Soros is also bankrolling a documentary that celebrates left-wing terrorists who plotted to napalm Republicans at the 2008 GOP convention in Minnesota. Even worse, you too are bankrolling the film through your taxes.

A trailer for the left-wing film Better This World suggests that it depicts David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder as idealistic activists who, according to the official blurb, “set out to prove the strength of their political convictions to themselves and their mentor.” In fact McKay and Crowder are convicted domestic terrorists who manufactured instruments of death calculated to inflict maximum pain and bodily harm on people whose political views they disagreed with.

You can be sure that if it was right-wing terrorists who were plotting to attack the Democratic National Convention, whoever foiled the conspiracy would be immortalized in film, literature and song as a savior of democracy.

“If you flip the equation around and it had been a group of conservatives threatening to use force to prevent those on the Left from meeting, everyone would expect the government to infiltrate them and they would also expect the FBI to stop them and charge them with crimes,” said Brandon Darby, who helped the FBI thwart the planned attack. (Darby’s essay on political violence appeared on Big Government over the past weekend. Read it here.)

The movie, which is expected to be released this year, attacks Darby, a true American hero who undermined the conspiracy by alerting the FBI. Filmmakers Katie Galloway and Kelly Duane de la Vega twist the facts to argue that Darby, a former revolutionary activist, manipulated McKay and Crowder into becoming would-be mass murderers.

It’s an easily disproved lie. During sentencing, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis went out of his way to make a specific legal finding that McKay obstructed justice by falsely accusing Darby of inducing him to manufacture the incendiary devices.

McKay and Crowder had made homemade riot shields and were ready to use them in St. Paul to help demonstrators block streets near the Xcel Energy Center. The goal was to shut down the democratic process by preventing GOP delegates from participating in the convention. The shields were discovered and confiscated.

During a search of a residence, police found gas masks, slingshots, helmets, knee pads and eight Molotov cocktails consisting of bottles filled with gasoline with attached wicks made from tampons. “They mixed gasoline with oil so it would stick to clothing and skin and burn longer,” Darby said.

Thanks to Darby’s cooperation with the FBI, the two aspiring bomb throwers are now languishing in prison. McKay entered a “guilty” plea and was sentenced in May 2009 to 48 months in prison plus three years of supervised release for possession of an unregistered “firearm,” illegal manufacture of a firearm and possession of a firearm with no serial number. A week before, Crowder cut a deal with prosecutors and was sentenced to 24 months in prison for possession of an unregistered firearm. McKay received the stiffer sentence in part because he fabricated the tall tale about Darby’s involvement in the plot.

Of course, it should surprise no one that Hollywood loves this kind of story with its anti-American overtones. HBO gave a grant to the filmmakers to produce their pro-terrorist propaganda. So did the Soros-funded Sundance Institute. After Soros’s foundation, the Open Society Institute (OSI), gave Sundance’s Documentary Film Program $4.6 million in 2002, it gave the institute another $5 million in 2009.

Taxpayers also underwrite Sundance’s adventures in social justice indoctrination. According to nonprofit tax returns (known as IRS Form 990s), the Sundance Institute has taken in $11,240,081 in government grants since 1997. It is unclear which governments made the grants because the 990 forms lump all the grant-making governments together.

The federal government has given $1,350,000 to the institute since 2000, according to USAspending.gov. All but $5,000 of the money was from the National Endowment for the Arts. (The $5,000 grant was from the State Department.) It’s not clear if the $1,350,000 is part of the $11 million-plus figure for all government grants.

Upon receiving the most recent OSI grant, Sundance founder Robert Redford obediently genuflected before Soros. “Sundance Institute has supported documentary storytellers since its beginning,” said Redford. “The recognition of that history by George Soros and the Open Society Institute, and the continuation of our relationship over time, speaks to our shared belief that culture—in this case documentary film—is having a profound impact in shaping progressive change.”

Soros himself has acknowledged he is interested in the movies because “[d]ocumentary films raise awareness and inspire action.” He hails cinema for its power to manipulate audiences. OSI has been underwriting “social justice” documentaries since 1996. In 2001 Soros let Redford’s Sundance Institute take over management of his Soros Documentary Fund, which has since rechristened the Soros/Sundance Documentary Fund. (See Foundation Watch, March 2008).

In 2005 Soros acquired 2.6 million shares of the huge diversified media company Time Warner. In 2006 his companies, Soros Strategic Partners and Dune Capital Management, paid $900 million to buy the DreamWorks SKG film library from Viacom, a move that gave Soros the DVD and rebroadcasting rights to films such as Saving Private Ryan (1998), Gladiator (2000), and American Beauty (1999). As James Hirsen noted, the transaction gives Soros “some highly desirable film rights at a time when the marketing and distribution model is changing to video on demand, video iPods and other forms of digital distribution.” But more importantly, it gives Soros “a presence in Hollywood where likeminded libs are ready, willing and able to collaborate in cinematic social engineering.”

Soros is also venturing into media overseas. In 2008 Soros Fund Management plunked down $100 million for 3% of India’s Reliance Entertainment, a $3 billion conglomerate that aims to provide Internet-based TV programs in India. Reliance also churns out movies and owns movie houses, radio stations and social networking websites in the country with one of the fastest growing economies in the world. When in the 1980s Soros set up offices in Eastern Europe for OSI, he helped to finance publishers, independent TV and radio outlets, and political parties.

As writer Rondi Adamson observed, “most of the documentaries that receive Sundance funding are highly critical of some aspect of American life, capitalism or Western culture. The projects generally share Soros’s worldview that America is a troubling if not sinister influence in the world, that the War on Terror is a fraud and terrorists are misunderstood freedom fighters, and that markets are fundamentally unjust.”

The 2009 Sundance Film Festival screened the documentary Disturbing the Universe. The recently deceased Communist historian Howard Zinn described the movie about radical anti-American lawyer William Kunstler as “a wonderful, inspiring film.”

Putting America in its Place

Undermining America and promoting radicalism is what Soros is all about.

Soros seems to want Communist China to become a superpower, throwing its weight around on the world stage. Weeks before President Obama’s visit to China a year ago the Financial Times asked Soros, “What sort of a financial deal should Obama be seeking to strike when he travels to China next month?” He replied:

I think this would be time because you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, a financial world order. They are kind of reluctant members of the IMF. They play along, but they don’t make much of a contribution because it’s not their institution. Their share is not commensurate, their voting rights are not commensurate to their weight, so I think you need a new world order that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in. [emphasis added]

In November 2010 Soros praised China effusively. “Today China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States,” he said.

It’s all in a day’s work for George Soros. And now he’s trying to control the media in America.

(Parts one and two of this comprehensive series can be read at Big Government)

(The full article appears in the January 2011 issue of Organization Trends, a monthly publication of Capital Research Center.)

But (there’s always a “but” in such testy cases), when I juxtapose this one twisted symbolic gesture against the disregard—and I would argue contempt—being shown by so-called “moderate” practitioners of Islam who insist on building their mosque almost on top of the ashes of 9/11 victims against the wishes of so many Americans, I can understand the frustration that creates a Jones and his ilk. And the fact is, as Mayor Bloomberg offered up, if there is freedom of speech for the fanatical Muslim goose, it must also be for the crackpot Christian gander.

Still, as a matter of common decency I hope this guy tables forever his plans—and there are no copycats. And as a practical matter, I agree with General Petraeus in that the last thing our men and women in the field need is another faux propaganda storm putting them in greater harm’s way… although I do believe that fear of retaliation should not be a reason to quell free speech but rather to fight harder for it. (Easy for me to say as I am not humping a pack in Kandahar I freely admit!)

However, something did occur to me this weekend. Jones is going about this all wrong. If he really wants to burn the Islamic holy book, I know a way that he could do it while at the same time have every left wing pundit and mainstream news outlet not decry his act but rather defend and even celebrate it. He should burn it on the steps of the Museum Of Modern Art up here in New York. And instead of calling it a protest, or a statement, he should just call his Quran torching “art.” In the interest of consistency, artistic integrity and fairness, maybe he can even do it in the building, right on the same spot where in 1989 the infamous “Piss Christ” photo was proudly exhibited. You remember that? The piece of “art” that showed a crucifix submerged in urine? As artist Andres Serrano explained his artistic vision in an open letter to the National Endowment for the Arts:

The photograph, and the title itself, are ambiguously provocative but certainly not blasphemous. Over the years, I have addressed religion regularly in my art. My Catholic upbringing informs this work which helps me to redefine and personalize my relationship with God. My use of such bodily fluids as blood and urine in this context is parallel to Catholicism’s obsession with “the body and blood of Christ.” It is precisely in the exploration and juxtaposition of the symbols from which Christianity draws it strength.

That seemed just fine and dandy to the free speech warriors and beret crowd back in the day. In fact, Serrano’s inspired piece won the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition which was partially funded by that same NEA—your tax dollars at work. So then I submit Jones should just take Serrano’s explanation, re-arrange a few words, and present his action to the creative world this way:

The act of immolation itself is ambiguously provocative but certainly not blasphemous. Over the years, I have addressed religion regularly in my sermons. My religious upbringing informs this act which helps me to redefine and personalize my relationship with Allah. My use of such symbolic tools as gasoline and match in this context is parallel to Islam’s obsession with pyrotechnics and flaming destruction. It is precisely in the exploration and juxtaposition of the symbols from which Islam draws it strength.

There see? All better now. Sounds like we have ourselves next year’s NEA art contest winner too! At least Jones will have transformed himself from a provocateur into an “artist.” Someone all far lefties can gravitate towards. (Hey and as a bonus, maybe Larry David can pee on it to extinguish the flames like he did a picture of Jesus on an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. What a hoot!)

Of course, if MOMA declines the new exhibit, Jones could try the Brooklyn Museum which in 1999 exhibited Chris Olifi’s “artwork” that featured the Virgin Mary splattered in elephant dung. Back then the New York Times rushed to the defense of the display:

To be sure, many citizens of conscience find parts of the Brooklyn exhibition repugnant, and it is understandable that many Roman Catholics would find Chris Ofili’s image of the Virgin Mary offensive.” But, it continued, “A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time.

As an artist myself I grudgingly see the Times’ point here. So then it would appear, given this take on what constitutes “art,” that what we have in the Quran burning is but the latest chapter in the long, chaotic, glorious march of artistic freedom in defiance of out-moded conventions, intellectually stifling religious dogma, and societal mores. Oh my! What’s a committed lefty to do? One can almost hear the whining robotic cries of “Error…Error…Error….Does not compute!” from the First Amendment crowd who until now so craftily hid behind the cover of the Constitution so they could insult the faithful while calling their crass provocations “art” with a straight face.

But, why the confusion? Gee, I thought these were the guys who love to wax poetic about the joys of free speech, piously affirming to each other over their third latte: “We may not agree with what he says, but will defend to the death his right to say it!” So clearly then, by donning a black turtle-neck and moving the Quran burning venue from the parking lot of an obscure Florida church to the center of the modern art world, the Reverend Jones can count on some powerful liberal allies to shield him from the inevitable “fatwa” which the courageous Ofili and Serrano need never fear from Christians who have long ago learned to take sucker punches to their faith from the intelligentsia in stride.

Don’t hold your breath. These guys only have the mettle to push their “craft” in the faces of those who will not slit their throats. It all depends on whose profit is being gored, and, more to the point, the propensity for violence of those offended. Christians, by the very nature of following Christ’s admonition to embrace thine enemy will always be easy prey for assault and insult… be it in the name of Muhammad or modern “art.”

I reject Jones because he is showing the very contempt for another religion that repels me when I see it heaped upon my own in the name of self-promotion and the loosest possible definitions of “free speech” or “art.” The liberals will reject him too, but for a much baser reason… their double-standard is rooted in staying out of harm’s way. Period. The rest is just self-righteous smoke. It certainly prompts one to ask in this latest episode, who are the real cowards in this whole ludicrous non-event?

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.

Traditionally used to sell items like beer and aftershave, sex is now being utilized to encourage citizens to give in to an unconstitutional take over of one sixth of the American economy. Has sex really become that commonplace and tacky?

For example, in the video, a geeky-looking guy holding a “no death panels” placard is described as a liar, and the hot chick wearing a partially-unbuttoned plaid shirt is told to “lie right back” to him by telling him, “I’m on my period and I don’t have a vagina.” Har-dee-har. (There’s more, but you can see the lameness for yourself, if you so choose.)

The statistic “Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 are the most uninsured age group in the country” is reported in the video as fact, but the fact that most of the people in this age group choose to go without health insurance because they’d rather spend that money on other things- – and ObamaCare will deprive them of this choice — is conveniently ignored by the video’s hipsters. (See this article for more on how young people are beginning to rebel against the idea of mandatory health insurance.)

Rock the Vote is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Because of their tax status, non-profits are…

…prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Basically, what this means is that non-profits can’t come out and say, “Vote for so-and-so,” or “Vote NO on this proposition,” or “Tell your senator to vote yes/no!” However, voter education activities are not prohibited if they are conducted in a non-partisan manner.

Tell me exactly how a group that comes out and tells people to support the current form of “health care reform” is non-partisan.

So who are the geniuses behind Rock the Vote? Big Hollywood takes a peek at some current and former key players.

—–

Co-Chairman Jeff Ayeroff:

According to Ayeroff’s TimeWarner bio, he is “Co-Chairman of Rock the Vote, a non-partisan, non-profit organization he founded in 1989 in response to a wave of political attacks on freedom of speech and artistic expression. Rock the Vote is dedicated to protecting freedom of expression and helping young people realize and utilize their power to affect change in the civic and political lives of their communities. To date, the organization has registered more than a million young people to vote.”

Take a look at Ayeroff’s campaign contributions for 2008 – nary a Republican in sight. And back in 2007, following the Dixie Chicks brouhaha and their subsequent sympathy win at the Grammys, the New York Times said that “Ayeroff, a longtime music executive and an academy member, said the resounding endorsement of the group reflected the fact that the academy represents ‘the artist community, which was very angry at what radio did, because it was not very American.’ Mr. Ayeroff said he voted for the Dixie Chicks in at least one category.”

What, voting with your wallet is un-American? And since the government doesn’t control radio – yet – it’s up to radio stations to decide if they want to play music from a particular group or not. Besides, when’s the last time we heard from the Dixie Chicks? Is Ayeroff still a big fan? Inquiring minds would like to know.

—–

Heather Smith

Executive Director Heather Smith:

From her official RTV bio:

Prior to taking over Rock the Vote, Smith founded and directed Young Voter Strategies, a nonpartisan project in partnership with The Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University with support from The Pew Charitable Trusts.  Young Voter Strategies provided the public, parties, candidates, consultants and nonprofits with data and research on the youth vote as well as best practices to effectively mobilize young people.

Interestingly enough, Pew’s president, Rebecca W. Rimel, is also included in Discover the Networks, listed as a former 1960s leftist and she directs funding to initiatives designed to stop global warming:

Rimel is a self-described 1960s leftist who once said, “If we could re-infuse the idealism of the Sixties into our work, there [would be] nothing this country couldn’t do.” She is known in philanthropic circles as a controlling individual who wants prospective grantees to demonstrate their solidarity with Pew’s leftwing ideals before she will consider giving money to them. The Tides Foundation and Tides Center are among her favorite grantees.

Back to Heather Smith’s bio:

Prior to her work at the New Voters Project, Smith was an organizing director for Green Corps’ Field School for Environmental Organizing in Boston.

On its website, the Green Corps’ Field School lists amongst its “campaign victories:

• Fighting global warming
• Winning solar energy victories
• Exploring the abuses of the bottled water industry
• Protecting the Arctic refuge
• Advocating for open space
• Stopping ocean dumping
• Protecting Southern forests
• Fighting water privatization
• Safeguarding fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico

They are also involved with the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal Campaign,” the goal of which is pretty self-explanatory when you look at the placard this young crunchy granola sucker is holding. The Sierra Club holds the dubious honor of being listed in David Horowitz’s website Discover the Networks, which describes it as “one of America’s most influential radical environmentalist groups; deems technological progress harmful to the natural environment; and elected eco-terrorist Paul Watson to its board in 2003.” Please don’t tell me that Smith came away from this environment with no agenda in mind.

In the question and answer portion of the bio, Smith is asked what the “biggest explosion you have ever seen/caused” is. Her answer? “Rallies, spontaneous dancing, and other expressions of pent of hope and fear and frustration and happiness on Election Night 2008… I was at the White House.” So, was she amongst the mob who was screaming at George W. Bush “na na hey hey goodbye” and people saying such tasteful things as “you can suck my **** Bush“? That certainly gives Smith her non-partisan props, wouldn’t you say?

—–

Vice President of Civic Engagement Thomas Bates:

Bates was a participant in the now-infamous conference call with the National Endowment for the Arts, the purpose of which, according to Big Hollywood’s Patrick Courrielche, “was to bring together a group of pro-Obama artists to push the President and his agenda, with United We Serve as the first proposed effort. During the call, Yosi Sergant, then Communications Director for the NEA, encouraged artists to create art on the vehemently debated issues of health care, energy, and the environment.”

Again: Non-profits are expressly prohibited from partisan activities that could affect either pending legislation or election results. Hmmm…

—–

Vice President of Communications and Marketing Chrissy Faessen:

Chrissy’s Twitter account is littered with messages such as “Support health care reform that benefits young Americans. Quality care is a right for all Americans! #healthcare @2gov.” Again, Rock the Vote said it ran “the largest non-partisan voter registration campaign in history that saw 22 million young voters cast a ballot.” How can a group whose stated mission is “is to engage and build the political power of young people in order to achieve progressive change in our country” possibly run a “non-partisan voter registration campaign”? It’s like asking Ted Nugent to shill for PETA.

Chrissy’s LinkedIn profile notes that she also used to work for DDB Issues & Advocacy, which concentrate on “the most pressing issues of our time—health, poverty, human rights and the environment.” See? She cares.

—–

Director of Interactive Media Mary McClelland:

Mary’s LinkedIn profile notes that she used to be a national field organizer for Young Voter Strategies – which we mentioned above when discussing her boss, Heather Smith. Mary was also a campus organizer at CALPIRG, a California non-profit (are we seeing a trend here?) whose mission statement is:

When corporate wrongdoing threatens our health or our safety, or violates fundamental principles of fairness and justice, CALPIRG stands up for the public. We conduct investigative research. We publish consumer reports and exposes. We advocate new laws and other protections at the local, state and federal levels. And when necessary, we take corporate wrongdoers to court. Our results-oriented approach has won victories for Californians on a wide range of issues, including healthcare reform, prescription drug pricing, consumer privacy and product safety.

CALPIRG supports high-speed rail from Los Angeles to San Francisco, but it’s not certain how the near-bankrupt state will pay for it.

—–

Former president Jehmu Greene:

President of Rock the Vote from 2000 to 2005, Greene has moved on to greener pastures. (No pun intended.) She is now president of the Women’s Media Center, which was founded in 2005 by Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem because they were worried about the “crisis of representation in the media.” I didn’t realize having fewer women in media constituted a “crisis.” I tend to view crises as things like natural disasters or the nation being attacked by an enemy. Obviously I need to be re-educated. According to the WMC press release welcoming her aboard, “Throughout her career, Jehmu Greene has skillfully worked with the media to build powerful social justice movements.”

Just remember: social justice is code for communism.

A senior official at the National Endowment for the Arts encouraged artists to promote President Obama’s political agenda in a conference call he organized with the White House. The NEA’s communications director Yosi Sergant eventually resigned in August amid accusations that the grant-making organization was becoming politicized. The administration called it a “teaching moment,” but the media didn’t seem to catch the lesson.

Read the full list here.

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.

Sure, the NEA gives money to major established arts organizations – symphonies, ballet companies, repertory theater groups, and the like — but that is how they maintain their veneer of staid respectability, all the while promulgating their Leftist, nihilistic agenda through their smaller grants.  For example, I know a truly great American artist, Harry Carmean, who, among his other credits, was the Chairman of the Fine Arts Department at the Art Center College of Design  in Pasadena, California and taught there for 43 years.  He applied for NEA grants repeatedly to help fund his work but was rejected each time because his paintings were deemed “not edgy enough.”   Translation: he actually possesses artistic talent, skill, and discipline, which he uses to create beauty instead of pseudo-artistic, politicized claptrap.  We all know he would have had a far better chance of getting a grant out of the subjective and ideologically driven apparatchiks at the NEA had he used dog feces to paint images of female genitalia.

Like President Obama and his advisors who live within an Alinskyite bubble of Leftist Chicago politics, the NEA also maintains a closed, incestuous relationship between it’s administrators and the “artists” it funds.  To them, art, by definition, is inherently political in nature.  To produce “real” art today, artists must embody narcissistic self-indulgence and infuse their work with identity politics or otherwise “challenge” their audience. To be “meaningful” art must shine a spotlight on the dark underbelly of society or explore the twisted depths of human iniquity.  By contrast, art that celebrates the higher aspirations of humanity or embraces beauty as a mere end in itself is thought to be frivolous and, therefore, unworthy of financial support.

So, it came as no surprise to me that the White House and the NEA teamed up to conscript the arts community into helping promulgate their agenda.  I’m sure that over at the NEA they are totally perplexed by any outcry against their call to enlist the aid of “socially conscious” artists to help push the self-evidently wonderful Obama Administration plans for radically altering the American landscape.   The fact that their radical agenda is unacceptable to so many Americans has never even appeared on their radar.

The conference call initiated by the NEA brings up larger issues about what happens when the Government attempts to engineer society via its largesse.  All along, the NEA has been doling out money to its group of anointed artists and now the Government is simply calling for payback.  While all Government handouts come with inevitable strings attached, in this case, since the vast majority of artists on the receiving end of NEA munificence are on the Left, they see nothing wrong with overtly working to further the Obama Administration goals.  This toxic symbiosis comes as a result of turning the arts community into yet another “entitlement” group.  There are innumerable examples of artists complaining bitterly that their “freedom of expression” has been abridged when federal grant money is denied them.  In other words, government handouts (of other people’s money) have so weakened them that they actually imagine it is a “right” to have their self-indulgent art paid for by the taxpayers.

It has long gone out of fashion for artists to simply want to create things of beauty and to derive satisfaction from bringing joy to the lives of those whose lives are touched by their art.  Instead, for so many, artistic significance is now only measured by how politically or societally influential a work of “art” is.  The White House and the NEA know well the psychology of their hand-picked group of leftist artistes.  That is why they could be so confident that the “arts community” would jump onboard with both feet and embrace the opportunity to “serve” the President.  The fact that grants might be coming down the pike for those who “serve” particularly well is, in the end, of only secondary importance to massaging their narcissistic feelings of self-importance.

Creating political propaganda is not the province of real artists, though.   While it is obvious that throughout history great art has been created when artists have been commissioned to do so, all real artists recoil at the idea of making propaganda art to support the State.  That these NEA grantees seem so willing to “make a stink” (as Yosi Sergant so colorfully put it in the NEA call) to benefit the Obama Administration says volumes about their lack of artistic integrity.

There is no shame in artists receiving monetary compensation to sell ideas, products or a presidential agenda. When everything is transparent and contracted aboveboard, this is called advertising. When this process is whispered into being, strategized and set into motion from the shadows of government and from behind closed doors, it is propaganda.

From Sun Tzu to Psy Ops, propaganda has won wars, toppled cultures and changed civilizations. As a self-identified enlightened and educated culture, we  thought ourselves beyond such base manipulation. We were wrong.

Where were the voices of dissent on the NEA conference call when so called “artists” were asked to further the President’s agenda?

I have danced ballets and I have done commercials; one side art, the other side business. What side were the NEA recipients on?

Art for propaganda was an essential tool of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. What the heck is it doing in the White House? This should outrage freethinkers, citizens and artists from every corner of America.

The National Endowment of the Arts strategy has been traced straight to Valerie Jarrett, President Obama’s policy facilitator and Grande Dame of his inner circle. As disturbing and possibly illegal as this is, it becomes truly frightening when you connect the rest of the dots:

1)      The Democrats repeated commitment to implement the Fairness Doctrine and destroy conservative talk radio.

2)      S.733: The bill that would give the President control over the internet in the event of an “emergency.”

3)      On Sept. 20, 2009, President Obama stated that he would look into bailouts for print newspapers because he is concerned that blogs will take over the world and be a threat to democracy.

Imagine that: the President of the United States is concerned free speech may be a threat to democracy. Is anybody paying attention?

Thomas Jefferson knew that a free press is essential to a free republic. Control the flow of information and you control the people. This hasn’t changed much since 1933.

Perhaps this is not as visually arresting as book burning, but the results are the same. Joseph Goebbels needed to ensure that the views of the Nazis were put forward in the most persuasive manner possible and make certain that no one in Germany could read or see anything that was damaging to the Nazi Party.

Is this that far removed from the news coverage of Honduras or the under-reporting of turnout for the 9/12 DC rally?

But I submit to you that these propaganda assaults will fail because they are lacking the one element critical to mission implementation: fear.

President Obama and his team are convinced that they are smarter than the average American citizen.  They don’t just say Middle Americans “cling to their Bibles and guns out of fear,” they truly believe it. This administration has banked on using fear to push stimulus packages, carbon taxes, bailouts and health care reform. That is their Waterloo.

Fear is not at the core of the American psyche; independence and patriotism are. And when enough Americans step back, take a breath and realize the extent of this manipulation, they awaken with a determination and that is truly frightening to those that would attempt to govern from the shadows.

The fear is now on the other foot.

The Muslim Brotherhood has long taught their operatives in the USA to attack their opponents with charges of “hate speech” and “racism” whenever they were called out to defend their positions in public. The Democrats have called out their big guns: congressmen, congresswomen and even an ex-President to do the same. Why would anyone do this if they were not “afraid” of an informed public debate?

It will not work this time. The sleeper has awakened and she sees the man behind the curtain.

Apathy can no longer be counted on as a tool for those who would seek to control the populace and erode the Constitution.

In this “Constitution Revolution,” the American people are not coming after you with guns or explosives; they are armed with truth, a desire for transparency, a desire for enlightened and informed public discourse, a demand for civic responsibility and a call to politicians to honor their oaths to the US Constitution.

The latest NEA controversy broken here at Big Hollywood by Patrick Courrielche has become a fascinating Rorschach test within the theatre community.  The response has been disappointing yet predictable from the left-leaning proponents of the NEA and this administration.

Robert Mapplethorpe

To fully expose the inconsistencies and intellectually dishonest positions they have taken in their knee-jerk defense of everything Obama, we first need a little background for the Big Hollywood readers who might not remember all of the details in the recent history of controversies with regard to NEA funding in the theatre community.

NEA Primer: Now I don’t pretend to suggest that the following breakdown of the NEA struggles dating back to 1990 is a definitive or even thorough explanation of the recent history of left vs. right combat over the NEA.  I encourage all of my readers to research and read about this issue.  And, I especially want them to read the perspective of liberals/progressives/leftists who were in the middle of the struggle on the other side.  It is informative and enlightening to read how they really feel about the subject.

That being said, the following synopsis of the NEA fights from twenty years ago is meant to be a short-hand account of the debate from the perspective of the right… from “Stage Right,” if you will:

The NEA was created in 1965 as an independent agency of the Federal Government  for the purpose of funding  artistic endeavors to enrich the cultural fabric of our society.

Not coincidentally, many of the most influential non-profit theatres in America date their creation back to years between 1966 and 1979.  The new influx of federal grants as well as many state and local granting agencies that followed the Fed’s lead helped in the creation of these new theatre groups

In the early 1990’s, after 25 years of relatively unfettered growth and autonomous operation it was discovered that recent grants were given to individual artists whose artistic output included projects that are objectively seen as offensive, if not profane.  These projects include the infamous “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographic self-portrait showing a bullwhip shoved in his anus.  The famous “NEA Four,” a group of performance artists including Karen Finley, were denied an NEA grant despite the fact that they had been approved by a peer panel.   Finley’s performance art involved her smearing feces-symbolic chocolate on her nude body while singing.

Conservatives (not just Republicans) led by Senator Jesse Helms objected to a government agency funding artists who were creating these objectionable pieces of art and they attempted to call into question the NEA’s granting criteria.  Liberals cried foul and suggested that any governmental interference or oversight with regard to the content of the art created by NEA grantees is tantamount to an infringement on the first amendment.

Most conservatives heard this argument and wholeheartedly agreed.  Their solution:  Get the government out of the business of financing artistic endeavors all together.  The rationale was that if the government can’t have any input into the art that they are financing then they should not be financing it.  Otherwise, the American taxpayer can’t be guaranteed that they are actual getting what they pay for.  You see, if an agency is created to fund an artist to create work that will enrich the cultural fabric of our nation, and then the actual art does not enrich but actually degrades the fabric of our culture and offends a vast majority of our citizens, then the money is not being used in the way it was intended.  When congress dispenses federal funds, it is their responsibility to ensure that the funds are used for the purposes they were intended.  Otherwise, if the congress can’t question the proper use of the funds, then we have created an agency that is immune from any kind of governmental oversight and therefore should not continue to exist.

That reasonable and logical argument was met with howls from the left screaming about the right wanting to cut off funding to all of those theatres… those employers of writers, actors, directors and techies all living off of their non-profit theatre jobs.  It was at this point that a huge shift occurred in the theatre community, painting very stark lines between conservatives and liberals.  Up to this point, as a conservative, I was tolerated and sometimes even engaged in friendly debate at my workplace or at cocktail parties.  Not anymore.  Conservatives became the enemy.  They wanted to take food off of the table of my co-workers by cutting off funding for the arts.  And if I argued on their behalf, I was the enemy too.

Eventually, a compromise was reached.  The NEA would no longer fund individual artists but would continue funding institutions.  The institutions, in turn, would use the grants for administrative purposes, so they were not necessarily tied to a specific product that could be seen as objectionable.  Even after the GOP had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, no realistic attempt was made to shut down the NEA.  (In 1996, with President Clinton in the White House and a GOP congress, the NEA budget was slashed to just under $100 million from its high of $160 million.  It grew back to $140 million under President George W. Bush (that Nazi) and it is now up to $155 million for FY 2009).

But, the lines had been drawn by the left as a result of this episode.  If you were a conservative you had to fall into one of two camps:

1. You were a censor infringing on the rights of artists and trying to control their speech.  You were worse than the Popes who dared to dictate what Michelangelo could paint at the Vatican with church funds.  The Hubris!  You freaking fascist!
2. You were a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who saw no use for the arts in our society.  Only wanted the Federal government to fund bombs and the military industrial complex but only wanted art to exist in the context of a free market and therefore you were actively trying to shut down all of the non-profit theatres that were only surviving due to the NEA grants they were receiving.

(OK, I might be exaggerating, but the caricatures are not far from the truth.)

On September 10, the NEA announced that Sergant would be re-assigned with this curious statement accompanying the move:

“On August tenth, the National Endowment for the Arts participated in a call with arts organizations to inform them of the president’s call to national service. The White House office of public engagement also participated in the call, which provided information on how the Corporation for National and Community Service can assist groups interested in sponsoring service projects or having their members volunteer on other projects. This call was not a means to promote any legislative agenda and any suggestions to that end are simply false. The NEA regularly does outreach to various organizations to inform of the work we are doing and the resources available to them.”

This statement leads any objective and reasonable observer to wonder why Mr. Sergant would be “re-assigned” if there was nothing wrong with this purely “information/outreach” conference call. As has often been the case with this, the most open and transparent administration in history, it is very difficult to get a straight answer. We can’t even learn WHAT Sergant’s new position is, let alone why he was asked to step down from his role as Communications Director.

If the NEA and the White House are shocked that Mr. Sergant would blur the lines between arts advocacy and politics then they are doing their best Claude Rains impersonation. Yosi Sergant is all about art and politics. The only reason anyone knows Yosi Sergant’s NAME is because of his devastatingly effective work rallying artists to the Obama cause and using their artistry to promote the image, the essence, the idea of Obama.

After the election and during the transition, Mr. Sergant continued rallying artists in support of the President-elect. As curator of Manifest Hope:DC a Washington version of the exhibi, he first assembled in Denver for the Democratic National Convention, Sergant rallied support from sponsors to present the Obama Art Fest exhibit at M Street location in Georgetown. Who were two of the main sponsors of this Obama Art Orgy? MoveOn.org’s PAC and the SEIU. That’s right, the same union tough-guys who like to intimidate folks at heath care town halls also like to go to gallery’s in Georgetown and sip cosmos out of recyclable cups.

According their website,  MANIFESTHOPE: DC showcased the works of over 150 different artists advocating improvement in three key areas: HEALTH CARE REFORM, WORKERS’ RIGHTS, and THE GREEN ECONOMY.  Sound familiar?  Yup, that’s right, the theme of the artists work at ManifestHope seems eerily similar to the agenda of the August 10 conference call.

One other fun-fact from the irony department:  One of the judges of the exhibit, along with Spike Lee and Shepard Fairey was none other than recently-resigned Van Jones.  Follow this link to view some examples of the non-conformist artists work.  (Isn’t it great how they’re all such free thinkers and don’t follow the herd?)

If the Administration wanted to know what type of soldier Sergant would be at the NEA they should have just read his interviews over the past year, it’s pretty clear. You see, in the left-leaning arts and performing arts world Sergant is a bit of a rock star. He is the first among them to rise up and organize artists to push a political agenda and message all the way to the White House therefore, he was adulated from left to very left all over the Internet and his quote trail is easy to follow:

“My goal is to get Obama elected. I use the mechanisms I know, which are basically artistic. Look how important the grass roots are. Look at the effect they can have. I drank the Kool-Aid. I am alive with it, I believe…”

And once he was elected did the Administration really think that Sergant would settle into a boring PR position at a funding agency and not use his skills to rally artists around the president’s agenda?  It would be like assigning Mary Matalin a job as spokesperson for the Post Office, she’d be effective, but eventually she’d start using her position to bash Democrats, it’s what she does, it’s who she is.

And so it was with Yosi Sergant.  Before he started in his official capacity at the NEA, he assembled meetings of “hip-hop” artists and graffiti artists to meet with the administration as well as the first, White House Poetry Jam in May.  Sergant considered himself a hip-hop artist.  He said, “Spray-paint brought me to the NEA and I won’t forget that.”  He also told Jeff Chang’s Can’t Stop – Won’t Stop blog:

“I think we can revolutionize the way that Americans think about art.”

That’s a terrific sentiment Mr. Sergant.  Trouble is:  That’s not the NEA’s job.  The NEA gives out grants to arts organizations.  They do not revolutionize the way Americans think about ANYTHING.  They fund theatres and museums and let the theatres and the museums do the “revolutionizing”.  And since the NEA re-assigned you after the news of your phone calls came to light, I would have to assume that NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman agrees.