Topic category:  Government/Politics

Do you believe what you what to believe or do you eventually accept the truth even when it isn't what you want to believe?

ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief is young, and she was naive But she eventually accepted the need for the whole truthh about ACORN and President Obama to be generally known and she will dare to share because she does care.

If you are still brainwashed by President Obama, blame President Obama, ACORN and the liberal media establishment (especially The New York Times).

Don't blame Ms. MonCrief, or me, or Michelle Malkin.

Ms. Malkin is putting out the story that much of the rest of the media didn't and won't. Go to www.michellemalkin.com and check her posts under "ACORN Watch."

You learned about important parts of the ugly story since last Mother's Day if you heard Ms. MonCrief on Fox News with Eric Shawn, Megyn Kelly and O'Reilly and you've become more informed if you've followed O'Reilly and Beck covering ACORN in recent months.

But if you can handle the whole truth, read Ms. Malkin.

Last October, when Ms. MonCrief contacted me and told me what really went on inside ACORN and how involved then presidential candidate Obama and his presidential campaign were with ACORN, the corruption was easy to believe, but one aspect of the situation were hard for me to understand: Ms. MonCrief still wanted Obama to win, but she was telling truth that necessarily would hurt her preferred candidate as she ardently hoped that her doing so would NOT hurt him.

Understanding women can be very challenging, if not impossible: Ms. MonCrief was eagerly hoping for change (but she didn't get the kind of change for which she was hoping).

In an email to New York Times national correspondent Stephanie Strom (for whom Ms. MonCrief was a confidential source from July 2008 into October 2008, when "higher up" at The Times had Ms. Strom "stand down" on an ACORN/Obama campaign expose to protect Obama ), Ms. MonCrief attributed her loyalty to Obama to her "blackness."

September 7, 2008 MonCrief to Strom email excerpt: "I mentioned before that I had info that my blackness would not let me confirm, but since [Michelle] Malkin is all over it, I will tell you of constatnt contract between the Obama and Clinton campaign and [ACORN affiliate] Project Vote. I even have the donor lists from Clinton and Obama. Malkin also exposed the money connection and I was aware of that. I am sorry, but I believe in Obama and did not want to help the republicans."

September 7, 2008 Strom to MonCrief email reply excerpt: "Am also onto the Obama connection, sadly. Would love the donor lists. As for helping the Repubs, they're already onto this like white on rice. SIGH."

Whether due to deliberate decision or ineptitude, the liberal media establishment effectively kept the real story off the public radar screen and let Obama deflect suspicion during the last presidential debate with a blatant lie.Obama:

"...with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names.

"It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.

"Now, the reason I think that it's important to just get these facts out is because the allegation that Senator McCain has continually made is that somehow my associations are troubling."

A few days later, I wrote: "Obama is right...about the importance of facts."

But instead of facts, Obama fiction, with mainstream media assistance, carried the day.

Now we have more Obama fiction designed to make the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court seem wonderful instead of just what ACORN and ACORN ally La Raza want.

"White House Fiction Piece on Sonia Sotomayor ," by Wendy E. Long, Judicial Confirmation Network counsel, June 3, 2009

"RE: White House Fiction Piece on Sonia Sotomayor

"Late yesterday, it came to light that the White House Counsel's office had produced a memo and given it to Republican Senators as Judge Sonia Sotomayor made her first round of courtesy calls in the Senate.

"The novella, entitled 'Sonia Sotomayor: A Nonideological and Restrained Judge,' tried to spin Judge Sotomayor as a proponent of judicial restraint: essentially, to present her as another Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito.

"The memo is laughable. Even Judge Sotomayor's liberal interest group supporters obviously don't take it seriously or they would be shutting down the White House switchboard with calls of outrage. It reflects the growing arrogance of a White House that thinks it can say anything it wants, even if the statements bear no relation to the facts. The Obama White House seems to think it can fool all of the people, all of the time.

"The memo quotes from Sotomayor's 1998 Senate questionnaire submitted for her Second Circuit nomination, touting it as expressing 'the importance of judicial restraint.' Prepared remarks submitted to Senators cannot erase the mountain of contrary evidence in Sotomayor's speeches, writings, and judicial opinions that indicate she, like President Obama, thinks it is appropriate, and indeed a positive good, for judges to decide cases based upon their own personal characteristics, experiences, political views and biases.

"Judicial restraint is the polar opposite of this: it says that judge's personal views and characteristics must be set aside in order for a judge to rule impartially based upon the law alone. Sotomayor has actually denied that this is even possible.

"The memo also claims that on the Second Circuit she has 'developed a record as a moderate who agrees with her conservative colleagues far more frequently than she disagrees with them.'

"As proof of this, the memo states: 'Since joining the Second Circuit, she has participated in 434 published panel decisions where the panel included at least one judge appointed by a Republican president. In those cases, she agreed with the result favored by the Republican appointees in 413 cases 95% of the time.'

"It appears that the White House counsel's office did not keep the files from Senator Obama's office, specifically his public explanation of why he voted against Chief Justice Roberts. Obama said that 'while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before the court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.'

"Putting aside that the 95% figure trivializes the serious differences in the two very approaches to judging, the 95% of cases the White House refers to now as its proof point are the same 95% that Senator Obama and Candidate Obama referred to as irrelevant.

"I very much doubt that any of the intended audience of this memo GOP Senators will buy into this fantasy that Sonia Sotomayor is a proponent of judicial restraint. They remember that their old Senate colleague, Barack Obama, tried to filibuster Justice Sam Alito, and voted against both Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, precisely because that was their approach to the law. Obama explicitly rejected judicial restraint during his presidential campaign. Now asks for Republican Senators' votes on the pretense that he has picked a nominee who practices it?

"What is really troubling is the snow job that the White House is attempting on the American people, who deserve an honest airing of the differences between the Obama-Sotomayor view of the law and the Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas approach to the Constitution and the role of the Court. If President Obama kept his promise of transparency, there would be an enlightening public debate about the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system, like the debate that started in the 1980s between Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese. It is the same debate at issue today, and it is a debate worth having. The American people deserve to have these issues made crisp, to evaluate the competing philosophies not to be deceived and double-talked into thinking there is no difference between Obama Supreme Court nominees and the Justices who practice judicial restraint. That is not transparency, it is cynical manipulation."

EXACTLY!

But Judge Sotomayor's elevation to America's highest court will not be thwarted until it is generally known that the truth about ACORN and Obama was grossly distorted.

The American people needed and deserved "honest airing" before the last presidential election, but they did not get it.

Until they learn the whole ugly truth about how "the ACORN man" became the President of the United States, DON'T expect his plan to remake America with Far Left policies and appointees to be thwarted.

To Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and anyone else with an important platform: interview at length Ms. MonCrief, or else Americans will suffer even more grief.

Michael J. Gaynor

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.