Loan Modification Plus

The Obama administration has taken the lead from Bank of America and Citigroup and expanded its loan modification program to include writing down some mortgage balances.

The multifaceted effort will let people who owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth get new loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration, a government agency that insures home loans against default.

That would be funded by $14 billion from the administration's existing $75 billion foreclosure-prevention program. But it could spark criticism that the government is shouldering too much risk by taking on bad loans made during the housing boom. In addition, their existing mortgage companies will be able to receive incentives to lower their principal balances.

The program also includes assistance to help unemployed homeowners keep paying their mortgages.

Last summer, Deutsche Bank came out with a startling study about so called underwater mortgages.

A report put out by Deutsche Bank is creating all sorts of business buzz. That's because the report predicts that 48% of all mortgages will be "underwater" by the end of the first quarter of 2011. A mortgage that is "underwater" is one where the mortgage is larger than the value of the house. These sorts of mortgages have a significantly higher incident of defaults. Currently, the number of properties that are underwater is estimated to be at 26% by Deutche Bank. That's bad enough but their estimation is just down right scary at 48%. All mortgage types will see increases in "underwater" mortgages and even prime loans will have 41% of their mortgages under water. (currently on 16% of prime loans are underwater)

This phenomenon, where borrowers owe more than the home is worth, became the elephant in the room. None of the programs helped these sorts of borrowers and this particular study showed that a substantial number would soon be underwater.

This became a central problem for all loan modification programs. With nearly fifty percent of all mortgages soon to be underwater, no loan modification program would do much unless there was something in there to help them.

The problem is that in order to help these folks you'd not only need to lower their rates but the amount they owed. Loan modifications are already inherently open to so called moral hazard. That is that they reward bad behavior. If these borrowers' balances are lowered along with their rates that makes that phenomenon even greater.

So, the original loan modification program put out last spring didn't include any mortgage that was underwater. The Deutsche Bank study showed that such a program wouldn't do much. So, the administration has expanded their loan modification program to include some of these.

This is exactly what Wade Rathke has been calling on for months.

But for many the chairs in the church haven’t changed. Bruce Marks of NACA and John Taylor of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition have been long allies, and not surprisingly their position mirrors mine: there have to be write downs. Jack Schakett, formerly of Countrywide and now in about the same job with Bank of America concedes, as he always has, that there is a place for write downs, and believes they should be extended. Wells Fargo, as always, continues to keep its head in the mud and believe that someone else will solve the problem they helped create.

...

But, in this world, 7+ million underwater borrowers are crying for a solution, and writing down principle owed still seems like the only horse to ride.

The payment reduction some of these borrowers would receive could be more than fifty percent. Many of them simply over bought. Most would get a deal a borrower that is on time would never get. This dynamic was at the heart of the mortgage class war that I predicted that I believe turned into the Tea Party movement. There's a bigger problem. It's of policy. I've often quoted this Wall Street Journal article.

Is a housing bailout the solution for clogged-up credit markets and a faltering economy? What the Fed has been doing and did again yesterday hasn't really worked, notwithstanding the pops it produces in the stock market every time it shovels liquidity into the system. The Fed's latest move provides financial institutions another $200 billion in direct short-term lending against their unsaleable housing collateral. The Dow Jones jumped 416 points. But it won't restart markets for the underlying collateral.

Where are the speculators, vultures and hedge funds? Where are the big money players willing to buy the exotic but still substantial mortgage-backed securities for which markets have ceased? The Fed's liquidity rush seems only to have convinced them the time is ripe for staying on the sidelines.

To get to a real solution, speculators and investors need to believe that home prices are hitting bottom, that any mortgage debt they might buy today for 80 cents on the dollar today won't be worth 30 cents tomorrow. Then the vultures will pile in: The transfer of wealth from the overleveraged banks and hedge funds to those who kept cash handy will be shocking, ugly and cathartic -- but it will also be relatively quick. Credit markets will begin to function again. The economy will grow.”

Until there is a bottom, there are no "vultures". Without "vultures" there is no recovery. Loan modifications artificially prop up markets. There is no bottom.

BofA to Consider the Reduction of Mortgage Balances

Bank of America will become the first bank to consider the reduction of mortgage balances as part of their mortgage rescue plan.

The program, while limited in scope and available by invitation only, signals a significant shift in efforts to deal with the millions of homeowners who are facing foreclosure. It comes as banks are being urged by the White House, members of Congress and community groups to do more to stem the tide.

The Obama administration is also studying whether to provide more help to people who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth.

Bank of America’s program may increase the pressure on other big banks to offer more help for delinquent borrowers, while potentially angering homeowners who have kept up their payments and are not getting such aid.

Citigroup is also said to be making such a consideration. So far, the program will be extremely limited.

This was a bone of a debate between myself and Wade Rathke. Rathke was adament that the reduction of balances was critical not only to giving borrowers an affordable mortgage but to show a correct balance sheet for banks.

That's because we've seen the reduction of real estate values and Rathke believes that mortgage balances need to reflect that or banks are showing assets that are simply not realistic.

I see all these programs as foolhearty and so this would only extend a misguided policy.

The ACORN Rebranding

A few weeks back, I passed along this story about the California chapter of ACORN.

The new entity will be called Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE). It will, on paper at least, be entirely separate now from ACORN. The relationship will be what Wade Rathke characterized the relationship between ACORN and ACORN Housing. ACORN is its own entity and ACCE is its own entity and the two are fighting for common goals.

It's becoming an epidemic. Matt Vadum picks up the story.

As part of the radical group’s fraudulent rebranding scheme, ACORN has renamed its New York chapter New York Communities for Change. Unlike on the West coast where ACORN is at least pretending its renamed California chapter (Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment or ACCE) is not part of the ACORN network, New York Communities for Change shares the same Nevins Street address as ACORN’s Brooklyn office.

A March 4 fundraiser for New York Communities for Change is being hosted by Debra Cooper.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts branch of ACORN has been renamed New England United for Justice.

More state-level name changes are expected soon while the basic structure of ACORN, which is controlled from the top using interlocking directorates, remains essentially intact.

Norman Oder also has the latest.

The New York Communities for Change web site cites an address and fax number (left), which are the same as the Brooklyn ACORN address and fax number (right, below), as indicated on a now-defunct web page preserved by the Internet Archive.

That address is responsible for much more political activity.

As City Hall News reported 11/30/09, that same address houses the Working Families Party, formed in 1998 by ACORN and two unions, now with more than 60 affiliate organizations. And it also houses the nonprofit lobby group the Working Families Organization, Data & Field Services, the political consulting company founded in 2007 by the Working Families Party, and the nonprofit Progressive America Fund.

This rebranding allows local chapters to ditch the ACORN name. It also means that ACORN will stop the top down structure and be structured much like Wade Rathke's Community Organizers International. By that, it's a confederation structure where locals control their own funds.

MGM Building Up By Tearing Down

Anita Moncrief took some time off from attending CPAC to write her latest investigative piece on ACORN 8. She published the piece on Michelle Malkin's Hot Air and quoted Michael Gaynor in the piece.

The piece is several thousand words long so let's sum up. ACORN 8 is corrupt because several of its board members are on other boards together and also more than one of these other groups lists as its main address the home address of a main principle of ACORN 8, Marcel Reid.

If this seems curious, here's the backdrop. Among ACORN and its 200 or so affiliates, often the board members overlap. Furthermore, most of these ACORN affiliates listed either an Elysian Fields address or an Erie Street address in New Orleans. So, according to Moncrief, ACORN 8 is engaging in exactly the same behavior that ACORN engaged in.

There are however some important differences between ACORN and ACORN 8. First, often the board members of ACORN affiliates were unaware that they were on the board of many of these affiliates. For instance, last summer Matt Vadum ran a story about Ron Sykes, who was registered as a lobbyist by ACORN financial arm, Citizen's Consulting Inc. When contacted by Vadum, Sykes said he was not only unaware that he was a lobbyist but a part of CCI altogether.

Second, the relationship weren't merely common board members and addresses, but common bank accounts, or at least, multiple bank accounts all located at one bank. (whether or not these bank accounts were all controlled by one person is still unclear)

Moncrief never proves either of these points. In fact, it's unclear that any of these groups have much money or bank accounts. Furthermore, there's no evidence that anyone was put on a board without their knowledge. It's not at all uncommon for people to serve on multiple boards. Serving on a board is mostly a matter of prestige. The work often amounts to a few days of intense work ever quarter. Yet, Moncrief makes this a very nefarious activity. For instance, Michael McCray, ACORN 8 board member, also serves on the board of the International Association of Whistleblowers, which is,...if I have to explain that you may as well stop reading.

An Internet search of one of the progressive ACORN 8 organizations reveals that the The International Association of Whistle-blowers (IAW) was established in 2007, and was founded by Michael McCray, Esq, Dr. James J. Murtagh MD and Zena Crenshaw, Esq. Amazingly, the initial meeting of the IAW was held the week of May 11-18 2008, just as the ACORN embezzlement scandal broke.

Back at Glenn Beck’s chalkboard. It appears that a group of friends may have established a network in direct competition with ACORN while serving as board members and used this same network to, among other things, boost their credibility with awards and sham conferences while using the ACORN scandal as a spring board into the national spotlight.

I wrote about McCray's whistleblowing here. James Murtagh was a player in my first investigative expose on Emory University and Grady Hospital. Ms. Crenshaw I am not aware of however all three consider themselves whistleblowers. Marcel Reid also considers herself a whistleblower and so all four are on the board of IAW.

Moncrief also continues to hammer a common theme which is that ACORN 8 dismissed corruption on the part of President Obama because they were sympathetic to his agenda.

One of the ACORN 8 affiliates, Power Over Poverty Under Laws of AmericaRestored (POPULAR) has even started an “Obama Lights the Way” campaign in order to push their agenda on Capitol Hill.

In fact, "Obama's Light the Way" is a campaign by POPULAR to raise awareness of complaints made to the Department of Justice that have gone uninvestigatied. Moncrief never explains what it is and in fact, it's unclear that she even knows what it is. One could say that Moncrief merely wants to attach ACORN 8 to Obama in any way possible no matter how innocuous the situation really is.

Moncrief then gets to the heart of the matter.

Conveniently for America, at the very moment that ACORN was imploding, a group materialized and offered a solution to “save America.” The group appeared non-threatening and often exclaimed shock at the very mob protest activities that ACORN had engaged in for decades. With the help of several well placed Republicans and Conservatives whom they used for credibility, the ACORN 8, offered a revisionist history of ACORN while peppering stories with innuendos of danger. In a op-ed piece published in 2009, the co-founder of McCray’s IAW posted this prepackaged ACORN 8 statement (emphasis mine).

That's at the heart of the dispute between Anita Moncrief and ACORN 8. Moncrief once worked for ACORN affiliate Project Vote. She readily admits that she was a true believer and even called herself a "radical". She's "seen the light" and now professes to be a conservative. She views any community organization as a tool of radicals. (she's not yet explained how the Tea Parties, also a community organization, is different) Meanwhile, ACORN 8 all believe there's a place for community organizing but see ACORN as having been corrupted and now no longer working on behalf of the people it professes to serve. They want to build a community organization that would get back to ACORN's original mission. That would seem to be a debate on policy not an investigative piece, but Moncrief has instead built a long investigative series that so far has uncovered that members of ACORN 8 also serve on other boards and that sometimes these groups use as their main address the address of Marcel Reid's property.

Moncrief also attempts to brand Marcel Reid a radical by tying her to Ron Karenga.

Before Election day 2008 Fox News was the only major media outlet willing to take on the Obama Campaign machine, but as a frightened radical, I listened to Marcel Reid, a women who was mentored by the radical Ron Karenga and she discouraged me from working with Fox by citing racism, bias and a hatred for Obama. Documents show that Reid, who was still negotiating with ACORN to retain her position on the board, agreed to signed a joint defense agreement with ACORN and, it was decided to not “go after Wade” until AFTER the last presidential election:

Karenga is a former Black Panther, started Kwanzaa, and an overall radical. When Marcel Reid was in college, she took a class taught by Karenga. That's the only evidence of ties between the two. Yet, Moncrief makes the claim that this makes Karenga her "mentor". The link on the document goes nowhere, at least now.

Moncrief also relies on dubious evidence.

The situation is almost too convenient and according to ACORN insiders with knowledge of the events that led to the formation of the ACORN 8, it is. Insiders paint a tale that began with an alliance among Marcel Reid, Karen Innman, Carol Hemingway and most importantly, Bertha Lewis. According to reliable evidence,

Reid, Innman and Hemingway provided Lewis with the crucial votes to elect her as interim Chief Organizer of ACORN after founder Wade Rathke was removed from the organization. Apparently Lewis agreed to help elect the trio to the ACORN interim management committee, with substantial perks like trips, computers and hotel stays.

Huh!?!?!? I've used anonymous sources, but this is ridiculous. If you're going to use an anonymous source, their information must be specific. Here Moncrief references vague"insiders" that make even vaguer claims of "alliances" and "reliable evidence". What does any of this mean? What is this reliable evidence? It's not at all clear. If the evidence is reliable, it needs to be stated. All Moncrief does is reference unknown people, making unknown charges, and the sum total is nothing more than a smear campaign against Reid, Karen Inman, and the rest of ACORN 8. That's exactly the sort of journalism that Hot Air proprietor Michelle Malkin would condemn if it were targeted at Conservatives.

Worst of all is that Moncrief, Michael Gaynor, and Michelle Malkin, continue their entirely conflicted and unacceptable relationship without disclosing it. Anita Moncrief readily uses Michelle Malkin's bandwith and quotes from Michael Gaynor without fully disclosing what is going on. Michael Gaynor has spent more than a year writing about a hundred articles lionizing Anita Moncrief. Anita Moncrief was Michelle Malkin's one and only source for the seven most explosive pages in her book, Culture of Corruption. Isn't it appropriate of all three to disclose this when writing about each other, which each do regularly? Yet, Anita Moncrief has absolutely no problem going on Michelle Malkin's web site after she made Malkin by providing her with explosive charges. She has no problem quoting Gaynor as though he's impartial knowing full well that he's run somethin akin to a public relations campaign on her behalf for more than a year. While all of this is going, Moncrief writes an investigative piece in which we're supposed to believe that there's something nefarious going on because the same people serve on more than one board and one address is used as the main address for more than one organization.

Finally, for full disclosure, I use members of ACORN 8 as sources on matters related to ACORN. I've also communicated with journalists like Matt Vadum and I've interviewed Wade Rathke himself four times. I've reached out to Moncrief, Gaynor and Malkin numerous times with no response. So, you can speculate on my motivations but to say I haven't tried to get the whole story is unfair.

Some Thoughts On O'Keefe and ACORN

I have been weary of writing about the affair of James O'Keefe because I wasn't there. Without being there and knowing his intent, it's hard to make a judgment on the situation. There are a few things that are clear. First, James O'Keefe handed ACORN a gift. ACORN can now dismiss most of what O'Keefe uncovered as the investigation of a "criminal",


Wade Rathke himself summed up the attacks best.

Now in a twist, and you just can’t make this stuff up, this yahoo and a couple of other dim lights from the right, were all caught redhanded by the FBI on Monday morning trying to scam their way into Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in the city. Seems they were tricked out with fluorescent vests and tried to talk their way into the phone system. O’Keefe in clownish fashion seems to have been easily observed filming his buddies on this Watergate bumblers expedition with his cell phone, although I’m betting it was a flip camera, but we’ll soon see. Once Landreiu’s office staff showed them the main GAO phone system, it seems like the secretary called the feds on their stupid butts.

ACORN will do everything they can to marginalize O'Keefe and they will largely be successful.

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), who led a congressional push to cut off federal funds for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, said the credibility of the conservative filmmaker who targeted the group has been badly damaged in the wake of federal charges against him.


James O'Keefe, the filmmaker, and three other men in their mid-20s, were arrested Monday for allegedly attempting to tamper with Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-La.) phones by pretending to be telephone repairmen. The four men each face up to 10 years in prison — and a $250,000 fine — for allegedly entering federal property under false pretenses.

O'Keefe says he went into Landrieu's office because he received information that Landrieu was ignoring phone calls and claiming the phone wasn't working. Whatever the reason, there's overwhelming evidence that he entered Landrieu's office under false pretense. He'll have to deal with the consequences.

For conservatives, they put their stock in O'Keefe himself and not merely the videos. Because they lionized him as they did, they invested in him. As such, any failings are now their own. The videos spoke for themselves and that should have been the story. O'Keefe himself became nearly as much of a story.

Tiger Woods is uniquely gifted golfer. Because he is, there were many that invested in his entire persona. The public at large knew little about his life outside the golf course. That's why we were shocked when his personal life spilled out. In this same way, O'Keefe made a great piece of investigative journalism. He is not infallable. None of us are. Some treated him as though he was. As such, it's not merely his own credibility that takes a hit. In fact, his investigative piece on ACORN is hit as well.

ACORN in California Splits

H/T to the folks at ACORN 8 for giving me this tip.

The California chapter of ACORN has split from the group and changed its name.

Thousands of Californians who live in or close to poverty in the state have worked hard for decades to score victories that level the playing field. They've passed laws that increase affordable housing and raise the minimum wage, so they can provide for their families. They've also spent their personal time, which is in chronically short supply, pushing for better teachers and textbooks so the kids in their neighborhoods can have better opportunities. On these and other issues the odds have been against them, but these Californians leveraged their significant numbers with coordinated grassroots organizing to achieve victory.

Until now, they carried out this work as a chapter of the national organization ACORN. Until now, governance and financial management resided at the national level. In recent months it has become increasingly clear to the leadership, staff and members in California that the serious challenges ACORN is facing are jeopardizing the important work we are doing here in California.

The new entity will be called Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE). It will, on paper at least, be entirely separate now from ACORN. The relationship will be what Wade Rathke characterized the relationship between ACORN and ACORN Housing. ACORN is its own entity and ACCE is its own entity and the two are fighting for common goals.

It's important to note that most, if not all, of the staff and board of ACORN in California will be kept on with the new company. In fact, at the bottom of the press release the contact person is Amy Schur. Schur, according to a source, was privvy to the knowledge that Dale Rathke had been involved in embezzlement from ACORN and kept that knowledge from the board.

This continues the slow and painful to watch disintegration of ACORN. Last month, I did a similar story centered in Connecticut.

Its political allies fled. And with its national organization fighting for its life and unable to give any money, ACORN of Bridgeport is doing what other chapters have been doing across the nation, going independent, sort of.

This month, the group began a campaign to raise money and create two local nonprofits, one to concentrate on social issues, the other on political action. To be clear, the plan is to continue to work with other chapters on national issues through a federation, according to Emeline Bravo-Blackwood, a small business owner who is leading the effort to transform the group in Bridgeport.

This is slightly different for a few reasons. In that case, the name didn't change and the local chapter turned itself into a federation of ACORN. In this case, the California chapter is not only changing its name but cutting ties with national, at least visibly.

The most interesting dynamic to watch going forward is what the relationship will be between Gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Brown, and the new organization. ACORN is a voter registration force and that organization contributed heavily to helping Brown get elected as he was moving up the political ranks. He's now in the uncomfortable position of having to investigate ACORN. Of course, ACORN in California is no longer. (that's no small thing since California was their biggest chapter in terms of members)

The people at ACCE are the same as those at the former ACORN in California only with the name change there's likely to be less scrutiny. Will there be folks out in full force wearing ACCE shirts signing up voters? Will the media notice that those folks are really from ACORN? Only time will tell that.

ACORN, Wade Rathke, and the Media Culture

Everywhere you look in the conservative media, you'll find that a story missed by the MSM is the ACORN story. Specifically, conservatives mean the "pimp" and "prostitute" videos first published on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government. In general, conservatives mean all of the embarrassing things that have happened to ACORN in the last half of the year.

Let's face it. When the conservatives say that the MSM media is ignoring the ACORN story, they have a point, and you also have to read between the lines. The MSM has ignored the story. Charlie Gibson famously didn't know about the videos when asked on talk radio about it and then proclaimed that such a story was better left to "cable news". The MSM has needed to be dragged to this story kicking, scratching, and screaming. Even then, they've still done everything to ignore it.

It's been driven, carried, and broken entirely by the conservative media. Of course, the only reason that conservatives are fixated on the ACORN story is because of the symbolism it has toward President Obama and the Democrats in general. That's why only certain things about ACORN are fixated by the conservative media. For instance, ACORN's relationship with Bruce Ratner, owner of the Nets, is virtually ignored. ACORN Housing's relationship with the city of St. Louis is virtually ignored. Yet, their relationship with the SEIU is given primary coverage. The first two have virtually no relationship to Obama and the Democrats, while the third is intertwined with Obama and the Democrats.

That brings me to Wade Rathke. If ACORN is the story, then where is Wade Rathke? After all, he founded ACORN. He grew it from an organization of one to an organization of several hundred thousand. If ACORN is the scourge of the right, then what does the right make of Wade Rathke? Virtually nothing that's what.

That's because Wade Rathke is extricated from ACORN now. He's got his own organization going. That organization is trying to organize in the world. If Wade Rathke grew ACORN into a power domestically, what do you think he can do in the rest of the world? Yet, you're unlikely to see virtually anyone do a story on what Wade Rathke is up to now. If media asks anything of Rathke, it will be in relation to ACORN's current troubles.

The key here is that Rathke is organizing in the WORLD and not so much internally. His current story has nothing to do with President Obama or the Democrats. One would think that if ACORN is the scourge and a symbol of everything that's wrong in America, then the story of what its founder is doing now would be news. It isn't and that's because the ACORN story is all about symbolism. What Wade Rathke is doing now doesn't fit into that symbolism.

Doug Ross' Blogging Awards

Let me give Doug Ross, of Director Blue, a plug. After all, he included the Watcher's Council, of which I'm a member, an award for best ensemble blog in his year end blogging awards. Long time readers will know which ones I think are good choices and which ones are nonsense. Of course, I'm not giving the awards. After my third interview with Wade Rathke, in which I concluded that he "wants to rule the world", I asked Mr. Rathke what he thought of my conclusion. Here's how he responded.

I'm not commenting on your thesis. Your opinions are your own. Some I might agree with and others I might think are blarney. that's the nature of the process.

So, too here, all awards are entirely in the opinion of Mr. Ross. I congratulate him on an inclusive list. That takes a great deal of thought and research.

Wade Rathke and Health Care Reform

When I interviewed Wade Rathke for the third time, he recounted a story from the 1970's in which proponents of welfare reform wound up killing a reform package because it didn't go far enough.

He also said that the public option wasn't a litmus test for his support. He went back nearly four decades to frame the issue. In the early 1970's, welfare rights groups he had previously been alligned with were fighting for welfare reform. They wanted a bill that would give a family of four earning less than $5,500 welfare benefits of $5500 when unemployed. The bill proposed $1800. So, the groups opposed the plan. By doing so, they actually joined forces with conservative groups who wanted the bill to give zero. The bill was defeated. So, sometimes, it's better to get some of what you want than be an ideological purist and oppose unless you get all.

There's members of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that appear determined to repeat that history. Here's how Howard Dean characterized the compromise.

In a blow to the bill grinding through the Senate, Howard Dean bluntly called for the bill to be killed in a pre-recorded interview set to air later this afternoon, denouncing it as “the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate,” the reporter who conducted the interview tells me.

Dean said the removal of the Medicare buy-in made the bill not worth supporting, and urged Dem leaders to start over with the process of reconciliation in the interview, which is set to air at 5:50 PM today on Vermont Public Radio, political reporter Bob Kinzel confirms to me. The gauntlet from Dean — whose voice on health care is well respsected among liberals — will energize those on the left who are mobilizing against the bill, and make it tougher for liberals to embrace the emerging proposal.

Markos Maloutsos has a similar though not as tough a thought.

My take is that it's unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status. It'd be like forcing everyone to attend baseball games, but instead of watching the Yankees, they were forced to watch the Kansas City Royals. Or Washington Nationals. It would effectively be a tax -- and a huge one -- paid directly to a private industry.

Without any mechanisms to control costs, this is yet another bailout for yet another reviled industry. Subsidies? Insurance companies are free to raise their rates to absorb that cash. More money for subsidies? More rate increases, as well as more national debt. Don't expect Lieberman and his ilk to care. They're in it for their industry pals.

If you want a similar model, watch how universities increase tuition to absorb increased financial aid opportunities. And since the Senate and its industry-bought Senators won't allow insurance premium caps or an end to the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption (much less a public option to compete against them), there is nothing keeping those companies from jacking up rates to screw people. In fact, that's been their modus operandi for years.

Meanwhile, Arianna Huffington calls it "absurd" to "cede health care reform to Joe Lieberman". Roland Burris still hasn't committed to the compromise. The far left is ready to lay down the marker. Either health care reform will have what they want in it or they are ready to kill it. The far left will then put pressure on the Russ Feingold's and Bernie Sanders of the world and attempt to force a showdown over health care reform.

It's unclear what they think they will accomplish. There aren't the votes to pass health care reform with the public option. So, that would mean they'd want to kill the bill. It's much like the situation that Rathke described. Supporters of health care reform are on the brink of going for nothing if they don't get everything. They're ready to create the surreal situation in which Russ Feingold would vote with Jim DeMint.

Opponents, like me, would like nothing more than to watch the far left do its damdest to sabotage health care reform because they didn't get everything they want. There's nothing better than having your opponents arrange a circular firing squad and begin firing. They're not there quite yet, but their rifles are loaded and they're ready to fire.

The Harshbarger Report:A Microcosm of the Right's Wilfull Misinterpretation of the ACORN Story

Here's all you need to know about the Harshbarger report. It laid most of the blame for ACORN's current troubles on former chief organizer Wade Rathke even though no one that worked on the report even attempted to speak to Wade Rathke. Furthermore, most of the problems and solutions identified by the report were first identified by ACORN 8 or members of the organization and yet, again, no one that worked on the report talked to ACORN 8 or any single member of the group. Worse than that, the report congratulates ACORN for taking tangible steps toward correcting the problems since Rathke's removal even though members of ACORN 8 were removed from the board of ACORN when they tried to sound the alarm on all of this. That all happened after Wade Rathke was removed.

There's not a single so called leader in the conservative media world that's saying all of this even though the sphere has written hundreds of thousands of articles about the report. It's a sad display of total journalistic incompetence.

It's part of a pattern among the conservative media because their agenda is not to find out the truth. Instead, the conservative media has a very complicated agenda for ACORN and the truth is only one part of that agenda.

The reason that the entire conservative media totally missed the real story is because the real story has nothing to do with their agenda. Let's start with ACORN 8. I'd say a minority of the conservative has the first clue who or what ACORN 8 even is. Michelle Malkin's never written anything substantive about them. She's mentioned them a couple times in passing. That's the sort of "journalism" Ms. Malkin displays. Most in the conservative media have no idea that it was ACORN 8 that first uncovered things like the relationship between Citizen's Consulting Inc and ACORN. That was the key to unraveling the organization. From there is where all the affiliates were discovered and the complicated structure began to unfold. They uncovered evidence of most of the criminality short of the embezzlement of Dale Rathke. Yet, ACORN 8 does NOT have as one of its goals the destruction of President Obama. In fact, most of the group supports Obama. That's why the conservative media has no use for ACORN 8. Since they aren't trying to destroy Obama, the conservative media could care less what they know.

Then, there's Wade Rathke. In fact, he's the story not ACORN. ACORN is disintegrating. There won't be an ACORN within a year. Anyone can see that. Meanwhile, Rathke is building an empire that will allow him to influence culture and politics all over the world. Which of those two is more interesting? Yet, the conservatives could care less about what Rathke is up to now. After all, what Rathke is doing now has nothing to do with destroying Obama.

That myopic goal of tying ACORN to Obama and destroying both of them simultaneously is at the root of the right's consistent and willful misinterpretation of the story. For instance the most interesting story involving ACORN is all about ACORN's relationship with Steve Ratner, owner of the Nets. At first, ACORN was against building a new stadium in Brooklyn and then they flipped. Then, Ratner paid off the debt incurred coming out of the affair in which Dale Rathke embezzled a million dollars. There's tons of twists, turns, drama, and all sorts of conspiracies in that story and yet the right almost never talks about it. Why? Well, Obama isn't going to go down if you write about that story.

The other day on Big Government, the PI that discovered the garbage full of ACORN documents was making a big deal that he found that ACORN was being contracted out by Citigroup to do loan modifications. Why is that a big deal? In May they held a conference call they co hosted with the conference of mayors about ways to increase loan modifications. Of course, they work with Citigroup. They already work with the conference of Mayors. Why would anyone in the conservative media know about that conference call or what it meant for their influence on loan modifications? After all, nothing that came out of that call would have ended the career of President Obama. Linking ACORN to Citigroup, however, makes more sense since Obama engineered such a massive bailout of that company.

We could even look at voter registration fraud. Most conservatives think its voter fraud. Almost none could tell the difference. Most think there's moutains of evidence that ACORN has created fraudulent elections. In fact, the only thing that there's mountains of evidence of is that ACORN fraudulently registered millions of people that don't exist, and so would never vote, but they were paid by other organizations as though they were real. That is of course a multi million dollar fraud but not one that has anything to do with the outcome of the election.

It's why there are some in the conservatives that believe that Anita Moncrief is important and should actually be listened to. Anita Moncrief is willing to link ACORN to Obama and make it seem as though they're intertwined, he owes them his election, and they're currently dictating the agenda to him. Almost none that swallow this from Moncrief could explain what her evidence is to substantiate these charges, how she came upon that evidence, or what the sum total of all her so called evidence means. In fact, even if everything that Moncrief says is true, all she's proven is a violation of FEC regulations that would have a stiff fine of about a million dollars. That's it and that's if everything she's say is true. That's all she's said for over a year. Everything she's said is parrotting of others who've said it before.

It's frankly why some conservatives think a total hack like Michelle Malkin is worthy to be referred to as some respected journalist. The only people she's respected by are those that have the same agenda, the total destruction of Barack Obama. Check out what Malkin said about the Harschbarger report,

Harshbarger has determined — wait for it — that ACORN engaged in no wrongdoing depicted in the nationwide undercover stings conducted by BigGovernment.com/James O’Keefe III and Hannah Giles.

You can read the entire self-absolution here.As I noted in September, ACORN’s “independent” advisory council included several panelists who were not only willing to overlook illegal activity, but who have also been tainted by their own shady behavior and associations:

First of all, the report didn't find no "wrongdoing" but no evidence of ACORN contributing to criminal activity. In fact, there was plenty that the report found with ACORN just none of it, according to the report, rose to the level of supporting criminal behavior. Malkin doesn't appear to know that the report even mostly blamed Wade Rathke and certainly not that he wasn't contacted for the report. Since Malkin never reports on ACORN 8, it goes without saying that this slight is totally whitewashed by Malkin. In fact, the entire body of knowledge that Malkin has about ACORN is entirely corrupted by her agenda and this is the sort of analysis that's produced. I could spent several blog posts pointing out how corrupt Malkin's reporting is on the subject. This is the just one example.



Yet, in Malkin’s world the only thing that matters is destroying President Obama. Malkin doesn’t know any news that doesn’t have that as part of the agenda. It’s why Malkin counts as her main source Anita Moncrief.

It’s ironic, funny and sad that the conservative media scolds the MSM about their coverage of ACORN. Their own coverage is little more than a propaganda machine. The media fixates on a story, beats it to death, and usually doesn’t get it right anyway. All the stories have at their core the destruction of President Obama. Frankly, it’s rare to find someone in the conservative media write a story about ACORN without making some effort to at least include his name. It’s a despicable and sad tale because all while they completely and totally misconstrue the story themselves they sanctimoniously accuse others of skewing the story themselves.

Michelle Malkin never misses an opportunity to scold the New York Times for a story they didn’t run before the election that linked Obama and ACORN. She herself has written hundreds of times about ACORN and has only mentioned ACORN 8 a couple times in passing and she’s talked about Anita Moncrief more often than Wade Rathke. That’s the hypocrisy, total incompetence, and cynical agenda all rolled into one. Worse yet, while Malkin engages in gutter journalism she has hundreds of thousands of total lemmings she calls fans to cheerlead as though she’s doing something noble.

The Harschbarger Report

The internal report issued by former Massachusetts Attorney General is out. Clearly, here's what the headline will be.

The high-profile lawyer hired to investigate ACORN has found no pattern of intentional illegal conduct in the community organizing group -- a finding that was dismissed as "damage control" by one of the two filmmakers who, posing as a pimp and prostitute, videotaped staffers offering advice on how to operate a brothel .

This was immediately mocked by conservatives in the media.

Harshbarger has determined — wait for it — that ACORN engaged in no wrongdoing
depicted in the nationwide undercover stings conducted by BigGovernment.com / James O’Keefe III and Hannah Giles.

In fact, everyone is getting into word games here. ACORN did in fact engage in no criminal wrongdoing by offering advice to a "pimp" and "prostitute" about how to hide assets and their business practices. Simply offering such advice is not illegal. If that's what Harschbarger was brought in to do, I could have saved everyone plenty of time. In fact, if that's what he was investigating, then it's clear they gave him a scope that would lead to a conclusion that would maximize their positive press. In fact, these videos occurred at no less than five offices. That's a pattern of behavior for which management, and no merely those on the videos, must take some responsibility for. That's at the heart of the series of exposes by Giles and O'Keefe. It's not about whether or not the behavior on the videos is or is not technically legal. It's about what it says about an organization when a "pimp" and "prostitute" can so routinely walk into just about any office and be offered advice that the advisor knows is illegal if implemented.

In fact, the report has put more blame on former chief organizer, Wade Rathke, than on current leadership. The report itself is full of contradictions and equivocations, and to me, that's a sign of a report that has as its agenda more than simply getting at the truth.

For instance, the report points out that ACORN has taken "significant steps toward financial reform and protection of whistleblowers" since Rathke's dimissal. Yet, both Karen Inman and Marcel Reid were dismissed from the board when they insisted on continuing their own investigation into ACORN in October of last year. Is this the example of progress of the protection of whistle blowers?

It also says the group has made progress on financial reform. Of course, all those that have been screaming about reform at ACORN have all demanded the same thing, a full, independent and forensic audit of the books of ACORN. That has still not happened so how much reform has there been?

The report also lists 9 separate reforms. In fact, most of these reforms were themselves recommended by Reid, Inman, and ACORN 8 before and after their dismissal. So, again, how serious is the group about reform if they are dismissing the very people truly trying to reform it?

The first reform is to "return ACORN to its core competency of community organizing and citizen engagement." Here's what the front page of ACORN 8 says.

ACORN is not living up to its original mission; and that is to give meaningful voice and empower low and moderate income members of society

Yet, ACORN 8 isn't even mentioned in the report even though the recommendations largely mirror those they've recommended.

The report also recommends that "ACORN should develop a simplified structure of two entities". On this, I have some confusion. After all, when I interviewed Wade Rathke, that's exactly what he said ACORN now has.

(Rathke) told me the structure of ACORN is different than the structure of COI. ACORN, according to Rathke, was one corporation while COI was a federation.

So, in fact, the structure of ACORN is supposedly exactly what the report wants it to be. Yet, this contradiction is never addressed. Clearly, the report found a much more sophisticated structure than what Rathke and the current leadership claim that ACORN is. In fact, what the report calls "separate but interrelated" entities (ACORN Housing, Project Vote, etc.) the folks at ACORN would say are entirely separate organizations that merely partner up with ACORN on projects of mutual interests. That's also exactly what Rathke told me he considered ACORN Housing. In fact, the problem isn't the structure of all these "interrelated but separate" entities, but a total lack of a firewall between them.

ACORN and ACORN Housing are supposed to be two separate organizations. They have separate boards, management, and finances. Yet, it was Bertha Lewis that was on television defending the behavior of employees of ACORN Housing. So, while the report say they are separate entities, the report never addresses the fact that these separate entities dont' seem to have any substantive firewalls.

For instance, in the first "pimp" and "prostitute" video, the employee not only offers the two housing and tax advice but then attempts to sell them on an ACORN membership. ACORN Housing has no members. There are no membership dues. That's only something that ACORN does. So, why is an employee of ACORN Housing selling ACORN memberships? That's like a used car salesman driving you to the local electronics store and then selling you a television.

Then, the ninth recommendation was "ACORN should form a national advisory board to report back in six months with...progress of reform". That's exactly what Karen Inman and Marcel Reid lead when they were summarily fired.

All of these contradictions are never addressed all while the report congratulates ACORN on taking substantive steps toward reform. Meanwhile, when I asked Wade Rathke for comments he wanted to make sure that three things were clear 1) he hadn't read the report 2) he was never contacted for the report and 3) he's been gone for nearly a year and a half. It's interesting that the report mentions him so often then. In fact, Rathke's name is mentioned nearly as prominently in relations to breakdowns and problems as the current management. So, the report is willing to blame Rathke without contacting him. The report did in fact contact no less than 200 individuals in preparation but, according to Rathke, he wasn't one of them.

Here's what Rathke said when he was informed that he was mentioned prominently in the troulbes of ACORN.

(it's a) little hard to connect me to the candid camera stuff and the vr problems
after i was long gone. furthermore, after i left they decentralized management which directly contributed to a lack of oversight in these areas which have now caused so much grief and heartache for ACORN members.

...

I care deeply about ACORN and its members and the importance of the organization as a voice for low and moderate income families in our country. if blaming me were sufficient to solve all of the problems faced by the organization now, i would be more than delighted to gratefully bear full responsibility, so the organization can once again move forward as an effective vehicle and voice for its members in these desperate economic times for low and moderate income families and their communities.

That mirrors what Rathke told me in minimizing his own role in their current troubles in our second interview. He told me that if it had occurred a month after he left that would be one thing but it's happening about a year and a half later. I'm of the opinion that Rathke minimizes his own role in a mostly self serving manner, but, if you're going to issue a report that's scathing in its criticism of his leadership while at the helm, there's no excuse for not interviewing him. It's as though the report was looking to make him a scapegoat.

This report may provide some PR value for ACORN but it does little in the way of offering any meaningful ways to substantively reform ACORN.

The ACORN Forum

This week Republicans held a forum on ACORN in the House Judiciary Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Tuesday. It was round table style back and forth. This was not a hearing but a forum, and as such, there was no testimony. No one on the panel was under oath. In fact, it really wasn't that sort of a set up. Congress people would ask a question or make a point and any and all members of the panel were free to jump in. The panel included Buddy Caldwell and his son. Buddy is the AG of Louisiana and his son works in the AG's office. The AG's office is currently conducting an investigation of ACORN and last month it made a splash when they raided an office of ACORN. Former Project Vote employee and self described "whistle blower", Anita Moncrief, was also on the panel. The Secretary of State of Indiana Todd Rotkia, and Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation, and a former Justice Dept. official, were on the panel.

The panel discussion went about as expected. Here's a clip.



There was the usual series of accusations against of criminal wrongdoing including voter registration fraud, comingling of funds, etc. There was theatrics. Congressman Steve King, at one point, took a series of acorns out of his pocket and spilled them onto his desk in front of him. There wasn't much in the way of anything new. There was no new accusations. The Republicans again bemoaned the fact that the Obama Justice Department, along with the Democrats in Congress, fail to investigate ACORN.

The star of the forum, in the opinion of an attendee, was Anita Moncrief. Moncrief made her oft repeated accusations. She worked at Project Vote, a get out the vote organization. She said she was in possession of a list of emails from the Obama administration and said that as far back as the Gore campaign the Democrats have shared their email lists with ACORN. She went so far as to call ACORN political director, Zach Pollett, and five others of being Democratic operatives. She provided no specific evidence or context for this charge and former founder and chief organizer Wade Rathke wasn't one of the six operatives mentioned. She accused ACORN of being an arm of the Democratic party, and of trying to illegally influence elections.

Moncrief is currently being sued by her former employer, Project Vote, for falsely receiving a credit card and using it for personal items. At one point, Congressman Darrell Issa attempted to minimize the theft by alluding to her as being poor and a mother. Moncrief began to respond when her attorney whispered in her ear and she stopped. Spakovsky bemoaned the Justice Dept.'s lack of a formal investigation into ACORN's wrongdoing. Rotkia talked about his state's investigation into voter registration fraud. The Caldwell's were vague and well they should. They have an investigation ongoing and they can't say anything that may prejudice future juries.

The last hour, however, turned into an anti Obama fest. The panel and many of the Congress people made all sorts of connections, loose and strong, between Obama and ACORN. For instance, current White House Counsel Craig Greg used to be an attorney for ACORN. This was harped on. Between the accusations of Anita Moncrief and calls for Justice to investigate, this came down to the usual list of accusations.

In my opinion, this has limited effectiveness. First, it appears clear that some Republicans and Conservatives want to turn ACORN into something akin to what some liberals and Democrats did to Republicans and Halliburton. That is a symbol of everything that's wrong with the Democratic party. I'd be careful with that. Here's why. First, Obama and the Democrats are disintegrating. When your opponents are committing suicide, your best move is to stay out of the way and let them do it. Between health care, the economy, the deficit, and Afghanistan, their policies are failing. There's no need to pile on with a series of conspiracy theories that are hard to follow.

I've said that the connection between Obama and ACORN is loose. He has a lot of connections to a lot of colorful and radical folks and ACORN is one, but only one. I don't know why the focus needs be on ACORN when there's so many to choose from. The issue surrounding ACORN is of corruption. Buddy Caldwell, himself a Democrat, understands this and that's what he's investigating. Turning it into a partisan mission only turns off all non partisans and deflects from the issue at hand, corruption. If ACORN's corruption is exposed, all those politicians that got into bed with ACORN, including Obama, will have to answer. If, however, the focus is on the White House counsel and not comingling of funds, then we're no longer focusing on corruption but conspiracies.

There are plenty of vulnerabilities for Obama here. First, his refusal to investigate speaks for itself. There's overwhelming evidence that ACORN needs to be investigated and not doing so is shameful. Second, Holder's insistence that ACORN be paid for work done looks bad. That's another good line of attack. Think about it, the White House doesn't want to investigate them but does want to pay them. At some point, Louisiana, under a Democratic AG, will finish its investigation and all signs point to something explosive. By doing so, they'll do the job that the AG of the U.S. shoud have been doing. That's a powerful line of attack. Once you get into tin foil of the White House counsel then you lose the middle.

The fact that the current White House counsel himself used to work for ACORN shows just how powerful that group has become. It's yet more evidence of just how much reach they have. That's why it's that much more vital that they need to be investigated immediately and fully. Turning it into a partisan issue misses the point and it loses the middle. The top organizer for ACORN in D.C. is a Republican. Organizing is its own ideology. That ACORN is somehow intertwined with the Democrats is not nearly as simple as partisans make it. They're intertwined with our entire political structure. They're currently working hand in hand with Independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg on foreclosure prevention in New York. Their goal, ultimately, is the expansion of power. That's not a partisan issue. Focus on the criminality. Demand an investigation, and keep the attacks on things that are there and stay away from the conspiracies. That's my advice to Republicans.

The ACORN "Name Change"

There's an old story that's been given new life with the discovery, recently, of new documents.

ACORN, the troubled community service organization, recently considered changing its name in a bid to rehabilitate its image, according to an internal memo obtained by POLITICO.

The document, which will be released Tuesday as part of a Republican congressional forum on ACORN, illustrates the internal deliberation the group has undergone after a year of embarrassing scandals.

The document was found in Dumpster outside of an ACORN office in San Diego, a House Republican aide said. Derrick Roach, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for statehouse in California, took thousands of documents last week from the trash outside the office. An ACORN spokesman confirmed the veracity of the document.

In fact, more than one person with "insider" connections told me this. They were told by their own contacts within ACORN that management was considering a name change. This all was happening in the summer time and I would bet anything that these documents are from that time.

This should surprise no one. Even in the summer time, the name was becoming toxic. Of course, this was an option as part of a rebranding. This document only confirms months of speculation from insiders.

What is important is this. In July, ACORN International changed its name internally here in America to Community Organizations International. According to Wade Rathke, its head and former head of ACORN itself, he didn't want confusion between the two groups here in the States. Internationally, COI is still called ACORN International. That story broke at about the time that insiders were telling a lot of media that they were hearing that ACORN was about to change its name. As such, Kevin Mooney of the Washington Examiner first reported it wrong. He wrote a story that suggested that ACORN wasn't changing its name. The rest of the conservative media picked up on the story and spent the next couple days bashing ACORN for changing its name. Then, with egg on its face much of the conservative media began to back track.

Meanwhile, ACORN played coy and released this press release at the time.

Here are the facts: ACORN is not changing its name. ACORN International, a five-year old organization of overseas former ACORN affiliates, did. ACORN withdrew from ACORN International a year ago as part of an overall restructuring process and requested that they stop using the ACORN name, which they have now done. Wade Rathke was fired as Chief Organizer in June 2008 and has had no further involvement with ACORN since then. He will not be taking on any responsibilities with ACORN.

This press release was technically accurate though it never did mention the internal debates now revealed in the current memos. (though I suppose there wouldn't be a reason to do so either) These documents are in fact the documented evidence of the rumors that insiders were hearing. Now, we know that the internal debate was occurring at the same time that ACORN Intl. changed its own name here in the states.

Meanwhile, these documents are part of a plethora of documents discovered in a dumpster in San Diego. I would hope the rest are more interesting than these. If all there is are some memos about the discussion of a name change, there isn't much there.

The Future of ACORN

If you want to know what will happen to ACORN as a result of all the scandals and controversies, this story from Connecticut is a microcosm.

Its political allies fled. And with its national organization fighting for its life and unable to give any money, ACORN of Bridgeport is doing what other chapters have been doing across the nation, going independent, sort of.

This month, the group began a campaign to raise money and create two local nonprofits, one to concentrate on social issues, the other on political action. To be clear, the plan is to continue to work with other chapters on national issues through a federation, according to Emeline Bravo-Blackwood, a small business owner who is leading the effort to transform the group in Bridgeport.

So, more and more ACORN chapters are moving away from their current structure which is one organization where all the local chapters answer to a national board to a federation. Where have I heard that term federation in relation to ACORN? Oh yeah, it was in my interview with Wade Rathke. He explained that ACORN is one organization whereas COI, what Rathke now runs, is a federation. Here's how Rathke described the difference.

a federation is a combination of autonomous organizations, like the AFL-CIO as an example, as opposed to being a single operating entity as ACORN is/was and an individual union, like SEIU for example is.

As we speak, more and more local ACORN chapters are becoming autonomous creating their own funding streams, boards, etc. They would only work with the national organization on national issues but be totally autonomous.

That's how COI (Community Organizations International) is structured as well. There are currently 7 different units within COI. Each is autonomous from each other. Now, ACORN itself is moving to structure itself in the same manner.

Now, let's not start any rumors. I am not saying, and certainly Wade Rathke isn't, that the hundred plus local ACORN affiliates are about to orchestrate a coup and suddenly move their newly formed FEDERATION to COI and move under his umbrella. That's not happening. Instead, the locals have realized that the national organization has let them down, tarnished their name, and is no longer a source for creating revenue anyways.

Local chapters like the one in Bridgeport, Ct. are themselves not struggling. There are many like this. They've now realized that answering to the national organization is a growing liability. So, they are moving themselves to structuring themselves as a federation so that they would only need to partner themselves with the national organization when its convenient. Otherwise, they cut ties with them entirely. More than that, the name ACORN will be kept locally if it's still perceived positively.

Now, many conservatives will wonder where the name ACORN can still be positive. Remember, this group is a very effective grassroots organizations. In this local areas where ACORN has maintained a strong local presence for years, like in Bridgeport, Ct., the locals view ACORN very positively. At the same time, if the ACORN name becomes to toxic, all the locals in the new federation will be able to change their own name to whatever they want. That's one of the benefits of being a federation.

What's important to the current debate is that the locals see that the national org's jig is up and they are now jumping ship. By moving to cut ties from their unified structure and move to a federation structure, it also means the locals are cutting away from the stain that the national org has spilled on the group as a whole. The national organization's power over ACORN will be next to nothing. They'll no longer have any operational control over any chapter. They'll work together on "national issues" but the national group can't maintain their own funding, has a toxic brand, and facing a plethora of bad press and lawsuits. How many national campaigns can they fund that way? So, if ever there was proof that the national ACORN is through, it's the growing movement of local chapters to turn themselves into a federation.

Wade Rathke Sets the Record Straight

This article had a rather startling observation by former Chief Organizer Wade Rathke about ACORN, the organization he lead for nearly four decades.

The scandal-plagued grassroots group ACORN may not survive another year,
its longtime leader said Monday.

Wade Rathke, who began the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now in 1970 and stepped down last year, spoke at the University of
Memphis.

ACORN became a punching bag for conservatives after allegations of voter
registration irregularities surfaced last year, spawning investigations in
several states.

Then came a video recording showing ACORN workers in Baltimore giving
advice to a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp.

I was surprised by this statement because when I spoke with Rathke he made a point not to second guess or make too many statements that disparaged his former group. (he was however critical in regards to the firing of his common law wife Beth Butler but in general stayed away from criticism)

I emailed Rathke and he told me that he was essentially quoted out of context. Rathke said that he was simply quoting from

ACORN's lawsuit 10 days ago on defunding. Nothing more.

In fact, ACORN did file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Congress' cutting off funds to them. In that lawsuit, according to Rathke, it was ACORN's position that the organization wouldn't survive for another year. Rathke didn't mean to suggest that he believed this.

In fact, he also told me that he told the reporter that he hoped that this wouldn't happen, something the reporter, Chris Conley, didn't include in the piece. This is a small point however Rathke has been careful in his statements toward his former organization and this one was taken completely out of context.

I finished the piece late and haven't had a chance to speak with the reporter. I'll update if we connect.

Some Thoughts on Wade Rathke

It's been more than a week since I finished my last of three interviews with Wade Rathke. (in fact, all three are also on Big Government but more on that later.) In a strange and almost perverse way, there was one individual thatI kept thinking about when I discussed the interviews with others that know Rathke. That individual's name is Wil Rondini.



On the surface, that's a peculiar comparison. Wil was a stockbroker I once worked with. He was a relatively intense guy who's spent his entire life in high finance. Rathke is a community organizer that's spent most of his life working with the poor. Yet, both did exactly what they were born to do. Wil was born to sell and Wade Rathke was born to be a community organizer. Both were the best at their craft.



Both are, in my opinion, tragic figures. Both are individuals of unique skills and talents and yet they allowed personal failings to define them. Wil once worked for Lehman Brothers back in the 1980's and early 1990's. He was a top performer and a legendary producer. He made millions many times over. He also engaged in a series of ethical lapses that cost him his job at Lehman and several other firms until he landed at a chop shop, where I met him.



Wade Rathke took ACORN, the Arkansas Community Organization for Reform Now, from an oganization of one to an organization of several hundred thousand. He also allowed ACORN to turn into a magnet of corruption and criminality. The tragedy is that both are so uniquely talented that they could have found success, overwhelming success, through their talents alone. Their ethical lapses ultimately hurt them more than they hurt anyone else.



That's where I differ from most on the right. Most people see Wade Rathke as rotten because of who he is, a community organizer, and what that's associated with, a radical ideology. I don't even necessarily see him as bad but as tragic. It's his ethical lapses that are ultimately form what you can't get away from.



The most important part of all three interviews, from my point of view at least, were the parts in which he talked about ACORN 8. ACORN 8 is a group of current and former board members that have, in their view, discovered enough evidence that has lead them to believe that the hierarchy at ACORN is rotten and needs to be purged.



I asked Rathke about ACORN 8 twice. On both occasions, Rathke went into a long explanation for why ACORN 8 continues to present evidence to the Feds of wrong doing at ACORN. These long explanations hide the truth. The reason that members of ACORN 8 present evidence of wrongdoing at ACORN is because there's wrongdoing at ACORN. Unfortunately, that's the legacy that Rathke faces now.



Most conservatives want to turn ACORN into an ideological battle. ACORN, to them, is bad because it's a left wing organization. They don't care about the poor. Rather, they use the poor. In fact, more than one member of ACORN 8 has made this same observation about ACORN in its current form. Former ACORN organizer Greg Hall has also said this. The difference is that they see a group of people that have taken advantage of those they profess to serve not because of ideological failings but personal failings.



The story of ACORN is now and always will be one of corruption, not ideology. Many conservatives fail to recognize this and for the most part, that's because they are themselves blinded by ideology. Wade Rathke is not bad because he's a community organizer, a radical (which he denies anyway), or any political ideology. What he has to answer for (yes I realize I can't bring myself to say he's bad but as I said, he's very charming) is the mountain of corruption that occurred at ACORN on his watch.



This brings me to some of the comments at Big Government. The comments initially ranged from Rathke's a crook to Rathke should go to jail. There were positive toward the piece but many looked with skepticism at anything positive I said about him. I believe most wanted a hit piece. Most wanted me to bash Rathke endlessly, as if I would have ever gotten the interview in the first place doing something like that.



In the first interview, Rathke talked about remittance and this was immediately attacked.

Rathke is "negotiating" a "fair rate of exchange" ? Who does he think he is kidding besides undereducated libs and union goons ? He is simply negotiating his cut in a lucrative cash black market scam at the expense of Mexican families. And why would Western Union even entertain such a deal ! Somebody shoot me !

...

A word about his crusade on wiring co's and their remittance fees. Not long, because it is boring.Someone should ask him why he is attacking those companies. The real evil lies in the nations (banks – often the same) they send them to and the conversion fees they charge.

American companies (especially those with a store) are exiting from this business. Internet sites and foreign companies doing biz in the U.S. are taking over. is he just against American companies making profit? Most of these companies offer sort of a sliding scale of fees meaning you send $50 bucks, the recipient will not be gettng much after the fees on both ends, but send say – $300 (the max allowed per quarter for money going to Cuba from the U.S.) it becomes pretty economical – on the U.S. side. Cuba takes a giant cut either way.

Another point is that if you drive these companies out of business you know who suffers? That poor guy who would have received the money and then the country they live in. Those countries rely on that money to raise their people out of poverty, raise their export $'s because of increased productivity, create better health and education opportunity.

So, why again is he chasing these companies? They do not stand out as usury. Payday loan people – go after them.

Remittance is the process by which ex pats send money back home. I didn't know anything about it until I researched it prior to the interview. I doubt that anyone reading the piece knew much about it, but yet, because Wade Rathke was doing it, then it must be wrong. Don't get me wrong, everything that Rathke does should be viewed with a healthy skepticism. That said, this view is entirely ideological without one hint of evidence. Rathke is wrong because he's Wade Rathke and the American banks aren't at fault because they're ours.



It was largely like that. At one point, Rathke criticized the tea parties for showing too much anger and there was outcry. Rathke was referred to as a Marxist, Communist, and Radical on multiple occasions.



That's the mistake that conservatives make with Rathke. If you want to fight him on an ideological battlefield, he'll win every time. He keeps his opinions largely close to the vest. He works in the poorest, of poor communities. So, what is to the conservative a "Marxist" is to the folks in the community, the person that's there helping them with their problems. By turning Rathke's persona into an ideological one, conservatives also unwittingly get away from the point at hand. It's not his organizing or his ideology that's the problem, it's the corruption.

Wade Rathke is a very complicated individual. He was innovative and capable enough to create an organizing force from scratch. At the same time, he allowed for so much chaos to reign that ACORN became little more than a criminal organization. Whenever I confronted Rathke with any of this, he never found fault in himself. He also always hinted that things went bad at ACORN because he was no longer there. Let's call that a healthy sense of self worth.

It should also be noted that Community Organizations International, Rathke's new venture, will be near impossible to track. After all, it will span borders, and it will go into all sorts of third world nations where the laws and government structures are much more lax than in the States. So, tracking his confederation, as Rathke refers to COI, will be near impossible for both authorities and media. If there's malfeasance COI, like there was at ACORN, that will make tracking that malfeasance next to impossible. That malfeasance will span borders and it would be outside the purview of any legitimate authority. After all, if there's malfeasance in ACORN Dominican Republic, who would be there to track it.

These are all issues of crime, corruption, and if Rathke is in fact directing them, his own personal failings. They aren't issues of ideology. Once we stop treating Wade Rathke as an ideological weapon we may even understand his influence in the world, both good and bad.

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?