Warner Todd Huston's blog

LATimes: Obama's New Muslim Appointment is Hope... for Egyptians?

Does Obama's Latest Appointee Support the Jihadist Muslim Brotherhood?

I will begin this right at the top by saying that I don't care a whit if the appointment of any American official brings hope to Egyptians. After all, an American official should be concerned with America's interests not Egypt's. Not that I am saying that American officials or appointments should necessarily have as a chief criteria for appointment an interest in the denigration of any foreign land, but that what's good for America should be any new official's chief concern.

However, apparently the L.A. Times thinks that it is germane to U.S. interests that Egyptians are "rejoicing" that President Obama has appointed a female American Muslim to his administration. In, "Muslim woman's appointment as Obama advisor draws cautious optimism" from April 22, Noha El-Hennawy is reporting from Cairo that Egyptians are happy with Obama's purported outreach to Muslims.

Obama has appointed Dalia Mogahed to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Mogahed is a senior analyst and executive director for the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. She is hailed by the left-wing media as a "moderate" voice on relations between the U.S. and Islam.

The Times quotes Mogahed's views on the change that she wants to see in U.S./Muslim relations:

"My work focuses on studying Muslims, the way they think and their views," Mogahed was quoted as saying on the website of the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya satellite news channel. "Then I should tell the president about their problems and needs, especially that lately Muslims have been perceived as a source of problems and as incapable of taking part in solving international problems and that they should work on themselves. Now we want to say that Muslims are capable of providing solutions."

Unfortunately, this is all meaningless rhetoric because no such "solutions" have been forthcoming from any corner of Islam despite Mogahed's airy claims that they are.

But, there is reason to understand why Arabs might look upon Mogahed's appointment as a boon to their cause. Mogahed is part of an organization that is a supporter of engagement with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, a group whose stated purpose is to destroy the west. The Muslim Brotherhood sees its mission as, "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

As Jihadwatch reports:

Mogahed, along with John Esposito, cooked the results of a Gallup survey of Muslims to increase the number of "moderates."

Mogahed was also a member of U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, which called for engagement with Muslim Brotherhood.

No wonder Muslims are excited over the appointment.

But, even with her obvious sympathies with foreign causes, some Muslims are saying it isn't good enough.

"I wish your loyalty was to your Islam first, Egypt second and your Arabism third and then to anything else," wrote a reader identifying himself as the Tiger of Arabs. "I am afraid that they might make a fool out of you and use you as a cover for policies that don't serve Egypt and the Arab and Muslim world."

If this isn't proof that there are no helpful "solutions" from the Muslim world, what is?

What this appointment shows is that Obama's appeasement to this nation's enemies goes on unabated. This appointment also seems to fit in with a long record of appointments Obama has made of people with radical, anti-American ties.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

The Corruption of Card Check: Ohio Union FAKES Member's Signature Cards

in

One of the more objectionable features of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is the card check feature wherein a union can simply gather publicly signed cards by employees agreeing to become unionized, thereby eliminating the secret vote for the workers. Opponents say this process is ripe for union abuse leaving workers open to any sort of intimidation and quashing their vote of conscience.

If any more evidence of how corrupt the card check system could be were needed, one need only look at a recent union organizer in Ohio to see the abuse that will happen with card check.

An Ohio union organizer has been fired after he was caught forging documents to deduct money from public employees' wages to pay for political activity, the Service Employees International Union said yesterday.

The organizer, whom Williams declined to identify, had forged about 40 "PAC cards," which are documents that allow the union to deduct about $14 per month from employee wages to pay for the union's political activity.

If union bosses are so readily prone to forging these donor cards, what will they do when it comes time to use similar signed cards to get their foot in the door of a business in which they have not previously been able to gain access?

If union chiefs and organizers have in their control all the signed cards to present to the employer to "prove" that 50% + 1 of the employees wanted the union to come in, how does anyone know that the employees really signed any of those cards?

This is the sort of mess we are asking for as a nation if the EFCA passes.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Is Obama Warming to Colombia Free Trade?

Congressional Quarterly has a short piece on team Obama's sudden revisiting of three free trade agreements that have been languishing in Congress for quite some time, all three efforts that the Bush Administration began but was unable to settle.

One is a trade agreement with South Korea, the second is a Panama trade agreement and the third the Colombia Free Trade pact. It is the later that I find the most interesting and the most hopeful.

I find it interesting because the Democrats have been adamantly against this agreement with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe for several years now. The Democrats base their claim against supporting the agreement upon the long, bleak history of government violence against union organizers there.

For decades union organizers in Colombia have been assassinated by shadowy government kill squads and anti-union activists. Unions in the United States have used this as a basis to claim that Colombia is not a legitimate member of the international community and is not worthy of our trust by cementing a trade agreement with her. In 2008, John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO gave the union line against Colombia that is echoed by the Democratic Party.

"In Colombia, joining a union or advocating for workers' rights can be a de facto death sentence," he said. "The human-rights atrocities against union activists and supporters are not isolated, rogue events; they are committed largely by the armed forces and paramilitary organizations with ties to elected officials close to President [Alvaro] Uribe."

As I wrote in May of 2008, Sweeney's stance is easy to agree with if Colombia had never made an effort to change its ways. But, what makes Sweeney's position incorrect is that Colombia has come a long, long way towards cleaning up its criminal history.

Writing for the New York Post in April of 2008, Michael Fumento effectively demolished the union stance against Colombia.

Yes, Colombia has a high murder rate. With much of the country still in the control of vicious leftist narco-terrorists (supported by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez), you’d expect a high murder rate among any one group - from union members to midgets. That said, last year’s 17,198 homicides (among 45 million people) was a drop of 40 percent from the 28,837 in 2002.

Deaths among Colombia’s union members plummeted even farther - from a high of 275 in 1996 to only 39 last year. That’s a drop of 86 percent in a decade.

And that’s 39 killings (a figure the AFL-CIO itself cited last month) out of about 800,000 union workers - or about five murders per 100,000 union members. How does that constitute “a de facto death sentence” - when the murder rate for the population as a whole is about eight times higher?

As I said then, why are we still punishing Colombia for a vast improvement over the horrid conditions that sparked our ire on human rights in the 1990s? Should we not reward Colombia's efforts?

On top of that, we have for decades looked away as China maintains its status as the worst human rights violator in history, we've never said a word as China continues without apology or improvement for its murderous oppression of its own citizenry, yet we continue to punish a nation that truly has worked hard to improve its own troubles?

Naturally, the real reason that the unions here in the U.S. are against free trade pacts with anyone is because it cuts into their cushy existence. Unions hate trade pacts and are inherent protectionists. This is really the only reason the Democrats have opposed the Colombia agreement. Unions control the Democrats and the unions are against trade. Its really quite that simple.

Yet, I am hopeful about this because the Obama administration is making noise about restarting this agreement with Colombia (and Panama and So. Korea). These are good moves if pursued to an equitable agreement.

We desperately need to support our friends in Central and South America and Uribe is a worthy friend to cultivate.

If Obama gets this done, I for one will applaud his efforts. Let us hope that this is not just another cynical show of lipservice like so much of what Obama has done thus far in the White House.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Shocker: Journalists on OUR Side For a Change

The folks at The Hill alerted me to the fact that the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) have decided to oppose any reinstitution of the inaptly named Fairness Doctrine. I know, imagine that... as lefty a group as the SPJ actually agreeing with conservatives that the Fairness Doctrine is an abomination of our Constitutional right to free political speech! You can knock me over with a feather, and all.

The Hill is right to quip that this makes for strange bedfellows, but it would seem like a no-brainer for anyone interested in Constitutional rights and a jealous protection of free speech no matter whose it is.

The Society of Professional Journalists, celebrating 100 years of journalism and free speech advocacy, opposes reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, which would allow the government to control broadcast editorial content.

SPJ believes firmly that just as government has no business regulating words printed in a newspaper, the public good is not served by mandating how to broadcast news or opinions on radio or television.

Hear, hear. Who says that there is nothing we can agree upon with our friends in journalism?

Kudos to the SPJ for a spot on decision and a true-blue American sentiment well expressed.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Blogging The 2nd Annual Sammies

A wrap up...

We conservatives have two major problems. I've said it dozens of times before but one of those problems is that we don't do "join" well. The left, on the other hand, does "join" exceedingly well. They gather together, share resources, and help each other very, very well. The other problem we have is cash.

Again, the left funds as well as it joins. The left supports its side very handsomely with generous and constant donations. The left also has a bevy of deep pocketed supporters that target the new media with their money. Media Matters, George Soros, DailyKos, MoveOn.org, these people and entities flood the left-O-sphere with much need cash to further their message. Their tendrils reach far and wide and they control the message well with their cash.

Unfortunately, on the right we neither "join" well in coordinated efforts, nor do we have very many people or entities that help fund us directly. Nor do we even see organizations on the right that try to engage in efforts to help train and organize the conservative new media to disseminate the conservative, free market message via the New Media.

But the Sam Adams Alliance has stepped up to the plate to do just that and this is why the Second Annual Sammies, has come about. The Second Annual Award ceremony was held on April 18, 2009 in Northbrook, Illinois, just north of Chicago, at the Renaissance Chicago North Shore Hotel. So, with the cash prizes awarded to worthy bloggers at the Sammies, we find the Sam Adams Alliance fulfilling at least in some ways the effort to encourage conservative voices in the New Media as well as vote fraud watchdogs and good government activists. Money is always in short supply on the right, for sure, so this is a help. But even more importantly are the things that Sam Adams does behind the scenes to help coordinate bloggers, train them, and offer resources to further the message.

So, along with the big names -- Michelle Malkin, Joe the Plumber, John Fund, et al -- are the hard working bloggers and those new media worker bees that are bringing the conservative message to a country so inundated with leftist trope and propaganda.

Three cheers for Sam Adams Alliance. May more conservatives groups like this realize what the New Media can do for the conservative cause. And here's wishing Sam Adams many years of continued support of the conservative New Media community.

Congratulations to the following award winners:

Melissa Coulthier - Microblogger of the Year
Ruth Bendl - Voter Watchdog Award
Seth Cooper, Fred Baldwin, and John Wynne - Wikiteer Award
James Bell - Tea Party Award
Elizabeth Crum - Blogivist of the Year
Chad Everson - Blogger of the Year
Austin Bragg and Caleb Brown of the CATO Institute- Best Video
William Carlin Walker - Sunshine Award
Ari Armstrong - Modern-Day Sam Adams Award
Paul Jacob - Lifetime Achievement Award

Visit Sam Adam’s Alliance

Photo Highlights

The Dining Room

The Lovely Mary Katherine Ham of the Weekly Standard

Me and Joe Wurzelebacher (Joe the Plumber)

Me and Michelle Malkin

Winning Video: The ABC's of Virginia Alcohol Law

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Unions Going After Wal-Mart Again

Most lefties claim that "no" means "no," but not where it concerns unions that have lost the organizing argument over and over again. We can see that refusal to listen to the workers in the case of Unions vs. Wal-Mart. Repeatedly Wal-Mart workers have generally refused to unionize, yet instead of taking that as an answer, the unions continue to push. And they are at it again.

The United Food and Commercial Workers is stepping up its efforts to organize Wal-Mart workers yet again.

Since February, about 60 UFCW organizers have been dispatched to more than 100 Wal-Mart stores in 15 states to get workers to sign union-authorization cards. The cards are attached to flyers that feature a photograph of President Barack Obama and a quote from a 2007 speech he gave to UFCW activists in Chicago. "I don't mind standing up for workers and letting Wal-Mart know they need to pay a decent wage and let folks organize," Mr. Obama said in 2007. A White House spokesman said Thursday that the president stands by the statement.

The union is also flying several pro-union Wal-Mart employees to Washington to agitate before members of Congress to force the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) on the country.

But here is a telling statistic:

At a Duncanville, Texas, Wal-Mart, the union has signed up 58 employees, representing a little more than 10% of the store's 500 employees.

This is a common union result at Wal-Marts all across the country. The unions just can't get traction and that is why they want the iron boot heel of Congress to force the matter with the EFCA.

Like I said above, to unions "no" does not mean "no." The unions don't care what workers want. They want to win by force of law.

Aaaaaand cue the lefty trolls like NotRightNimload and RedTideRising. It makes me wonder if any actual Republicans even come to this site any more? 3..2..1..

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

7 Senate Republicans Reply to DHS 'Rightwing Extremists' Scaremongering

Seven Republican Senators have this week signed a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking for the proof upon which the Department of Homeland Security based its outrageously accusatory report on so-called rightwing extremism in the Untied States.

The seven scold the DHS and the Obama administration for its over-broad generalizations that seem to assume that nearly half the electorate is prone to becoming terrorists merely because they hold right of center political views.

The letter alludes to the central point in this whole episode: that the U.S. government has now determined that the traditional American beliefs of small government and adherence to the Constitution is now suddenly a determinant in forming citizens into homegrown terrorist groups. After 200 years, all of a sudden believing in run-of-the-mill American beliefs makes you a terrorist! These seven Senators want to know why.

Text of the Letter:

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

We write today regarding the release of the Department of homeland Security (DHS) report entitled "Rightwing Extremism Current Economic and Policial Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" and prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.

While we agree that extremists of all varieties represent a potential threat to the United States, we are troubled by some of the statements included as fact in the report titled above.

First, your report states that "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat." Using the DHS rationale, do you also believe that weapons familiarity and tactical training means local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel, and members of the National Guard, are also being recruited? To suggest that a soldier returning from a combat tour is more prone to join an extremist group is unconscionable and insulting to our brave men and women who risk their lives protecting our freedom.

Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that the law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups? If so, please present us with DHS's independent data.

Third, the report identifies those individuals who believe in such issues as pro-life legislation, limited government, legal versus illegal immigration and limited federal government as potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliations and sex, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better way to describe them is as citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Also, you listed those who bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are no potential terror threats, but rather, honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck. Once again, to classify Americans who have lost their jobs as potential terror threats does a disservice to millions of Americans.

In closing, we support the mission of the DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make it possible, in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution, and that you provide us with the data that supports the claims listed in the report titled above.

Sincerely,

David Vitter (R, Louis.)
Sam Brownback (R, Kansas)
Jim Demint (R, So Car.)
Tom Cobrun (R, Oklahoma)
Richard Burr (R, No. Car.)
Lisa Murkowski (R, Alaska)
James Inhofe (R, Oklahoma)

Let's hope that far more than a mere seven Congressmen find this "report" more than a little distasteful.

(A pdf file of the letter can be downloaded here)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Obama's Intel Services More Worried About Right-Wing Terror Than Islamists?

On the heels of the odious report by the State of Missouri, recently retracted, focusing on so-called "right-wing terrorism" and implying that every right of center group in American politics is an inch away from being terrorists, now we have a federal agency report doing the same thing.

The Department of Homeland Security has also created a secret report that wasn't supposed to be made public but has leaked out nonetheless. In it we see the same outrageous conclusions that "right-wing terrorists" are a danger in this country. (Download PDF file)

And why are we supposed to be so fearful of these evil right-wingers? Because a black guy got elected president. That's right, folks, apparently Barack Obama's intelligence services are trying to convince the country's policing agencies that everyone right of center is a psychotic racist ready to take up arms and kill every federal agent they see just because a black man became president.

In a world where Islamist terror is appearing in every corner of the earth, Obama and his policemen are trying to gin up fear about Ron Paul followers, conservatives, Republicans, constitutionalists, and Second Amendment supporters. Apparently to the lefties under Obama, other Americans are far more worrisome than Islamic terrorists.

And what is the worst part of this report? Catch the first paragraph of the key findings section of the report:

(U/LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

So, they have NO PROOF of any of their claims, yet wish to inflame these fears just the same. No proof. Nothing. Not a scintilla of evidence that it has or is happening. But, oh, it’s a worry, alright!

Why are we paying millions for our intelligence services to focus on patriotic Americans for holding average right of center ideas when we have Islamist terrorism all across the globe? Why is Obama, like Clinton, more interested in attacking his own political enemies than in attacking actual enemies to this country?

We should all remember that in the 90s, while bin Laden and his al Qaeda network was growing strong, Bill Clinton’s intelligence services were running around the country all worried over the “militia” movement and proclaiming how much of a threat it was to the nation. It turned out, of course, that this fear was largely fictitious.

And now, once again we see that the Democrats hate and fear other Americans more than they hate avowed, proven enemies to this country. People that have killed Americans by the handsfull and want to kill far, far more are not on Obama's radar. Apparently, investigations of actual, avowed enemies to this country take a back seat to ferreting out Obama's internal political enemies.

The fascist tendencies of the American left shines again.

Even if it is successfully proven that this DHS report is a fake (though it seems credible to me) we still have the Missouri report from earlier in the month put out by a Democrat controlled agency -- the fact that it was a halfassed report with “research” done by using Wikipedia as a source, notwithstanding. One has to wonder how many agencies under Democratic Party control like this have reached conclusions that so-called “right-wing terrorists” threaten the nation? One also has to wonder why we are taking our eyes off the Islamist threat and turning instead to looking at Americans on the right side of the political spectrum? Is it just because we have Democrats again in power all over the country?

Another question comes to mind. Why did we never see these sorts of “reports” aimed at the left when Republicans held more power? Is it because the GOP doesn’t generally consider their fellow Americans to be enemies of the state the way Democrats feel Republicans might be?

(Original report from Alex Jones' Inforwars.com.)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Union Thugs Admit Workers Hate Them, Only Government Force Expands Unions

Herold Meyerson of the Washington Post is a not a very good columnist. But he is a great ad copy writer that should be working on Madison Avenue. Oh, I won't say that all ad copy is filled with lies, but if lies sell then Meyerson would be the best of them all. Anyone that reads his April 7 pro-union column can only come away marveling at the malarkey this guy is peddling to sell the union cause.

Meyerson begins by lamenting the troubles that unions have seen over the last few decades. Union membership has dropped to all time lows in this country and Meyerson is all about the wearing of sackcloth and the gnashing of teeth over it. But he sees hope in a recent effort to gather several union chiefs together in a sort of cooperative effort to flog unions on Capitol Hill, a sort of uber lobbying organization that will be charged with strong-arming Congress to accede to union demands.

But one thing he doesn't get is that Americans just don't like unions. They have bad reputations as economy wreckers, thugs, and thieves. It's obvious that this is the case because, after all, union membership has fallen through the floor.

On the other hand, maybe he does "get it" that regular, everyday Americans are wary of unions and don't trust them. In his April 7 ad copy for unions posing as a column, he almost seems to admit that unions are hated by workers and that only the iron boot heel of government can help unions grow.

The unification is the result of both dashed hopes and new hopes. The dashed hopes are those of the founders of Change to Win, who argued that by focusing on organizing rather than politics, they could reverse the decline in union membership. That proved not to be the case, which is why all of labor now sees passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would protect workers' right to join unions, as key to their expansion -- or survival.

So, why did the ideas of Change to Win not work? Why did union membership fall despite that Change to Win tried their best to enroll more American workers in unions. What else could it be than that American workers don't want to join unions?

So, what's the solution as far as unions are concerned? Why, run to Congress to try to change the rules so that more Americans are forced into unions anyway, what else? You see, unions don't give a flying fig that workers don't want them around. They want Congress to make rules so that they can grow their membership quite despite what workers seem to want.

No wonder they want to get rid of the secret ballot. Unions don't CARE what the workers think about anything anyway so who needs an election?

But, let's get back to Meyerson's obsequious ad copy for unions. Meyerson praises a recent coupling of unions in California as the model of peace and harmony for unionism to come.

Any doubters that Democratic victories last year have prompted union unity should consider an even more remarkable alliance of unions that have long been mortal enemies: the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), half of whose 2 million members are employed in health care, and the California Nurses Association (CNA), which recently merged with other state nurses' organizations to form a national union. Both are likely to be members of the new federation. After more than a decade of subverting each other's organizing drives and placing rival health-care initiatives on the same state ballots, the two have agreed to respect each other's jurisdictions (CNA will organize nurses and SEIU other health-care workers), to work together to organize major hospital chains and to lobby for universal health care.

This is as dishonest a paragraph as any of the most blatant propaganda you'll find. This wonderful "alliance" was anything but voluntary. In truth the SEIU performed a hostile take over of the CNA. In truth the CNA is now effectively controlled by SEIU president Andy Stern in total. There is no harmonious "cooperation" between two unions. There is the SEIU owning the CNA lock, stock and barrel with the CNA existing on paper only and that is all. This peaceful "alliance" is in Meyerson's little head and in the propaganda released by the SEIU but not in the minds of the many thousands of CNA members that spent the better part of the last two years picketing the SEIU and being undermined by Stern. Heck, Stern even deposed many of the CNA's union officials and put in his own puppets in their place.

The "unity" Meyerson describes is fantasy created by a war on the CNA launched by the avarice of Andy Stern, a man that plans to do the same to any other small union that tries to resist his take over bid or gets in the way of his empire building.

To give an example, it would be like saying that the Confederacy willingly rejoined the Union in 1865 right after the Civil War. Sure they rejoined... because they were devastated by 5 years of war, were conquered by force of arms, had Union troops in every capitol city and had no other choice! That is what happened between the powerful SEIU and the weaker CNA, Stern launched a war and won forcing his will on a vanquished CNA.

But in Meyerson's fantasy ad copy, it was a fortuitous joining of equals bent on love and harmony. What rot!

So, I would like to nominate Harold Meyerson as the best advertisement writer I've yet seen. He's a veritable Leni Riefenstahl of union flacks. Way to go Harry, old buddy. You're the tops.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

ACORN/NY Times/Obama Campaign Story: Some Details Not as Reported

My exclusive interview with ACORN whistleblower Anita Moncrief

On April 4 I wrote about the testimony of Heather Heidelbaugh who appeared before Congress to speak about the various shady, if not criminal, actions perpetrated by ACORN (the Association of Community Activists for Reform Now) and its Project Vote offshoot over the last few years -- and especially during the late campaign for the White House. There was vote fraud and financial misdealings galore and it was all perpetrated by a group intimately tied to presidential candidate Barack Obama. Not only that, but it seemed the Old Media was trying to cover it up.

That testimony has been the talk of the country since the end of March. But, as the story has progressed, some of the details that have been accepted as fact have turned out not to be true. It's high time some of these misconceptions be cleared up.

There are fallacies about this case both big and small knocking about the pundocracy. TV pundit Bill O'Reilly, for instance, recently wrote an Op Ed with the misinformation that ACORN whistleblower Anita Moncreif had testified before Congress. Moncrief, however, did not testify before Congress (her information had merely been read into the record by Heidelbaugh).

Additionally on his show "The O'Reilly Factor," O'Reilly played audio from New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom that made it seem as if the only reason that the Times scrubbed further ACORN stories was because of ACORN's connection with Barack Obama. In fact, the case is probably much more complicated than that, though the Obama angle is certainly a part of it all.

O'Reilly also got the facts wrong on the position that whistleblower Marcel Reid has with ACORN. Actually Reid is not just an "ACORN employee," but is current chair of the D.C. board of ACORN and remains so at least until the election on April 19th. Reid is one of the members of the group of ACORN executives attempting to look into the various criminal activities of some of ACORNs members.

This story is also seems to be a bit more involved than just Old Media bias angle that has been flogged up to now.

I had a conversation with ACORN whistleblower Anita Moncrief, one of the principal players in this drama, on Sunday, April 5, during which she expressed a desire to get some of these facts straightened out. Not only that, but the story she had to tell revealed a much deeper and complicated saga than the simple O'Reilly media bias narrative.

Mrs. Moncrief is a former ACORN employee out of the Washington D.C. office who was the Development Associate for Project Vote and ACORN political operations. After seeing the troubles spawned by ACORN, she became a whistleblower. She came to frustration with the progressive cause in which she still passionately believes after seeing up close and personal all the corruption in which ACORN (and the Service Employees International Union - SEIU) is mired.

One of my questions was about her, personally. Was she a shill for the right as some have accused her of being? Mrs. Moncrief answered definitively that she is still "the most liberal person in the world." Moncrief says she is a believer in gay rights and that when Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as the first female Speaker of the House, she "was crying" because "it was just that big" to her. Moncrief insists that she has never lost her hopes for progressive causes. She also says that she does not consider herself a tool of the right, "I think I'm just disillusioned with the left."

So, why was she speaking out against organizations with whose goals she agrees? It's about principle, she says. Mrs. Moncrief feels that if her side wins by cheating, then it is no win at all. So, she wants the true, albeit sordid, tale of ACORNs financial misdeeds and unprincipled machinations revealed for everyone to see. She wants correction, not destruction.

One of the things that Moncrief wanted cleared up right away was that she had no desire to attack New York Times writer Stephanie Strom. She considers Strom a friend and a victim in this tale. She told me, "it was never a contentious relationship. I'm not after Stephanie Strom." Moncrief further points out that Bill O'Reilly only played part of the tape on which Strom revealed that her Times bosses had killed any further ACORN stories.

On April 3, Moncrief played the entire message for writer Mike Gaynor and he posted the full transcript at that time.

"Here is the part that is missing. It was cut right after the 'stand down' part. I have been working to make sure that audio will be available soon. Thanks in advance for your time.

"'Ah, we're running a story tonight for tomorrow that, ah, pretty well lays out the partisanship problems that Project Vote may have, ah, based on a report that I got. So, ah, they think that going to do, — that's going to be the story about the partisanship issue, and so they want me to hold off on coming to Washington."

That story, by Ms. Strom, is titled "Acorn Report Raises Issues of Illegality" and was published on October 21, 2008.

In our interview, Moncrief explained further:

The article she is referring to was the last one she wrote on ACORN in which they report that ACORN's own lawyer Beth Kingsley released that Project Vote and ACORN were basically shared staff, the same things... so they couldn't tell whether the money that was being spent for the C3 was actually being used for C4 activities. And of course she mentioned that the Obama campaign denied all ties with ACORN. At the time she had the information, she had the donor list, she had the donor list since August and she had got evidence from myself and other whistleblowers that there had been a meeting that had taken place between the Obama camp and ACORN. None of that stuff was printed. But we actually have emails, the emails were given to the O'Reilly Factor but they weren't mentioned. But we have emails that start in July of '08 and go all the way up until November. Because even after Stephanie and I stopped communicating about ACORN we were still talking.

The ACORN/New York Times connection seems to run deeper than just a desire to help out the Obama campaign by killing further ACORN stories. Moncrief informed me of some rather cozy financial ties between the Times, the Forest City Ratner corporation and ACORN that she discovered from the inside.

I do feel that The New York Times was complicit in all of this. It wasn't just in killing the Obama story, they killed several stories in relation to ACORN. Including one where the Forest City Ratner owned by Bruce Ratner, the same people that own 48% of the Times' building, gave ACORN a 1.5 million dollar loan. This was interesting because that's news in New York City, there's been a lot of contention over the Atlantic Yards deal where they're bringing the Nets to Brooklyn?

Moncrief speculates that another reason that the Times suddenly ceased writing stories that might embarrass ACORN is that one of its leading investors and partners had suddenly become close associates financially with ACORN. This situation occurred because ACORN had done an about face on Ratner's sports deal and was rewareded by that generous "loan."

ACORN has also been known to be helping Forest City Ratner to get federal stimulus money since the $1.5 million kickback "loan" that Ratner gave to the community organizers. Sadly, at the same time Forest City Ratner was giving ACORN that princely sum, they were laying off workers claiming they were about to go bankrupt.

Even when the Times was publishing ACORN stories, Moncrief believes that they were written in such a way as to abjure the organization itself from any blame, pointing all fingers at the Rathke family -- ACORN's founders.

ACORN Chicago is also hip deep in this thickening mess. A few years ago it was discovered that ACORN leader Wade Rathke's brother had been stealing money from the organization. The Rathkes tried to cover up the embezzlement of perhaps as much as $5 million. A group of ACORN board members from around the country, later dubbed the "ACORN eight," banded together to begin court proceedings to try and find out what happened to all that money and who covered it all up and how it as done.

But the Chicago branch of ACORN saw an opportunity, says Moncrief. During the ensuing confusion inside ACORN, a coup of sorts was spearheaded by Madeline Talbot, Obama's ACORN mentor, a long-time ACORN boss in the Chicago offices.

In 2008, March 2008, she took over the Chicago office, locked ACORN out and changed it to an organization called Action Now which has the same address as the old Chicago ACORN. ACORN was able to get back their telephone number but that was about it. And that was her way of distancing herself from ACORN right before the scandal broke.

There's evidence that Chicago folks knew of Rathke's embezzlement, Moncrief told me. "They talked about it between SEIU, ACORN Housing and ACORN how best to handle it in the election year," she explained. "So, there was basically a coup, it was not an uncovering of an embezzlement. The embezzlement was known within private circles for years. I knew about it and they considered me to be a low-level employee as they liked to say."

Finally, Moncrief told me she is disgusted that there are so many connections between ACORN and the SEIU in Obama's administration. "It's an obvious payoff," she told me alluding to the fact that Obama included so many of them in his new administration.

So, it turns out that this is a tale of deep financial misdeeds, political machinations free of any principle, and incestuous relationships between government and these supposed community organizers. Unfortunately, it seems that many of these troubling connections are not being revealed to the public as this story is being reported.

Anita Moncrief finished our interview with a shake of her head. "So, it's a very interesting story and I think it's a little bit more complex than when people get involved with their different agendas it becomes 'New York Times controls Barack Story' or 'Obama is involved with this' and it's really much deeper than that."

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Syndicate content