Respond or Not to the Lies of an ACORN 8-supporting Internet Stalker?
Even if hell does freeze over, Volpe should not expect to win any attention from Ms. Malkin.
Stalker (Urban Dictionary): "Real stalkers seek out beautiful, interesting, and often famous members of the attractive gender."
Michelle Malkin highly qualifies as a stalkee.
Unfortunately, the Internet provides an opportunity for sick persons to stalk celebrities. A disturbed person may not only take that opportunity to try to connect, but also proceed to tell scurrilous lies in a perverse and pathetic attempt to win a stalkee's attention and then tantrum like a spoiled child when the attention desperately craved is not given.
Blogger Mike Volpe has been using the Internet to stalk Ms Malkin as well as to promote the radical ACORN 8.
Neither silliness, nor scurrilous lies, nor envious complaints that Ms. Malkin's books were profitable succeeded for Volpe.
Unsurprisingly, Ms. Malkin has not responded to Volpe's overtures.
First, Ms. Malkin has focused on the truthfulness and significance of ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief's revelations and Volpe is not interested in that. Volpe: "I never offered an opinion on whether or not Moncrief is or isn't telling the truth. I don't know or care. That's beside the point...."
Second, Volpe is perversely obsessed with Ms. Malkin. Lest anyone doubt either the perverse nature of Volpe's obsession with Ms. Malkin or his jealousy that she focused on Ms. MonCrief while ignoring him, Volpe's response to the sole posted comment by a reader of Volpe's "The Culture of Corruption Between Michelle Malkin[,] Michael Gaynor, and Anita Moncrief II" said it all..ABOUT VOLPE: "As for Malkin, I want her to acknowledge what she did, explain herself, and not stop using the term whistle blower because I pointed it out. What does it say about someone when they get into bed with a sociopath?"
If Volpe had simply been silly, allowing his silliness to stand unrefuted would be best.
But Volpe is perverse and he has repeatedly presented falsehoods as facts and ranted about alleged "corruption" and "unholiness" of Ms. Malkin, ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief and me.
Volpe's "reports" are largely fictitious accounts masquerading as factual.
If all Volpe readers necessarily would appreciate that Volpe is not to be believed, I too would ignore him.
But persons who automatically receive links to any Internet article mentioning ACORN or Ms. MonCrief may be deceived by him, so I responded to set the record straight, much to Volpe's consternation.
History teaches that big lies may be believed.
Richard Belzer, in UFOs, JFK, and Elvis: Conspiracies You Don't Have To Be Crazy To Believe: "If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap."
That thought inspires liars with personal and/or political agendas.
Should those liars be rebuked and refuted or ignored?
Responding to a liar gives that liar attention obviously craved and that liar may be incorrigible, but not responding runs the risk that others will be deceived because silence often is taken to signify acquiescence.
A big lesson of the Fort Hood massacre is that signs of the assassin's radicalization were not noticed and/or acted upon. Chalk up that horror story to the effect of evil propaganda not effectively refuted.
Big Lies do pose a big problem.
Wikipedia: "The Big Lie...is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf for a lie so 'colossal' that no one would believe that someone 'could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously'."
But history teaches that liars are willing to impudently distort the truth. For example, Alger Hiss died without admitting and it was not until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the release of KGB files that some deceived by Hiss's lies finally realized that he was a liar instead of...A VICTIM.
"...Joseph Goebbels put forth a slightly different theory which has come to be more commonly associated with the expression big lie. Goebbels wrote the following paragraph in an article dated 12 January 1941, 16 years after Hitler's first use of the phrase big lie, entitled 'Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik', translated 'From Churchill's Lie Factory'. It was published in Die Zeit ohne Beispiel.
That is of course rather painful for those involved. One should not as a rule reveal one's secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
Goebbels' bias against the English is notorious, but it is true that there are people who lie big and stick to it, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.
ACORN is an excellent example of an organization based on a big lie that has stuck to it even after it was ridiculous to do so.
"The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
The ACORN 8 seem to have been trying to follow those rules. They have not received the public attention they need to succeed in their campaign to take control of ACORN, but they have been trying, while concealing their faults and wrongs, posing at the alternative, rejecting blame, trying to concentrate on one enemy at a time, and repeating a big lie in the hope that "enough people will sooner or later believe it."
On the homepage of their website (www.acorn-8.net), the ACORN 8 declare: "Voter fraud, voter registration fraud, unpaid taxes, unfair labor practices, etc, while tantalizing are not the problem, but merely symptoms of ACORN’s corrupt leadership."
If no one is bold and the truth is not told, then, instead of being thwarted, the evil plans of Big Liars may unfold.
With "MsPlaced Democrat" dead, ACORN 8 leader Marcel Reid seems to be stuck with blogger Mike Volpe to front for her.
Ralph Waldo Emerson famously opined that "[a] foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Volpe is foolish, but inconsistent.
Volpe obviously is eager to have Ms. Malkin write to and about him and she obviously has not done so. So he resorted to increasingly outrageous name calling to woo her. (I told you he's foolish.)
Twice I have refuted his false charges in writing, so he responded by calling me "a side show," "a distraction" and an "attack dog" and Ms. Malkin "a coward."
In his latest screed, Volpe insisted that I am "unreadable and insignificant" and
"do[n't] matter." Then he proceeded to add an "epilogue" about me to that screed. (I told you he's not consistent.)
As usual, Volpe guessed at facts instead of ascertaining them and guessed wrong. For example, he said I did my previous article "very early in the morning which is interesting." Actually, for those interested, I put it at www.webcommentary.com before midnight, for posting in the normal course today, since I already had posted an article on Sunday.
Michelle Malkin can't fight her own battles. Instead, she has Michael Gaynor attack for her. That's cowardly. That's her M.O."
In fact, Ms. Malkin has never asked me to fight any of her battles or to "attack for her." Like her, I write what I choose to write when I choose to write it. Unlike her, I don't have some pervert posting that I am no. 1 of his list of conservatives he most wants to rape or a strange man who admittedly wasn't "cool in school" craving my attention.
Even if hell does freeze over, Volpe should not expect to win any attention from Ms. Malkin.
Volpe: "I wouldn't call Anita Moncrief a whistle blower under any circumstances.... Gaynor refers to an article I wrote months ago, and I simply didn't know her whole story then."
That's a foolish inconsistency. Volpe not only did call Ms. MonCrief a whistleblower in that article, but quoted that ACORN 8 calling her a whistleblower too! What changed? The ACORN 8 was exposed and joined its ideological ally, ACORN, in trying to discredit Ms. MonCrief. Volpe's now claiming that Ms. MonCrief "committed theft and fraud and wrote about it in admission," but what Ms. MonCrief actually did, and admitted doing, was putting some personal expenses on a company credit card. That was used as a reason to terminate her employment, but she testified about it in October of 2008, long before Volpe's article.
Volpe: "Frankly, this is going round and round at this point, it's boring having a back and forth with Michael Gaynor since his work is unreadable."
But despite his alleged boredom, Volpe updated his screed.
Among other things, Volpe added: "ACORN 8 are all current and former board members of ACORN. They are true believers in the cause of ACORN. In fact, to this day, they want to see ACORN reformed not destroyed."
Volpe's right about them being true believers. They are radicals who truly believe in subversive ACORN's radical political agenda and they don't want it destroyed. They want to run it in place of those currently running it. (And Volpe describes Ms. MonCrief as opportunistic!)
Volpe: "...this ideology didn't stop them from taking on the leadership of ACORN."
RIGHT! It's a personal battle for power, not a dispute over political purposes.
Volpe: "They all risked their positions on the board of ACORN to challenge the leadership for a series of crimes and wrongdoings they discovered. So, MGM would have us believe that the same group of people that risked their place on the board of ACORN to expose its corruption are now simultaneously hiding a key piece of ACORN corruption because that would be bad for the president. They are blinded by ideology. Ideology didn't blind them from taking on ACORN but it is from taking on the President. Some of ACORN 8 have been associated with ACORN for two plus decades. That long history didn't stop them from putting ideology aside to take on ACORN. Yet, these same people can't bring themselves to take on the president even though that would take on ACORN as well."
Documents not only speak for themselves, but expose the ACORN 8 and disprove Volpe's claim that the ACORN 8 are not covering up themselves. Perhaps Volpe should ask Ms. Reid for documents, including minutes, the joint defense agreement and the drafts of the complaint filed by the ACORN 8 with the United States Justice Department on January 7, 2009.
Finally, Volpe finds it hard to fathom that while I have never met Ms. Malkin, I have emailed her.
Ms. Malkin makes her email address public and surely many who have emailed her have not met her. Besides myself, there is, I believe, Volpe! (He's also emailed me, and I haven't met him either.)
Volpe: "...there's only two possibilities. Malkin doesn't know Gaynor. In that case, she quoted someone she doesn't know, didn't identify him, and didn't allow the party, Michael McCray, Gaynor was attacking to respond. On the other hand, the three of them are in constant contact and in that case they have been orchestrating and coordinating these attacks all along. Pick your corruption."
Volpe's "facts" are wrong and his "logic" is flawed: (1) Ms. Malkin is familiar with my work on ACORN, as the acknowledgement pages of Culture of Corruption attest and posts in her ACORN Watch at www.michellemalkin.com; (2) it does not follow that we have met, and we have not; (3) Ms. Malkin previously DID identify me in some of her ACORN Watch posts, providing links to relevant articles of mine and my brief biography, and she need not do so whenever she sees fit to quote me; (4) I have never been in "constant contact" with Ms. Malkin; and (5) Ms. Malkin has never
"orchestrated" or "coordinated" an "attack" with me.
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.