Topic category:  Government/Politics

On October 2, 2009, Fox News broadcast a special titled "The Truth About ACORN."

Like the "60 Minutes" expose in the Duke case, it was prepared over months and finally released in October.

Like the "60 Minutes" expose, it provided much important information about corruption, but avoided calling a Democrat scandal...a Democrat scandal. The prosecution of the Duke Three by a Democrat, Michael B. Nifong, desperate to be elected Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney and dependent upon winning the bulk of the black vote in a Democrat Party to avoid losing in a three-way race to Frieda Black, a white woman whom he had sent packing after he was appointed district attorney by the Democrat governor. His task was even more formidable because a black layer, Keith Bishop, also was running. ACORN is a Democrat scandal, but even Fox News is wary of showing that.

Like the "60 Minutes" expose, I announced that the ACORN expose was coming:

"The Upcoming Fox News Specials on ACORN (August 17, 2009) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=090817):

"...expect a Fox News special on ACORN after Congress returns from its summer vacation.

"That was signaled back on July 1, 2009 by Charles Norcross, chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association, when he appeared on 'Beck' and 'discussed ACORN, its role in the Minnesota Senate Race, and RNLA's comprehensive efforts to expose the truth on the organization's activities' (to quote the notice of that appearance on the RNLA website, www.rnla.org)."

The Good

Megyn Kelly, a talented attorney as well as a blonde bombshell and mother-to-be

Ms Kelly hosted the special and interviewed now disgraced ACORN founder and Chief Organizer for 38 years (1970 to July 2008). When Ms,. Kelly is immersed in the subject, she is superb and a much better choice than egotistical entertainers like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. Ms. Kelly was immersed in the truth about ACORN and even a clever con man with a good ol' country boy style could not fend off Ms. Kelly's exquisite efforts to expose the truth about ACORN and him.

Fortunately, Ms. Kelly interviewed Rathke twice for the special. Rathke was promoting his book, Citizen Wealth, and unaware that James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles were working on their sting against ACORN that became a national sensation and consented to the first interview in blissful ignorance. After the sting, he agreed to a second interview, to try to mitigate the damage, but he would have been better off never having met Ms. Kelly. Game, set and match to her. In the duel of persons from whom charm oozes, Ms. Kelly easily wins and Rathke helplessly loses.

Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Kurtz was interviewed about ACORN's role in the great financial crisis. Kurtz understands ACORN and clearly explained ACORN's integral involvement in the great financial crisis that propelled Barack Obama into the White House.

As I wrote in Beware Obama, “The Senator from ACORN” (October 1, 2008) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081001):

"If Obama moves into the White House in 2009, it will be because his involvement with ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was not generally appreciated and NOT because Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a National Review Online contributing editor, did not give fair warning.

"On May 29, 2008, Mr. Kurtz shared his 'Inside Obama's Acorn, By their fruits ye shall know them.'

"Mr. Kurtz warned in that article, 'if you're looking for the piece of the puzzle that confirms and explains Obama's network of radical ties, gather your Acorns this spring. Or next winter, you may just be left watching the "President from Acorn" at his feast.

Republican National Lawyers Association

David Norcross, Chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) and the person who publicly predicted the demise of ACORN during a July 1, 2009 appearance of "Beck,", was not mentioned in, much less interviewed during, an ACORN special that showed him to be a seer instead of a simpleton.

RNLA itself was not mentioned either, but Heather Heidelbaugh, RNLA first vice president, was so identified and shown both testifying before Congress about ACORN last March and being interviewed for the special.

For that glorious opportunity abd priceless publicity, Ms. Heidelbaugh is indebted to Ms. MonCrief.

On October 21, 2008, God greatly blessed Ms. Heidelbaugh, then the lawyer for the Pennsylvania GOP in an ACORN voter registration case. Early that day, "higher up" at The New York Times killed an Obama/ACORN expose that reporter Stephanie Strom had been working on with Ms. MonCrief , ordering Ms. Strom to "stand down." Ms. MonCrief responded courageously to that outrage by stepping up herself: she contacted Ms. Heidelbaugh and volunteered to be a witness in her case. Ms. MonCrief realized that Ms. MonCrief not only was an authentic whistleblower, but that she had critical knowledge and proof. It was Ms. MonCrief's testimony that made the Pennsylvania case especially noteworthy (as readers will readily appreciate when they read to the end of this article).

With Ms. MonCrief as her star witness, Ms. Heidelbaugh was partly successful in the case and parlayed that into an appearance as a witness before a House Judiciary subcommittee (with Ms. MonCrief at her side) last March and then interviews on "The O'Reilly Factor" at the end of March (alone) and in June (with Ms. MonCrief).

The special gave the very fortunate Ms. Heidelbaugh her due, but, oddly, her star witness was not mentioned in the part of her interview that was chosen for broadcast (or even elsewhere in the special).

The Bad

No Michelle Malkin

A Fox special on ACORN without Ms. Malkin (a Fox contributor) is strange.

As I explained in "The Answer Is...Michelle Malkin's ACORN Reporting (June 22, 2009) (http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=090622):

"The question is, why did ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief, then a very liberal Democrat who would trudge through the rain with her two-year baby on Election Day 2008 to vote for Obama, decide last September to confirm the improper relationship between ACORN and the Obama campaign to New York Times national correspondent Stephanie Strom (for whom Ms. MonCrief has been a confidential source since last July)?

"Last July Ms. MonCrief contacted Ms. Strom, because she was willing to expose wrongdoing at ACORN. She wanted things at ACORN set right, but she did not want the spotlight. Also, she did not want to hurt then candidate Obama, in whom she had placed her hope for a better future.

"The answer is contained in the extensive email exchange between Ms. MonCrief and Ms. Strom.

"Ms. Malkin had written an article reporting an $800,000 Obama campaign payment to ACORN through CSI.

"On September 7, 2008, Ms. MonCrief emailed Ms. Strom this link to that article: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/22/acorn-watch-pt-11-obama-hid-800000 payment-to-acorn-through-citizen-services-inc/.

"After providing that link, Ms. MonCrief wrote: 'I mentioned before that I had info that my blackness would not let me confirm, but since Malkin is all over it, i will tell you of constant contact between the Obama and Clinton campaign[s] and 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 [R]epublicans.'"

This year Ms. MonCrief and Ms. Malkin connected. To appreciate the result of that connection, read chapter 8 in Ms. Malkin's best selling Culture of Corruption, the ACORN Watch section of www.michellemalkin.com and Ms. MonCrief's posts in the Green Room of www.hotair.com.

As I put it in Michelle Malkin Exposes Obama's Culture of Corruption, Extols ACORN Whistleblower Anita MonCrief (July 29, 2009) (http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=090729):

"What is needed is for the whole truth to become publicly known and the law to be enforced, for the sake of the United States of America as a whole, not the promotion of any special interest at the expense of the truth and the rule of law.

"For that to happen, people need to know what Ms. MonCrief learned.

"Ms. MonCrief has been sharing and Ms. Malkin has been reporting powerfully, both in her new book and at www.michellemalkin.com under ACORN Watch.

"These ladies are fighting for America, and they deserve our support."

No Matthew Vadum

Vadum was not included in the special, even though he publicly released the Kingsley Report discussed during the special and is very important.

Vadum's description at www.BigGovernment.com (presumably approved by him) makes that crystal clear:

"Matthew Vadum is a senior editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank that studies the politics of philanthropy with a special focus on left-wing advocacy groups.

"Vadum is an expert on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and has written somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 feature articles on the group and hundreds of blog posts. His groundbreaking research on ACORN was praised and cited by Michelle Malkin in her New York Times bestseller, 'Culture of Corruption.' Malkin credits Vadum with being one of two people in the nation with the 'foresight and insight in reporting on the [ACORN] story when no one else would.' Vadum's work is also cited in David Freddoso's New York Times bestseller, 'The Case Against Barack Obama,' and in John Fund's 'Stealing Elections' (second edition).

Full disclosure: Ms. Malkin, in the Acknowledgements pages of her book, gave "special thanks to Anita MonCrief for her enormous courage and vigilance on ACORN corruption--and to Mike Gaynor [note: yes, me] and Matthew Vadum for [our] foresight and insight into reporting on the story when no one else would."

A misleadingly favorable portrayal of Marcel Reid

Ms. Reid is the radical head of the ACORN 8 that's trying to wrest control of ACORN from the current control group.

Like Rathke, Ms. Reid speaks calmly and cleverly.

But, like Obama and Rathke, Ms. Reid cannot bear close scrutiny.

For a long time Beck' been warning about the danger posed by "progressives."

He's right to do so.

Beck's pointed out that evidence of what kind of President Barack Obama would be was findable before Election Day 2008.

He's right about that too.

But the liberal media establishment was not scrutinizing and sharing and there was widespread hope for good change and an assumption of goodness, so Obama was uninspected and elected by most voters.

Sean Hannity might have stopped the Obama candidacy. He focused on Obama's Reverend Wright connection in March 2007, but he did not obtain the videotapes of Reverend Wright's "greatest hits" until a year later, by then too late.

Hillary Clinton has one more reason to hate Hannity!

Ms. MonCrief might have stopped Obama's march to the White House in the fall of 2008, but she then was "liberal," supported Obama while opposing the ACORN control group and wanted her information about ACORN corruption (even including the illicit relationship between ACORN and the Obama campaign) to be reported by a liberal organization, such as The New York Times, ABC and CNN and they either preferred to cover it up or not to believe it.

Fox News was interested in doing an Obama/ACORN expose during the days before Election Day 2008. I urged Ms. MonCrief to do it, but (1) she was scared and shy and the single mother of a two-year old daughter and (2) she was supporting Ms. Reid and the ACORN 8 in their battle for control with the current ACORN control group and had been misinformed that Fox was evil and her appearing on Fox would be bad for her, even though she'd tell the truth.

The result: Ms. MonCrief declined the offer to appear and Obama won.

Then Ms. MonCrief watched and witnessed her hope for change dashed and became an "ex-liberal," determined to share the whole truth with her fellow Americans, even if it meant going on Fox News.

Ms. MonCrief began doing that last Mother's Day. (She was supposed to begin on Easter, but Fox News postponed.

Ms. Reid was not entirely pleased. She favored sharing sselect truth, not the whole truth.

Like Obama before he was elected President, Ms. Reid has not been publicly scrutinized.

But proof that Ms. Reid is NOT "Rosa Parks" (Beck's pet name for her) is a matter of public record.

Apparently Beck has a blind spot when it comes to Ms. Reid or drank her Kool-aid.

Unlike Ms. MonCrief, Ms. Reid has remained a "liberal" and an Obama supporter (protector may be the best word).

Ironically, Fox News allied with Ms. Reid. Beck's lauded her repeatedly and even called on his followers to finance the ACORN 8 and lawyers to provide free legal services to them.

That's the same Beck who regularly rants about "progressives"!

Mr. Beck, meet the real Ms. Reid.

Note to Beck viewers with funds to contribute: find a worthy cause!

Ms. Reid claims that ACORN is a wonderful organization that was hijacked recently.

That story sounds good, but it's nonsense: ACORN is a corrupt, criminal, subversive organization created by Wade Rathke (its Chief organizer for 38 years, from 1970 until July 2008) to overwhelm the system and cause chaos.

Ms. Reid also claims that she became disillusioned with ACORN in 2005 and that her disillusionment resulted from the her discomfort with ACORN's "Muscle for Money" program.

Kevin Mooney, "EXAMINER SPECIAL REPORT: ACORN’s 'Muscle for Money' does the bidding of SEIU," July 6, 2009 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/special-editorial-reports/EXAMINER-SPECIAL-REPORT-ACORNs-Muscle-for-Money-does-the-bidding-of-SEIU--50090352.html):

"[Marcel] Reid, who now chairs ACORN 8, said she became disillusioned with the {Money for Muscle] program when the shakedown campaign targeted Sherwin Williams four years ago. She said an estimated 400 ACORN members dressed in red shirts stormed into a Sherwin Williams meeting held at the Renaissance Hotel in Cleveland, Ohio.

"'The people in that room were absolutely terrified and I didn’t realize it was going to be like this,' Reid said. 'These tactics were really heavy, many of us became disillusioned. The idea is to isolate the target so they don’t have time to build up sentiment with neighbors and co-workers. We would intrude into a person’s social life.'"

There's no doubt that the "Muscle for Money" program is outrageous.

BUT...where's the evidence that Ms. Reid became disillusioned?

If she did, she hid it well.

She served as a member of ACORN national board until 2008 and still heads ACORN's DC chapter.

Note that Ms. Reid did not mention her alleged disillusionment when she testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions subcommittee hearing on the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) on February 13, 2008.

Rathke was still firmly in control of ACORN then and, Ms. Reid's alleged disillusionment and ACORN's history notwithstanding, Ms. Reid dutifully extolled ACORN without any qualification:

"ACORN is the country's oldest and largest grassroots community organization of low and moderate income families. We have over 350,000 members in 105 cities--fighting to improve our lives and get our members involved in their communities and in the civic process. I like to say ACORN's work helps reduce what I call the 'Poverty Tax'--the extra tax that poor people pay every day because they have fewer resources and more hardships.

"For years, ACORN has taken the lead in fighting for a living wage and other protection for workers and their families."

I don't detect any sign of disillusionment with ACORN in those words.

Do you?

Ms. Reid testified to urge protection and expansion share of the FMLA and told the story of her own use of it. (She was upset that her leave was unpaid. She described herself as "an honest woman" and added, "I'd be lying if I told you that taking that leave [to care for her mother] was not a sacrifice.")

Ms. Reid assured Congress that ACORN was "committed to protecting and expanding" the FMLA.

Ms. Reid spoke poignantly of her late mother's "extremely aggressive cancer" (but not the extremely aggressive, and disillusioning, "Muscle for Money" program" that was critical to ACORN effectiveness.

Would Ms. Reid be lying if she denied that she obtained a copy of the confidential Kingsley report on ACORN's huge legal problems and later provided it to some reporters? Or if she denied that she opposed ACORN suing Rathke until after Election Day 2008, if at all? Or if she denied dropping longtime Illinois ACORN leaders Madeleine Talbott and Keith Kelleher from a complaint filed by the ACORN 8 with the United States Justice Department the day before it was filed last January?

The special did not go there.

I do believe that Ms. Reid, like Rathke, refuses to use the word "socialist" to describe herself, but both of them should and she sincerely believed (and still believes) that she was entitled to paid leave and it was inhuman that the law had not required her to be provided with it.

Ms. Reid explained in her testimony that she had been "forced to use up [her] savings" and had "overcharg[ed]" on her credit cards.

Ms. Reid's complaints were that (1) SHE (instead of her employer or the taxpayer) had paid for her leave and (2) since leave is unpaid, "low and moderate income people" were being "robb[ed]" "of their ability to meet their basic needs and support their families."

Translation: Employers (or taxpayers) owe 'workers" paid leave.

Ms. Reid insisted, "We can do better."

By that, Ms. Reid meant that "[w]e should be...coming up with way[s] to insure that every American worker can take job protected PAID LEAVE when they need to."

Because: "To reach its full potential--and for workers and their families to do the same--this law needs to be more accessible and affordable for workers--not less."

Ms. Reid did NOT acknowledge in her testimony that her proposal would make the FMLA less affordable for employers or that employers might hire fewer works and/or would pass on the added cost to consumers if the proposal was enacted.

Instead, Ms. Reid promoted an ACORN wealth redistribution scheme with a heart-touching story about her mother and a crazed claim that not requiring paid leave be provided is inhuman.

Ms. Reid:

"Our workers and our families are America's greatest resource. We are only human. And we are fully human. It's time we started treating each other that way.

"My mother lived her life hoping to see the world better and in a small way I hope sharing the story of her death will help do that...."

Sharing that story was a less aggressive way to force wealth sharing than ACORN's "Muscle for Money" program now claims disillusioned her years ago, but do not be deceived: Ms. Reid is an ardent Obamaton who wants to "fundamentally transform" America to redistribute wealth.

Last month Vadum quoted Ms. Reid as saying that some ACORN critics "don’t appreciate the prowess that ACORN operates with, that it’s mean and lean, that they keep their operating costs down, and they can strike a number of targets simultaneously with military precision.”

After about a decade with ACORN, Ms. Reid has learned much about tactics.

Unfortunately, some persons reporting on ACORN are deluded about Ms. Reid, deftly played by her, doing her bidding and/or daft.

The Rathke brothers

Wade concealed his brother Dale's embezzlement of more than $900,000 and is out to do in other countries what he did in the United States.

The Ugly

No Anita MonCrief

A special titled "The Truth About ACORN" that omits Ms. MonCrief has an ugly flaw that cannot be masked by the wealth of important information that it included.

The title should have been "Some Truth About ACORN."I accepted Megyn Kelly's gracious invitation at the end of to special to email this comment:

Now an "ex-liberal," ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief worked before the election last year with The New York Times, ABC and CNN, because she wanted a "liberal" organization to put out the truth about ACORN, even its illicit relationship with the Obama presidential campaign.

Those organizations did not go there.

An understandable mistake by a young idealist.

What's Fox News' excuse now?

An ACORN "special" that omits Anita, who tied ACORN/Project Vote to illicit coordination with the Obama presidential campaign based on personal knowledge and proof, is...not special.

Ironically, there was a black female highlighted, but it was ACORN 8 head Marcel Reid, who is not what she seems and selective about what she wants known about ACORN corruption.

Ask Ms. Reid for page 14 of the Kingsley report, Megyn!

Michael J. Gaynor The Rest of the Story About the Kingsley Report on ACORN Part of a page of the Kingsley Report that Ms. MonCrief was shown by Ms. Reid was covered, however, and now page 14 is missing. That should set off alarm bells, especially for those who believe that the names of persons who knew of the embezzlement and kept silent are on page 14. (read more ...)

And ask Ms. Reid why Madeleine Talbott and Kenneth Kelleher of Illinois ACORN (does that suggestion something?) were dropped at the last minute from the complaint that the ACORN 8 filed with the US Justice Department last January.

Examine the Obama/ACORN/ACORN 8 Ties to Kelleher and Talbott (September 30, 2009) Gaspard's relationships with ACORN and now ACORN Chief Organizer Bertha Lewis are notable, but not as important as the relationships of Kelleher and Ms. Talbott to Obama, ACORN and even the ACORN 8. Go there, Mr. Vadum, and Mr. Smith won't be able to distract or to dispute effectively.

FoxNews picked as black female heroine for the "special" a person who's unrepentant about her own sins instead of a now ex-radical who has learned and is telling the whole truth.

If Ms. Reid had joined me in urging Anita to accept the Fox News invitation to appear starting on the Friday before Election Day 2008 instead of telling her how evil Fox is and how it was critical that Obama be elected, Obama might not be President.

Has Ms. Reid played Fox News?

As Sarah Palin would put it, "You betcha!"

PS I noted that Heather Heidelbaugh of the RNLA, whom Anita contacted and for whom Anita was her star witness, was included in the "special" and that parts of the Issa Report based on Anita's disclosures were reported, but no credit was given to Anita.

Shameful!

To appreciate how integral Anita is, please read the MonCrief testimony-filled "Questions for ACORN’s ‘Independent’ Investigator," posted at House Minority Leader Boehner's blog on September 24, 2009 and set forth in full below.

"The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) this week appointed former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger (D) to conduct an ‘independent’ investigation into recent allegations of potentially criminal activity by employees of the troubled organization. Those accusations spurred the U.S. Census Bureau and Internal Revenue Service to terminate their relationships with ACORN. The House of Representatives, led by the efforts of House Republicans, also overwhelmingly passed the Defund ACORN Act as an amendment to legislation providing for a government takeover of student lending.

"As if the news about ACORN in the last few weeks has not been troubling enough, a look back at an October 2008 Pennsylvania injunction hearing against ACORN provides even more reasons why the House must have a stand-alone vote on the Defund ACORN Act so that Democratic leaders sympathetic to ACORN cannot hold the Defund ACORN Act hostage to a government takeover of student loans.

"The injunction hearing included testimony from former ACORN employee Anita Moncrief, who worked in the group’s Washington, DC, office and had first-hand knowledge of its operations and offered a disturbing look at how ACORN works. Based on testimony from the hearing, here are 10 questions for ACORN’s new ‘independent’ investigator to answer:

1. IS THERE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACORN AND ITS AFFILIATES, OR ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN NAME ONLY?

Moncrief testified that 'Project Vote is a sister organization of ACORN. When I got there, I actually thought I was working for ACORN because that was the only thing I heard about during the interview. But when I got there, I realized that I was working for Project Vote, and they explained to me the difference between the two organizations. But as I was there, I learned there wasn’t much of a difference.' Moncrief also said that '[h]onestly, there really isn’t a difference between Project Vote and ACORN except for the fact that one is a 501 (c) (3) and one is not a (c) (3). As far as the – who does the voter registration work and how things get done, their – Project Vote is basically considered ACORN political operations.'

Moncrief also testified when asked if there was active cooperation between ACORN’s political wing and Project Vote that '… we’re considered basically the same staff. Nathan Henderson James was the strategic writing and research department – he was that director. And then at the same time, he was research director for Project Vote. Zach [Polett] was the executive director of Project Vote and the executive director of ACORN political. All of the organizations shared the same space. It was only starting in 2007 where I started to see a real division between the organizations where they were like, okay, you’ve got an ACORN address; let’s give you a Project Vote e-mail address. Try to – they put a door up to keep the D.C. national side – I’m sorry, the D.C. local and the national side separate from Project Vote so it looked like it was two separate offices.'

Moncrief testified that ACORN entities that are forbidden by law from engaging in political activities because of their tax status do in fact engage in political activities '[b]ecause there’s no separation between the organizations for real. So when you have the same people that are working, that are – like, I was getting paid through Project Vote’s checkbook, but I was working on ACORN stuff. I even did PowerPoints during the midterm elections for Jeffrey Robinson where they were like, okay, don’t vote for [then-Rep.] Albert Win (ph) [sic, Wynn (D-MD)] or vote for this person. And they had doorknob – door hangers that they would go and put on people’s doors, and we turned this into a PowerPoint presentation. So there was never any division between the staff where you could say, okay, this is [501] (c) (3) stuff and this is (c) (4) stuff. It was just — I don’t want to say business as usual, but it was a lot of collaboration between the organizations.'

Moncrief also testified that '[t]hey wanted to keep the – I think the word was keep the 501 (c) (3) pristine and keep that clean and separated from everything else because we needed that.' When asked if ACORN actually did that, Moncrief said '[p]ublicly, yes, they always stated that it was two different organizations' but that they weren’t in actual practice and that she was told 'let’s hope we don’t get caught.' (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 18, 22, 44, 89-91)

2. DOES ACORN HAVE AN ACCOUNTING SYSTEM THAT ENSURES THAT TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE NOT WASTED AND ARE NOT INTERMINGLED WITH OTHER FUNDS USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES?

When asked how money flows between ACORN affiliates, Moncrief testified that '[t]he money goes into accounts at CCI [Citizens Consulting Incorporated, ACORN’s for-profit accounting arm]. CCI has dozens – dozens and dozens of accounts. Some of them are Project Vote. Some of them are ACORN.' Moncrief also said that CCI is 'basically the accounting arm for all of the money, the payments, who gets what, the – how the organization operates and flows and makes sure its bill are paid. All of that goes through CCI.' When asked how ACORN entities receive money, Moncrief testified that 'CCI makes disbursements to them either directly into their account or does transfers between I guess the different organizations.'

In 2007, Moncrief was tasked with reconciling accounts using ACORN’s accounting software called NewVision. Moncrief testified that '[t]here was, like, a $9 million gap in between what we had in our donor system, Donor Perfect, and what was in the NewVision system. … There were still some questions because we had a box of stuff we had got from the Ohio office when it closed. I think it was Ohio. But there was so many, like, random letters and money and checks that were never cashed that there was – at one point we felt that we had got it as good as it was going to get.'

Moncrief also testified that '[s]ometimes the accounts will show negative a hundred thousand dollars, and then magically the money is in there the next week. So there’s really no way at this point without a forensic audit to tell what are the assets of any one of the ACORN entities.' (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 32, 43, 65

)

3. HAS ACORN EVER MISREPRESENTED INFORMATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGARDING A TAXPAYER-FUNDED GRANT?

Moncrief testified that 'I received an email. It was called dotting the Is and crossing the Ts, and it was based on an election assistance commission grant that we had just gotten. And it was from [ACORN Online Communications Coordinator] Nathan Henderson James and to myself and one other person; I can’t remember the name. But it was basically telling us, okay guys, it’s reporting time again; we need to show them what we did with this EAC money; so I want you to put this on letterhead – on ACORN letterhead and say something like, we had a really great time working with our partner, Project Vote. And the attitude of the e-mail was quotation marks, you know — … [t] to where we knew that it wasn’t that there was any type of partner organization. There might have been – on paper there might have been a partnership going on, but really it was ACORN and Project Vote together. … It was worked on, but it wasn’t this whole nonpartisan thing that it was made out to be to get the money. It was just, hey, guys, we need to get this done for Delaware because we just got this check; let’s get this done; let’s make this report out.' (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 92-93)

4. WILL ACORN IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF THE VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS IT SUBMITS AND END THE PRACTICE OF FLOODING ELECTION OFFICES WITH APPLICATIONS AROUND SUBMISSION DEADLINES?

Moncrief testified that ACORN officials were aware that duplicate voter registrations were being obtained by canvassers hired by ACORN, and said that '… they were striving for at one time 40 percent accuracy rate. So 40 percent was okay.' Moncrief also described the attitude of ACORN officials regarding the practice of 'dumping' large amounts of voter registration cards on election offices: 'Well, I was told when I was working on the provisional voting survey that they already had a bad opinion of us because we would send so many cards over to them. So I was to try to sweet talk them, make – they said, make them feel like they’re really helping you, thank them a lot, and if all else fails, tell them that you’re doing a provisional voting academic survey or something. So I wouldn’t name myself.'

Moncrief also testified that national officials with ACORN and Project Vote were aware of fraudulent voter registrations, and that absentee ballots are sometimes fraudulently voted. (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 45-47, 70)

5. WILL ACORN END ITS “MUSCLE FOR MONEY” PROGRAM?

In her testimony, Moncrief described two ACORN programs that were both known as 'Muscle for Money.' Moncrief said that '[t]he first one is the official program, which is where they calculate the number of – the cost for registering voters, the cost for GOTV, and how close the elections were in certain states. So it’s basically how CSI [Citizens Services Incorporated, ACORN’s for-profit political consulting arm] works, where they say they get this person to vote, to register this person and get them to the polls, it could cost you $17 and whatever cents; if you go through our program, we have proven methodologies; we know how to get this done; it will cost you this amount. So there’s actually a CSI chart that breaks down how much it would cost to drive voters to the polls. And they would use –they would say give us the money, we’re the muscle, we’ll get out there and get it done.'

Moncrief also described a second, 'unofficial' ACORN program also known as 'Muscle for Money.' Moncrief said that '[t]hey got involved with a group called the Carlyle Group. They were paid by SCIU [sic, SEIU] to harass a man named [Carlyle Group Managing Director] Mr. [David] Rubenstein, and they wanted me to go out – the D.C. local did, wanted me to go out and break up a banquet dinner, protest out in front of his home. But the local – D.C. local did not have an invested interest really in messing with the Carlyle Group. It was because they were paid by SCIU [sic, SEIU] to do this. And it was always referred to as Muscle for Money because they would go there, intimidate these people, protest. They did it in front of Sherwin Williams. They did it at H&R Block, were – H&R Block was a target for years. And instead of, you know, reforming the way they did the rapid anticipation loans, they ended up giving money to the ACORN tax sites which paid for new computers and money to run these tax filing sites around the country.'

Moncrief testified that ACORN’s unofficial 'Muscle for Money' program was known by another name: 'Protection. We were very – not to be flippant, but we were just always very sarcastic about it in the offices. We knew what was going on. And it’s not that we thought it was funny, it was just one of those things that we talked about.'

Moncrief also testified that ACORN officials tried to use the voter registration program as a foil to divert attention away from the unofficial “Muscle for Money” program. Moncrief said '… it was one of those things where if they were going to look at something, they would rather look at voter registration because there was – they’re used to fighting voter registration. We have prepared responses that everyone was given to say that voter registration fraud doesn’t really happen, voter IDs affect people. It was certain spiels that we were all given to say. And at the meeting in 2007, there was actually a conversation about how you can make sure everyone was on the same page of how to respond to that because those responses like, oh, you don’t want African Americans to vote or you don’t want minorities to vote or things where it’s very hard to come back at and they were good at fighting that.' (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 52, 54-56)

6. WILL ACORN ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF ITS EMPLOYEES?

Moncrief testified that ACORN employees were given talking points on how to discuss employees accused of voter registration fraud. Moncrief said that one of those talking points was '… just a lone employee acting alone in doing this and ACORN was going to prosecute them to the fullest. And most – of anything, it had to do with employee wrongdoing, had something to say in there about how we’re distancing ourselves from them, they did this, let’s get them.' (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 57-58)

7. IS THE PURPOSE OF ACORN VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVES TO REGISTER NEW VOTERS OR TO RECRUIT NEW MEMBERS FOR ACORN, AND DOES ACORN USE A QUOTA SYSTEM FOR THESE REGISTRATION DRIVES?

Moncrief testified that '[a]t ACORN, it was about getting more members, which means more money. Project Vote, there’s – actually they’d say the more [voter registration] cards you get, the more money you get. It’s in the – in the way they train the – I’m trying to explain it; the way they train the people for voter registration. It’s to let them know that the cards are tied to money. So the more cards you get, the more money you get. If people aren’t producing cards, they’re wasting your time, get rid of them, get people who are producing. … They get – the Project Vote side gets money from certain liberal organizations or – to run these voter registration drives.' ACORN Pennsylvania Political Director Krista Holub testified that voter registration applications distributed by ACORN employees include ACORN membership applications.

Moncrief also testified that ACORN uses a quota system with canvassers during voter registration drives, saying 'I’m not exactly sure how many cards per day, but I know that at the minimum, I’ve – I’m aware of at least 20 cards per day' and that if canvassers don’t turn in the minimum amount '[y]ou get fired.' (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, pp. 23, 29, 148, 165)

8. HOW MANY ACORN AFFILIATES EXIST?

When asked how many ACORN affiliates exist, Moncrief testified that '[t]he number changes all the time. To the best of my knowledge, it’s got to be at least over 170. The last number I heard was 176, but that’s constantly changing.' When asked if Project Vote is a separate corporate entity from, but yet an affiliate of, ACORN, Moncrief said 'Correct. They call it the council of organizations.' (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, p. 26)

9. WHAT DID POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CAMPAIGNS RECEIVE IN EXCHANGE FOR SHARING DONOR LISTS WITH ACORN?

When asked from which organizations Project Vote received donor lists, Moncrief answered 'Political parties, some of the campaigns. … Organizations that did the same type of work, like ACT, America Coming Together. Those – we’d get those types of lists.' When asked from which presidential campaigns Project Vote received donor lists, Moncrief said 'Kerry, Clinton, and the Obama campaign.' (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, p. 41)

10. DO ACORN OFFICIALS BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT ACORN IS THAT IT FIGHTS CAPITALISM?

In her testimony, Moncrief reviewed notes, admitted into evidence, of a regional meeting of ACORN officials. Included in the notes is a list of reasons the group who met thought that ACORN was 'good.' One of the reasons listed was 'Fighting capitalism.' (Moncrief testimony, Monica Moyer, et al v. Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg), Docket No. 497 MD 2008, 10/29/08, p. 76)

"God DID bless America: Ms. MonCrief has been telling the truth we need to know."

"Radio Patriot" Andrea Shea King, on October 2, 2009 (the date the special was broadcast) (http://radiopatriot.blogspot.com/2009/10/army-of-davids-takes-on-goliath-acorn.html): "Matthew Vadum, one of a small but growing army of investigative reporters (include ACORN whistle blower Anita Moncrief at the head of the phalanx, flanked by attorney/writer Michael Gaynor, investigative journalist and filmmaker James O'Keefe and college student Hannah Giles, with foot soldiers Publius, Kevin Kane, Kyle Olson, Bret Jacobson, Mike Roman, and Capitol Confidential) is busting ACORN's rotten insides wide open. And let us not forget strategic commander and Field Marshal Andrew Brietbart, along with General Michelle Malkin."

For exposing ACORN and how Obama won the Presidency, Ms. MonCrief is key. In omitting her from the special, Fox News acted deplorably.

Time to shine, Hannity! Interview Ms. MonCrief and Ms. Malkin promptly!

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.