New York Post:

President Obama’s re-election campaign wants to connect with young Americans and reached out recently to MTV for help — but the cable network turned them down, sources tell The Post.

The president’s Get Out the Vote campaign, run by Buffy Wicks, concerned the high unemployment rate of the so-called millennial generation would turn them off to their candidate, asked the network of “Jersey Shore” about helping to supply them with ideas on how to deal with their, er, situation.

The campaign called MTV’s internal ad agency, MTV Scratch, for assistance in mid-August, sources familiar with the conversations said. …

Viacom’s unit took a few weeks before getting back to the campaign to decline its invitation, saying that it doesn’t do political work.

Read the full article here.

The article, riddled with factual errors and omissions characteristic of a student and/or mainstream media, lays out a revisionist’s version of what happened behind the scenes of the scandal. During the interview, conducted by a journalism graduate student and admitted “close friend” of the former White House appointee, Sergant states that he was called to a meeting in the West Wing at the end of his four-month stint in the White House’s Office of Public Engagement. The White House, fully aware of his role as an art activist during Obama’s election campaign, offered Sergant two jobs. One was to continue at the White House, and the other was as the Communications Director of the National Endowment for the Arts. Sergant selected the NEA.

President Obama and Yosi Sergant

“I think [the West Wing] made a bad decision to put me in a job without giving me any kind of guidance, not providing me with any kind of mentorship,” said Sergant in the interview. He continued, “That was a bad decision. I’d never worked in government before.”

However the White House knew where Sergant’s expertise resided, and how he would potentially put it to use in an arts position. He was the promoter behind the now famous Obama Hope poster. Sergant indicated in the interview that he was given some direction by the White House in his new position at the NEA. “The idea was that Yosi would help pave the way for the new director’s arrival,” wrote Hillel Aron, referring to Rocco Landesman, incoming Chairman of the NEA. On paving the way, Sergant said, “I started working on things that I knew were happening, that I thought would be safe… and I was wrong.” 

And, frankly, why wouldn’t he have thought it to be safe – he was working with the White House at the time. The project that Sergant was referring to was United We Serve, a national service initiative orchestrated by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Corporation for National and Community Service. Among the many controversial comments during the call, Sergant stated, “I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment, you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service. And then my ask would be to apply artistic, you know, your artistic creative communities utilities and bring them to the table.”

It was this encouragement, at a time when town halls had gone nuclear over the issue of health care, which ultimately put Sergant in hot water.

Following a statement made in my first article regarding the invite coming from the NEA, the Washington Times reported that Sergant claimed he did not send out the invite. After revealing that the invite I received was in fact sent directly from Sergant, on September 1st the Washington Times published an article entitled “Official Dishonesty.” Aron reports that Sergant called the White House the next day asking if he should resign. Sergant stated, “They did not think that what I did merited the response of the media.”

However, at the time Sergant contacted the White House, they were unaware of exactly what the conference call revealed about their arts effort. In an email marked “Importance: High” and sent on September 11^th, Kalpen Modi, Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, asked, “Do either of you have a recording or transcript of the CNCS call you did with Yosi & NEA on 8/10.” The response from two federal officials at the Corporation was that they did not have a transcript or a recording of the call:

The full transcript was released on September 21st, revealing controversial conduct by not only Yosi Sergant, but Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Engagement, and Nell Abernathy of the Corporation for National and Community Service. In reaction to the conduct on the call, including comments I highlighted by a White House employee Buffy Wicks, the following day the administration backpedaled from an earlier claim that I had “misconstrued the purpose” of the call. The administration issued new guidelines, as reported by ABC News’ Jake Tapper, “to prevent such a call from ever happening again.” The memo, written by White House Counsel Gregory Craig, provided new guidelines to all federal agencies for public outreach meetings. “We regret any comments on the call that may have been misunderstood or troubled other participants,” said White House spokesman Bill Burton in an issued statement. “We are fully committed to the NEA’s historic mission, and we will take all steps necessary to ensure that there is no further cause for questions or concerns about that commitment.” This White House statement appeared to concede that the effort was outside of the NEA’s original purpose.

To date, Buffy Wicks and Nell Abernathy still remain in their positions while Sergant has been left with Michelin stains.

Sergant seems to disagree with the White House’s actions. “I don’t believe that what I did was wrong,” Sergant stated in his interview with Aron. “I believe that what I did came at a time when all the focus was on health care reform, and [that's] where they needed to put their time and energy… could they have stood up for me if they wanted to? Sure. Am I worth the political capital? They had just lost Van Jones.”

Why would Sergant feel as if he did something wrong – he was in fact working with the White House on this arts effort.

Writer Hillel Aron and Yosi Sergant

The writer and Sergant claim that there was no political advocacy on the call. However, both the NEA and the White House have released separate statements stating that some of the language was “not appropriate” and admitting that there were “appearance issues,” respectively. During the interview Sergant stated that he never mentioned “Public Option” in his encouragement, but rather offered “blood drive” posters as an example of the type of art that he hoped would come out of the meeting. But that does not pass the smell test for what actually happened. The example that Sergant and the other federal employees highlighted during the conference call was a Rock the Vote project designed to “engage young people, in particular, on the issue of a new environmental movement.” Given that the call participants were avid Obama supporters, the art that came out of the meeting was, unsurprisingly, highly political in nature – a fact that cannot be changed by a friend attempting to rewrite history. Also omitted from the story was the fact that after resigning, one of the first projects Sergant worked on with another activist call participant was called “Public Option Please” that attacked Joe Lieberman’s wife in hopes of getting his vote for the senate’s version of health care reform.

The writer also claims that Sergant “simply copy / pasted the text from a United We Serve e-mail.” However FOIA documents clearly show that Sergant helped develop and edit the invite with Nell Abernathy, a fact that Aron’s graduate journalism professors may like to know if he is being graded on accuracy. If Aron’s article was written for his fiction professors, I retract this criticism.

I’ve stated throughout my articles that the White House was ultimately to blame for this controversial arts effort. The administration was fully aware of Sergant’s activist affinity and placed him in a position to put that skill to work. Unfortunately, political activity at a federal agency, indirectly or otherwise, is prohibited. The fact that the NEA and the White House threw Sergant under the bus is not a fact lost on the person left smelling like rubber.  When asked by Aron if he thought someone from the White House was going to stick up for him, Sergant responded, “I knew they wouldn’t.”

It would appear through these new statements, Mr. Sergant, in part, agrees with me that the White House has mud on their hands – albeit for different reasons. The only question left for Sergant is, how much longer will he let the White House affect his integrity and blame him for actions he was appointed to perform.

Chairman Landesman’s claim that Yosi Sergant, the former NEA Communications Director, acted “unilaterally” on the controversial August 10th conference call is not only beginning to erode, but new documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act show that another federal employee thought the arts effort was entering murky legal waters.

–

In an email dated July 30, 2009, Nellie Abernathy, a representative of the federal program United We Serve, sent an email to Sergant to inquire of his interest in attending a meeting regarding 9/11 events – the culmination day of the United We Serve campaign. In the email Abernathy states (emphasis added):

“Just got off the phone with [redacted]. They’re interested in helping produce some 9/11 events and will be in DC next week. Any chance you could join us for a meeting Tuesday morning? Or does this fall into that sketchy grey we might get arrested area?”

Sergant responded, “I’d love to.”

The subject of the email correspondence was entitled “rock the vote,” which presumably should have been redacted (blacked out) in the subject line given that the organization is a non-government group and the other subject lines in the email chain were redacted.

Readers following this story may recall that Rock the Vote was a presenter on the controversial August 10th conference call that encouraged an arts group that worked on Obama’s election campaign to create art on issues that were being vehemently debated nationally; including health care, energy, and the environment. As a presenter Bates stated the following, “We just wanted to give you one quick tangible example of things that can be done.” Bates then went on to explain how Rock the Vote was considering having an artist create an art installation from urban waste to engage young people “on the issue of a new environmental movement.”

Rock the Vote is a non-profit voter registration organization that is frequently involved in partisan political activity – a conflict that Abernathy appears to address in her email correspondence with Sergant. Eleven days after the August 10th conference call, Rock the Vote announced a health care design competition. The contest announcement read:

“We can’t stand by and listen to lies and deceit coming from those who are against reforming a broken system…We need designs that tell the country YES WE CARE! Young people demand health care now.”

The new FOIA documents also show that additional federal employees were aware of this arts effort, including another NEA employee by the name of Elizabeth Stark. Email correspondence between Abernathy, Sergant, and Stark show that a United We Serve meeting was arranged by Stark for Sergant.

Philip Martin, an outreach coordinator for United We Serve, also appears in the FOIA documents, showing that he was aware of Sergant’s efforts and was working with him on another arts outreach program in Philadelphia. The federal employees that were aware of this arts effort continue to grow and now include Yosi Sergant (NEA), Elizabeth Stark (NEA), Nellie Abernathy (United We Serve), Philip Martin (United We Serve), Buffy Wicks (White House Office of Public Engagement), and Kalpen Modi (White House Office of Public Engagement).

Chairman Landesman’s claim that Sergant acted “unilaterally” is becoming harder to swallow.

Well, when our government uses “service” as a mechanism to keep their volunteers active in government, it is not so noble. 

I claimed last week that the White House Office of Public Engagement’s rationale for promoting service was to keep Obama’s campaign volunteers active. I also claimed that the White House was using Serve.gov to manage those volunteers and as a mechanism to acquire new volunteers for their use. To support that claim I referenced a statement from Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, on the now infamous August 10th conference call. Wicks explained to the call participants, an arts group that worked on Obama’s 2008 election campaign, the White House’s rationale for using service: 

“…part of my role [at the White House] is working on service, and so when we were thinking about how do we take a lot of this energy that’s out there, how do we translate folks who have just been engaged in electoral politics and engage them in really the process of governing, of being part of this administration in a little bit of a different way because politics is one thing and governing is something totally separate, we really saw service as the platform by which we can do that.” 

Buffy Wicks didn’t state that national recovery was the rationale for encouraging service. She conveyed that the White House was interested in transitioning partisans from the election cycle into the administration, and using “service” as the mechanism for that transition. 

Glenn Beck picked up on the significance of this statement last night, but to further support this claim I went to Serve.gov and did a search for “Democrat.” What I found was 20 pages of volunteering opportunities that were related to Democratic causes (check here). There are probably far more than 20 pages of listings, however that is the maximum that any search term will display. In contrast, the search term “Republican” returns a paltry 2 pages, of which many are still Democratic cause listings that contain the word “Republican” somewhere in the description. 

If Serve.gov were a registered voter, my money would be on it wearing a donkey pin.

All of these efforts are driving would-be volunteers to Serve.gov. The question is, for what purpose?

Buffy Wicks

Encouraging volunteerism is a noble effort undertaken by every US President. However, this Administration’s national service outreach has led on multiple occasions to outright policy advocacy. I’ve shown this throughout my writing on the subject, with a primary focus on the National Endowment for the Arts. However, the Corporation for National and Community Service is playing an even bigger role in this White House effort, and I don’t think general volunteerism is the only goal in mind. 

The national service initiative is being led by The Corporation for National and Community Service (The Corporation) and the White House Office of Public Engagement. On the now infamous August 10th conference call, Nell Abernathy of The Corporation introduced Buffy Wicks as the person who championed the art community’s involvement in the Obama election campaign as well as the person spearheading this national service initiative. Wicks, the Deputy Director of the Office of Public Engagement, explained the White House’s rationale for selecting service by stating, “part of my role [at the White House] is working on service, and so when we were thinking about how do we take a lot of this energy that’s out there, how do we translate folks who have just been engaged in electoral politics and engage them in really the process of governing, of being part of this administration in a little bit of a different way because politics is one thing and governing is something totally separate, we really saw service as the platform by which we can do that.”

The White House views service as a good way for those that have just been involved in electoral politics to stay active, and is driving them to Serve.gov to organize and manage them. Buffy Wicks didn’t state that national recovery was the rationale for encouraging partisans to serve. She conveyed that the White House was interested in transitioning partisans from the election cycle into the administration, and using “service” as the mechanism for this transition.

What made candidate Obama’s campaign so successful, in simplistic terms, was his grassroots volunteers and his brand messaging. Of course there was the mainstream media favoritism, the unpopularity of President Bush, his fundraising, and the 2008 Democratic Primary schedule that also played a role. However, these areas were either out of his control or fed by his volunteers and branding.

So it is safe to say that to stay in power, it is vital for his organization to keep these resources organized and active so that the machine retains its potency. There is no better federal agency than The Corporation to serve this purpose. The Corporation’s entire existence is to encourage volunteerism. It is also the nation’s largest grant provider supporting volunteering. And starting sometime this month, Congress will reconcile two bills that fund the Corporation’s expanded role, which includes tripling the number of volunteers to 250,000 and the creation of an ArtistCorps and MusicianCorps.

Volunteers were the backbone of Obama’s grassroots organization and artists were the ones that led his unofficial campaign branding.  These two groups were both massive tools used by the Obama campaign. And a pivotal developer of that tool was Buffy Wicks, the same person “spearheading” the White House volunteerism initiative.

Wicks, a former labor movement and anti-Iraq war organizer, helped develop the Obama campaign’s national grassroots field strategy. Her goal was to have as many organizing teams on the ground as possible and to have an infrastructure to support the addition of new volunteers. She expressed this goal in a Camp Obama training session during the election when she stated, “If we had an organizing team in every precinct, we win this campaign. Like that’s it, end of story, we win this campaign.”

You get a feel for her national volunteer strategy through this Camp Obama video. Her grassroots and infrastructure goal is in the 36:45-40:10 segment.

The NEA and White House conference calls and The Corporation’s new iParticipate effort all drive traffic to Serve.gov – a website that provides the infrastructure and mechanism for growth of volunteerism that looks a lot like what Wicks was advocating on the campaign trail. And Wicks, a political activist with a history of organizing people to take political action, is working with The Corporation on this effort.

By itself though, there is nothing nefarious about pushing volunteerism. However, there have been many warning signs that the White House is attempting to politicize national service.

The August 10th conference call is an obvious example. The call was partisan in nature, it led to policy advocacy, the Communications Director of the NEA resigned, the NEA issued a statement acknowledging inappropriate language, and the White House issued conduct guidelines to address the partisan “appearance” issues. The cover-ups and historical revisionism displayed by the White House, The Corporation, the NEA, and the moderator were troubling indicators of the calls intentions. Another example is the May 12th White House briefing, which also led to extreme policy advocating – but that meeting has yet to be fully vetted.

These partisan volunteer efforts along with the expansion of The Corporation are alarming signs. Through expanding the size and power of The Corporation, the Administration is in essence organizing and increasing the pool of resources that helped it acquire power.

But another event, on further review, adds to concern about the use of The Corporation.

On June 11th, President Obama controversially fired Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service. The termination, possibly violating a watchdog protection law, was thought to be due in part to Walpin’s dogged persistence in pursuing the misuse of The Corporation’s funds by grant recipients, one of which was a big supporter of Obama, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. After a brief period, Johnson’s funding suspension by The Corporation was lifted, triggering Walpin to scold the agency’s board of directors for that decision. Walpin was later fired by the President with little explanation.

If Walpin’s funding misuse investigation showed the White House anything, it was that he was actually going to be a watchdog – a good quality in an Inspector General unless you don’t want the dog watching.

It is my hope that the mainstream media, along with Congress, begins to look into these White House volunteerism efforts with a bit more of a critical eye.

This new iParticipate initiative by the Entertainment Industry Foundation and The Corporation appears tame on review of the press release and website. But a memo uncovered by Big Hollywood shows that the TV networks are being encouraged by this initiative to infuse the issues of health, the environment, and energy into their storylines.

Such a close relationship between the government and the networks should leave many to wonder whether the networks are too close to the White House to be critical. And recent comments by Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, attacking a legitimate news network seem designed as a preemptive strike to marginalize critical inquiry.

The free press needs to keep a critical eye, regardless of whether the White House likes a watchdog or not.

Also see:

PART I: LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set

PART II: Search and Ye Shall Find…Left-Wing Advocacy

MORE: List of ‘Organically’ Created iParticipate Television Programs

The allegations raised in “White House Creates ACORN for the Arts” and prior stories about the NEA enlisting artists who receive government grants to support President Obama’s political goals certainly raise a number of issues.  Foremost among them is whether such actions violate White House policy and potentially federal law.  The White House Counsel was concerned enough about the conference call that it was compelled to issue new guidelines for public outreach meetings, noting that some of the comments on the call may have been “misunderstood as seeking to inappropriately politicize activities of the NEA.”  But beyond violating these White House guidelines, which could result in further forced resignations but little else, what is really at issue with the alleged conduct?

By seeking to enlist the private sector in lobbying for the President’s agenda, the alleged conduct may have violated the Anti-Lobbying Act (18 U.S.C. §1913), which as Ben Shapiro pointed out in a previous piece, explicitly provides:

No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation.

The Anti-Lobbying Act, according to government handbooks, prevents government employees from engaging in “substantial ‘grass roots’ lobbying campaigns … expressly urging individuals to contact government officials in support of or opposition to legislation …. Provid[ing] administrative support for lobbing activities of private organizations”

(more…)

Part II after the jump.

It’s a good thing there are conservatives willing to expose this administration for what it is.

President Obama and Kalpen Modi, Associate Director of the Office of Public Engagement

But the question is, what’s next? How can this be countered and how can the Obama administration be forced to back down? As it is, liberal groups, news organizations and individuals continue to cover up for the administration. Perhaps someone will be thrown under the bus again, but the thugs of Team Obama will remain in place and continue to “transform America.”

Exposing their tactics is necessary to fight them, but it’s not enough to actually beat them. Mr. Breitbart and team have learned that the tactics the left has used against conservatives for decades; to discredit them works wonders. But if conservatives want to take back the government, we have to copy the left’s organizing skills as well.

It’s an outrage that the NEA has been turned into a propaganda tool by the most liberal president the U.S. has ever had. But there is a reason the administration spoke to artists on the August conference call and was willing to take the risk of exposure: artists influence the people. The effect isn’t always immediate–it may take years for artists to truly influence society as a whole–but it’s there. If you want to “transform” society you need artists on your side.

Liberals have always understood this. They’ve been working with artists for decades. A lot of art already is politicized. The only reason this is a scandal now is because the radical left isn’t some fringe group at this moment but is in charge of the government. As Buffy Wicks put it, “we [meaning they] won.”

If they weren’t in charge of the government but were still activists, some would still be outraged, but it would not be considered a big thing. The strategy is nothing new–the only new aspect of it is that these people have taken over the government and continue to use artists as propaganda tools.

Whether we like it or not, this strategy has paid off. Liberals have influenced society tremendously by, among other things, using the arts to indoctrinate the American people. They’ve done this in the United States and in Europe. They’re influencing society by doing what free market thinker Friedrich Hayek told conservatives to do: getting second-hand dealers of ideas on their side who then slowly but surely influence society by a constant and never-ceasing flow of propaganda.

If we conservatives want to fight back in the long run, instead of just bringing down this particular liberal administration, we have to do what liberals have been doing for years. We too have to get as many second hand dealers of ideas on our side. Then and only then will be successful in the long run.

Breitbart has taught us that the strategies the left has used to discredit the right can be used against them. We have to act on that, continue to do what Breitbart and some here at Big Hollywood have been doing. But we have to do more than that: we have to destroy and create. And the wonderful thing is that to do this we can learn from the left once again, we can use their tactics against them in this aspect as well.

If we want the victories of the last weeks to be permanent, we should copy the left’s strategy in every way possible. Destroy and create.

Let’s get going.

“What did the White House do wrong?” he asked.

“The White House attempted to use federal agencies for political gain,” I blurted out.

President Obama with former NEA Communications Director Yosi Sergant

And that is The Big Truth in a nutshell. A moment of clarity hit me, and as with most eureka moments, a path of how to explain this big truth came into sight. The full story needed to be told – including possible collusion, the White House’s novel mode of operation, and the eventual cover-up – to fully understand and illuminate the government’s intention with their arts effort.

Up until now, I have not discussed Sergant’s former job in the White House Office of Public Engagement, where Buffy Wicks currently resides, because the story had to develop to understand the significance. I also haven’t discussed the email that I received from Michael Skolnik, the moderator of the call, immediately after the publication of the original conference call article – an email that attempted to revise history and the role of the NEA and the White House in the meeting. And what has yet to be discussed is the White House’s recent ability to set up an ArtistCorps, brought into existence with less than 20 words in the Serve America Act.

A deeper look into the build up to the August 10th meeting and the aftermath of the release of my article will be explored here. This is The Big Truth.

SETTING OUT TO POLITICIZE THE ART COMMUNITY

As many of you may know by now, my original article, entitled The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?, discussed a conference call organized by the White House and two federal agencies, those being the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) & the Corporation for National and Community Service (The Corporation). In the original article and subsequent series I presented an irrefutable fact – that the federal government encouraged a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. 

To prove that the government set out to politicize a federal agency, it would take more than one federal employee acting inappropriately during the August 10th conference call. However, once a second federal employee is found acting with the same intentions as the first, by definition collusion is a possibility.

I think it can be shown that Yosi Sergant did not act alone, but namely, Buffy Wicks and Nell Abernathy prescribed to the very same behavior.

On September 24th, the former Communications Director of the National Endowment for the Arts, Yosi Sergant, resigned from his position at the NEA. In a statement issued two days earlier, the Chairman of the NEA, Rocco Landesman, outlined a list of facts regarding the conference call, including that “the former NEA Director of Communications helped organize and participated in an August 10^th conference call to introduce members of the arts community to United We Serve” and that he “acted unilaterally and without the approval or authorization of then-Acting Chairman Patrice Walker Powell.”

Let’s assume for a second that no one at the NEA knew of Sergant’s efforts, which is what it appears Mr. Landesman is saying. We can give the agency that caveat for now. However, the assumption of ignorance must stop there. Why? Because we know from several sources that the White House and The Corporation, a federal agency that promotes volunteerism, also played a role in initiating, organizing, and planning the meeting.

The Corporation and White House Involved in Initiating and Planning Meeting

As reported by Foxnews.com, “Thomas Bates, vice president of civic engagement for Rock the Vote, confirmed he was on the call, saying he was invited by officials at United We Serve.” United We Serve is The Corporation. We know that Bates was one of the meeting presenters, which proves this federal agency was involved in the planning of the conference call. Who from United We Serve invited Thomas Bates? Possibly Nell Abernathy since she was the representative from United We Serve on the call, but that’s a question for Abernathy and/or Bates to answer.

Skolnik

As for the White House’s involvement in the initiation and planning of the conference call, we know that Michael Skolnik (the call moderator) stated during the call that he was “asked by folks in the White House and folks in the NEA” to bring together the independent artists community from around the country.  He also tweeted about two meetings in July:

“Just met with Yosi Sargent at the NEA. What we can do with the arts in our country is so exciting. Yosi is a champion for our generation!”  — Michael Skolnik Tweet at 8:56 AM Jul 15th

“On conference call right now w/ some amazing folks from the Obama team talking about United We Serve! Even during tough times we must serve.” — Michael Skolnik Tweet at 12:13 PM Jul 30th

These give at least two approximate times and dates that Skolnik met with the White House and the NEA to discuss the conference call. Who did he meet/teleconference with at the White House? Possibly Buffy Wicks given that she was the White House official on the call, but that is a question for Wicks and/or Skolnik to answer. At the very least these multiple statements by Skolnik makes the White House an initiator and co-planner of the August 10th conference call.

From these facts we can see that Sergant did not act alone in initiating, planning, and organizing the meeting. Both the White House and The Corporation were involved as well. – they were presenters on the call and knew the detailed structure of the meeting. Their involvement, however, doesn’t prove any wrong doing on its own. But when you combine their involvement in the planning of the meeting with the partisan nature of the audience and their encouragement of issue specific art, the intent of the government’s arts effort begins to come into focus.

The White House Politicizes the NEA and The Corporation

On September 22nd, The White House issued a memorandum to White House staff, as well as agency and department heads, to address the “appearance issues” of the conference call. The memorandum states that, “Some comments made in the call…have been misunderstood as seeking to inappropriately politicize activities of the NEA.”

Here is one of many segments that the White House is claiming that I misunderstood as politicizing the NEA. The statement is made by Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement:

“I’m honored to be on the call, and I just, you know, it’s been a long road I know for a lot of us, and we’re really just beginning.  I, first of all, want to thank everyone for being on the call and really just a deep, deep appreciation for all the work that you all put into the campaign for the two plus years that we all worked together.  I was the field director in California so I hear my L.A. peeps out there, so it’s exciting to hear those voices. And, you know, we won and that’s exciting, and now we have to take all that energy and make it really meaningful.”

There is absolutely no misunderstanding. The NEA was politicized, as was The Corporation, by the White House.

As stated in an earlier post, every federal employee on the call understood that they were asking an extremely partisan, pro-Obama art group to address politically controversial issues. The praise ranged from thanking the group for their service on Obama’s 2008 campaign, to reflections on the hard work that each had put into his election. Additionally, the White House and both federal agencies allowed Skolnik, the person with which they planned the meeting, to tell the call participants on several occasions that the goal of the group was to support the President and to push him and his administration. Placing a “third party” moderator in a position to deliver a partisan message does not provide plausible deniability, it only acknowledges disreputable activity.

With these statements, each government official was complicit in bringing together a partisan, pro-Obama group to take some action supporting the President.

There was even a point in the call where Abernathy said that she would distribute partisan information to the call participants through Skolnik. How is delivering partisan information through a third party any different than delivering it directly to the audience?

All of this political activity, while on duty, may have been a violation of the Hatch Act as well as the authorizing statutes of the federal agencies.

As to the “specific asks” that were the ultimate goal of the conference call, it is more than just Sergant that is guilty of inappropriate behavior.

As part of Chairman Landesman’s September 22nd statement, he stated that, “some of the language by the former NEA Director of Communications was, “unfortunately, not appropriate and did not reflect the position of the NEA.”

Rocco Landesman

When asked by the Los Angeles Times to elaborate, an NEA spokeswoman sent the Times the following as the passage that Landesman considered inappropriate:

“I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment. There’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as areas of service. Then my ask would be to apply your artistic, creative community utilities. Bring them to the table.”

If these “asks” denote where Sergant crossed the line, then the other federal employees on the conference call also crossed the line. Both The Corporation and The White House Office of Public Engagement prescribed to those “asks” as well.

During the call, Nell Abernathy, a representative of the The Corporation, stated the following:

“And so that brings me to kind of our third major tactic we have been working on all summer, using the media and the story-telling on the campaign.”

“To a large degree, that’s how I saw the arts community to be so powerful in the campaign, helping us to tell the story, telling their own story whether it was the Hope poster which made…our whole mission instantly recognizable and relatable to people, or it was the will.i.am video that circulated on the Internet; but helping people to feel that they are part of a national movement…”

Abernathy then goes on to say:

“I think Yosi is on and is going to talk about some of the specific ways which we feel the art community is critical to this both what’s already going on and some opportunity for future partnership.”

Abernathy knew that Sergant would talk about the specific ways that the community could work on this project. If she knew to hand off this point to Sergant, they must have discussed the meeting beforehand as well as what he would be talking about. Let’s don’t forget that “ways” is plural, while “volunteerism” is singular. It couldn’t have just been volunteerism.

Abernathy may claim that she thought Sergant was just going to encourage the broad concept of volunteerism. But any denial of Abernathy’s part in encouraging the group to create issue specific art is neutralized by her agency’s invitation of Thomas Bates.

You may recall that Bates stated to Foxnews.com that he was invited by officials at Abernathy’s agency to attend the conference call. Bates was more than just a participant – he was part of the presentation. And as a presenter Bates stated during the call, “We just wanted to give you one quick tangible example of things that can be done.” Bates then went on to explain how Rock the Vote was considering having an artist create an art installation from urban waste to engage young people “on the issue of a new environmental movement.”

The example given by Bates is a clear indication of what the government wanted of these artists and art professionals – and that was not some vague notion of volunteerism as the White House claims, but rather to create art on politically controversial issues. Bates was invited by Abernathy’s federal agency to help deliver that message.

If Mr. Sergant is guilty of asking the art community to create art on controversial issues, so is Ms. Abernathy. And with the addition of one more federal employee to the list of officials requesting the creation of political art, the possibility of collusion becomes much firmer.

Now before going on, an important fact should be pointed out here that has not been made to date. The Corporation also provides grants.

On May 7, 2009, the President released his detailed fiscal year 2010 budget request. In the request, a budget of $1.149 billion was requested for The Corporation and its programs, which marks a 29 percent increase over President Bush’s fiscal year 2009 level. Per The Corporation’s website (emphasis added), “This budget strengthens existing programs and invests in new initiatives authorized by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.” This Act includes a provision that allows funding by The Corporation to the arts, and more specifically to organizations that carryout activities such as “providing skilled musicians and artists to promote greater community unity through the use of music and arts education and engagement through work in low-income communities, and education, health care, and therapeutic settings, and other work in the public domain…”

This one line of text in the act attempts to define art as service and creates an “ArtistCorp” and “MusicianCorps”, akin to the PeaceCorp. With new art grant responsibilities given to The Corporation, the encouragement of a pro-Obama group to create art on politically controversial issues is another conflict of interest.

Were Sergant and Abernathy really working alone on this effort? Did Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, actually have no idea that the goal of the conference call was to encourage artists to create art on politically controversial issues?

The Political Intentions of The White House Office of Public Engagement

Through Wicks’ own words during the conference call, she acknowledges the group was a pro-Obama collective and thanks them for their efforts. She also states (emphasis added), “we’re going to come at you with some specific asks here. But we know that you guys are ready for it and eager to participate.”

Buffy Wicks

She later discusses the key issues that she wanted the group to address, with health care, energy and the environment at the top of the list. When referencing health care she stated, “health care. Obviously, that’s a big issue.”

Now it could be argued that she was referencing volunteerism in these issues. But she then goes on to say, “we need your guys’s help to promote this. We know that you all have channels and ability to get message out far greater than we do here…”

Promotion and “ability to get message out” are not a request for general volunteerism, and directly contradicts the White House’s statement on the purpose of the meeting.

Buffy Wicks is far too intelligent to think that asking a pro-Obama group to address vehemently debated issues, at a time when the health care debate had gone nuclear, would lead to anything but policy advocating. The recent discovery of a meeting between another pro-Obama arts group, the White House, Wicks and the White House Office of Public Engagement shows that the concept of using the arts to address issues was entrenched throughout the administration months before the August 10th conference call.

That fact dates back to when Sergant actually worked in the White House Office of Public Engagement with Buffy Wicks.

USING ART TO PUSH POLICY – THE CONCEPT STARTED AT THE WHITE HOUSE

“Just got a call from the white house. I start work monday. Uhhhhhh.” — Yosi Sergant Tweet at 3:01 PM on January 30, 2009

“We unveiled the HOPE posters for the first time on Super Bowl Sunday. The same day, one year later, I head to DC. Trip out.” –Yosi Sergant Tweet at 9:09 PM on January 30, 2009

Yosi Sergant

On Monday February 2, 2009, Yosi Sergant began his stint working for the government as an associate in the White House Office of Public Engagement (at that time called Office of Public Liaison). Known throughout the administration as the man behind the Obama campaign’s unofficial art movement, he was influential in helping initiate and promote the now famous Shepard Fairey Hope poster as well as the Moveon.org Manifest Hope Gallery, which was a collection of art celebrating Obama’s candidacy.

The White House Office of Public Engagement’s approach of using art to push policy makes an appearance as earlier as May 2009.

From a briefing report, first reported by The Washington Times, we see that the creation of issue related art was weaved throughout the very fabric of the White House Office of Public Engagement.

The briefing, held on May12th, included 60 artists, creative organizers, and the White House. Michael Strautmanis, Chief of Staff for the Office of Public Engagement, was documented as saying to this arts group that people were “motivated by issues and by expressing themselves through the arts.”

Per the briefing report Strautmanis recognized Sergant, who was instrumental in bringing the meeting together, and his efforts in making the Obama campaign “soar” with artwork.  He acknowledged that Sergant’s presence “represents the commitment to bring in people not traditionally part of the political process to share their talents and skills. With Yosi…in place, he explained, people very close to the President are involved in the effort.” Sergant was placed at the NEA on May 11th, the day before this meeting.

So the White House places Sergant, a political activist that has a history of using art as a means to distribute messages, at the NEA as the Communications Director. What were their intentions if not to politicize the NEA?

Buffy Wicks also attended this May 12th White House briefing. Per the briefing report (emphasis added), “She asked briefing participants to think through how their networks and organizations can participate in areas such as the arts in education, healthcare and preventative care, energy and environment, or economic opportunity.” The brief continues, “She explained that the President and the First Lady will be engaging all of the resources of the White House to think through how the arts can be a space where Americans can engage in service…”

This is where “defining the creation of art as service” makes its first known appearance outside the cryptic line in the Serve America Act. It’s a timely concept given that the White House will be launching a national service initiative within a month. And the idea is delivered by Buffy Wicks.

The desire to “expand what it means to serve” and that “art by definition is service” was discussed during the August 10th conference call. It is made very clear through their own words that Wicks and the White House Office of Public Engagement view the creation of art as a form of service. Wicks cannot claim that she suppressed that idea for the August 10th conference call when so many others on the call were advocating that very concept.

It takes a huge leap of faith to think Wicks and the White House Office of Public Engagement were not complicit in the same infringement as Sergant and Abernathy – that being to encourage a pro-Obama art group to create art on politically controversial issues.

THE WHITE HOUSE’S POLITICAL ART PLAN IN ACTION

To date we know of three government art efforts – the May 12th White House meeting, the August 10th conference call, and the August 27^th conference call. Taken together we see the White House’s attempt to effect the discussion of policy through the arts.

The meetings show a pattern of bringing together pro-Obama arts groups, providing the group political issues to tackle, then letting the groups organically come up with ideas – with the only possible results leading to partisan messaging.

The May 12th meeting is where the beginning of this mode of operation first appears.

The meeting consisted of three parts: 1) a meeting between the 60 artists and creative organizers to prepare for the briefing, 2) the two-hour White House briefing, and 3) a post-briefing meeting to interpret and respond to what the group had learned as well as to engage in small-group strategy sessions.

The briefing report contains similar qualities as the August 10th conference call. The White House hosts acknowledged the partisan nature of the group by thanking the participants “for their roles in amplifying the administration’s messages in their communities.” The participants in the meeting were in contact with Sergant, who was in the Office of Public Engagement during the planning, and he’s noted in the report as being “instrumental in arranging the briefing.”

As with the August 10th conference call, the NEA was in the room with grantees and potential grantees. The meeting was called on the preface of bringing together “community cultural development practitioners and thinkers to talk about how the remarkable mobilizing power of community arts can be used by the Obama administration as a tool and a pathway for national recovery.”

The goal of the May 12th meeting cannot get more concise than that statement – to discuss how the Obama Administration can use the power of arts as a tool.

At the meeting, this pro-Obama arts group was asked by Buffy Wicks to “think through how their networks and organizations can participate in areas such as the arts in education, healthcare and preventative care, energy and environment, or economic opportunity.” And the Chief of Staff for the Office of Public Engagement talked of how some people are “motivated by issues and by expressing themselves through the arts.” Both of these statements show the clear intention of the White House office of Public Engagement to use the arts to tackle issues.

It wasn’t until the third segment of the meeting that you could see how a meeting of this nature could generate politicized art.

In this final segment the group formed small strategy session teams. One such group tackled the issue of healthcare reform.  The group, headed by Michelle Miller of the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), discussed the multiple roles that artists can play to support healthcare reform. Some of these roles were to “join with policy makers to help create a narrative about the current health care system. There is an ongoing need for stories from inside the health care system…” The session notes continue, “These stories serve to highlight the need for health care reform…”

And to show an even clearer example of how these meetings can produce partisan messaging, the strategy group highlighted that the artists role should be to “create a counter narrative to the Luntz memo/Republican talking points designed to destroy health care reform.”

The following video shows this plan in action. It is a panel, sponsored by the SEIU, the same union that was the lead in the strategy session, and includes stories from inside the health care system that help to create a narrative for the need for reform – just as discussed during the strategy session. I found this video posted by a participant in the May 12th briefing. The narrative that is developed in the first one minute and thirty-eight seconds is pretty shocking to say the least:

–

Or this health care song uploaded by a participant on the conference call (caution: explicit lyrics):

–

The results of these strategy sessions show how assuredly the White House can count on a pro-administration arts group to produce policy friendly messaging. As Mario Garcia Durham, Director of Presenting at the National Endowment for the Arts, was quoted as saying in the May 12th briefing, “Government and its policies should be shaped by participants’ voices in connection with the NEA.”

I hope this group got the new White House “guidelines” memorandum. It looks like they also have some “appearance” issues.

THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT’S MODE OF OPERATION

As you can see, The White House Office of Public Engagement’s mode of operation is novel. Bring together pro-Obama arts groups, give the group controversial political issues to tackle, and then let the groups “organically” come up with ideas. Given the make up of the groups, the only possible results will lead to pro-administration messaging that is extremely partisan.

In both the May 12th and August 10th meetings, you see this plan in action. Two days after the August 10th call, Americans for the Arts, an NEA grantee and participant on the call, issued a press release with a coalition of 20 national arts organizations urging Congress to pass legislation that “guaranteed universal health insurance coverage.” Three days after the call Shepard Fairey, who had a representative on the call, released a new poster entitled Power Up, promoting the adoption of windmill power. Eleven days after the call Rock the Vote, a presenter on the call, announced a health care design competition. The contest announcement read, “We can’t stand by and listen to lies and deceit coming from those who are against reforming a broken system…We need designs that tell the country YES WE CARE! Young people demand health care now.” These may all be a coincidence, but the timing is suspect.

This is how the administration is attempting to create an environment friendly to their policies – by having pro-Obama arts groups create partisan messages.

COVER UPS & HISTORICAL REVISIONISM

Cover-ups speak volumes to the intentions of those trying to cover up. Government officials never cover up flattering stories, only unflattering ones.  Case in point is the laundry list of cover-ups and historical revisionism that happened after the first article broke August 25th on Big Hollywood.

In the original article I stated that the NEA initiated the conference call. Within minutes of the article going live, I received an email from Michael Skolnik, the call moderator, refuting that detail. Skolnik wrote:

“I was surprised to read your blog post today, and I hope that you consider updating it with the proper facts.  The call was not initiated by the NEA, nor is the group a function of the NEA.  It was initiated by me, and I initiated it because I thought artists around the country could come together and be involved in the United We Serve campaign — service…I hope you re-think what you wrote, and include the proper facts, so there is no mis-information given to the world.”

This statement directly contradicted his statement in the conference call, a fact that was made clear in the release of the transcripts. By having a “third party” be the initiator of the call, the government has plausible deniability to any of the results or intentions of the meeting. But once it is shown that all federal employees played a part in planning the meeting, plausible deniability evaporates.

The NEA Cover Up

On August 27th, the Washington Times reported that Sergant claimed the NEA was only a participant on the call and didn’t have the invite. That was shown as a dishonest response because the invitation that I received came from Sergant himself.

On September 10th, the NEA issued an unattributed statement claiming to have “participated” in the August 10th conference call. On September 22nd, after we released the full transcript, the NEA issued a statement claiming that “the former Communications Director helped organize and participated in” the conference call. This changed the NEA’s role again and placed all of the blame on the former Communications Director.

The Corporation Cover Up

During the August 27th Washington Times interview, Sergant stated that The Corporation “set up the conference call.” Foxnews.com, however, reported the next day that The Corporation claimed that the call was organized by an “individual interested” in the group – presumably pointing the finger at Michael Skolnik. However, one of the presenters, Thomas Bates, told Foxnews.com that he was invited to join the call by officials at The Corporation, showing that The Corporation was involved in organizing the call.

The White House’s Attempt at Historical Revisionism

On September 1st the White House issued a statement to the Boston Globe stating that the “call was a briefing on public service.” The Globe reported that the White House thought, “Courrielche misconstrued the purpose of the phone call.”  Three weeks later, after the transcripts were released, the White House changed its position conceding that there may be some “appearance issues” that troubled some participants.

Within days they issued guidelines to their staff to address a problem that they earlier stated didn’t exist.

The guidelines itself are an exercise in historical revisionism. The White House Memorandum states, “Some comments made in the call, however have been misunderstood as seeking to inappropriately politicize activities of the NEA.” This copy should have been crosschecked with the transcript and the NEA statement. The NEA itself categorized the comments as “unfortunately, not appropriate.” Any reasonable person would see that there is no misunderstanding. The call comments did inappropriately politicize the NEA as well as The Corporation. And isn’t it peculiar that comments during the conference call led to the White House issuing guidelines to ensure proper conduct, while declaring in those same guidelines that the conduct wasn’t improper. My head is spinning.

These cover-ups, frantic finger pointing, and exercises in revising history have been an attempt to hide the implications associated with the government’s role in setting up such a partisan effort. Each statement has been an attempt to make this story a non-story – an attempt that at times has been successful. For example, I recently did an interview with CBS for Katie Couric’s Evening News, but the interview has yet to air. You would think that with both the National Endowment for the Arts and the White House admitting to inappropriate behavior and “appearance” issues that someone from the mainstream news networks would smell something fishy and broadcast a story. But to date, the mainstream TV nets have been silent.

***

As I have stated from the beginning, the federal government did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable. It has been shown throughout this article that Sergant did not act alone in requesting the arts group to create art on politically controversial issues. Both Buffy Wicks and Nell Abernathy also prescribed to that encouragement.

It has also been shown that the concept of using the arts to tackle political issues dates back to the May 12th meeting between another pro-Obama arts collective, creative organizers, and the White House. Through my previous articles, and excellent reporting by the Washington Times, it has also been shown that NEA grantees have been involved in all of these politicized efforts.

The White House has attempted, through the efforts of the Office of Public Engagement, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Corporation for National and Community Service, to use federal agencies for political gain. All of the evidence from the May 12th and August 10th meetings point to that conclusion.

Even more revealing was the fact that a similar conference call was to happen on August 27th, two days after my article went live. The call was to include the NEA and the White House Office of Public Engagement. However the NEA backed out of participating in that call.

***

At times I’ve found myself caught in the grips of The Big Truth.

Many have heard the expression The Big Lie. It’s a phrase that describes a propaganda technique that employs a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously,” as described by the villain that coined the phrase. The resultant effect being that the masses believe the colossal lie.

Well The Big Truth is an opposite of sorts. It’s a truth that is so clearly documented, and with such immense implications, that it is almost too big a truth to be taken seriously.

I experienced this phenomenon when I first spoke about my article just a few weeks ago.

When I described to a journalist some of the unreleased information gathered in the August 10th conference call, I was told that the story sounded too big to be true.

Well the circumstances that led up to the call, the content of the call itself, and the resulting attempt to cover up the government’s role are the pieces of The Big Truth puzzle that reveal the government’s intentions with the arts. And those intentions are to create an environment friendly for the administration’s policies.

Art is no longer just a painted canvas hanging on a wall or a film that takes an enormous amount of effort to be distributed. Art is now media – and can go viral with the click of a mouse. Government should not encourage artists to address specific issues, especially not those that are politically controversial. We need a separation of art and state – otherwise we head farther down the road to serfdom.

Through the publication of this article I am requesting that members of Congress add to their NEA inquiry, any violations of the authorizing statutes that pertain to the Corporation for National and Community Service, as well as extend their inquiry into the possible politicization of these agencies by the White House Office of Public Engagement. Additionally, Congress should look into the actions of NEA grantees involved in each of these arts efforts.

Those were the words of the former Communications Director of the National Endowment for the Arts three days before the conference call. However Rocco Landesman, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), in a recent statement declared that Yosi Sergant acted “unilaterally and without the approval or authorization” from his superior.

NEA Chair Rocco Landesman 

Taking the Chairman’s statement at face value and moving on would be the easy thing to do. However, the details of the Chairman’s statement need to be addressed. 

First, if the former Communications Director “acted unilaterally and without approval or authorization” from his superior, why is he still working for the NEA? Wouldn’t an act as rogue as bringing together a pro-Obama arts group and encouraging them to create art on health care have triggered an immediate dismissal if it was actually without authorization? 

Let’s not forget, Buffy Wicks from the White House Office of Public Engagement was on the call. And from the transcript of the call it is obvious that she was aware of the goal of the call, which was to “support some of the President’s initiatives,” and cognizant of the audience’s affinity for the President, hence her thanking them for the two-plus years of support on his campaign. 

Kalpen Modi with President Obama

Secondly, what specific aspect of his actions were unilateral and without approval? Definitely not the encouragement of the art community to tackle health care, energy and the environment, because that same request was part of a different but similar conference call invitation scheduled for August 27th. That invitation was sent out by Kalpen Modi (“Kal Penn”), Associate Director for the White House Office of Public Engagement, and was sent to a completely different arts group. As discussed in a previous post, the NEA and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) were on the invitation and scheduled to be on that conference call as well. However both federal arts organizations backed out of participating on the call, which was held two days after my original article went live on Big Hollywood. 

Thirdly, in the first issued statement by the National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA stated that they “participated” in the call. In Mr. Landesman’s new statement, the NEA’s involvement changed to “helped organize and participated” in the conference call. Why did “helped organize” get added to the classification of their involvement? 

The National Endowment for the Arts has already conceded that some of the language on the conference call was “not appropriate.” Clarification on the three points above would bring full transparency to this federal agency. 

Also in need of clarification are the statements from the White House. ABC News’ Jake Tapper reported Tuesday that The White House has issued a response to the August 10th conference call. The White House seemed to concede that the call was inappropriate, stating that the call had the “incorrect appearance that politics” had something to do with NEA grant decisions. 

White House spokesman Bill Burton told ABC News the following:

“The point of the call was to encourage voluntary participation in a national service initiative by the arts community. To the extent there was any misunderstanding about what the NEA may do to support the national service initiative, we will correct it. We regret any comments on the call that may have been misunderstood or troubled other participants. We are fully committed to the NEA’s historic mission, and we will take all steps necessary to ensure that there is no further cause for questions or concerns about that commitment.” 

ABC News also reported:

Today White House officials are meeting with the chiefs of staff of the executive branch agencies to discuss rules and best practices in this area, a conversation during which they will be told that while the White House lawyers do not believe that the NEA call violated the law, “the appearance issues troubled some participants,” Burton said. “It is the policy of the administration that grant decisions should be on the merits and that government officials should avoid even creating the incorrect appearance that politics has anything to do with these decisions.” 

I am happy that the White House is reacting to the inquiries regarding this issue. But I’d like to address “the appearance issues” that Mr. Burton referenced. 

Buffy Wicks

The August 10th conference call audio shows that the NEA and The White House Office of Public Engagement knew that they were speaking to a pro-Obama arts group about addressing the topic of health care. This came at a time when the issue of health care reform was being vehemently debated nationally. Additionally, the invitation to the August 27th conference call shows the same structure as my conference call, including a third party moderator in Americans for the Arts, references to tackling the same recovery agenda issues, and the participation of the White House and the NEA. As mentioned this meeting was held two days after my original post, and the NEA backed out of being on that call. 

It seems to me that there is more than an appearance issue. 

The above issues should be addressed by both the National Endowment for the Arts and the White House for there to be a resolution to this arts effort.