New York Times

This morning the NY Times figured out the secret strategy Democrats have to gain re-election in November. They will spend millions pretending not to be politicians and not to be Democrats

There is no better example in place than my Congressman, Chris Murphy. No he isn't some ideological activist going to hard left conferences at swanky Vegas hotels--complaining his fellow congressmen aren't working harder to "change America" but promising after the election they'll have "extra steel in their spine" .

No, he's really some mellow small town guy knocking on doors and feeling our pain.

Hollywood is known for creating fantasylands but Murphy's ad firm has outdone themselves.

The ad is entitled "Neighbors". (like John Belushi's last film?)  Well, who is Chris Murphy's "neighbor"?

Ms. Lauren Korman lives on Spruce Street in Cheshire; 2.2 miles from Murphy's current residence. She does not vote at his precinct and I do not believe she is a member of whatever church Murphy attends or has children the same age as Murphy. So how would she know Murphy well enough to endorse him as a "neighbor"?

She is a member of the Cheshire Democratic Town Committee and a vocal campaigner for President Obama and against Sarah Palin. 

Former Hillary Clinton supporter Lauren Korman of Cheshire said Palin’s lack of experience scares her.“If something should happen to John McCain, she doesn’t have what it takes to lead the country.” Korman now supports Obama and said she thinks he would be an excellent diplomat for the United States around the world. 

But it gets worse. Korman was formerly press secretary to Democratic Congressman and Defense Secretary Les Aspin.  Yeah, nothing says authenticity like hiring a former paid mouthpiece to play neighbor.  She is backing Murphy because he "works with Republicans". Right.

Murphy's ad proclaims that he is a "deficit hawk" based on a single press conference wherein he promised at some unspecified date in the future to vote to cut the budget. Since then of course, he eagerly voted for the teacher's union bailout. Guess this deficit hawk will be a dove when the press isn;t around? Forget the ratings. Believe the "neighbor"

Besides, the "neighbor" supporting Murphy for  alleged budget restraint has actually been active in lobbying Murphy to set up a brand new federal spending program. 

 U.S. Rep. Christopher Murphy, D-5, said he is hopeful that some federal money may become available to help remediate abandoned barite mines in the state like the one the one that caused a 20-foot-wide, 30-foot-deep sinkhole in one Cheshire resident’s backyard in October 2005.Murphy met with Sheridan Drive area residents Monday morning.He said a bill that will be introduced when the 111th Congress convenes in January would provide funding for remediation of hard rock, or non-coal, mines.“It was introduced to this Congress and passed the House but not the Senate,” Murphy said. “So we’re going to introduce it again.”The meeting with Murphy was held at the home of Lauren Korman, who lives next to William Baker, in whose backyard the sinkhole developed. Nearly 20 residents attended the meeting, Korman said

So until the election came around we are to believe Ms. Korman wanted to increase the trillion dollar sinkhole of the federal deficit to fill in holes around her house, but now she supports Murphy because he wants to cut spending? Sure.

So if you are a former DC spokesperson active in Democratic politics who is lobbying for more federal spending programs, Chris Murphy is your kind of neighbor.

For the other 700,000 residents of Connecticut's Fifth District, we just see another poseur trying to pull one over on the rubes so he can go back to dragging America to the left whether we want it or not.  

For a reality based candidate, I suggest Sam Caligiuri is the answer.

 

College students know better than anyone the importance of listening to your professor. OK, given that most of us have laptops and iPhones, maybe we’re the last people you should ask. But still, what the professor says can sometimes be the difference between an A and a C. Recently some academics got together to grade the Democrats’s financial reform legislation. Their final marks? Well, let’s just say, it looks like the bill could be another low grade on an already poor report card.

Whereas a low grade for a college student may mean taking some easier courses to pull up the GPA, for the Democrats’ reform legislation, it could mean that the nation could lapse into another major crisis. As the New York Times reports,

As Democrats close in on their goal of overhauling the nation’s financial regulations, several prominent experts say that the legislation does not even address the right problems, leaving the financial system vulnerable to another major crisis.

Some point to specific issues left largely untouched, like the instability of capital markets that provide money for lenders, or the government’s role in the housing market, including the future of the housing finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Others simply argue that it is premature to pass sweeping legislation while so much about the crisis remains unclear and so many inquiries are in progress.

“Until we understand what the causes were, we may be implementing ineffective and even counterproductive reforms,” said Andrew W. Lo, a finance professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “I understand the need for action. I understand the need for something to be done. But what I expect from political leaders is for them to demonstrate leadership in telling the public that we need to proceed about this in a much more deliberate and rational and thoughtful way.”

The problem is that patience has gone out the window. Democrats have taken a kamikaze approach to passing their agenda – introduce an idea, pump out a few positive sounding (if ultimately misleading) talking points, rush it through Congress using their big majorities, and then run an election strategy around “look how much we accomplished.”

Health care is the primary example. Democrats sensed a winning political issue that would appeal to everyone incensed by ever increasing health care premiums. They then trumped up their bill’s ability to bend the cost curve downwards, preserve Medicare, and change the way medicine is delivered. The bill zoomed through the House before anyone knew what happened and then faced a hard fought battle in the Senate before ultimately being passed using reconciliation. But as Nancy Pelosi now (in)famously said “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” She turned out to be exactly right. After passage we found out that companies were going to have to pay billions to comply with the new laws provisions, we found out from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that the bill was actually going to increase the cost of health care more than if we had done nothing, and we found out from the CBO that many hospitals would stop treating Medicare patients if the planned cuts were imposed.

Unwilling to learn from their mistakes, Democrats are now taking the same pedal-to-the-metal approach to passing financial regulatory reform. The results will be just as flawed. For instance, consider the concerns of these professors, as compiled by the New York Times:

• Andrew W. Lo, a finance professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says that “until we understand what the causes were, we may be implementing ineffectiveand even counterproductive reforms.”
• Gary B. Gorton, a finance professor at Yale, said the financial system would remain vulnerable to panics because the legislation would not improve the reliability of the markets where lenders get money . . . “It is unfortunate if we end up repeating history,” Professor Gorton said. “It’s basically tragic that we can’t understand the importance of this issue.”
• David A. Skeel Jr., a corporate law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said it would be a mistake for Congress to leave the drafting of these standards to the discretion of regulators.
• Lawrence J. White, a finance professor at New York University, said it made no sense to overhaul financial regulation without addressing the future of federal housing policy. He said he was trying to find the strongest possible words to describe the omission of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the legislation.“It’s outrageous,” he finally said.

It is important to get something done, but it is more important to get it right. Democrats want to claim that they are “the party of results,” but if those results don’t lower health care costs or prevent another financial collapse, what do they really have to show? The problem is that they see the trouble that lies ahead in November. Facing down the barrel of a brutal election season has led Democrats to make some bad decisions in the name of trying to find something (anything) to run on. The public wants real reform. They don’t want a slapdash mixture of provisions that fails to address the underlying problems that led to the reform conversations in the first place.

Democrats seem determined to push this flawed financial reform bill despite its failing marks from professors. If the reforms wouldn’t pass in college, Democrats shouldn’t let it pass through Congress.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

Last year ACORN alter ego Project Vote sued me for telling the people the ugly truth. Now the ACORN 8 are attacking me because I have acted on my belief that the people deserve truth, transparency and accountability. (The ACORN 8 slogan only calls for "truth, transparency and accountability within ACORN.") ACORN 8 spokesman Michael McCray recently noted in a hit piece on me that "others have waged a war of rhetoric and words against ACORN and President Obama" while the ACORN 8 "focused on criminality within the association" and described my allegation of "illegal coordination between Project Vote and Obama Campaign" as not having been "publicly verified."

Marcel Reid, as a former ACORN national board member and head of DC ACORN, understands the Obama/ACORN relationship AND the thuggish way ACORN pursues its goals.

Evidence exists that suggests that the ACORN 8's denial of illicit coordination between the Obama campaign and ACORN has more to do with the fact that unlike me, Reid and the ACORN 8 are still radical Obama supporters and that's why the ACORN 8 have avoided the subject of the Obama/ACORN relationship.

Fact: ACORN 8 leader Marcel Reid emailed me more than a year ago (before Heather Heidelbaugh, Esq.'s Congressional testimony based on my testimony in October 2008 in the Pennsylvania ACORN case, my appearances on Fox News and the sensational ACORN videos) that it is a "fact" that "ACORN isn't sure that it has it's fingers around Obama's throat quite as tightly as they would like" and "might do a little street theater" to "cower him into submission the way they have everyone else with few exceptions."

The Roots of Obama's Radical Agenda

Obama's poll numbers are sliding and his healthcare bill does not have public support, but he continues to push a radical agenda onto the American people. Could ACORN and its leftist allies like SEIU have Obama over a barrel? Someone like Reid, a former ACORN national board member, could have these answers.

Obama and Reid are both alums of the Marxist New Party, and Reid served as an officer of the party. The New Party is described this way:

"Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN."

If the ACORN 8 are misleading America about their knowledge of ACORN's political activities and its relationship with Obama, what else are they lying about? Grab a cup of coffee and get comfy, we are going to dig into the accusations by McCray and the facts the ACORN 8 want to avoid. Note: Click on the pictures below to enlarge.

Fact checking the ACORN 8 Lie #1 "Mailroom MonCrief"

My article titled "For CPAC and Glenn Beck: the Truth About the ACORN 8" predictably produced a pained response from the ACORN 8: Michael McCray's article titled "ACORN Whistleblower / Anita Mailroom MonCrief" posted days later by James Murtagh. Instead of addressing allegations of an internal ACORN power struggle, the ACORN 8 have decided to present a set of lies as fact.  McCray's article is lacking in substance but high in rhetoric and misdirection, with even the title set up to misinform people and belittle the target, me.

Unsurprisingly, McCray was upset that I "refused [ACORN 8's] advice and pursued [my] own individual advocacy against ACORN and Project Vote" and he did not address on the merits the revelations about himself and the ACORN 8 in my article and instead tried to discredit me, as ACORN did. Contrary to what is stated in his article, I always knew that the ACORN 8 would cover for Obama and I declined to be a part of the group.

What was surprising is that McCray tried to discredit me with a sexist strategy ("hell hath no fury," he wrote) and a bogus description of me as a former ACORN mailroom employee.

"...perhaps the most damning revelation comes from court filed pleading by Anita MonCrief herself in her answer to Project Vote's $5 Million lawsuit against her Case No. 09-cv-01109 (RWR).

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT ASHAWNITA MONCRIEF

Paragraph #22 which reads

'22. Defendant [Anita MonCrief] admits that a Pitney Bowes postage meter machine was installed at Project Vote's Washington, D.C. office...

This is an incredible admission because it means that Anita MonCrief admits she worked in the mailroom at Project Vote...."

The ACORN/Project Vote Washington, D.C. office did not have a mailroom and, although I certainly don't disparage mailroom employees, I have never been one. I am equally surprised that a lawyer such as McCray, who is affiliated with several legal non-profits and who appears to have helped draft the ACORN 8's "civil RICO" complaint, would make such a demonstrably false claim.

In December of 2009 I appeared at a House Government Oversight and Reform Committee's  GOP Forum on ACORN and submitted the followed description of my duties at ACORN/Project Vote. A copy of the testimony is available here.

While at ACORN/Project Vote, I worked in the Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD) within ACORN’s Political Operations (POLOPS). As part of the SWORD staff my title was Writer/Researcher. My salary was paid by Project Vote, with which I held the title of Development Associate, but I had an ACORN email address.

In addition, to combat more revisionist history from the ACORN 8, here is an unmodified copy of ACORN's own 2006 Year End Year Beginning (YEYB) Report, the same one quoted recently at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government.

The ACORN 8 appear to be so comfortable with the fact that the lies they have told on national television about ACORN have largely gone unchallenged that McCray has decided to invent more.

Perhaps McCray did not check with other ACORN 8 people as to the access I had. And unfortunately for the ACORN 8 few of his outlandish accusations would pass muster at a middle school newspaper.  Using tactics honed through years of ACORN campaigns and organizing strategies, the ACORN 8 exhibit exactly the type of mentality that founder Wade Rathke encouraged in his ACORN Community Organizing Manual.

McCray strove to discredit me because the ACORN 8 could not disprove any number of facts stated in my previous article, so they resorted to common Alinsky tactics of ridiculing, polarizing and attacking the enemy. It is worth noting that ACORN and its affiliate Project Vote have taken legal action against its real threats, Andrew Breitbart, Hannah Giles, James O'Keefe and myself. All of us are victims of multimillion dollar lawsuits.

As this leaked internal ACORN email posted by National Review shows, ACORN talked to the lawyers about an employee because "he knows too much. He can hurt us." Surprisingly, besides a cease and desist letter, ACORN has largely left the ACORN 8 to spread their revisionist history. A history that did not pose a threat to ACORN's survival.

The other explanation could be that the leader of the ACORN 8 had signed a joint defense agreement (JDA) with ACORN that none of the other members were aware of. Did that include the other members of the ACORN 8?

In sharp contrast to McCray, the Republican National Lawyers Association expressed a different opinion of me in a blog post after I spoke at CPAC 2010.

"leading figure in the fight for fair elections" and the "ACORN whistleblower ACORN [who] had the CPAC crowd on its feet" by describing her experiences working with ACORN and how the organization engaged in a concerted effort to learn the provisional and absentee ballot laws in each of the 50 states in an effort to see where they could get away with mischief" and "achieved their ultimate goal of the Presidency with the election of Barack Obama"

Lie #2 Muscle of the Money?

Another excerpt from McCray's poorly written diatribe states:

"Mailroom MonCrief made two powerful allegations which have never been publicly verified (1) illegal coordination between Project Vote and Obama Campaign / Donor List and (2) SEIU Muscle for Money program which are two of the rights favorite accusations."

The funny thing about lies is that it is often hard to keep track of them. In October of 2008, as the ACORN 8 were struggling to gain attention with their lawsuit against Wade Rathke, I testified under oath about the Muscle for Money Program was the first mention of the program. ACORN 8 leaders Marcel Reid and Karen Inman feigned surprise and then recounted stories of reluctant participation.

“Muscle for Money has generated significant opposition within ACORN.

"'I don’t mind being up on a soapbox to get someone’s attention but I would much rather talk an' negotiate, said Karen Inman, a Minnesota resident and former ACORN national board member. “But I just refuse to go someone’s home, that’s a privacy issue and I think this 'Muscle for Money' program really went too far.”

"Inman and Marcel Reid, a former board member based in Washington D.C., formed ACORN 8 in October 2008 …The lack of financial transparency and the continued use of Muscle for Money techniques remain top concerns for the whistleblower organization, which has about 30 dues paying members in multiple states, Inman said."

Reid also seems to have selective memory about her numerous press statements regarding Muscle for the Money and she apparently does not recognize the very evidence she provided. The following email provided by Reid, president of DC ACORN, is from Inga Skippings of the SEIU Equity Project regarding the Carlyle Group.

Reid also provided a similar email to CNN regarding SEIU/ACORN and bank bailouts.

The Fox News special titled "The Truth About ACORN" and broadcast on October 2, 2009 did not address the illegal coordination, but it certainly covered the second, with guest Marcel Reid claiming that she was shocked to learn what "Money for the Muscle" involved when she participated in it with National Paint and Coating as the target. The video can be accessed here and Marcel's statement begins around minute 16.

Lie #3 The ACORN 8 exposed a one million dollar embezzlement scandal

Further proof of the ACORN 8's self-serving revisionist history lies in the following statement from their “response article":

Marcel Reid a former ACORN Board member (DC) who blew the whistle following the $1 Million Embezzlement and co-founder of ACORN 8;

Karen Inman a former ACORN Board member (MN) who blew the whistle following the $1 Million Embezzlement and co-founder of ACORN 8;

Michael McCray a former ACORN Board delegate (GA) who blew the whistle following the $1 Million Embezzlement and ACORN 8 spokesperson;

Nonsense. There is a whistleblower to credit. Neither Marcel Reid, nor Karen Inman, nor Michael McCray was that whistleblower. While working as a confidential source for the New York Times, I found out that not only is the real anonymous whistleblower known to the ACORN 8 but also New York Times Reporter Stephanie Strom. The ACORN embezzlement story was made public by The New York Times on July 9, 2008:

"A whistle-blower forced Acorn to disclose the embezzlement, which involved the brother of the organization’s founder, Wade Rathke. 'We’ve told them that when the process is ended, we’ll have a look at it,' said Dave Beckwith, executive director of the Needmor Fund, which has given money to some of Acorn’s charity affiliates for at least 10 years and was contacted by the whistle-blower in May."

So here is the time-line:

May 2008- ACORN funder, the Needmor fund was contacted by a whistleblower in May.

July 2008- Bertha Lewis, Marcel Reid and Karen Innman all appointed to positions of power within ACORN. New York Times article appeared.

August 2008- After the proposed hand over to Kappa Alpha Psi Federal Credit Union was declined by ACORN and CCI, Marcel and Innman sued CCI and Rathke.

That time-line hints at the truth behind ACORN insider allegations that the plotters of a successful coup began to immediately fight amongst each for control. Court documents point to Reid's relationship with KAPFCU and the question of whether she was really acting on behalf of ACORN:

So far it has been established that the ACORN 8 have a serious problem with the truth if it does not suit their needs and/or financial goals and we have learned that they are hesitant to debate the facts of my argument.

Over a once Mighty Oak, Tiny Nuts Fight for Control

ACORN insiders paint a tale of internal strife and power struggles that date back to at least 2006. On page 37 of the aforementioned ACORN YEYB report, ACORN Wade Rathke hinted at this struggle:

“Leadership Maude Hurd, as President, and her team continue to be somewhat embattled but opposition has become more specific and marginalized on many issues. It is easiest to understand the national board though these days as having two parties: the ruling party and the opposition party. Some progress was made in some ways in the October meeting in moving the opposition party to being more of a 'loyal' opposition, and that is a hopeful sign, if it continues to trend.”

Evidence exists to suggest the departure of Wade Rathke as a result of a whistleblower disclosing the embezzlement scandal permitted the opposition party to use the embezzlement to gain control. ACORN board meeting notes seem to suggest at the alliance between Marcel Reid, Karen Inman and Bertha Lewis that was exposed in my prior article

Bertha takes control:

 

 

 

Lie #4 KAPFCU

In addition, Michael McCray appears to be very upset that his connection to KAPFCU has been exposed and so he tried to rewrite history.

"KAPFCU was contracted by an ACORN management committee to investigate and perform due diligence following the $1 Million embezzlement...."

I told the real story in "For CPAC and Glenn Beck, The Truth About the ACORN 8," backed with citations and screen shots but I do have additional research.

Apparently, Reid's unsolicited proposal from Michael McCray's Kappa Alpha Psi Federal Credit Union (KAPFCU) could be considered part of  the opposition party of the ACORN board strategy to control ACORN for their own gain.

The proposed agreement between ACORN and KAPFCU was an attempt to wrestle control of CCI's ACORN business for the benefit of KAPFCU without disclosing a potential conflict of interest.. As a member of the associate board, McCray had significant financial interest in this deal. Fourth quarter reports show a net worth of just over $831,083.41 for KAPFCU, so one can assume that millions of dollars a year and control of ACORN's vast financial network may have been incentive for the ACORN 8's next actions.

When the proposal was not immediately accepted, Inman and Reid descended on New Orleans with an attorney ACORN insiders claim was hired and paid for by the KAPFCU. The ACORN 8 hired James Gray, the former law partner of William “Cold Cash” Jefferson.

What followed can only be described as misleading press pieces and self-serving statements such as the ones below. The ACORN 8's lawsuit filed in Louisiana District Court (ACORN vs. Rathke, et al., case no. 08-8342,) was dismissed, but a number of misleading articles and statements made their way into the press.

ACORN insiders state that Reid manipulated the situation. When their deception was revealed to the board, a number of members voted to withdraw the lawsuit and then to remove Reid and Inman. According to ACORN Association board meeting notes dated June 20, 2008, Bertha Lewis and Steve Kest were tasked with hiring professional consultants, not Reid. Inman and Reid's positions were temporary and the committee reported to the entire board. Reid was expected to  step down at the next board meeting in October of 2008.

The ACORN 8 paint a scenario of ACORN leadership throwing them out, but their peers voted for each action including one of their own ACORN 8 members. Coya Mobley initially voted to withdraw the lawsuit, but changed her mind three days later in a rambling email to the board:

“He is beating us down as if he was our Slave Master with a whip and still creeping into our homes to take what ever he can get. And, all we are going to do is say Master please don't whip me any more, don't rape me any more, don't master don't!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE..........SLAVERY IS OVER..........STOP THIS MADNESS AND GET OFF OF WADE RATHKE'S TRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!. “

Mobley repeated the same sentiment on the 6/22/2009 episode Glenn Beck show in a video that has been yanked from the web.

As this is the only video of the ACORN 8 on Glenn Beck that has disappeared, one has to wonder if the removal of the video may have something to do with the embarrassing admission of active participation in the Muscle for Money program.

The Root of All Evil

Michael McCray's KAPFCU is the nation's first "virtual credit union” and as a small credit union, KAPFCU is constantly looking for opportunities to grow:

“In 2008, KAPFCU has applied for $100k in financial assistance and $500k in technical assistance.

...Vic also announced that there’s a $1.2B credit union in Baton Rouge that is designated as a low-income institution. This allows them to take in secondary capital, and not affect their net income ratio. KAPFCU is currently at 3.18%. The NCUA would like us to be at 7%. So, the low-income designation is one of the vehicles that KAPFCU plans to utilize to increase its net income ratio."

In what appears to be a closely knit network of affiliated organizations with the same board members and suspect motives the ACORN 8 are really similar to ACORN. PRWeb searches show press releases where the related organizations laud each other (here, and here)  and in some cases bestow newly created awards on members of the group. My prior article touched on this network, but research has uncovered additional affiliates of the ACORN 8. The new list is as follows:

The Congress Against Racism and Corruption in Law Enforcement (CARCLE)

Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored (POPULAR)

The ACORN 8

The International Association of Whistle-blowers (IAW)

National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project

The 3.5.7 Commission (appears to be inactive)

The E-Accountability Project

Focus on Indiana

National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA), the official network of Community Forums on Judicial Accountability (CFOJA)

As the KAPFCU Administrator of Community Development Financial Initiatives, McCray seems well placed to coordinate the activities of the organizations, including lending the KAPFCU name to rival ACORN projects:

By starting an organization in direct competition with ACORN and then “Whistle-blowing” on ACORN, the ACORN 8 appears to have deceived America into believing that their intentions were noble.

 

The biggest PR move involved the so-called Department of Justice complaint. The complaint to the DOJ addressed the embezzlement scandal and used a number of examples to support their "civil RICO" complaint. No disputing the facts here, ACORN is corrupt. However, what is missing from the complaint is intriguing and ties the ACORN 8 back to Obama. Reid appeared eager to file the complaint and was even ready to send it to the press without some exhibits being prepared by the lawyers (screenshot below).

 

 

 

At the last minute the complaint was amended to protect Obama’s mentor, former ACORN leader, Madeline Talbott and her husband, Keith Kelleher. Talbott, is also a fellow New Party alum of Reid and Obama. National Review Online provides the background:

"ACORN’s leading role in the New Party as the result of a conscious decision by the organization to move into electoral politics in a more substantial way than they had been able to solely through their political action committee. In addition to [Wade] Rathke and [Zach] Polett, a key early supporter of the New Party was Obama’s closest ACORN contact, Madeline Talbott."

The startling fact about the "Department of Justice Complaint" is that when filed in District Court by an ACORN 8 member, it was dismissed. Despite the presence of lawyers McCray, and Zena Crenshaw Logal in the ACORN 8, the complaint was found to lack the basic requirement of a cause of action.

"In the law, a cause of action (sometimes called a claim) is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue."

 

 

 

The judge dismissed on the grounds that the complaint lacked standing and a cause of action, but it did generate the desired media attention the ACORN 8 needed after the Rathke case was dismissed. Click here to read the entire decision.

Dissecting McCray's Final Lies Lie #5 Disparaging other ACORN Whistleblowers

McCray, a co-chair of the International Association of Whistleblowers, used the "MGM" acronym for myself, Michael Gaynor and Michelle Malkin without crediting the originator, blogger Michael Volpe. McCray seems to adopt the same faulty logic as Volpe, who assumes that if someone I know writes a piece about a person or even mentions their names, that is disparagement. For the record, I have never attacked Greg Hall, Hannah James, James O'Keefe or any of the others named in McCray's rant. Mentioning someone or pointing out facts in regards to the ACORN 8 is not meant to disparage (unless the truth is damaging for that individual).

"Mailroom MonCrief, offered one piece of information purporting to link Project Vote and the Obama campaign which has yet to be publicly proved. She studied the ACORN 8 website and presented our arguments and information as her own until the ACORN 8 cut her off. She became frustrated and resentful having no other contacts or access to inside information, and so she began to attack Marcel Reid, the ACORN 8 and any other noteworthy ACORN critic."

Two quick things here;  first, besides some puff pieces about the embezzlement and a failed lawsuit against ACORN, the bulk of the ACORN 8's accusations only involved actions related to the board and their financial rival in the KAPFCU deal, CCI. It was only after my October 2008 testimony, that the ACORN 8 started to acknowledge real ACORN criminality.

Second, if one were to apply McCray's logic, then HE would be accused of attacking James Murtagh, the other co-chair of the International Association of Whistleblowers, or these statements by Volpe, who wrote at length about Murtagh,

"Dr. Murtagh was paid off to the tune of 1.6 million dollars and silenced at the exact same time that the NIH was investigating Grady Hospital..."

Volpe continued:

"Former Grady trustee Bill Loughrey tells me that the settlement with Dr. Murtagh was never approved or even accurately described to Grady’s board of trustees. He says that he was stunned to learn that tax dollars were paid to Dr. Murtagh, conditioned on his silence. He thinks the agreement is invalid and that the judicial process has been misused."

Volpe is a minor character in the ACORN 8 story, but he offers an opening to explore a pattern of behavior by Marcel Reid of lying and manipulating bloggers and some media persons.

Volpe's reward for writing hit pieces on Reid's enemies was a recommendation of his Wade Rathke interview to Breitbart's Big Government. Reid helped a so-so writer with a very small following gain access and attention he could not have gotten on his own . As the screen shot of a misdirected email below illustrates, Reid is quite content to pull the strings and let others do her dirty work. While she "lols", her fingerprints are covered by so-called bloggers like Volpe.

Bloggers and journalists who have written favorable pieces on the ACORN 8 have been granted appearances on "Beck". Including the late blogger Nancy Armstrong (MsPlaced Democrat).

Print journalists Kevin Mooney and his friend Matthew Vadum, associates of both myself and the ACORN 8, both made appearances during “ACORN 8 week.” Marcel and I worked on a number of pieces with both Vadum and Mooney, who have been responsible for a number of breaking pieces on ACORN. Vadum and I have also appeared on the G. Gordon Liddy Show.

Lie #5 "Rage Against the Beck"

In yet another ridiculous error-filled and sexist claim McCray states that:

“On March 13, 2009 [This should be May 13, 2009] U.S. Representative Michelle Bauchman [It's Michele Bachmann] (R-MN) appeared on the Glenn Beck show and announced a press conference she was having on Capital [This should be Capitol] Hill. Rep. Michelle Bauchman [Michele Bachmann] disclosed the topic was ACORN and she invited both Marcel Reid and Anita MonCrief to participate in the event. In response, Glenn Beck encouraged Michelle Bauchman [Michele Bachmann] to continue to put pressure on ACORN but he advised her to be careful with Anita MonCrief considering her checkered past. From that day forward Anita MonCrief has engaged in a personal vendetta against Beck, Reid and ACORN 8 for the slight she believes she received from Glenn Beck on March 13, 2009 [May 13, 2009] - hell hath no fury. “

What McCray does not state is that Marcel Reid had promised Beck's producers that she would deliver me as she had promised other whistleblowers and ACORN experts to Beck. On May 10, 2009 while reviewing the Elizabeth Kingsley report with Marcel, I took a call from Susan Wertheim of the Beck show on Marcel's phone. Here is the follow up email Susan sent.

I had begun working with a Eric Shawn of Fox's America's News Headquarters. I trusted Shawn's work on ACORN and finally decided to go on TV and tell my story. On Mother's Day, I appeared with Shawn and the Nevada Secretary of State.

This appearance had been in the works for sometime and Marcel was aware of this, so when I got the following email from Beck's Producers, I assumed that Marcel had arranged it and gave her the back story.

Megyn Kelly interviewed me the next day, and Beck wanted me for that evening. Things went a little haywire because, as a novice, I did not know that by accepting Megyn's invitation that I would upset Beck's producer Susan, and what followed is a clear indication of how alliances can compromise the integrity of a story. Susan lectured me on the competition for guests at Fox and indicated that I had committed some type of faux paus by appearing on anything but Beck first.

Just two short months after the March show with the RNLA's  Cleta Mitchell, on which I declined to be interviewed, but for which I provided important background on the AIG bus tour, Beck began warning others, including Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, to stay away from me in favor of the ACORN 8.

Michael McCray appeared in my place in what became "ACORN 8 Day."

Despite Beck's slight, even he can not deny that I have provided much evidence connecting ACORN/Project Vote and Obama. The problem with me seemed to lie in the fact that Reid could not control me and make me appear on "Beck" at her command, and it apparently became easier to spread lies than to deal with someone who would not compromise herself for Reid's power grab. Just a month later,  Beck did not mind relying on my blog for information that would serve as the background for at least two of his shows.

Realizing that we can not let the Left silence us, I put my feelings about Beck's comments to Bachmann aside, and supported Beck during a summer boycott of his advertisers by the Van Jones affiliated Color of Change.

McCray insinuated that I attacked Beck in my first piece, but instead I pointed out the same inconsistencies in his approach that many other conservatives like Mark Levin have pointed out. Did the ACORN 8 fool Beck? After all, McCray portrays himself and his ACORN 8 allies as friends of the conservative movement.

"MonCrief is featured favorably in the OGR committee report along with Karen Inman, Michael McCray, the ACORN 8 and Marcel Reid who also attended the conservative convention."

Marcel Reid is about as conservative as Max Blumenthal, who also showed up for his own purposes at CPAC 2010.

Lie #6 The ACORN 8 are allies of the conservative movement

The ACORN 8 use conservatives for their own purposes and those conservatives either do not know the reality of the ACORN 8 or accept the ACORN 8 as an enemy of their enemy.

McCray went on to state:

"We have never professed to be anti-ACORN or anti-Obama. Although many other conservative activists want us to be; which brings us back to Anita MonCrief."

"While others have waged a war of rhetoric and words against ACORN and President Obama we have focused on criminality within the association.... We have not criticized others for their activism and collaborate with those whom we share common interests; and we respectfully disengage from those who do not share our goals or approach."

As one blogger put it at Hot Air in a post about Beck, "Its not conservative"

Lie #7 Anita MonCrief is a thief

Beck's CPAC speech mentioned 'redemption' a number of times and like it or not, he did make some powerful points. By admitting that he is not perfect, he opens a door to himself and let's people in. People love him for his boldness and the way he interacts. Redemption means acknowledging fault and being vulnerable in a public way. I'm not perfect, as I've explained repeatedly (here,  here,  here, and here ) but I admitted that I was on the wrong path.

Despite the way Beck speaks of redemption, he still used the fact that I put personal expenses on a Project Vote credit card to warn Bachmann away, a tactic used repeatedly by the ACORN 8. The ACORN 8 have joined ACORN in trying to discredit me now that I am exposing them. I testified under oath regarding the credit card matter and discussed it on "The Laura Ingraham Show" in October 2008. Contrary to what McCray would like you to believe, I did not try to pass my expenses off as company expenses and was paying the balance. I wrote about it extensively here.

Conclusions

I have addressed the allegations made by McCray in his piece without alliteration, slogans or lies.  On the other hand, the ACORN 8 have done everything to paint themselves in a favorable light while bullying and marginalizing anyone who dares to speak the truth about them

The irony is that as America fights back against Obama's dictator-like attitude towards passing healthcare, we are continuing to make the same mistakes of the past. ACORN was funded during Republican administrations because we did not have our own infrastructures in the minority and low-income areas. Unfortunately for Republicans and conservatives is that what was most expedient was also most harmful. ACORN invaded our schools, toyed with our banks, wrecked havoc on the electoral system, and laid the groundwork for a permanent leftist majority. By aligning ourselves with radicals to solve one problem, we create others. The ACORN 8 have been conning conservatives and protecting Obama and his dangerous agenda.

My article titled "For CPAC and Glenn Beck: the Truth About the ACORN 8" predictably produced a pained response from the ACORN 8: ACORN 8 spokesman Michael McCray's article titled "ACORN Whistleblower / Anita Mailroom MonCrief" posted days later by James Murtagh. Lacking in substance but high in rhetoric and lies, even the title set up to misinform people and belittle the target, me.Unsurprisingly, McCray was upset that I "refused [ACORN 8's] advice and pursued [my] own individual advocacy against ACORN and Project Vote" and he did not address on the merits the revelations about himself and the ACORN 8 in my article and instead tried to discredit me, as ACORN did.What was surprising is that McCray tried to discredit me with a sexist strategy (hell hath no fury," he wrote) and a bogus description of me as a former ACORN mailroom employee.

"...perhaps the most damning revelation comes from court filed pleading by Anita MonCrief herself in her answer to Project Vote's $5 Million lawsuit against her Case No. 09-cv-01109 (RWR).

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT ASHAWNITA MONCRIEF

Paragraph #22 which reads

'22. Defendant [Anita MonCrief] admits that a Pitney Bowes postage meter machine was installed at Project Vote's Washington, D.C. office. Defendant affirmatively states that she [Anita MonCrief] was named by Project Vote as the registered user of the machine and therefore subsequent mailings from Pitney Bowes were addressed to her. Defendant denies each and every remaining or inconsistent allegation contained in paragraph 22.'

This is an incredible admission because it means that Anita MonCrief admits she worked in the mailroom at Project Vote...."

The ACORN/Project Vote Washington, D.C. office did not have a mailroom and, although I certainly don't disparage mailroom employees, I have never been one. I am equally surprised that a lawyer such as McCray, who is affiliated with several legal non-profits and who appears to have helped draft the ACORN 8's "civil RICO" complaint; would make such erroneous legal conclusions. Especially considering that there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary.

In December of 2009 I appeared at a GOP ACORN Forum and submitted the followed description of my duties at ACORN/Project Vote. A copy of the testimony is available here.

While at ACORN/Project Vote, I worked in the Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD) within ACORN’s Political Operations (POLOPS). As part of the SWORD staff my title was Writer/Researcher. My salary was paid by Project Vote, with which I held the title of Development Associate, but I had an ACORN email address.

Of course, to combat more revisionist history from the ACORN 8, here is an unmodified copy of ACORN's own 2006 Year End Year Beginning (YEYB) Report, the same one quoted recently at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government.

The ACORN 8 appear to be so comfortable with the fact that the lies they have told on national television about ACORN have largely gone unchallenged so  McCray has decided to invent more:

"Anita MonCrief is not a high-level associate she worked in the mailroom;

"Anita MonCrief did not have access to boardroom minutes or financial information she worked in the mailroom

"Anita MonCrief has no way of knowing the inner workings of SEIU whether official or unofficial she worked in the mailroom;

"Anita MonCrief couldn't know how much the embezzlement really was she worked in the mailroom...."

Apparently McCray did not check with other ACORN 8 people as to the access I had. And unfortunately for the ACORN 8 few of his outlandish accusations would pass muster at a middle school newspaper.  Using tactics honed through years of ACORN campaigns and organizing strategies, the ACORN 8 exhibit exactly the type of mentality that Wade encouraged in his ACORN Community Organizing Manual.

McCray strove to discredit me because the ACORN 8 could not directly address any number of facts stated in the previous article and they resorted to common Alinsky tactics of ridiculing, polarizing and attacking the enemy.

In sharp contrast to McCray, the Republican National Lawyers Association identified me as a

"leading figure in the fight for fair elections" and the "ACORN whistleblower ACORN [who] had the CPAC crowd on its feet" by describing my "experiences working with ACORN and how the organization engaged in a concerted effort to learn the provisional and absentee ballot laws in each of the 50 states in an effort to see where they could get away with mischief" and "achieved their ultimate goal of the Presidency with the election of Barack Obama"

when I spoke at CPAC 2010 last February 2010. Similarly, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform staff report titled "Follow the Money: ACORN, SEIU and Their Political Allies" described me as

"a former political operations staff member for ACORN and Project Vote" (p. 8), reported that "information obtained by our committee confirms MonCrief's allegations" (p. 46).

Another excerpt from McCray's poorly written diatribe states:

"Mailroom MonCrief made two powerful allegations which have never been publicly verified (1) illegal coordination between Project Vote and Obama Campaign / Donor List and (2) SEIU Muscle for Money program which are two of the rights favorite accusations."

The funny thing about lies is that it is often hard to keep track of them. In October of 2008, as the ACORN 8 were struggling to gain attention with their lawsuit against Wade Rathke, I testified under oath about the Muscle for Money Program which was the first mention of the program. ACORN 8 leaders Marcel Reid and Karen Innman feigned surprise and then recounted stories of reluctant participation.

“Muscle for Money has generated significant opposition within ACORN.

'I don’t mind being up on a soapbox to get someone’s attention but I would much rather talk an' negotiate, said Karen Inman, a Minnesota resident and former ACORN national board member. “But I just refuse to go someone’s home, that’s a privacy issue and I think this “Muscle for Money” program really went too far.”

Inman and Marcel Reid, a former board member based in Washington D.C., formed ACORN 8 in October 2008 …

The lack of financial transparency and the continued use of Muscle for Money techniques remain top concerns for the whistleblower organization, which has about 30 dues paying members in multiple states, Inman said.

Reid also seems to have selective memory about her numerous press statements regarding Muscle for the Money and she apparently does not recognize the very evidence she provided. The following email provided by Reid, president of DC ACORN, is from Inga Skippings of the SEIU Equity Project regarding the Carlyle Group.

Reid also provided a similar email to CNN regarding SEIU/ACORN and bank bailouts.

The Fox News special titled "The Truth About ACORN" and broadcast on October 2, 2009 did not address the illegal coordination, but it certainly covered the second, with guest Marcel Reid claiming that she was shocked to learn what "Money for the Muscle" involved when she participated in it with National Paint and Coating as the target. The video can be accessed here and Marcel's statement begins around minute 16.

Further proof of the ACORN 8's self serving revisionist history lies in the following statement from their “response article:”

Marcel Reid a former ACORN Board member (DC) who blew the whistle following the $1 Million Embezzlement and co-founder of ACORN 8;

Karen Inman a former ACORN Board member (MN) who blew the whistle following the $1 Million Embezzlement and co-founder of ACORN 8;

Michael McCray a former ACORN Board delegate (GA) who blew the whistle following the $1 Million Embezzlement and ACORN 8 spokesperson;

Nonsense. There is a whistleblower to credit. Neither Marcel Reid, nor Karen Inman, nor Michael McCray was that whistleblower. While working as a confidential source for the New York Times I found out that not only is the real anonymous whistleblower known to the ACORN 8 but also New York Times Reporter Stephanie Strom. The ACORN embezzlement story was made public by The New York Times on July 9, 2008:

"A whistle-blower forced Acorn to disclose the embezzlement, which involved the brother of the organization’s founder, Wade Rathke.

"We’ve told them that when the process is ended, we’ll have a look at it,' said Dave Beckwith, executive director of the Needmor Fund, which has given money to some of Acorn’s charity affiliates for at least 10 years and was contacted by the whistle-blower in May."

May? Lets stay here for a second because the ACORN 8's heroic story is starting to unravel. According to court documents filed in Louisiana in August of this year, the scandal was discovered in April of 2008 by the full board of ACORN. So here is the timeline:

April- ACORN board discovers embezzlement

May- ACORN funder, the Needmor fund was contacted by a whistleblower in May.

July- Bertha Lewis, Marcel Reid and Karen Innman all appointed to positions of power within ACORN

August - After the proposed hand over to Kappa Alpha Psi Federal Credit Union is declined by ACORN and CCI, Marcel and Innman sue CCI and Rathke with KAPFCU as co-plaintiffs.

That time-line hints at the truth behind ACORN insider allegations that the plotters of a successful coup began to immediately fight amongst each for control. Court documents point to Reid's relationship with KAPFCU and the question of whether she was really acting on behalf of ACORN:

So far it has been established that the ACORN 8 has a serious problem with the truth, if it does not suit their needs and/or financial goals and we have learned that they are somewhat hesitant to debate the facts of my argument. Grab a cup of coffee and get comfy, we are going to dig into the accusations by McCray and the facts the ACORN want to avoid.

Over a once Mighty Oak, Tiny Nuts Fight for Control

ACORN insiders paint a tale of internal strife and power struggles that date back to at least 2006. On page 37 of the aforementioned ACORN YEYB report ACORN Wade Rathke hints at this struggle:

“Leadership Maude Hurd, as President, and her team continue to be somewhat embattled but opposition has become more specific and marginalized on many issues. It is easiest to understand the national board though these days as having two parties: the ruling party and the opposition party. Some progress was made in some ways in the October meeting in moving the opposition party to being more of a 'loyal' opposition, and that is a hopeful sign, if it continues to trend.”

Evidence exists to suggest the departure of Wade Rathke as a result of a whistleblower disclosing the embezzlement scandal permitted the opposition party to use the embezzlement scandal to gain control. ACORN board meeting notes seem to suggest at the alliance between Marcel Reid, Karen Innman and Bertha Lewis that was exposed in my prior article

Bertha takes control:

 

McCray appears to be very upset that his connection to KAPFCU has been exposed and so he tried to rewrite history.

"KAPFCU was contracted by an ACORN management committee to investigate and perform due diligence following the $1 Million embezzlement...."

I told the real story in "For CPAC and Glenn Beck: the Truth About the ACORN 8," backed with citations and screen shots but I do have additional research.

Apparently, Reid's unsolicited proposal from Michael McCray's Kappa Alpha Psi Federal Credit Union (KAPFCU) could be considered part of  the opposition party of the ACORN board strategy to control ACORN for their own gain.

The proposed agreement between ACORN and KAPFCU was an attempt to wrestle control of CCI and turn all asset and decision making over to an organization that none of the ACORN 8 disclosed was a potential conflict of interest. As a member of the advisory board, McCray had significant financial interest in this deal. Fourth quarter reports show a net worth of just over $831,000 so one can assume that millions of dollars a year and control of ACORN's vast financial network may have been incentive for the ACORN 8's next actions.

When the proposal was not immediately accepted, Innman and Reid descended on New Orleans with an attorney hired and paid for by the KAPFCU. The ACORN 8 hired James Gray, the former law partner of William “Cold Cash” Jefferson.

What followed can only be described as misleading press pieces and self serving statements such as the ones below.

ACORN insiders state that Reid manipulated the situation and made demands outside of her power. When their deception was revealed to the board, a number of members voted to withdraw the lawsuit and then to remove Reid and Innman. According to ACORN Association board meeting notes dated July 13, 2008, Bertha Lewis and Steve Kest were tasked with hiring professional consultants, not Reid. Innman and Reid's positions were temporary and the committee reported to the entire board. Reid was expected to  step down at the next board meeting in October of 2008.

The ACORN 8 paint a scenario of ACORN leadership throwing them out, but their peers voted for each action including one of their own ACORN 8 members. Coya Mobley initially voted to withdraw the lawsuit, but changed her, mind three days later in a rambling email to the board:

“ He is beating us down as if he was our Slave Master with a whip and still creeping into our homes to take what ever he can get. And, all we are going to do is say Master please don't whip me any more, don't rape me any more, don't master don't!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE..........SLAVERY IS OVER..........STOP THIS MADNESS AND GET OFF OF WADE RATHKE'S TRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!. “

Mobley repeated the same sentiment on the 6/22/2009 episode Glenn Beck show in a video that has been yanked from the web.

As this is the only video of the ACORN 8 on Glenn Beck that has disappeared, one has to wonder if the removal of the video may have something to do with the embarrassing admission of active participation in the Muscle for Money program.

The Root of All Evil

Michael McCray's KAPFCU is the nation's first "virtual credit union” and as a small credit union, KAPFCU is constantly looking for opportunities to grow:

“In 2008, KAPFCU has applied for $100k in financial assistance and $500k in technical assistance.

...Vic also announced that there’s a $1.2B credit union in Baton Rouge that is designated as a low-income institution. This allows them to take in secondary capital, and not affect their net income ratio. KAPFCU is currently at 3.18%. The NCUA would like us to be at 7%. So, the low-income designation is one of the vehicles that KAPFCU plans to utilize to increase its net income ratio."

In what appears to be a vast network of affiliated organizations with the same board members and suspicious motives the ACORN 8 is really similar to ACORN. My prior article touched on this network, but research has uncovered additional affiliates of the ACORN 8. The new list is a follows:

The Congress Against Racism and Corruption in Law Enforcement (CARCLE)

Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored (POPULAR)

The ACORN 8

The International Association of Whistle-blowers (IAW)

National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project

The 3.5.7 Commission (appears to be inactive)

The E-Accountability Project

Focus on Indiana

National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA), the official network of Community Forums on Judicial Accountability (CFOJA)

As the KAPFCU Administrator of Community Development Financial Initiatives, McCray seems well placed to coordinate the activities of the organizations, including lending the KAPFCU name to rival ACORN projects:

By starting an organization in direct competition with ACORN and then “Whistle-blowing” on ACORN, the ACORN 8 appears to have deceived America into believe their intentions were noble.

Dissecting McCray's Final Lies

McCray, a co-chair of the International Association of Whistleblowers, used the "MGM" acronym for myself, Michael Gaynor and Michelle Malkin without crediting the originator, blogger Michael Volpe. McCray seems to adopt to came faulty logic as Volpe who assumes that if someone I know writes a piece about a person or even mentions their names, that is it disparagement. For the record, I have never attacked Greg Hall, Hannah James, James O'Keefe or any of the others named in McCray's rant. Mentioning someone or pointing out facts in regards to the ACORN 8 is not meant to disparage (unless the truth is damaging for that individual).

"Mailroom MonCrief, offered one piece of information purporting to link Project Vote and the Obama campaign which has yet to be publicly proved. She studied the ACORN 8 website and presented our arguments and information as her own until the ACORN 8 cut her off. She became frustrated and resentful having no other contacts or access to inside information, and so she began to attack Marcel Reid, the ACORN 8 and any other noteworthy ACORN critic."

Two quick things here, first besides some puff pieces about the embezzlement and a failed lawsuit against ACORN, the bulk of their accusations from bIf one were to apply McCray's logic, then HE would be accused of attacking James Murtagh, the other co-chair of the International Association of Whistleblowers,  for these statements by Volpe's, who wrote at length about Murtagh,

"Dr. Murtagh was paid off to the tune of 1.6 million dollars and silenced at the exact same time that the NIH was investigating Grady Hospital..."

Volpe continues:

"Former Grady trustee Bill Loughrey tells me that the settlement with Dr. Murtagh was never approved or even accurately described to Grady’s board of trustees. He says that he was stunned to learn that tax dollars were paid to Dr. Murtagh, conditioned on his silence. He thinks the agreement is invalid and that the judicial process has been misused."

Volpe is a minor character in the ACORN 8 story, but he offers an opening to explore a pattern of behavior by Marcel Reid of lying and manipulating bloggers and some media persons.

Volpe's reward for writing hit pieces on Reid's enemies was a recommendation of his Wade Rathke interview  to Breitbart's Big Government. As a so-so writer with a very small following, Reid  helped Volpe gain access he could not have gotten on his own. As the screen shot of a misdirected email below illustrates, Reid is quite content to pull the strings and let others do her dirty work. While she sits back and laughs, her fingerprints are covered by so called bloggers like Volpe.

Bloggers and journalists who have written favorable pieces on the ACORN 8 have been granted appearances on "Beck". Including the late blogger Nancy Armstrong (MsPlaced Democrat).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUE7tWigD8A

Print journalists Kevin Mooney and his friend Matthew Vadum associates of both myself and the ACORN 8 both made appearances during “ACORN 8 week.”

In yet another ridiculous error- filledand sexist claim McCray states that:

“On March 13, 2009 [This should be May 13, 2009] U.S. Representative Michelle Bauchman [It's Michele Bachmann] (R-MN) appeared on the Glenn Beck show and announced a press conference she was having on Capital [This should be Capitol] Hill. Rep. Michelle Bauchman [Michele Bachmann] disclosed the topic was ACORN and she invited both Marcel Reid and Anita MonCrief to participate in the event. In response, Glenn Beck encouraged Michelle Bauchman [Michele Bachmann] to continue to put pressure on ACORN but he advised her to be careful with Anita MonCrief considering her checkered past. From that day forward Anita MonCrief has engaged in a personal vendetta against Beck, Reid and ACORN 8 for the slight she believes she received from Glenn Beck on March 13, 2009 [May 13, 2009] - hell hath no fury. “

What McCray does not state is that Marcel Reid had promised Beck's producers that she would deliver me as she had promised other whistleblowers to Beck. On May 10, 2009 while reviewing the Elizabeth Kingsley report with Marcel, I took a call from Susan Wertheim of the Beck show on Marcel's phone. Here is the follow up email Susan sent.

I had begun working with a Eric Shawn of Fox's America's News Headquarters. I trusted Shawn's work on ACORN and finally decided to go on TV and tell my story. This appearance had been in the works for sometime and Marcel was aware of this, so when I got the following email from Beck's Producers, I assumed that Marcel had arranged it and gave her the back story.

Megyn Kelly interviewed me the next day, and Beck wanted me for that evening. Things went a little haywire because, as a novice, I did not know that by accepting Megyn's invitation that I would upset Beck's producer Susan, and what followed is a clear indication of how alliances can compromise the integrity of a story. Just two short months after the March show with Cleta Mitchell, where I declined to be interviewed, but provided important background on the AIG bus tour, Beck began warning others to stay away from me in favor of the ACORN 8, including Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg7eQK64Ymw

Despite Beck's slight, even he can not deny that I have provided much evidence connecting ACORN/Project Vote and Obama. The problem with me seemed to lie in the fact that Reid could not control me and make me appear on Beck at her command, and it apparently became easier to spread lies than to deal with someone who would not compromise herself for Reid's power grab. Just a month later,  Beck did not mind relying on my blog for information that would serve as the background for at least two of his shows.

SCREENSHOT

Despite the invitation being lifted from my blog and the comments to Bachmann, I managed to put my hurt feelings behind me and support Beck during a summer boycott of his advertisers by the Van Jones affiliated Color of Change.

Finally, McCray portrays himself and his ACORN 8 allies as friends of the conservative movement.

"MonCrief is featured favorably in the OGR committee report along with Karen Inman, Michael McCray, the ACORN 8 and Marcel Reid who also attended the conservative convention."

Marcel Reid is about as conservative as Max Blumenthal, who also showed up for his own purposes at CPAC 2010.

The ACORN 8 use conservatives for their own purposes and those conservatives either do not know the reality of the ACORN 8 or accept the ACORN 8 as an enemy of their enemy.

McCray goes on to state:

"We have never professed to be anti-ACORN or anti-Obama. Although many other conservative activists want us to be; which brings us back to Anita MonCrief."

"While others have waged a war of rhetoric and words against ACORN and President Obama we have focused on criminality within the association.... We have not criticized others for their activism and collaborate with those whom we share common interests; and we respectfully disengage from those who do not share our goals or approach."

@@@Add something like "That doesn't sound conservative to me."

@@@How about closing with something like: "I'm not perfect, as I've explained repeatedly [insert link to

Click here: Anita MonCrief: How This Ex-Liberal Found Fortitude and Her Way Home], but the ACORN 8's problem with me is that I do tell the truth and I rejected them last year [insert link to

Friday, October 30, 2009

How I Overcame Fear and Rejected the ACORN 8 Alternative ].

 

We've learned more this week about liberal Republican wrestling promoter Linda McMahon, a/k/a "the Wild RINO"

For one thing, we've ascertained that she must be the Pinch Sulzberger approved Republican in the field of candidates in Connecticut. On Sunday, the New York Times decided to put its candidate profile of Mrs. McMahon on page A1 

A Senate Candidate Accustomed to Being Thrown in the Ring

“I don’t think anyone should ever question Linda’s resolve or tenacity,” said Dick Ebersol, the chairman of NBC Universal Sports, who has collaborated on projects with the McMahons. “If anybody thinks she is the little woman, they are out of their minds. She put the business together.”

OK, any question who the MSM is in the tank for in this race, folks?

Jeez, you wonder what's going through Rob Simmons's head about now. All he did was spend a career in the CIA and on Capitol Hill, a decade in the CT Legislature, won a Democrat congressional district three times, and he's been obscured by someone who produced a soap opera on steroids.   

What is not going through Republican minds in Connecticut is much respect for this stuff. Just this week, a legislator from McMahon's  home town endorsed the thoughtful conservative in the field,  State Senator Sam Caligiuri

 “Representative Camillo’s endorsement is very humbling. As a relative newcomer to the political scene, Fred brings the fresh perspective of an outsider who is very much in touch with the people he represents. The Greenwich community is fortunate to have such a bright, rising star representing them in the General Assembly, and I am honored to have his support,” said Caligiuri.

And McMahon's trouble extend to the stump. Here's what a Hartford Courant political reporter said of her appearance this week in Windsor. "her delivery is about as interesting as listening to an assistant principal read the morning announcements"

On the other hand, Caligiuri's performance won praise

 I'd give Caligiuri a B+ for his engaging, lively stump speech, which told us about how he snatched Waterbury from the jaws of corruption and reminded us of his immigrant roots. He's a proud Reagan Republican and he earns points for at least mentioning the achievement gap.

One of the reasons that McMahon is having problems on the stump is she keeps having to explain why she claims to be a Republican today despite having done little in the past to demonstrate a modicum of interest in the party's agenda or principles.

Here's another story about McMahon's painful performance in Windsor.  

The tens of thousands of dollars given to the Democratic party and Emanuel is simply the cost of doing business, McMahon said Thursday night following a meeting of the candidates at a Windsor restaurant.

“I’ve been the CEO of a publicly traded company, which has given money to both Democrats and Republicans,” McMahon said.

McMahon said it had nothing to do with politics or personal beliefs. She said she has known Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ari Emanuel, for years.

Ari Emanuel runs a talent agency in Hollywood, California, which does business with WWE, she said. She said he called up and let her know his brother would be in Stamford and “may do a little arm twisting.” She said when she gave money to Emanuel, he was still a Congressman from Illinois, not the current president’s chief of staff.

OK, a billionaire who thinks throwing cash at liberal Democrats (Emanuel was getting Pelosi elected House Speaker at the time) is just a "cost of doing business" Now THERE'S a committed principled conservative if I ever heard one. Or perhaps she's a plant by her good friends the Emanuel family sent to muck up the Connecticut primary and save Chris Dodd's sorry keester.   

While we are on the topic of Rahm Emanuel and his brothers, maybe we could elicit an opinion from the Wild RINO on the topic of "death panels"....then again, she might think it's a new form of steel cage bout 

Maybe subsidizing leftists makes friends for Linda in Hollywood, the White House and with the New York Times, but it most certaintly is not endearing her to her opponents,

"For me it’s not just business,” former U.S. Congressman Rob Simmons said.

Simmons said McMahon’s donations undermined his efforts in 2006 and allowed his opponents, who are now expanding government to win elected office.

Simmons wasn't done

“If donating tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats was ‘the cost of doing business’ for Linda McMahon and her professional wrestling empire, one wonders what she aimed to get in return for her generosity. This sort of influence peddling would not make her ‘a different kind of Senator.’ It would make her exactly the same as the one we have.”

Sam Caligiuri wasn't very pleased with this lame effort to defend the indefensible, either. His spokeswomen issued this statement.

“What we’re hearing from Republicans as we travel around the state is that they are insulted by Ms. McMahon working against their efforts to elect Republicans, then trying to sweep these personal contributions under the rug as if no one would ever notice.  Pro wrestling might be fake, but this practice of choosing expediency over principle is the very real way in which Washington currently works, and is exactly what Sam is fighting to fix.  If McMahon is already a part of the problem, it is hard to believe she can ever become part of the solution,” said Grossman

Linda McMahon says she'll be a "different kind of Senator", but if that means she'll be a liberal glad-handing gazillionaire there's quite enough already, don'tcha think?  We need someone who cares more about folks in Hamden than Hollywood.

There's nothing "different" about hypocrisy in politicians, Linda

====UPDATE====

In this morning's' New London Day, a columnist suggests that McMahon will run a third party bid for the Senate similar to that of her political mentor, former liberal Connecticut Governor and WWE Board member Lowell Weicker

If this wouldn't be a premeditated sabotage of the effort to oust Chris Dodd, I don't know what else would be

First, a big shout out to my buds @ The New York Times. While the "Paper of Record" chose not to use my name or the name of RedState's Moe Lane we were both quoted verbatim as the authoriative voice on what ought to be done about the "Cap & Tr8-ors"

Thanks for giving this a wider audience

 "I don't think one can minimize why this was a truly hideous vote for those eight folks," a commentator on the conservative blog the "Next Right" wrote. "Here we had a chance to derail the Obama socialism train and restore the Republican party to policy relevance, and these guys bailed out so they could get a nice mention in the NY Times."

Guess it still feels like John Mellencamp sang in "Small Town" "hey, look at who's in the big town"

I digress

Here's the choice for the Cap &Tr8-ors

former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Lieberman has come out against Obama's "public option" health care scheme.

“If we create a public option, the public is going to end up paying for it,” Lieberman said following an hour-long confab with public-health experts at the Ashmun Street community center of the Monterey Homes public housing complex. “That’s a cost we can’t take on"

I've disagreed with Joe frequently, but on this one he is clearly part of the "reality-based community".  Evidently "Countrywide Kent" Conrad is also not sipping the public option kool aid either.

So, here's the deal for Rep. Bono Mack, Castle, Kirk, Lance, LoBiondo, Reichert and Smith (I omitted McHugh on purpose; he's already been bought).

 You can go with Joe Lieberman and publicly break with the central element of Obamacare.  

Or you can get sent to the ice floe.

Choose Wisely. (if you you choose poorly, this will do you more good than Pac $$ and endorsements)

In today's New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman belatedly notices major changes that have been occuring in the Middle East for at least five years:

[S]omething is going on in the Middle East today that is very new. Pull up a chair; this is going to be interesting.

What we saw in the Lebanese elections, where the pro-Western March 14 movement won a surprise victory over the pro-Iranian Hezbollah coalition, what we saw in the ferment for change exposed by the election campaign in Iran, and what we saw in the provincial elections in Iraq, where the big pro-Iranian party got trounced, is the product of four historical forces that have come together to crack open this ossified region.

First is the diffusion of technology. The Internet, blogs, YouTube and text messaging via cellphones, particularly among the young — 70 percent of Iranians are under 30 — is giving Middle Easterners cheap tools to communicate horizontally, to mobilize politically and to criticize their leaders acerbically, outside of state control. It is also enabling them to monitor vote-rigging by posting observers with cellphone cameras.

I knew something had changed when I sat down for coffee on Hamra Street in Beirut last week with my 80-year-old friend and mentor, Kemal Salibi, one of Lebanon’s greatest historians, and he told me about his Facebook group!

The evening of Lebanon’s election, I went to the Beirut home of Saad Hariri, the leader of the March 14 coalition, to interview him. In a big living room, he had a gigantic wall-size television broadcasting the results. And alongside the main TV were 16 smaller flat-screen TVs with electronic maps of Lebanon. Hariri’s own election experts were working on laptops and breaking down every vote from every religious community, village by village, and projecting them on the screens.

Well, Mr. Friedman, it's good of you to notice what's been going on in the region for several years now; it's better late than never.  Where this story gets interesting, however, is to whom Mr. Friedman (unlike Fareed Zakaria) gives credit for this monumental development:

for real politics to happen you need space. There are a million things to hate about President Bush’s costly and wrenching wars. But the fact is, in ousting Saddam in Iraq in 2003 and mobilizing the U.N. to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2005, he opened space for real democratic politics that had not existed in Iraq or Lebanon for decades. “Bush had a simple idea, that the Arabs could be democratic, and at that particular moment simple ideas were what was needed, even if he was disingenuous,” said Michael Young, the opinion editor of The Beirut Daily Star. “It was bolstered by the presence of a U.S. Army in the center of the Middle East. It created a sense that change was possible, that things did not always have to be as they were.”

When I reported from Beirut in the 1970s and 1980s, I covered coups and wars. I never once stayed up late waiting for an election result. Elections in the Arab world were a joke — literally. They used to tell this story about Syria’s president, Hafez al-Assad. After a Syrian election, an aide came in and told Assad: “Mr. President, you won 99.8 percent of the votes. It means that only two-tenths of one percent of Syrians didn’t vote for you. What more could ask for?”

Assad answered: “Their names!”

Lebanese, by contrast, just waited up all night for their election results — no one knew what they’d be.

In other words, President Bush's grand strategy for winning the global war on terror is working, albeit more slowly than anyone predicted.  Of course, as in any war, there have been setbacks along the way:

the Bush team opened a hole in the wall of Arab autocracy but did a poor job following through. In the vacuum, the parties most organized to seize power were the Islamists — Hezbollah in Lebanon; pro-Al Qaeda forces among Iraqi Sunnis, and the pro-Iranian Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Mahdi Army among Iraqi Shiites; the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan; Hamas in Gaza.

Fortunately, each one of these Islamist groups overplayed their hand by imposing religious lifestyles or by dragging their societies into confrontations the people didn’t want. This alienated and frightened more secular, mainstream Arabs and Muslims and has triggered an “awakening” backlash among moderates from Lebanon to Pakistan to Iran. The Times’s Robert Mackey reported that in Tehran “chants of ‘Death to America’ ” at rallies for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week were answered by chants of “Death to the Taliban — in Kabul and Tehran” at a rally for his opponent, Mir Hussein Moussavi.

To those of us who were paying attention, of course, this was apparent back in 2007.  Finally, Friedman closes with a mush brained sop to his liberal readers:

along came President Barack Hussein Obama. Arab and Muslim regimes found it very useful to run against George Bush. The Bush team demonized them, and they demonized the Bush team. Autocratic regimes, like Iran’s, drew energy and legitimacy from that confrontation, and it made it very easy for them to discredit anyone associated with America. Mr. Obama’s soft power has defused a lot of that. As result, “pro-American” is not such an insult anymore.

On the other hand, maybe what's going on right now is the result of a process that was set off five years ago that we have become increasingly irrelevant to over time.  FWIW, Bush probably was too hands off in 2005 and 2006, which probably did allow the Islamists more room to make their move than we had to allow them.  At the same time, doubling down in Iraq in 2007 definately convinced the locals we were there to stay.  Now, in 2009, the process seems to have taken on a life of it's own.

 

Over the next few years, this will be interesting....

I hope this helps.

That is all.Cahnman out.

When do you know your energy policy is on precarious footing? If you are Barack Obama, it is when your most trusted rubber stamp media voice is also calling your bluff.

New York Times Editorial: Follow the Science on Yucca

The administration’s budget for the Energy Department raises a disturbing question. Is President Obama, who has pledged to restore science to its rightful place in decision making, now prepared to curtail the scientific analyses needed to determine whether a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be safe to build?...

...Before approving this truncated budget, Congress needs to ensure that it contains enough money to sustain a genuine licensing effort. We have no idea whether Yucca Mountain would be a suitable burial ground for nuclear wastes. But after the government has labored for more than two decades and spent almost $10 billion to get the site ready for licensing hearings, it would be foolish not to complete the process with a good-faith evaluation. Are Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid afraid of what the science might tell them?

Read the whole thing.

 

Crossposted at Conservatives for Science

Two stories emerged this week that demonstrate the absolute intellectual bankruptcy of the media reform agenda. It is just another attempt to gain power for the left.

A Huffington Post writer argued that Clear Channel and Rupert Murdoch's media empire should be broken up by the FCC and the DOJ's anti-trust division:

The Obama Administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a revivified Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice could pursue all sorts of reforms that would open up the nation's political discourse. A few minor changes in the rules and regulations governing the public airwaves and corporate media consolidation could transform the political economy of the media sector. Such reforms would make it more difficult for networks to shove people like Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer down our throats because enhanced competition would mean that rivals might be broadcasting more attractive fare. Breaking up Rupert Murdoch's empire (starting with revoking the waiver that allows him to own the New York Post), and busting up Clear Channel's monopoly of radio would be a good place to start. Congress, working with the Obama Administration, could then revisit the odious Telecommunications Act of 1996 and remove or rework its worst provisions. Look at what the media monopolies did during the Bush years. The Bush Administration never could have lied us into going to war in Iraq if it were not for the duplicity of the corporate media.

But ... Nancy Pelosi argues that the New York Times should be exempted from anti-trust laws.

At 5:19 pm I received an e-mail entitled "Breaking News Alert" from the Washington Post: 

Poll: Most Americans Back Obama on Stimulus, Mortgage Plans Large majorities support president's $787 billion economic stimulus package and $75 billion plan for stemming mortgage foreclosures, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Obama's bipartisan support, however, has eroded substantially in the past month, with just 37 percent of Republicans approving of how he has done his job. 

At 7:02 pm, a fellow contributor here at The Next Right received a similarly titled email from The New York Times: 

Poll Shows Broad Support for Obama's LeadershipPresident Obama is benefiting from high levels of confidence among Americans about his leadership, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.A majority of people surveyed in both parties said Mr. Obama was striving to work in a bipartisan way, but most Americans faulted Republicans for their response to the president.Mr. Obama will deliver his first address to Congress on Tuesday evening against a backdrop of deep economic anxiety among the public, with worries spanning party, class and regional divides.

This is "breaking news?" That the media released a poll? Are bottom lines that pressed that both the Gray Lady and the Post feel it necessary to spam their readers on a daily basis with mundane tidbits that are most definitely not breaking news? These e-mails get sent almost daily, and this is only the worst infraction, but certainly not the only one.

As an online professional, I'd say that these e-mails break all the rules and break trust with readers, enticing people to click on the presumption that something extraordinary has happened -- maybe a fighting has unexpectedly broken out somewhere, or a notable historic figure has died. Instead, it's just more puffery from news outlets who, having failed to sell real newspapers or enlightening content to their readers, resort to hawking t-shirts and commemorative plaques of the November 5 and January 21st editions. 

 

Who should the New York Times pick to replace Bill Kristol on their op-ed pages?  Unlike Patrick Ruffini, I think Rush Limbaugh would be a horrifying choice for many of the same reasons he didn't work out as a football commentator.

There are many better options for the New York Times.  On the chance that the New York Times is undecided and looking for advice, let me name some of the people I think would be exceptional contributors, both to the New York Times and to our national political discourse.

I would start with a few of the people mentioned by David Brooks in a recent NYTimes column about a group of smart, young writers. Will Wilkinson, Julian Sanchez, and James Poulos are fascinating and thoughtful writers. Matt Continetti is an exceptional story-teller.  Ramesh Ponnuru approaches policy as an intellectual, rather than a mad partisan.

Brooks also mentioned Megan McArdle, now writing at The Atlantic. Unpredictable, intellectual, policy-oriented, witty, with a brain the size of a planet.  If there a better public intellectual for our day, I don't know who it is.  In Megan McArdle, I see the potential to transform the Right; to tear down the sacred cows and rebuild a much more coherent, effective movement.

I also read an article at BeliefNet recommending Josh Trevino for the role. Josh and I don't always see eye to eye on issues, but he's an exceptional writer who always makes me think.  I would be very pleased to see the NYTimes select a superlative writer like Trevino.

It might also be interesting to see the NYTImes pick up James Lileks or Mark Steyn, each of whom  has the sharpest wit and the most devastating turn of phase.  Don't undermestimate the power of ridicule as a tool of persuasion. 

We have a small army of showmen, agitators, bomb-throwers, partisans and hacks.  Enough.  It is a measure of the health of the Right that we have gone from Bill Buckley to Bill O'Reilly,  Our goal should be to develop and promote our best public intellectuals, our smartest writers, and our most perceptive analysts.   Like those mentioned above,