Obama Lies: YES WE CAN Find Out (Despite Cover Up Tries)
The good news is that the radicals still can be thwarted if the truth about them and the man they made President of the United States becomes generally known and the challenge is to make that happen while being true to traditional American values instead of becoming rightwing Alinskyites.
In late October 2008, radio and television star and bold stalwart conservative Laura Ingraham became the first person to give ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief a platform.
The no-good-deed-goes-unpunished theory seems to explain why a hate website administrator posted this attack on Ms. Ingraham: “It’s Thursday, and you know what that means, it’s time for Laura Ingraham to say something immature, insulting, or false. Tonight she didn’t disap[p]oint. Ingraham claimed that Fannie and Freddie started the meltdown. It’s funny because Ingraham is on record blaming the CRA for the meltdown. Which is it, Laura? Where’s the evidence to support your position?" “Ingraham Claims Fannie and Freddie Caused the Meltdown” (April 23, 2010) (www.lauraingrahamsucks.com/?p=1709).
The Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie and Freddie are integrally related parts of the political scheme to make banks make risky loans that eventually would lead to a financial crisis that would be blamed on the Republicans and "Wall Street." Together, the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie and Freddie did the dirty deed, largely thanks to he likes ACORN pressing for risky loans by placing the race card and Democrats supporting the Community Reinvestment Act and blocking supervision of Fannie (Mae)and Freddie (Mac).
I wrote about this in "Blame Obama’s ACORN for the Financial Crisis" (September 29, 2008) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=080929), "Beware Obama, 'The Senator from ACORN'" (October 1, 2008)(www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081001), "ACORN Should Be Obama’s Undoing" (October 2, 2008)
(www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081002), "Michelle Malkin Was Right about ACORN, Of Course" (October 4, 2008) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081004) and "Obama Democrats Caused and Prolonged the Financial Crisis" (October 6, 2008) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081006).
Fortunately, those articles were noticed by ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief, then a radical enthusiastically supporting Obama, and they prompted her to email me, using an alias, because she was growing suspicious that The New York Times might not report the whole truth about ACORN for fear of hurting Obama's presidential campaign.
She was right to be suspicious of that!
Thanks to a failure to redact properly excerpts from a recent motion submitted by former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich explaining why a trial subpoena should be issued by a court to President Obama, the public received evidence that President Obama is a liar (www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Six-Secrets-You-Need-to-Know-From-the-Blagojevich-Filing-91848634.html). (The full document was easily viewable when the text was copied and pasted to another document.)
NBC:
"1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko
"Blagojevich's lawyers allege that Rezko admitted breaking the law by contributing 'a large sum of cash' to a public official. Blagojevich's attorneys say that public official is Obama. Obama said that Rezko never relayed a request from a lobbyist to hold a fundraiser in favor of favorable legislative action. But the point may be moot: regardless of Obama talking/not talking to Rezko, Blagojevich's attorneys say that Obama refused the request regardless.
"Redacted portion: However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko 'has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had.
"Redacted footnote: The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama.
"2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat
"Blagojevich's defense team basically alleges that Obama told a certain labor union official that he (Obama) would support Valerie Jarrett's candidacy for the Senate seat. Jarrett, referred to as 'Senate Candidate B', is now a senior advisor to the president.
"Redacted portion: Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president 'I’m the one'. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).
"Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys 'Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B] ... [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.' (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3)."
Will exposure of small Obama lies ultimately lead to exposure of the whole truth about the relationship between ACORN and Obama and his presidential campaign?
In “Time for October Surprise To Expose Obama Lie” (October 18, 2008) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=081018), posted after the last of the 2008 presidential debates and three days before Ms. MonCrief lost all faith in the integrity of The New York Times after New York Times national correspondent Stephanie Strom Strom left her a voicemail message that "higher up" had told her to "stand down" and a subsequent telephone conversation in which, Ms. MonCrief reported, she was told that Times policy is not to publish a potential "game changer "either way" within a couple of weeks of an election and permitted me to publicly identify her and report that The New York Times had spiked an Obama/ACORN exposed because it might be “a game changer,” I wrote:
"Obama's statement--'My 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.'--is a lie, not a fact.
"Can Obama and ACORN keep a lid on the whole truth about ACORN's relationship with Obama and the Obama presidential campaign up to Election Day 2008?
"Can The New York Times whitewash the Obama/ACORN relationship the way it did the Obama/Ayers relationship?
"Is there a Whittaker Chambers-type out there today who has seen the light and decided to do what's right?
"If so, will 'Whittaker' be a white male this time?
"Wikipedia: 'Whittaker Chambers (April 1, 1901 – July 9, 1961)...was an American writer and editor. A Communist party member and Soviet spy, he renounced communism and became an outspoken opponent. He is best known for his testimony about the perjury and espionage of Alger Hiss.'
"Obama during the last of the three presidential debates:
'...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.'
"Obama is right...about the importance of facts.
"McCain is right...about Obama having troubling associations. (More right than he knows.)
"Obama's statement--'My 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.'--is a lie, not a fact.
"Yes, Obama represented ACORN in that lawsuit and the Clinton Justice Department predictably sided with ACORN.
"But that was NOT Obama's only involvement with ACORN.
"ACORN is the organization with which Obama has been associated throughout his adult life, as organizer, trainer, lawyer, funder and political beneficiary...and Obama's Achilles' heel.
"When voters learn how big a lie that was, the mysterious Obama will not be so much of a mystery and his presidential aspirations will be history."
Not nearly enough voters learned in tie, but, with Ms. MonCrief at her side, attorney Heather Heidelbaugh testified before the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on March 19, 2009.
Don't expect to find these illuminating excerpts from her testimony in The New York Times:
"On October 29, 2008, I represented a candidate, voters and the Republican State Committee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in a preliminary injunction before the Commonwealth Court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania against ACORN and The Secretary of the Commonwealth. The Complaint alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Election code, Fraud and Misrepresentation and Violation of Equal Protection and Due Process. The Complaint asked the Court to Order the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the state administrator of Elections, to make certain that the computer data base of registered voters mandated by HAVA, known in Pennsylvania as the SURE system, was running properly and was on line consistently to election workers throughout the Commonwealth. Further, the injunction requested that the Court direct the Secretary to require that all election officials comply with HAVA and request and receive identification from all first time registrants, as required by law. And lastly, the Complaint asked the Secretary to insure there were adequate amounts of provisional ballots printed and available at each polling place.
"The injunctive requests against ACORN sought the Court’s Order that ACORN stop encouraging voting by individuals that they knew had falsely registered to vote, to provide to the Plaintiffs copies of the voter registration materials obtained by ACORN and known by ACORN to be false, that public service announcements be funded ACORN to educate first time voters that they would be required to provide identification at the polling place, and that ACORN be ordered to abide by the same terms to which ACORN had agreed with King County Washington prosecutors in the King County Settlement and Compliance Agreement to not fraudulently register individuals to vote. The Injunction was filed on October 17, 2008, based on information and facts obtained from Election workers and officials across the Commonwealth, and news reports about criminal activity of ACORN in the Commonwealth of PA. Four days later on October 21, I received a call from a woman I did not know. She informed me that she had worked for ACORN in their Washington, DC office for a number of years, had heard about the lawsuit I had filed, and had some information for me about ACORN. This individual, Ms. Anita Moncrief, agreed to testify in the court proceedings because, as she later testified under oath: 'I contacted you once I heard about the lawsuit because I felt like this might be a chance for the truth actually to get out.' [page 81, lines 6-17].
"The next day I traveled to Washington, DC and met for the first time Anita Moncrief, who is seated in the front row here today. I have spent hours talking to Ms. Moncrief about what she had learned about ACORN from her years in the ACORN DC office and Ms. Moncrief agreed to testify under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury.
"One of the first things that Ms. Moncrief told me was that she had been fired from her job for using an ACORN credit card for personal expenses. When she worked at ACORN in DC, she lived in a low rent apartment with rats in Baltimore with a new baby and was only making $25,000 per year with ACORN. She charged moving expenses to the ACORN credit card, wrongly, and hoped to pay it back. The total amount owed is less than $2,000 but she was fired.
"Thereafter, she informed me that she had been a confidential informant for several months to the New York Times Reporter, Stephanie Strom, who had been writing articles about ACORN based on the information that she had provided.[page 81, lines 18-25] [Ms. Strom wrote the following articles about Acorn from July 9, 2008 to October 21, 2008: 1.) ‘Funds Misappropriated at 2 Nonprofit Groups’ July 9, 2008; 2.) ‘Head of Foundation Bailed Out Nonprofit Group After Is Funds Were Embezzled’ August 16, 2008; 3.)'Lawsuit Add to Turmoil for Community Group’ September 9, 2008; 4.) ‘On Obama, ACORN and Voter Registration’ October 10, 2008; 5.) ‘ACORN Working on Deal to Sever Ties with Founder’ October 15, 2008; and 6.) ‘ACORN Report Raises Issues of Legality’ October 21, 2008.] The New York Times articles stopped when Ms. Moncrief, who is a Democrat and a supporter of the President, revealed that the Obama Presidential Campaign had sent its maxed out donor list to Karen Gillette of the Washington, DC ACORN office and asked Gillette and Ms. Moncrief to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN. Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama Campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at the New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, 'it was a game changer'. That’s when Ms. Moncrief telephoned me on October 21, 2008. Ms. Strom never wrote another article about ACORN for the New York Times for the remainder of the period before Election Day, i.e. November 4, 2008.
"Ms. Moncrief testified at the Injunction hearing about the telephone call from the Obama Presidential Campaign: 'In late 2007 – I want to say it was November – I was in the Project Vote office by myself, and I received a call on the main line. I answered the call, and a caller identified himself as being from the Obama campaign. And he wanted to know was this the same Project Vote that Obama had worked with in the 90’s. I had been recently told that it was. So, of course, I said yes, and I was very excited. And I took his information. And I passed it on – well, I sent an e-mail to Karen Gillette, Nathan Henderson James, I want to say Kevin Whalen and Zach Polett – I think that was everyone I sent the e-mail to – letting them know we had been contacted and someone wanted them to get back to them as soon as possible…I didn’t get any official contact that they contacted anyone. I was told that if there are any inquiries, that they had needed to go through either Kevin or Zach, mostly Kevin because he handled those type of things. I think that I probably shouldn’t have written [that e-mail]. It was one of those things that I should have just called, and that was the feeling I got. But it wasn’t like anyone was being mean to me, but it was the impression [Karen Gillette gave me]. I worked with the [Obama] donor list extensively…There were a ton of duplicates because a lot of people gave more than once...the list is huge…so in order to get the list smaller, we were trying to get out the duplicates. That was really hard to do. And it was just really getting frustrated because we were always trying to get numbers and other stuff for these people because I think we were going to set up some meetings for Zach [Polett] or something to do with it, and I know there also might have been a mailing that was going to go out…[ACORN] wanted to use it for donor solicitations…I went through [the Obama donor list] and broke it up by state. I broke out California donors. I also looked at celebrities and Hollywood people, professors, and I broke them into separate categories because there were people looking for a spokesperson. We talked about Barbara Streisand because her foundation gave money. We talked about Bruce Springsteen. So we were trying to see who on that list…we had contact information for that might want to work with us or at least give money to us. Karen Gillette instructed me to do that.' [pages 61-63]. Ms. Moncrief worked on the Obama list culling it for potential donors. She testified: 'I would go through the list...and I would break out smaller lists and sent that to Karen [Gillette]. And it was just donor cultivation. At that point, before I was fired, there was not a lot that we were doing with this. We were getting ready to do stuff. We had just ordered a ton of stationery and a lot of glossies. They were the ACORN glossies, and then we had the exact same glossies with Project Vote on them. And then we were going to send them out as solicitations.' [pages 63-64].
"Ms. Moncrief’s interest in my lawsuit against ACORN for fraudulent voter registration activities was two-fold: to tell the whole story about ACORN’s activities including the real story behind their voter registration activities, and second, to voluntarily put herself under oath so that the press would understand she was telling the truth and hopefully then the story would be reported. Ms. Moncrief testified: '[I am testifying] because I want the truth out. Honestly, a lot of people think I have a vendetta, but even after I left ACORN, I was still trying to be involved in the act because I believe that the local offices do a lot of good. Local offices where the people are involved and you see them every day and you’re there—like, when I worked in the D.C. office, you would – you’d stumble over some member, and there was just this type of informal environment. And that’s where a lot of the work was done. So I don’t think ACORN is a bad organization. I feel like they have gotten into a lot of areas that was not – that they weren’t meant to be in. And because we’re in these other areas, we’re losing focus of what’s really wrong with these communities. There’s so much that needs to be done, and we’re over here when we should be right there. So that’s why I’m here, because I don’t want ACORN to go away, I just want it to go back to what its supposed to be.' [pages 79-80]."
"Ms. Moncrief testified that in October of 2005 she began working for Project Vote, a 501(c)(3) educational and charitable organization, as a development associate. [page 18, line 11] [page 102, line 11-13]: 'Project Vote is a 501(c)(3) voter registration group. They do voter registration, election administration and voter protection.' Ms. Moncrief testified that Project Vote obtained donor lists with names, addresses and amounts of contributions. The lists were provided to ACORN from political parties, campaigns, and organizations that did the same type of work as ACORN such as ACT [America Coming Together]. In particular, Project Vote received donor lists from the John Kerry Campaign, the Bill Clinton Campaign, and the Barack Obama Campaign. The Obama Campaign sent their donor list to Project Vote, around late 2007. [page 40-41, lines 7-25, and 1-5]. Ms Moncrief testified: 'I know that I got the DNC list and the Kerry list around the same time, so I want to put that at October of 2007…and I think the Obama list came in, in late 2007, maybe November…It was passed on to me by Karen Gillette…It was forwarded to me and with the understanding that it had come from the campaign…I was to take out all the duplicates and get the list together for donor solicitations. We were breaking it down like California, D.C., New York, like that. We were also looking for telephone numbers as well.' Ms. Moncrief was to reach out to these Obama contributors who had maxed out to the presidential campaign and who could then give additional money to ACORN to do GET OUT THE VOTE work. [page 41, line 19]. Ms. Moncrief testified: 'Yes. That was part of the plan…That was our development plan written by Karen Gillette, that we were to approach maxed out presidential donors.' [pages 41- 42, lines1-25, and 1-2]. The money from the ‘maxed out presidential donors’ was allegedly to be used for ‘voter registration’ drives. Further, 'when I left [Project Vote] the $28 million budget was approaching 30 something million.' [page 42, lines 8-12].
"She testified that she '…learned that there wasn’t much of a difference between ACORN and Project Vote. [page 18, l. 18]: '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 that there wasn’t much of a difference…I had an ACORN e-mail address up until…2007. I was considered to be part of the ACORN political operations staff, and I was actually a part of the strategic writing and research department with the acronym SWORD, which was basically an internal consulting department for ACORN political operations. So a lot of the work I did …and answering some voter fraud allegations that came from 2004, were actually all ACORN work. It wasn’t until…late 2006 that I actually began doing actual development work for Project Vote.' She further testified, [ page 22, line 9] in regard to the difference between ACORN and Project Vote: 'Honestly, 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…Project Vote is basically considered ACORN political operations.' Ms. Moncrief testified: [page 44, line 1-25] 'There was active cooperation between ACORN’s political wing and Project Vote…[They] basically had the same staff. Nathan Henderson James was the strategic writing and research department…director of ACORN and he was the research director of Project Vote. Zach [Polett] was the executive director of Project Vote and the executive director of ACORN political. All of the organizations and the entities worked together. We shared the same space.' Further, Ms. Moncrief testified: '…there’s no real 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 Albert Win (ph) 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 would say, okay, this is (c)(3) stuff and this (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.' [page 89, lines 21-25, page 90 1-25, page 91, lines 1-3]."
To find, the truth is there..for those who care...and dare. (That's why Team Obama will do absolutely all it can to maintain Democrat control of both houses of Congress. If the Republicans win control of the House of Representatives, not only will Nancy Pelosi no longer be Speaker, but the House Republicans will have subpoena power!)
The longer it takes for the truth to become generally known and the more of the ACORN/La Raza/SEIU will be implemented under the Obama/Pelosi/Reid leadership. Do not be fooled! When Scott Brown's election to the United States Senate was seen as a death blow to Obamacare, then SEIU president Andy Stern demanded that Obamacare still be pushed despite the will of the people. I explained in "Why Obama Really Continues to Push 'Obamacare'" (March 1, 2010) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=100301):
"The reality is the Obama is a radical trying to 'fundamentally transform' America to please socialists while denying that he's a socialist.
"Watch the video of Obama explaining to a friendly audience years ago that he favored a single payer plan (www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/).
"Obama: 'I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.'
"If Obama was a pragmatist, as he proclaimed, he would not still be pushing Obamacare.
"But Obama's mission is to deliver what SEIU and ACORN want, and that the Clintons failed to deliver.
"SEIU boss and most frequent White House visitor Andy Stern did not blink upon learning of the Massachusetts Miracle.
"Stern's order: full steam ahead!
"Stern soon after 'the Massachusetts miracle' was apparent:
'Today is no different than yesterday or the day before or the day before that. Pat DeJong will still wake up in Libby, Montana. Pat is still mourning the loss of her husband and the selling of his family’s ranch because of his medical bills. And, Pat will still go to the bed side of her patients each day, providing excellent care, still lacking coverage of her own. Pat’s reality is the reality millions of working people face every day. One political election does not change the fact that Pat and hardworking families across this country have been asking for and deserve fundamental reforms.'
'The reason Ted Kennedy’s seat is no longer controlled by a Democrat is clear: Washington’s inability to deliver the change voters demanded in November 2008. Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure.
'During the past year, Republicans refused to do anything but stand in the way of change and Democratic Senators took too long to do too little. And tonight, the Senate bears the consequences for its failure to act decisively but the American people are the ones left paying the price. If our elected officials don’t recognize that every day more working families fall victim to Washington’s failure to act, the elections next November will result in the same.
'Today’s vote must be a wake-up call that now is the time for bold action. Time to stand up to politics as usual. Time to stand up to Republican scare and stall tactics. And time to speak up for working families.
'The Senate may have squandered the trust the American people gave to Washington in 2008. But now, every member of Congress and the Administration must act with a renewed sense of purpose to show working families whose side they are on and deliver meaningful change to every American. This is not the time for timidity. It is time to show the courage and strength of conviction to move this country forward and bring working families the change they need. It starts by passing health insurance reform and giving Pat and millions of people like her the security and peace of mind they deserve.'
"The Far Left has to effect 'fundamental change' now or never, so Stern, who was backing Obama for President at least as far back as 2006 and holds the record for most visits to the White House during the Age of Obama, still wants Obama to proceed with the radical agenda, starting with Obamacare.
"That's the same Stern who explained his organizing philosophy this way: '[W]e prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn’t work we use the persuasion of power.'
"If it costs the Democrats control of Congress as early as 2011 and the White House in 2013, Stern et al. take a long-tern view and still want it.
"So Obama will dutifully continue to try to get it for them."
"...the situation in Arizona with the brazen political pandering of Governor Brewer in signing a horrific piece of anti-immigrant legislation in that state is a perfect example of challenge and opportunity.
"Leading up to the refusal of the Governor to veto the bill, which even included a rare case of a sitting President speaking against a state legislative matter while it was still pending, there was a huge step up and all hands on board push in Arizona. Immigrants and students also rose up to challenge the racial profiling and apartheid practices that are now on the verge of implementation. Schools may still be vacated and rallying points when the bell rings on Monday. Thousands were on the street, in rallies, and on vigil outside of the State Capitol. More is expected today with a full plate of activities planned for Sunday.
"Before the bill the national immigration reform movement also seemed to be stepping hard into the fight, though in talking to organizers in Arizona, it also seemed in some cases they were trying to muscle in from the top on what has been a grassroots and courageous effort with more lessons to teach than to learn. I was relieved to see this, especially because too often it has seemed that strong organizations with a Phoenix base have been isolated in a hand-to-hand struggle over the last several years while too many national operations with capacity have been too aloof from the battle with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose vigilante activi[ti]es in Maricopa County are the predecessor of this new anti-immigrant outrage. This is a perfect organizing example of what happens when we don’t protect our own base and hope Hail Mary passes on the White House lawn or in Congress will save us from our own neighbors.
"There is a crossroads here between whether this is another immigration movement Alamo or could be an immigration reform Selma. If organizers see Arizona as a 'loss' now and try to change the narrative to another venue or an easier issue, they will lose the ability to continue to engage the issue at its most stark and, just as in Selma, use this as a huge lever for change. The elements are there. The rejection of the ex-Governor Napolitano’s strategy of vetoing similar legislation when she was Arizona governor and now hard handling immigrants to try a new posture as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. We already have the President’s attention, so we need to continue to push him to engage and not allow there to be a 'beer summit' over tacos and guns at the border. We have John McCain who is in career meltdown having gone from alleged 'man of principal' on immigration reform to political shill for anything that might win him a vote or two in his re-election drive.
"We have everything but a full court press. We need to throw everything we have into Arizona and find somethings we didn’t know we had to put throw in on top of that. Whether we would have chosen this venue or not, it’s there, and we need to fully engage, hell or high water, at the full level of the potential of this great movement until there is either 'death or glory,' as the song says.
"It matters, and people are ready."
Rathke's right about America being at a crossroads, it mattering and "his" people being ready. He and his Far Left allies have their man in the White House and their Democrat political favorites in control of Congress. They use words cunningly (for example, calling the duly elected sheriff upholding the law a vigilante) and pretending that checking on a person's legal status is equivalent to imposing a race-based "separate but equal" policy. It's all part of a radical plan to "fundamentally transform" America from a capitalistic society that respects the God-given rights to life, liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness to a secular "share the wealth" socialist state that maximizes government control over life and perpetuates dependency on government in order to perpetuate the power of the socialist elite (like the Soviet Union did).
The good news is that the radicals still can be thwarted if the truth about them and the man they made President of the United States becomes generally known and the challenge is to make that happen while being true to traditional American values instead of becoming rightwing Alinskyites.
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.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
