how you discovered in the middle of the night that you were wrong initially?

18)Ms. Moncrief, you make a habit of telling your audience you're a SINGLE MOTHER. Why do you insist on doing this? How is your personal life relevant? Do you think that a real conservative would use their personal issues as a tool to draw sympathy? Isn't that something that we usually associate with liberals? Do you understand the tenets of conservativism, including personal responsibility.

19) Ms. Malkin, why have you never criticized Ms. Moncrief for using her child as a prop the way you famously criticized the Frost's for doing the same thing? How is Anita Moncrief drawing symapthy by using her child any different? Isn't this the height of hypocrisy?

20)To Ms. Malkin and Mr. Gaynor, why have neither of you two even attempted to reach out to anyone else in the ACORN story? If you have, don't you find it at all peculiar that Anita Moncrief insists on having her name mentioned as often as possible whereas everyone else insists on remaining quiet. No one else, related to this story, is mentioned by you besides those folks I've confirmed have never talked to you. Wouldn't it make more sense to try and reach out to ACORN, ACORN 8, Greg Hall, and anyone else associated with this, instead of solely relying on Anita Moncrief?

Mike Volpe and Bobby Knight IV

Michael Gaynor is at it again. He's attacking me for a second straight day, and this article is also published overnight. Once again, it's very long and very difficult to read. So, here's three thoughts.

1) On numerous occasions, Michael Gaynor has recently attacked Nancy Armstrong. Ms. Armstrong tragically passed away in her mid 40's in the summer. She is obviously not here to defend herself and so Gaynor has made a habit of taking potshots at people that are dead and in no position to respond.

With "MsPlaced Democrat" dead, ACORN 8 leader Marcel Reid seems to be stuck with blogger Mike Volpe to front for her.

Nancy wrote on a blog she called MsPlaced Democrat. Gaynor also makes a habit of reprinting emails without permission so this shows again how little class he has.

2) He simply refuses to provide links to any of the articles of mine he quotes. He quotes from no less than three articles and never gives a link to any of the three. That's simple and standard protocol in blogging and internet work.

3) He calls me obsessed with Michelle Malkin. That's interesting since he'll soon write 100 times about Anita Moncrief and Michelle Malkin is near 30 times. Furthermore, he's mentioned the name Marcel Reid several hundred times in the last half year or so. That would be the same Marcel Reid that he claims I am a shill for. So, as it was once said in Friends, "pot this is kettle you're black".

4) Finally, Michael Gaynor appears to speak for Michelle Malkin. (he also appears to be very proud of the fact that Malkin acknowledged in Culture of Corruption. That she did should say all anyone needs to know about that book)

In fact, Ms. Malkin has never asked me to fight any of her battles or to "attack for her." Like her, I write what I choose to write when I choose to write it. Unlike her, I don't have some pervert posting that I am no. 1 of his list of conservatives he most wants to rape or a strange man who admittedly wasn't "cool in school" craving my attention.

Even if hell does freeze over, Volpe should not expect to win any attention from Ms. Malkin.

I'm not sure how he knows that Malkin refuses and will continue to refuse to pay attention to me all while he attacks me viciously and consistently, but as I said, by letting Gaynor fight her battles for her, Michelle Malkin again proves to be a coward. Of course, in reality, Malkin has responded. After I repeatedly pointed out that Moncrief doesn't fit the traditional definition of a whistle blower, Malkin suddenly stopped using that monikor. The last time she referred to Moncrief by her former job title "development associate", which is a lot less flattering than whistle blower. I also pointed out that Moncrief wasn't a major source to any major media but Malkin herself and Gaynor, and since, Malkin has stopped lionizingMoncrief's contributions to the ACORN story. So, in fact, Michelle Malkin has paid me plenty of attention. She's just done it in a cowardly manner.

Mike Volpe and Bobby Knight III (UPDATED)

Michael Gaynor is at it again and responding to my latest expose on his relationship with Michelle Malkin and Anita Moncrief. Frankly,Gaynor is a side show. He's a distraction. Malkin is the main player here and she continues to hide like the coward that I called her. Gaynor is the attack dog for those forces that Malkin deems below her and he's glad to do it.

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.

Epilogue:

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?

The Culture of Corruption Between Michelle Malkin Michael Gaynor, and Anita Moncrief II

Jayson Blair once wrote a book. If you didn't read it, you are in the overwhelming majority. The book bombed. That's mostly because the public didn't want to read a book by a disgraced plagiarizer who didn't have what it takes to be a real journalist so he faked it. In this world, image is everything. Fair or not, there was absolutely no sympathy for anything that Blair did and the public had no stomach for his side of the story.

So, what if I told you that a book was about to be published by a thief, a fraud, and an opportunist that turned on everyone that helped them when it benefitted them? It's likely the public would have no stomach for such a book. What if I told you I was going to publish a book by a naive radical that found the courage to become a whistleblower and so began a philosophical journey in which they found God and Conservatism? Now, that's a book you'd likely want to read.

That's what's at stake for Anita Moncrief. Depending on how you present her story, you could view her as the first or the second. Her future in writing depends entirely on crafting an image that is much more alligned with the second and not the first. So what someone may say. That's Anita Moncrief's problem. Unfortunately, it's now everyone's problem. That's because two journalists, Michelle Malkin and Michael Gaynor, have spent the last six months systematically crafting Anita Moncrief's image so that it's more like the second version. As a result, they have perpetrated a fraud on their readers, and thus on the American people. They have committed a journalistic fraud of the magnitude and scale that's difficult to compare.

Back in 2007, Anita Moncrief was working for Project Vote. There she witnessed a lax environment in which rules weren't always followed. She was struggling for money as she was a recent SINGLE MOTHER. So, one day she decided to falsely apply for a company credit card and she used that credit card for personal items. Soon enough, Project Vote figured out her theft and fraud and they fired her FOR CAUSE. She then turned on her former employer and began reaching out to media telling them that Project Vote was sharing email lists with the Obama administration. Upon being fired, Anita Moncrief befriended Marcel Reid. Reid was a former board member at ACORN. Reid took Moncrief under her wing and acted as a mentor to her. In fact, when Moncrief first began writing herself, Reid would often proof read her work. Reid often helped open doors for her. For instance, Reid helped Anita Moncrief give testimony to Darrell Issa's committee that investigated ACORN.

Marcel Reid helped to form the group, ACORN 8. In the spring of this year, Anita Moncrief asked Reid and ACORN 8 to get behind her in her expose of the connection between ACORN/Project Vote and the Obama administration. ACORN 8 asked for documentation. The documentation she provided too dubious for ACORN 8 to get behind. The group had decided that they would only attack ACORN with accusations they had incontrovertable evidence to back up. They asked Moncrief for more. She refused to give any more and so they refused to back her up. Then, it became public that Moncrief had committed theft and fraud and ACORN 8 cut ties completely.

After this, Moncrief turned on ACORN 8 and Marcel Reid specifically. She's spent the last seven months attacking Reid. Now, when I say that, this means that Anita Moncrief will attack her herself. She'll have Michael Gaynor attack her and she'll have Michelle Malkin attack her. Prior to April, Michael Gaynor had written about Anita Moncrief a handful of times. Michelle Malkin had written about her once. Since then, Malkin has written about her almost thirty times and Gaynor too many times to count. Every time, Moncrief is painted in a glowing fashion. Beyond that, Malkin and Gaynor will attack enemies of Moncrief, like ACORN 8, mercilessly. Here's a few examples from Gaynor.

The ACORN 8 are out to take control of ACORN from the current ACORN leadership by comparing ACORN to the United States Marines, claiming ACORN is a wonderful organization and criticizing the current ACORN leadership as a corrupt cabal that hijacked ACORN.

Michael McCray, ACORN 8 spokesperson: "In a way ACORN is like the 'Marines'. ACORN will go into areas where few (if any) traditional organizations will go and organize chapters. ACORN will protest, demonstrate and fight institutions which more traditional organizations shy away from – like banks, corporations and high ranking politicians. So if you are a poor or working class person and you have a serious grievance against the 'establishment' but you can’t call Johnnie Cochran – you better call ACORN. They are the only chance you have."

Bulletin for Mr. McCray: Comparing ACORN to the America's heroic Marines is malicious and Mr. Cochran is dead

and...

On that, Ms. MonCrief and the ACORN 8 were and still are in full agreement. But Ms. MonCrief wants real reform, a thorough housecleaning and truth, transparency and accountability BY ACORN, not just within ACORN.

Ms. MonCrief does NOT want ACORN to continue to be "an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party" with different people in control.

Glenn Beck does not want ACORN to be a huge Democrat scandal...but it is and former lifelong Democrat Ms. MonCrief is not pretending otherwise!

As to Ms. Reid's selective targeting, look at the complaint filed with the United States Justice Department by the ACORN 8, dated January 7, 2009 and posted at the ACORN 8 website (http://www.acorn-8.net/).

and finally...

It was Ms. MonCrief who came forward to testify in the Pennsylvania ACORN case
last October. It was Ms. MonCrief who set up her own blog as Election Day 2008 came near and produced illuminating post after post despite reasonable fear.

Ms. MonCrief grew disillusioned as the Age of Obama unfolded and became an ex-liberal. Ms. MonCrief told truths that the ACORN 8 did not want made public as well as supported the ACORN 8 to the extent that they too worked to expose ACORN corruption. Even the ACORN 8 acknowledged that Ms. MonCrief was a genuine whistleblower.

The first paragraph of a statement issued by the ACORN 8 National Spokesperson Michael McCray reads as follows: "On behalf of the National Board of the ACORN 8, we are all saddened by and express great concern due to the ACORN court action filed against whistleblower Anita Moncrief. While we do not express an opinion on the merits of ACORN’s complaint; we as reform advocates decry the tactic of suing whistleblowers – especially, low to moderate income people who do not have the financial means to effectively fight back in courts of law. Moreover, this is yet another example of why congress must enact strong corporate, government and tax-payer funded whistleblower protection laws."

Here's a few examples of Michelle Malkin doing it.

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.

and...

Anita MonCrief has a related must-read in the Hot Air Green Room on “How NY23
Revealed the Republicans’ ACORN Problem.” Excerpt:

ACORN is a Democrat scandal and it is hard to separate one from the other. Corruption is the overriding theme and it comes mostly from the left. Another particularly odd pairing continues to be the radical reformers of ACORN and top Conservatives and Republicans. The ACORN 8, a group of former ACORN board members, have formed a Scozzafava-like partnership with the Republicans. In attempting to expose ACORN, some appear to have ignored key facts and overlooked a pattern of withholding key information to coincide with opportunistic timing aimed at aiding Democrats. An example of this is the complete removal of two longtime Obama ACORN cronies from a complaint filed with the United States Justice Department last January by the ACORN 8. Madeline Talbot is described by Stanley Kurtz of the National Review Online as “the woman who first drew Obama into an alliance with ACORN.” And Keith Kelleher is Talbot’s husband, the Chief Organizer of SEIU Local 880 in Chicag0

Now, at least Michael Gaynor attacks ACORN 8 directly. Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin is nothing short of a journalistic coward. She can't bring herself to attack them herself so all she does is quote others in attacking ACORN 8. Who does she quote, Michael Gaynor and Anita Moncrief?

Beyond attacking her enemies (Gaynor also makes a habit of attacking Fox News which cut off Moncrief as soon as word of her theft was discovered and Malkin attacks the New York Times which never ran with her story), both write about Anita Moncrief as though she were a hero. Here's a few examples from Gaynor.

Ms. MonCrief is an ex-radical feared by both the Obama Adminstration and ACORN since Ms. MonCrief publicly became a whistleblower and a voluntary witness in a case against ACORN last October and even more since she became an ex-radical this year.

Why are the Obama Administration and ACORN (and others) afraid of Ms. MonCrief.

and...

President Obama and ACORN must be delighted that O'Reilly did not pursue Ms. MonCrief's statement on his show last June that for years ACORN has been "an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party" or--gasp!--the relationship between Obama and the his presidential campaign and ACORN.

Ms. MonCrief is much braver, bolder, fresher and smaller, but O'Reilly fans can take some solace: he's much...taller

and finally...

It just got even better for America: Ms. MonCrief and BigGovernment.com teamed up. Exposing ACORN as a criminal enterprise willing to facilitate prostitution, child prostitution, child abuse, bank fraud, tax fraud and illegal immigration was fantastic, but the ACORN political corruption that put Obama in the White House and Democrats in charge of Congress with big majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives working to "fundamentally change" America is worse.

To demonstrate that, Ms. MonCrief and her knowledge and evidence are essential

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin has worked tirelessly trying to balloon Anita Moncrief's relevance to the ACORN story.

Former ACORN/Project Vote worker Anita MonCrief — the independent whistleblower who worked closely with NYTimes reporter Stephanie Strom on exposing ACORN financial shenanigans last year before Times editors “cut bait” just weeks before Election Day — informed Strom that the true figure was $5 million.

MonCrief also reported the $5 million figure to Warner Todd Huston in April 2009.

and...

I’m reprinting in full one of Anita’s blog posts from February 6, 2009 during the stimulus debate to show how comprehensive her knowledge is of ObamACORN’s money-shuffling operations and political cunning. The Left is going to pour as much money into shutting her up as needed. Who is going to help Anita fight?

and finally...

All of this information is readily available on the Internet, and MonCrief continues to expose ACORN’s tentacles and thuggery at her own blog here despite Project Vote’s litigious efforts to shut her down. News outlets including the Examiner and Fox News have relied on her whistle-blowing testimony and reporting for months —
including her knowledge of ACORN’s Muscle for Money program & the H&R Block shakedown, and ACORN’s gala for Democrats in New York in June to celebrate its 39th anniversary.

On top of this, both scold any and all media for not giving Moncrief air time. This includes Fox News, the New York Times, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. The problem is that both make it an open and shut case. It's anything but that. Moncrief's evidence is inconclusive. It's not a smoking gun. If it were, Michelle Malkin would have posted it long ago. Furthermore, there's an unclear chain of evidence. Anita Moncrief may have gotten to this evidence illegally. There's a computer missing from Project Vote and Moncrief's evidence is electronic. Moncrief is the only one making these charges. They aren't corroborated by anyone. That's exactly what Wade Rathke told me a couple days ago. He didn't just deny her charges but told me that Anita Moncrief is the only one making these charges.

Furthermore, Anita Moncrief was a development associate. That means she helped a senior level staffer develop reports. Her duties mostly included getting coffee, lunch and doing whatever the senior staffer told her. Such a person should not be the main source for anyone and they aren't for anyone but Malkin and Gaynor. Fox News hasn't worked with Moncrief since they discovered the theft. The D.C. Examiner uses her for quotes but relies on others for the main source of information. In other words, Malkin is flat out lying when she claims that Anita Moncrief is any media sources main source but her own.

Put yourself into the shoes of any media. We have an admitted fraud, and thief with an axe to grind. That's the only evidence you have of a connection between Obama and ACORN. Would you go with that story? In fact, the only two journalists staking their reputations on Moncrief are Malkin and Gaynor. They do so while rarely mentioning the theft and fraud. They totally down play that while pumping up her image. In fact, in presenting Moncrief they only present the image of a crusading whistle blower that should be taken seriously by all.

That brings us to the present. This is the fifth piece I've published on this corrupt relationship. Since I started, what's happened is a cat and mouse game between me, Gaynor, Moncrief, and Malkin. For instance, in response to attacks on Malkin, Michael Gaynor would attack me. Then, I pointed out that calling Anita Moncrief a whistle blower is inaccurate. So, the last three times Michelle Malkin has referred to her she hasn't called her a whistle blower. Everytime I have pointed this out, I have used a different example of a real whistle blower. Most recently, Dr. David Gossman, who worked at Lahey Clinic in Boston, noticed that the relationship between his employer and the medical device firm Medtronics was inappropriate. He reported this relationship to the administration. He was then fired by Lahey Clinic. Anita Moncrief did no such thing. She had no problem with the corruption at her employer while she received a paycheck. It was only when that paycheck ended that she had problems. I've pointed this out and low and behold, the last three times Michelle Malkin has written about Moncrief, she hasn't used that term. (she used about ninety percent of the time before I pointed it out)

Then, I pointed out that Michael Gaynor has been obsessed with Anita Moncrief so for two weeks he didn't write about her at all. Then, in the last week, Gaynor wrote about about her three times following that. Finally, as I pointed out that referring to Moncrief's contribution to the overall ACORN story is inaccurate, Malkin has also stopped doing that. In fact, the last three times, all Malkin has done is linked to things Anita Moncrief has written and glowingly introduced her pieces.

Anita MonCrief has a related must-read in the Hot Air Green Room on “How NY23
Revealed the Republicans’ ACORN Problem.” Excerpt

Of course, that excerpt includes an attack by Moncrief on ACORN 8. In it, she compares the Republican relationship to Scozzafava to ACORN 8's relationship to ACORN. ACORN 8 has done no work in New York 23, endorsed no candidate and I don't believe they even have anyone that lives in the district. There's absolutely no reason to include them in a piece on New York 23, unless it's nothing but an excuse to attack them. To me, writing a political piece that's nothing more than an excuse to attack your enemies is trash not a "must read" but that's subjective.

Meanwhile, at the same time Michelle Malkin has conspicuously stopped referring to Moncrief as a whistleblower, Michael Gaynor wrote a long piece of work defending that monikor as used in relation to Moncrief. He never mentions me by name and in fact it's unclear just reading the article why Gaynor is so insistent on defending the monikor whistle blower applied to Anita Moncrief. What he doesn't tell the audience is that not only did I question its use multiple times but I emailed all three asking for clarification on the matter the day before. Low and behold, the next day he defends Anita Moncrief as a whistle blower. Here's how he starts it.

Whistleblower (The Free Dictionary): "One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority."

Of course, by that definition Sammy "the Bull" Gravanno, Henry Hill, and Benedict Arnold were also all whistle blowers. In fact, they were more whistle blowers than Moncrief. Moncrief never took her evidence to DOJ, the FEC, or any other governmental agency. Unless you consider Michelle Malkin, Michael Gaynor and the New York Times "authority" even by that definition Anita Moncrief isn't as much of a whistle blower as Henry Hill, Sammy the Bull and Benedict Arnold. More than that, every time either of them use it, they do it in an attempt to paint her as courageous. Unless they're also willing to say that Sammy the Bull and Henry Hill are also courageous, then both need to make it clear in what context they are using this term. (Moncrief has been a witness in a case against ACORN in Pennsylvania but she didn't bring her evidence forward, she just testified. Furthermore, the case was eventually dismissed and that's something that neither Gaynor nor Malkin mention when they point this out)

Conclusion:

Here's what we have. I am no psychiatrist however Anita Moncrief's behavior exhibits far too many of the characteristics of a sociopath. When she was at Project Vote, she saw criminality and chaos and saw it as an opportunity to commit criminality. That's the behavior of a sociopath. Then, as soon as they fired her, she turned on them. She found Marcel Reid and soon as Reid stopped serving her purpose, she turned on her. She went from being a self described radical to a self described conservative at the very moment she began communicating with two conservative journalists. She refers to herself as a SINGLE MOTHER over and over knowing that such a description creates sympathy. Michael Gaynor once outed her (he outed her as a whistle blower in October of 2008) At the time, she was furious with Gaynor but now has no problem at all with him. Of course, he writes nothing but glowing articles about her. She once said she was "scared" of Michelle Malkin but now has no problems with her just as she conveniently has discovered a new found conservatism.

As for Michael Gaynor, here's all you need to know about him. Earlier this week, he contacted Wade Rathke, former founder of ACORN, and they communicated by email. Then, without getting Rathke's permission, he printed the entire exchange whole cloth on his blog. That's not the first time he's done that. He published an email exchange between himself and Anita Moncrief in 2008. Moncrief didn't give him permission to do that either. That's simply classless.

Of course, Michelle Malkin herself is no stranger to publishing email exchanges without permission. She calls them document drops. There's little in these emails that's newsworthy. One is an email chain in which members of Project Vote are discussing strategy. It's unclear how that's newsworthy. In another, Stephanie Strom discusses the ACORN story with Anita Moncrief. In that, Strom mentions things about the ACORN story that are interesting. So what? These emails aren't newsworthy. She didn't receive permission from Strom or Project Vote to release them, and they are merely titilating and show her as someone with a good enough source to get emails. (for full disclosure, I have released emails from time to time but they've always had some newsworthiness. I've never released an email simply to do it)

More than that, Malkin is a coward. She's never responded directly to me. Instead, she's simply changed her writing in a subtle way in response to things I've said. It's really worse than that. The big, bad, conservative blogger is being puppeteered by both Anita Moncrief and myself. Anita Moncrief tells her what to write and I tell her what not to write. Since Malkin hooked up with Moncrief, she's written about her 29 times on her blog. That's 29 times in just under six months. All of it is glowing and it's helped raise the profile of Anita Moncrief. Then, after I pointed out that Moncrief is not a whistle blower, she stopped calling her a whistle blower. When I pointed out that Anita Moncrief hasn't had that much of a contribution to the ACORN story, Michelle Malkin stopped doing that as well. In other words, she allows two people with significantly less reach to pull her strings.

Furthermore, when she wants to attack someone that she sees as beneath her, she won't do it herself. She'll quote someone like Michael Gaynor or Anita Moncrief and let them attack those folks. That way the attack is one degree away from her. Yet, she allows vicious attacks on her sites on individuals and groups without ever trying to contact them for comment. She's never asked ACORN 8 or any of their members to defend themselves. (I've emailed all three multiple times and received no response to any of my questions)

What this story really comes down to are the lies, misrepresentations, and misleading statements and articles. Forget the corrupt relationship where three people are constantly using each other to benefit themselves. What's important are the series of lies told by Michelle Malkin and Michael Gaynor. They rarely talk about Moncrief's theft and fraud as they praise her endlessly. They claim that Anita Moncrief has been behind most of what has been revealed regarding ACORN when she was in a position to get coffee at ACORN. They claim that the information she has on ACORN is overwhelming and thus people aren't giving it more attention because of their own corruption. In reality, her information is questionable and it hasn't been verified by anyone but her. They've done all this in an attempt to craft an image of Anita Moncrief. If they were PR people, that would be fine, but instead, they are journalists. They have no business crafting an image. They certainly can't lie to do it.

Interview With Wade Rathke II

Earlier today, I had round two with former ACORN Chief Organizer and current head of Community Organizations International, Wade Rathke. This interview was a lot more sweeping. It ranged from Rathke's philosophy, his philosophy on organizing, his views on the tea parties, to all sorts of issues surrounding ACORN.

1)What do you think of the tea parties?

It's important to note that I wasn't asking about political philosophy or personal preference, but rather as an organizing philosophy.

Rathke is impressed by their ability to organize. As an organizing phenomenon, the tea parties are effective and, as an organizer, Wade Rathke believes they took advantage of a vacuum, stepped in, and filled a void that the president never saw coming. Rathke once referred to the tea party movement as "tea baggers". He did this only once. He never really took any pot shots at them besides this and so I don't know that this was a deliberate dig.

Rathke did, however, also point out that often the tea parties fail basic organizing principles. Far too often, screen shots, photos, and videos show angry people, people yelling, and faces that portray meanness. That's not the image you want in organizing. As Rathke told me, "the more angry you are, the calmer you have to look". In organizing, Rathke is always very aware of how a crowd will appear in newspapers, on television, and in photos. This is something he stresses at all times in organizing protests. Portraying anger, in his opinion, turns off more people than it attracts.

Conservatives can dismiss this criticism but they'll do it at their peril. I processed this as Rathke, not the political opponent, but Rathke the schooled community organizer offering an opinion based on experience. There is a lot of anger portrayed at tea party rallies and that's what often winds up on television. Image is everything and Rathke, the organizer, understands this.

2) What do you think of conservatives demonizing the SEIU protests of the American Banking Association while lionizing the tea parties?

This is something I have found peculiar myself. When I thought this question up, I thought it was a red meat question for Rathke. He didn't necessarily react quite as ideologically as I thought.

Rathke simply said that protests are totally legitimate. He said that SEIU has been criticizing the banks for a while. The latest protest was no different than protests they've done before. Rathke didn't take the bait to take a series of potshots at his political opponents to exploit the hypocrisy of folks that lionize one set of protests while demonizing another set of protests. Protests are something that Rathke has engaged in his entire career and he told me that he has no problem with anyone conducting a protest for any issue as that's something he's done his whole life.

3) What do you think of conservatives attacking Saul Alinsky all while using his tactics?

Rathke told me he often receives "strange emails" both from folks he knows and doesn't know that brag about how they have used one Alinsky tactic or another on LIBERALS. This he finds to be delicious irony.

On the issue of Saul Alinsky, he told me that all organizers owe at least some inspiration to Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was able to drive imagination for idealistic youth. He showed people like Wade Rathke that community organizing can be a profession, a calling, and a way of life. It wasn't something his high school guidance counselor ever told him was possible. Far more than anything he did as an organizer, Saul Alinsky inspired with words, speeches, and several books.

4) How do you build rapport as a white guy in a place like the Dominican Republic, India, etc. Wade Rathke now runs Community Organizations International, a world organizing organization.

I was curious about this because I thought that he goes through a long and arduous process in acclimating himself to new cultures and customs. Instead, I got an education in Rathke's experience, confidence, and skill as an organizer.

He told me that building rapport, for him, in India, the D.R, or any foreign land is no different than building rapport as a young organizer in the African American neighborhoods of Massachusetts. Wade Rathke is a six foot white guy and that won't change, but when he goes into any neighborhood he offers the community a "set of skills to build their voice". He seeks leaders. Most importantly, "it's not about me, it's about finding leaders in the community".

5)What advice would you give current ACORN leadership?

Rathke wanted to stay away from giving advice to the current leadership. He didn't want to be one of those folks that sat on the sidelines and told his former organizing how to run things. In a broad sense, he told that me that ACORN needs to "deeply embed yourself in the community". Show the community "why you're valuable". ACORN is most effective as the grassroots organization that is able to get on the street, build rapport with the community, and identify their problems. In short, go back to the basics of organizing.

6)Did he, in leading ACORN, follow the philosophy of Cloward/Piven and how does this philosophy differ from his Maximum effective participation strategy?

This was suggested to me be a fellow reporter. In fact, I wasn't totally familiar with either and to be totally frank, Rathke went above my head.

Rathke told me that Cloward/Piven was a strategy for a time and place, the late 1960's. It focused on welfare rights. It was focused an myopic. As the world has evolved, the strategy has become outdated. At the time, the federal government spent a lot more resources on urban renewal. There's no more race riots.

His own maximum effective participation strategy is much more expansive and in his opinion follows for the times.

In fact, Rathke was being very diplomatic in his description of Cloward/Piven. I spoke with several individuals involved in organizing following the interview. Cloward/Piven is in fact, at least according to them, a way of organizing welfare recipients to demand more and more entitlements until the capitalistic system breaks. What it really is, is a way of reaching the poor. It's important that without poor there are no rich. Everything is relative. Poor are given all sorts of reasons for why they have a station in life. In this philosophy, the system is blamed for their station in life and you attack the system.

In the view of one, Rathke is more expansive in that he wants to apply a similar philosophy to the world.

On this note, Wade Rathke told me that he's never met, never known, and has had no contact with Bill Ayers. There are all sorts of rumors, internet and otherwise, that put the two of them together in the 1960's and the present. Rathke told me categorically that he doesn't know William Ayers.

6) Did he feel any responsibility for the current travails of ACORN?

Rathke really didn't feel any personal responsibility for the current problems at ACORN. To put it in Rathke's words, "if this happened 30 days after I left that would be one thing, but this happened a year and a half later". He told me he worries about ACORN often. He is saddened and disturbed by their disintegration but he doesn't necessarily feel any personal responsibility for their current problems.

7) Are the attacks on ACORN legitimate or mostly ideologically based?

He said that without question ACORN has brought many of its problems on itself. He wasn't going to pretend as though they'd done nothing wrong and that the attackers had no legitimate claims to make. That said there was a certain "neo McCarthyist" streak to the attacks. In his mind, there's no question that ACORN was being singled out because, "ACORN is the single most effective community organization that works on behalf of the poor and middle class in the country".

For this, I followed up with another question?

8)If it is ideological, how do you process the likes of former ACORN employee Greg Hall and the ACORN 8 making the sam claims. Both Hall and ACORN 8 believe in ACORN's mission. Surely, you can't dismiss their criticism to ideology.

Rathke first dealt with Greg Hall. He said he doesn't know who he is. (Hall is a former ACORN organizer) At any given time, ACORN will send out between six and twelve thousand W2's in a given year. So, if one individual is unhappy, that's not something he can speak to.

As for ACORN 8, he told me that within the ACORN board, two factions began to form. There was the "administrative party". That was lead by Maude Hurd, current President of ACORN. Then, there was the "dissident faction". That was lead by Marcel Reid and Karen Inman (for full disclosure, I've interviewed both), both currently in ACORN 8. The dissidents were caught in a philosophical battle with the administrative wing that started in 2007 and even 2006. They saw the direction of ACORN differently from the administrative wing. In his view, their disagreements are rooted in these philosophical battles.

It was at this point of the interview that I was most exhilarated. The answer was brilliant both in its genius and in its diabolical nature. I knew exactly what Rathke was attempting to do and I was still impressed even as he was doing it. In his own smooth silky manner, Rathke painted the ACORN 8 as ideologues. They aren't conservative ideologues that see ACORN as bad. Rather they are philosophical ideologues that see the direction of ACORN as wrong and thus their disagreements are rooted in that philosophical split.

Of course, several members of ACORN 8 I spoke with afterwards found this to be, well, hog wash. One said, "what about the embezzlement"...alluding to the million dollar embezzlement of Wade's brother Dale. Another said that if they are "ideologues", it's ideologues that want to see ACORN return to its original mission of helping the poor. If there was a philosophical split, it's as both told me that they believed that ACORN was no longer helping the poor. It's the corruption that they saw that was the philosophical split.

Epilogue:

Without speaking to Rathke, it's really impossible to describe just how pleasant he is. That's the best description for his demeanor and manner. This is extremely important. His pleasant nature is almost hypnotic. After speaking to him, there's absolutely no doubt why he's so effective. It's damn near impossible to not like Wade Rathke after speaking to him for more than an hour. That makes him effective and also potentially very dangerous, depending on his intentions. It also makes him a lot more complicated than his political opponents would like to turn him into. He's not anything like the political caricature that opponents like Michelle Malkin make of him. One individual described him to me as "diabolical" and that's why I thought of the word when he was answering my question, and if that's really so, he's also dangerous. He is under no circumstances to be underestimated. Whatever Wade Rathke is, one thing is for sure and that is that he is newsworthy.

Wade Rathke would like to turn his organizing philosophy into an organization that organizes throughout the world. At one time, his organization was an organization of one, Wade Rathke. He grew that organization into a political, organizing, media, and cultural force that has become a polarizing organization in large part because of its effectiveness. Make no mistake, he is capable of doing it. If he does it right, the Michelle Malkin's of the world will criticize. If he does it wrong, it will unleash a web of corruption that will interlock the globe and span continents. That makes what Wade Rathke will do going a forward a story that everyone should follow.

Finally, here's the first interview. Here's the third part of the interview.