Anita Moncrief is currently a part time author, part time blogger (at among other places Michelle Malkin's sister site Hot Air), often a panelist at anti ACORN, and the main source for the most explosive seven pages of Michelle Malkin's number one best seller Culture of Corruption (which coincidentally or not came out just more than two months after Malkin became obsessed with Moncrief). In fact, in some places in the conservative media, Anita Moncrief has turned into a sort of flavor of the month. I say some places because others in the conservative media will have nothing to do with her. That's because not only is Anita Moncrief an admitted thief and fraud, but that wasn't something she shared with some media prior to appearing. For a couple weeks, Anita Moncrief made the rounds on Fox News. Then Glenn Beck discovered that while working at Project Vote Anita Moncrief falsely applied for a company credit card and used the credit card for purchase of personal items. Project Vote then fired Moncrief for cause and only after she stopped receiving a pay check did Moncrief begin to blow the whistle on corruption. Many in the media, conservative and otherwise, will have nothing to do with Moncrief because of this. In fact, some leading politicians like Michelle Bachmann won't have anything to do with Anita Moncrief for the same reason. Others like Michelle Malkin, have no problem with it. In fact, Malkin only began writing obsessively about Moncrief following the release of this information.
This is all important for a number of reasons. First, a couple weeks back, I featured a story about Mike McGann. He's a plumbing inspector for the city of Chicago. In October of 2007, he was sent to inspect a water main break at De Diego Elementary School. He discovered a plethora of violations. The violations, in his opinion, were so serious that the kids at the school were in danger and major repairs were necessary. He filed the proper reports with the proper people within the city. For his troubles, he was targeted, suspended twice, and now has no chance for any real advancement within the city. He continues, to this day, to be a plumbing inspector for the city of Chicago. When I think of a whistle blower, I think of someone like Mike McGann. Real whistle blowers blow the whistle when they discover the corruption. They do it because corruption, to them, is unacceptable. By doing it, they put themselves, their careers, and their lives on the line. They do it because what they're fighting is bigger than their own livelihood.
Anita Moncrief didn't do that at all. While receiving a paycheck from Project Vote, Moncrief had no problem with the corruption. It was only after she was fired that she discovered her moral bearings and blew the whistle. That doesn't necessarily make her any less believable, just less heroic. That's only important because when Michelle Malkin writes about her, Malkin turns Moncrief into a heroin.
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.
First, P.R. people are supposed to work on someone's image, not bloggers. Malkin has no business shaping Moncrief's image. Yet, she does it over and over. Malkin is fond of calling Moncrief a whistle blower. What Malkin isn't fond of is telling the whole story. That's the one where Moncrief committed fraud, stole, was fired, and then became a whistle blower. Beyond this, Malkin lays on a series of whoppers. First, Moncrief was never Strom's only source for any story. Say what you will about the New York Times but no reporter would print anything simply because a source told them. Everything that Strom printed that Moncrief told her was backed up either by documentation or other sources. Malkin has also claimed that Moncrief is a main source for both Fox News and the D.C. Examiner. Fox News cut off Moncrief months ago. They don't rely on her period. The D.C. Examiner uses Moncrief for quotes but relies on her for nothing.
All of this is important when you know Moncrief's end game. Her end game is to ink a book deal. That may have already happened and if not, it's close. When that book comes out, here's what it will be about. It will be about a SINGLE MOTHER. It will be about a SINGLE MOTHER from Alabama who was naive and idealistic. It will be about a SINGLE MOTHER that thought she was working for a cause bigger than her. Then, this SINGLE MOTHER discovered that this cause was really full of corruption. For months, this SINGLE MOTHER worked up the courage to tell the truth. Then, this SINGLE MOTHER got the courage to tell the truth. So, began a long trek for this SINGLE MOTHER. This was long trek for this SINGLE MOTHER to discover Jesus and conservatism. Now, I use caps for single mother because Anita Moncrief never misses an opportunity to tell the world she's a SINGLE MOTHER.
I am a liberal Democrat, pro-choice and a Obama supporter. I never wanted for this to progress to this point. I tried contacting www.rottenacorn.org in June of 2007 before the credit card, before the termination. I was told that it could get ugly and that since I was a single mom and needed this job for my baby, that I should try to find somewhere else and then contact them again.
Many of you have seen the posts that I put on the March of Dimes website regarding my daughter, Addie.
During 2007, I made some bad choices; I moved to Baltimore to give my daughter a real home and encountered things there that still haunt me. In order to get myself and my daughter out of this situation, I began saving money to move and since I was not making enough to live, I did use their credit card for living expenses like pampers, gas, food, clothes, etc. At $1000 every two weeks, I paid $140 a week in daycare; $993 in rent, plus car note, insurance, food, gas, clothes, formula and utilities
Only this time it’s a single mom named Anita and her sling is loaded with rotten ACORNs. The giant, leftist-perverted legal system is strutting around in front of her while Obama and his crew of czars, handlers, power-mad legislators-turned-rulers and media attack dogs shriek and howl in fearful outrage in the background. Anita is taking careful aim, knowing that Truth will give her the killer blow not only in the court of public opinion but in the actual courts of America. Her time is soon coming when she will not only vanquish her collective legal foe but hold up its severed head so that the Obamunists can no longer hide behind the legal system to consolidate their silent, fraudulent, socialist coup.
Ironically, that may depend on Anita MonCrief, a young black single mother who testified against ACORN but voted for Obama hopefully last year and then became very disappointed with "Obama change."
Of course, the synopsis for this book has already been laid out by Moncrief herself, in blogposts. (that's how I know) If that's her goal, that's fine. What isn't fine is Michelle Malkin systematically changing Moncrief's story to make her into something she isn't. First, Malkin would never stand for anyone else verbally exploiting their child the way that Moncrief does. Yet, Malkin is loathe to criticize her on this matter. In fact, Malkin rarely mentions Moncrief's theft, fraud or ultimate firing. When Malkin does, it is in a dismissive manner so that the audience is never told the whole story. Malkin claims that Moncrief was a main source for the New York Times, the D.C. Examiner, and Fox News. All of these are lies. None used her as a main source for anything.
Anita Moncrief worked in one office of Project Vote/ACORN. She knew a lot about that office, but that's it. Besides that, what Anita Moncrief knows about ACORN she knows from others, print, and the Internet. Michelle Malkin has claimed that Anita Moncrief was a main source for the embezzlement of Dale Rathke, the shakedown racket by ACORN of H&R Block et al, and the connection between SEIU and ACORN. All of this is nonsense. Anita Moncrief wasn't in a position to know any of this. Anita Moncrief knows this from others who were in a position to know this. Of course, an eventual book would be helped by pumping up Moncrief's knowledge of ACORN, and so pumping up Moncrief's worth to the story would benefit Moncrief. Since Moncrief is a main source in the most explosive seven pages of Malkin's book (almost the rest of the book could be found by reading the internet), pumping her up also helps the credibility of Makin's book as well. It's all very convenient.
See, in the middle of June, Project Vote sued Anita Moncrief in an action that was described by many, including myself and Michelle Malkin, as a means of silencing Moncrief. In fact, Moncrief would have been silenced had it not been for Malkin. Malkin began writing obsessively about Moncrief right after the suit. Most media ran away from Moncrief because that was the first they'd heard of the theft. Not Malkin, she ran towards Anita Moncrief right after the lawsuit. That's even more peculiar because in October of the year before, Anita Moncrief said this about Michelle Malkin.
I also emailed Michelle Malkin but she scares me.Moncrief has certainly overcome her fear, her fear of Michelle Malkin for one. Conviently, she overcame this fear right at the moment when she was about to be silenced by the lawsuit of Project Vote against her. Malkin literally carried her media water for her for two months. Malkin was just about the only one writing about Anita Moncrief in the months after the lawsuit. Don't listen to me, her's what Anita Moncrief told me herself.
I am a mom (THERE'S THAT MOM REFERENCE AGAIN) who is not working and I am not a major network or two filmmakers with support behind them. I have gone at this alone with many who have tried to discredit or silence me. I am still fighting to expose the WHOLE truth about ACORN unlike some who wish to be selective about the facts.
ACORN did not, as your imply, force me to back down. I had to secure my legal representation, which is not cheap or easy.
I have appeared on the BCAST with Michelle Malkin, spoke at the RightOnline conference (where Malkin also spoke) and was at 9/12 to name a few. I have also done BTR with Andrea Shea King, Kevin Jackson and have more in the works. I have blogs at Hot Air,(Malkin's sister site) Examiner.com and my own blogspot. All of them have a new post up on ACORN. Please check your facts. I am not going anywhere despite the best efforts of some. Please check out my Facebook fan page for my links or ask my 1400 and growing Twitter following if I have backed down from ACORN.
Of course, Moncrief isn't going at this alone. She has the most powerful conservative blogger, Michelle Malkin, as her ally. This would be fine if Malkin would simply tell the truth, the whole truth, about Anita Moncrief. I wouldn't spend so much time writing about this if Michelle Malkin were merely obsessed about Anita Moncrief. I'm spending all this time because not only is Michelle Malkin obsessed with Anita Moncrief but she's dishonest about her. If Malkin were simply obsessing about a story that happened a year ago, I wouldn't care. In fact, no one would and her readership would diminish. Instead, Malkin is not obsessing about a stale story but she's simply being dishonest about it. Anita Moncrief is NOT, as Malkin claims, the main source for anything but the connection between ACORN/Project Vote and the Obama administration. Anita Moncrief is NOT a whistle blower. In fact, the whole story leads one to question Moncrief's motivations in coming forward. The whole thing is also convenient for Michelle Malkin. With the revelations about Moncrief's fraud and theft, most media was staying away from Anita Moncrief. That meant that the seven pages that Malkin dedicated to Anita Moncrief were that much more explosive because most media was running away from the story.
If the relationship were merely convenient and peculiar that wouldn't matter much to me. It shouldn't matter much to anyone. I wouldn't care why Anita Moncrief went from being scared of Michelle Malkin to being her sole source in the ACORN story if Malkin had been reporting on Anita Moncrief honestly. Instead, Michelle Malkin has been systematically dishonest in her reportage of Anita Moncrief. She's painted a picture of heroic whistle blower that was blowing the lid on all the corruption surrounding ACORN. Instead, what Anita Moncrief really is is an opportunist who had the goods on the connection between ACORN and candidate Obama, someone Michelle Malkin hates. There's a difference, a huge difference. Michelle Malkin has a duty to report the truth, the whole truth. She can't simply white wash someone's theft and fraud because those are inconvenient in an overall picture she's painting. She can't say someone is a primary source to Fox News when Fox News cut them off months ago. She can't claim someone knows everything about ACORN when that person was really nothing more than a low level staffer at ACORN. That's dishonest, and when media is dishonest that makes them corrupt, ironic when the same person has made a bunch of money on a book called Culture of Corruption.
One of my long time readers thinks that I am trying to gain some sort of blogging cred in attacking Malkin. I'm not. I don't care about street cred. I wasn't cool in grade school, junior high school, high school, or college. I don't need to be cool now. I am not looking to gain any cred. I write about what interests me. I think it's interesting when someone writes, with righteous indignation, that the president is involved in a culture of corruption and then creates a culture of corruption in their own business. I am not attacking Malkin. I have no place or room to judge. I am telling a story. No one, and I mean no one, has challenged the story. All of my assertions and opinions are based on verifiable facts.
Don't think that those that I am writing about aren't noticing. For instance, I first wrote about the relationship between Malkin, Michael Gaynor and Anita Moncrief. For about four months, Michael Gaynor, another blogger, could be counted on to write about Anita Moncrief two to four times a week. I thought that was corrupt and I said so. It's been nearly two weeks since Michael Gaynor has written about Anita Moncrief. For four months, he couldn't go more than three days without writing about her, and then I call him out, and he suddenly stops writing about her entirely. (though I'm sure that might change now that I called him out again) I've pointed out that Michelle Malkin continues to use the monikor "whistle blower" to describe Anita Moncrief. Low and behold, the last two times Malkin has written about Moncrief whistle blower is NOT used. In fact, here's how Malkin recently described Moncrief.
The sworn testimony, research, and blogging by former ACORN/Project Vote development associate Anita MonCrief have provided an invaluable amount of fodder for reporters (before their editors “cut bait,” that is)
Malkin never described Moncrief as an "associate" before this expose. You can call that a coincidence except that more than 90% of the previous 20 plus posts about Moncrief, whistleblower was used. (if you think that Malkin doesn't read my work, almost all famous people have google alerts to alert themselves of articles about them.) Instead, Anita Moncrief, over the last few weeks, has become much more featured as a blogger on Hot Air. It's all slick and subtle and no one would notice unless they're looking for it like I've been.
As for Malkin, here's why she rubs me the wrong way. Back in June, when the media falsely reported that ACORN changed its name, I wrote this article with a very provocative title. That article was finished at about 11PM Central Time. I called out major media for getting the story wrong, and that included Malkin. It was falsely reported by many that ACORN had changed its name. In fact, it was ACORN International that changed its name to Community Organizations International. I called out Michelle Malkin by name. The next morning at just after 5 AM, wherever Malkin lives, Malkin wrote this article.
There is some confusion over the story about ACORN “changing its name” that
needs to be cleared up and given context. Getting it right is important.
I provided a link to the piece by Kevin Mooney at the Examiner on Monday
in my post focusing on Project Vote/ACORN’s lawsuit against whistleblower Anita
The link was a sidebar to my main story, but I should have spelled out the facts on the name change more clearly, and so should everyone who has mischaracterized the story and glossed over the real reason for the name change:
Malkin was literally parrotting what I said the night before.
It started as a rumor told by insiders to media. Insiders believed that all the revelations were making the ACORN brand so toxic that they may have to change it. Then, ACORN Intl. changed its name and they thought that was an indication that ACORN itself was about to follow suit. Of course ACORN Intl. is NOT ACORN
In the end, there's no really huge story in the original story. The only story now is that some of the conservative media unwittingly and totally recklessly just handed ACORN a gift. At the same time, I am in a position of having to refute a smear against ACORN. Just imagine if it continues to be reported that ACORN changed its name when clearly it hasn't. It will only make things worse. Frankly, everyone that reported it wrong is bound to make a public correction or allow ACORN to cry smear. I expect everyone that reported it wrong to make a correction. If not, they have done more harm than good in trying to expose ACORN.
At the time I wrote my piece, 99% of the media was reporting it wrong. I have no proof that Malkin figured this out from my piece. It was either that or she had an ephiphany in the middle of the night while reporting it wrong herself and the whole media still reporting it wrong. (I put that piece on reddit.com a fairly liberal sharing site and it exploded and went viral. If you read the title, you'll know why liberals loved it) Malkin conveniently never explained how, in the middle of the night, she came to the realization that she got the original story wrong. If it wasn't me, it's hard to know how she knew. After all, Glenn Beck was on O'Reilly reporting it wrong the night before. Her source, Anita Moncrief, wouldn't have the first clue. So, either Michelle Malkin had a moment of clairvoyance in the middle of the night, or she's petty and couldn't bring herself to credit me for pointing out her mistake. If she's petty enough to do that, is it really all that difficult to believe that she'd systematically mislead her audience about her source in an attempt to repair said sources image?
As Jethro Gibbs would say in NCIS, "I don't believe in coincidences". I don't believe it's merely a coincidence that Anita Moncrief was afraid of Michelle Malkin and then became her best friend when most other media began ignoring her. I don't think it's a coincidence that Michelle Malkin not only writes obsessively about Anita Moncrief but systematically gets things wrong. I don't think it's a coincidence that all of this is happening before, during and after the release of a major book by Michelle Malkin. I don't think it's a coincidence that this cozy relationship also benefits both parties all the while. I don't think it's a coincidence that none of the parties disclose any of the conflicts that come about as a result. I certainly don't believe that Michelle Malkin discovered early one morning that she got a story wrong that I happened to also point out the night before. All that was warranted was a Hat/Tip but Malkin couldn't even bring herself to do that. The corruption has continued since.