Digital Journal: NEA Caught Making Political Gaffes (Update: More NEA Propaganda)

[IHOPSkins]

Last week, NEA Communications Director Yosi Sergent denied claims that emails asking artists to create Obama policy art originated from his NEA office. They did. And an Obama website now features a post that calls ObamaCare opponents "Heirs of bin Laden."

Last week, I reported here at Digital Journal on the politicizing of the National Endowment for the Arts via NEA Communications Director Yosi Sergent. Mr. Sergent arranged a conference call on August 10th with the White House Office of Public Engagement, NEA and United We Serve to recruit artists to create art advocating controversial Obama Administration policies, including ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade.

That news came from filmmaker/art consultant Patrick Courrielche via Brietbart's Big Hollywood website. Mr. Courrielce was a party to that call by invitation. Mr. Sergent has since publicly denied any politicization of NEA, or that the invitations to that conference call originated from him or anyone else at NEA. Mr. Sergent deferred all media inquiries to the Corporation for National and Community Service, from which Mr. Sergent claims the invitations originated.

Today, Mr. Courrielche is back at Big Hollywood with a new post, "Update: What The NEA Says vs. Documented Facts." In his new post, Mr. Courrielche not only refutes Mr. Sergent's claims, he provides copies of two memos emailed directly to him, inviting artists to create new art promoting policies such as ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade, that originated directly from Mr. Sergent's office at NEA.......

Memo

"A call has come to our generation. A call from the top. A call from a house that is White. A call that we must answer. And to answer it, we need you."

"President Obama is asking us to come together to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda - health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/278561

So the NEA is now the Official Propaganda arm for the Obama Administration

[hkHog]

Absurd, well most of the media and 95% of Hollywood spout nothing but Obama propoganda, this isn't a surprise.

[GhostofSparta]

Well, if you can only produce art because the government is the one paying you, don't be shocked when the government starts making demands like this.

When they started taking government money, those artists ceased to be anything but propogandists.

[Larry]

Observing that your site's "proof" that this email supposedly came from the NEA is a jpg of an altered version of the email. (According to the jpeg, Josi Sergent (yosi@arts.gov) emailed the invitation to himself.)

And that your site's claim that "an Obama website now features a post that calls ObamaCare opponents "Heirs of bin Laden."":

They got their story from LittleGreenFootballs, which points out a few things:

The web site is run by the DNC. Not exactly "an Obama website", but not exactly a Yahoo message board, either. But what the web site is is a place where anonymous volunteers can advertise any events which they're holding, so that other like-minded volunteers can show up and protest.

In short, the message you're trying to smear Obama with, is an anonymous post on an internet message board.

(Didn't you try this same stunt, during the election? Or was that somebody else?)

[IHOPSkins]

.....In short, the message you're trying to smear Obama with, is an anonymous post on an internet message board......

Far from anonymous

UPDATE: What the NEA Says Vs. Documented Facts

by Patrick Courrielche

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/31/contradictions-are-revealing-politicizing-the-nea/#more-214754

There is some confusion here. And it should be noted that I’m the only one that has provided proof with an invitation directly from the National Endowment for the Arts. Everything else is the Government’s word against mine, but the contradictions damage the Government’s credibility. Let me also enter here a “Reminder” email [see below, click to enlarge], again from the National Endowment for the Arts, which makes it abundantly clear who was calling the meeting at the onset of the email by stating “join the White House and National Endowment for the Arts for a conference call…”

Its no wonder why Obama wants to increase funding for his advertis.....I mean the NEA

[Larry]

Far from anonymous

UPDATE: What the NEA Says Vs. Documented Facts

by Patrick Courrielche

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/31/contradictions-are-revealing-politicizing-the-nea/#more-214754

Its no wonder why Obama wants to increase funding for his advertis.....I mean the NEA

Read again.

Your "NEA invitation" is a jpeg of an altered version of an email.

Your "Obama website now features a post that calls ObamaCare opponents "Heirs of bin Laden."" is an anonymous post on an internet message board.

[IHOPSkins]

Read again.

Your "NEA invitation" is a jpeg of an altered version of an email.

Your "Obama website now features a post that calls ObamaCare opponents "Heirs of bin Laden."" is an anonymous post on an internet message board.

I dont CARE about the Bin Laden BS

The NEA sent an email out that is a call for Propaganda

It is not Anonymous because Pat says so

Speak to the issue of the NEA being a tax payer funded PROPAGANDA TOOL for the left....or you can obviscate jpeg heirs to your continual satisfaction

NEA = LEFTIST PROPAGANDA

[Prosperity]

sounds like bull****

[alexey]

Absurd, well most of the media and 95% of Hollywood spout nothing but Obama propoganda, this isn't a surprise.

Many find it absurd to see opposition to issues that obviously need addressing. Addressing global warming, getting off foreign oil, reforming the heath care system - this stuff we actually need to do. That's not propaganda, my friend, that's reality. Your statement is akin to claiming that people who say you should eat veggies are a part of some secret liberal plot orchestrated by Whole Foods.

[Larry]

I dont CARE about the Bin Laden BS

The NEA sent an email out that is a call for Propaganda

It is not Anonymous because Pat says so

Speak to the issue of the NEA being a tax payer funded PROPAGANDA TOOL for the left....or you can obviscate jpeg heirs to your continual satisfaction

NEA = LEFTIST PROPAGANDA

And an Obama website now features a post that calls ObamaCare opponents "Heirs of bin Laden."

I hereby apologize for responding to your original post in the thread.

Now, as to the NEA:

The "proof" that's being offered, here, is a JPEG of an altered email.

According to your "proof" Josi Sergent emailed the invitation to himself. (And nobody else.)

(Look at the "proof". Right up at the top, you see the lines labeled "From" and "To"? Notice that they're the same?)

Now, that said, though, do I think that your source, Courrielche, is simply making stuff up, with a faked email as "proof"? No, I don't.

To me, it seems far more credible that yes, the conference call which he describes really did happen, that it really did involve three different entities (as he lists), and that it really did focus on the things he claims. His piece seems completely credible to me. (And I'm not going to let the fact that you're selecting snippets out of his piece so you can howl in mock outrage, allow me to jump to the conclusion that the people you're quoting are partisan.)

To me, the most logical explanation for the address being different on the email is that the author chose to remove his own email address because he didn't want to get spammed to death.

I'll point out that Courrielche describes a conference call involving three agencies. The NEA. The White House Office of Public Engagement. (Which sounds like a public affairs office, to me). And United We Serve (which I assume is a private volunteer organization).

In short, two of the three organizations involved have public advocacy and volunteerism as their missions.

But yeah, I do have an icky feeling when government agencies (especially government agencies whose job is to hand out money to people) are, let's say "encouraging" people to "volunteer" on a partisan effort. If this is all they did, then it looks bad. (If they did anything worse, than it might even be bad.)

[hkHog]

Many find it absurd to see opposition to issues that obviously need addressing. Addressing global warming, getting off foreign oil, reforming the heath care system - this stuff we actually need to do. That's not propaganda, my friend, that's reality. Your statement is akin to claiming that people who say you should eat veggies are a part of some secret liberal plot orchestrated by Whole Foods.

I'm not saying we shouldn't address issues but liberals only see one way to address these and all other approaches they disagree with.

Global warming is garbage. I'm not saying it isn't happening but the human but the human contribution is minuscule and any solution proposed by "environmentalists" will have catastrophic economic effects.

I'm all for getting off foreign oil, so why don't we start drilling in the USA and moving to more efficient forms of transportation like diesel and home electricity production like nuclear both of which are more efficient and we currently have the technology to implement?

And yes, we need to reform the health care system. I suggest we come up with a single set of federal laws for health insurance policies that will be accepted nationwide so that we can have TRUE COMPETITION in the marketplace. While we're at it we can also reform tort laws and implement laws that protect consumers so they can not be dropped and can find plans if they have preexisting conditions.

All of these ideas are practical, can be implemented in the near future, will reduce costs and not negatively affect future economic growth, and will not increase the government in size OR the control it has over our lives but I guess I have no ideas because they do not coincide with those put forth by the politicians in Washington, DC (and will not benefit them enough or give them more power).

What is absurd is when politicians propose solutions that will only increase our debt and government control when the government is extremely inefficient at everything it does and then say when people are opposed to these bad solutions that they are not interested in addressing the problems facing society.

[IHOPSkins]

It is the mission of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to foster the excellence, diversity, and vitality of the arts in the United States and to broaden public access to the arts. The NEA must provide support for building the capacity of American arts organizations and artists to create and share their work, by initiating national programs, partnering effectively with state and local arts agencies, and helping to ensure lifelong learning in the arts for every American.

http://www.artsusa.org/get_involved/advocacy/aad/issue_briefs/2009/advocacy_issuebrief_001.asp

Funny......I don't see where it says "And support Liberal Agenda"

Its just like PBS.........

When the Fund drives come they drag out the old Julia Childs/Rick Steads Videos and Bury the Bill Moyers BS

Run to the Center when theres $$$$$ to be had

[hkHog]

It is the mission of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to foster the excellence, diversity, and vitality of the arts in the United States

Lol, diversity!:doh: They mean as long as the diversity falls in line with the Obama administration.

[IHOPSkins]

UPDATE:

"The point of the call was to encourage voluntary participation in a national service initiative by the arts community," White House spokesman Bill Burton told ABC News. "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."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/after-inappropriate-nea-conference-call-white-house-pushes-new-guidelines.html

But....What about the Emails?

Newly disclosed emails link White House directly to NEA politicalization scandal

....The emails reveal that Modi worked with now-former NEA national communications director Yosif Sargant in planning the August 10 conference call that was first revealed by Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.com web site. Participants in the conference call were encouraged to use their talents to generate public support for the Obama agenda in Congress.....

· August 10, 2009, 10:23 am. Email from Yosi Sergant to Kalpen Modi: “[The call is] organized by me…I’d ask you to come on and give the exact spiel you gave on Saturday. Walk them through the WH Arts Policy. They won’t know it. Then I will take them into United We Serve and the NEA.”

· August 10, 2009, 10:29 am. Email from Kalpen Modi to Yosi Sergant: “Oy. This would be awesome to be a part of. Let me know if you think it’s going long, or maybe I can get someone from here to do it if I can’t because of the Social Security mtg.”

· August 10, 2009, 11:04 am. Email from Kalpen Modi to Yosi Sergant: “Let me see if we can move Social Sec by a few mins. Agreed, it would be great to be on the call and helpful for us also.”

· August 10, 2009, 1:37 pm. Email from Yosi Sergant to Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement: “We have an important call at 2pm for UWS (United We Serve) and the Arts with my peeps. Indie producers around the country. Kal can’t join the call. Any chance you can hop on for 5 minutes and intro with Nellie and I?”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Newly-disclosed-emails-link-White-House-directly-to-NEA-politicalization-scandal-67617717.html

Your tax dollars....hard at PROPAGANDA

[Johnny Punani]

Read again.

Your "NEA invitation" is a jpeg of an altered version of an email.

Your "Obama website now features a post that calls ObamaCare opponents "Heirs of bin Laden."" is an anonymous post on an internet message board.

More hair spliting???

Who cares about the NEA invitation? The FACT is there are recorded calls with Mr. Sargent openly talking asking artists to produce propaganda favorable to Pres Obama. Not only is that highly ILLEGAL but just another example of the nutjobs that now are a part of this Administration. That's why Mr. Sargent was forced to resign his position ( only because he got caught).

[Larry]

More hair spliting???

Who cares about the NEA invitation? The FACT is there are recorded calls with Mr. Sargent openly talking asking artists to produce propaganda favorable to Pres Obama. Not only is that highly ILLEGAL but just another example of the nutjobs that now are a part of this Administration. That's why Mr. Sargent was forced to resign his position ( only because he got caught).

Hair splitting?

Here's what's been posted in this thread:

"Look! Here's a photo of an email which I altered before I took the photo! This proves what I say it proves!"

"Look! An anonymous poster on an internet message board posted something I don't like! This proves that Obama is the Devil!"

And now we have an UPDATE

Which contains the shocking news that a White House staffer who's job is to encourage volunteers to work with the White House has been caught red-handed working on a conference call whose purpose was to encourage volunteers to work with the White House. This, no doubt, clearly proves that the entire White House is corrupt, no doubt.

(Of course, it's a coincidence that the poster edited the article he quoted to delete the fact that the corrupt person he's accusing of this dastardly act is in fact performing the job for which he was hired: Encouraging volunteers.)

Oh, and just some follow up:

Not only is that highly ILLEGAL but just another example of the nutjobs that now are a part of this Administration.

Could you point me at the law that says it's the "highly ILLEGAL" act of "nutjobs" for the government to encourage volunteerism?

[IHOPSkins]

......it's a coincidence that the poster edited the article he quoted to delete :blahblah::blahblah::blahblah:.....

Wow

Nice how you can crawl into my head Larry

I like how you missed the WH admiting fault in your SUCKopsis

My issue has always been the PROPAGANDA aspect (as noted at the end of my original post and by the next two posters)

You should appreciate that

Your are an expert

[Johnny Punani]

Hair splitting?

Here's what's been posted in this thread:

"Look! Here's a photo of an email which I altered before I took the photo! This proves what I say it proves!"

"Look! An anonymous poster on an internet message board posted something I don't like! This proves that Obama is the Devil!"

And now we have an UPDATE

Which contains the shocking news that a White House staffer who's job is to encourage volunteers to work with the White House has been caught red-handed working on a conference call whose purpose was to encourage volunteers to work with the White House. This, no doubt, clearly proves that the entire White House is corrupt, no doubt.

(Of course, it's a coincidence that the poster edited the article he quoted to delete the fact that the corrupt person he's accusing of this dastardly act is in fact performing the job for which he was hired: Encouraging volunteers.)

Oh, and just some follow up:

Could you point me at the law that says it's the "highly ILLEGAL" act of "nutjobs" for the government to encourage volunteerism?

Well, if it was just to "encourage volunteerism", why did Mr. Sargent resign?

You know...I thought I heard every **** and bull, partisan hack, spin excuse for everything on the planet, but this takes the cake! Are you kidding me?!?!?:laugh:

BTW, here are not one but four federal laws and a executive policy for good measure. Enjoy!!!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001913----000-.html

§ 1913. Lobbying with appropriated moneys

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; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to any such Member or official, at his request, or to Congress or such official, through the proper official channels, requests for any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business, or from making any communication whose prohibition by this section might, in the opinion of the Attorney General, violate the Constitution or interfere with the conduct of foreign policy, counter-intelligence, intelligence, or national security activities. Violations of this section shall constitute violations of section 1352 (a) of title 31.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00001352----000-.html

§ 1352. Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions

(a) (1) None of the funds appropriated by any Act may be expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any Federal action described in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1) of this subsection applies with respect to the following Federal actions: (A) The awarding of any Federal contract.

( The making of any Federal grant.

© The making of any Federal loan.

(D) The entering into of any cooperative agreement.

(E) The extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00007323----000-.html

§ 7323. Political activity authorized; prohibitions

How Current is This?

(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (, an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not— (1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;

(2) knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person, unless such person is— (A) a member of the same Federal labor organization as defined under section 7103 (4) of this title or a Federal employee organization which as of the date of enactment of the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 had a multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a (a)(4)));

( not a subordinate employee; and

© the solicitation is for a contribution to the multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a (a)(4))) of such Federal labor organization as defined under section 7103 (4) of this title or a Federal employee organization which as of the date of the enactment of the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 had a multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a (a)(4))); or

(3) run for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office; or

(4) knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of any person who— (A) has an application for any compensation, grant, contract, ruling, license, permit, or certificate pending before the employing office of such employee; or

( is the subject of or a participant in an ongoing audit, investigation, or enforcement action being carried out by the employing office of such employee.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a122_2004/

Under OMB Circular No. A-122, Attachment B, Section 25, federal moneys going to 501©3s cannot be used for “(1)Attempts to influence the outcomes of any Federal, State, or local election, referendum, initiative, or similar procedure, through in kind or cash contributions, endorsements, publicity ,or similar activity; … (3) Any attempt to influence: (i) The introduction of Federal or State legislation; or (ii) the enactment or modification of any pending Federal or State legislation through communication with any member or employee of the Congress or State legislature (including efforts to influence State or local officials to engage in similar lobbying activity), or with any Government official or employee in connection with a decision to sign or veto enrolled legislation; (4) Any attempt to influence: (i) The introduction of Federal or State legislation; or (ii) the enactment or modification of any pending Federal or State legislation by preparing, distributing or using publicity or propaganda, or by urging members of the general public or any segment thereof to contribute to or participate in any mass demonstration, march, rally, fundraising drive, lobbying campaign or letter writing or telephone campaign …”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000371----000-.html

§ 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

[Midnight Judges]

Wow this is devastating. When does the impeachment begin?

[Larry]

Wow

Nice how you can crawl into my head Larry

Nice how you're unable to even respont to what I pointed out.

You edited your UPDATE, to remove exactly one thing: The stunning news that the dirty scoundrel you've caught in the treasonous act of encouraging volunteers, is in charge of encouraging volunteers. It's his job title.

My issue has always been the PROPAGANDA aspect

Liar.

Your issue is and always has been that Obama isn't a Republican.

Show me the dozens of posts you made when Bush's Department of Agriculture was producing "news video", and sending the video to TV stations, so that they could splice the video into their local newscasts, without ever revealing that the "news story" was produced at the taxpayer expense.

Show me the mountains of outrage you expressed over "Mission Accomplished". You being so strongly opposed to PROPAGANDA and all.

What's really got me ticked off about the whole thing is that there actually is something here to object to. Something wrong.

No, it's not the fact that the White House office charged with encouraging volunteers is actually promoting volunteers. It's not the fact that in order to promote volunteers, the office in charge of promoting volunteers set up a conference call in which they encouraged volunteers. It's not the fact that the office in charge of promoting volunteers produced a flier promoting volunteers.

It's the fact that someone who is in charge of handing out government money mailed out the fliers.

He should have known better. Even if his intent was simply and honestly to connect people who wanted to volunteer with people who wanted to help volunteers (and there's no evidence otherwise), he had to know that it would look like whether an artist volunteered might conceivably be a factor in how much government money he got.

It's the same reason bosses shouldn't date subordinates. Even if the attraction is mutual, and completely independent of the workplace, the mere fact that one person has power over the other is virtually guaranteed to cause problems.

(And, IMO, it's part of a larger problem: The problem of politicians being given positions of government power. After being granted power, they continue to act like politicians. They got to their positions of bureaucratic power by spending years (maybe decades) acting partisan. Their entire qualification for their job is the fact that they were the most successful partisans around.)

It's entirely possible that this person, when he did this, had no evil intentions whatsoever. All he did was email a flyer which somebody else produced, and invite the people who were in his address book to participate.

(Which doesn't make it any less wrong.)

But we can't even get to that point, which I suspect everybody in the Tailgate Universe would agree with. (Since it involves Democrats, and most of the Democrat posters in Tailgate have ethics. As opposed to the numerous cases we've seen for the last several years in which the previous administration was caught doing things which were considerably more partisan, and undeniably so, and numerous of our Republican brethren defended the actions, and continue to do so, with explanations like 'well, the President has the right to implement his policy (by changing civil service rules so that he can select civil service applicants on the basis of their political loyalty)'.)

Because before we can actually discuss what's wrong with this picture, we have to get past the colored, highlighted, bolded, underlined, enlarged cries that the treasonous antichrist socialist is brainwashing America to reprogram us in his satanic image by encouraging people who chose to volunteer.

[Larry]

Wow. I was going through your post section by section and pointing out how completely irrelevant they are to this discussion, and then I found a sentence that I think might actually fit, here. So I'm throwing out all of the comments I was typing about how wring you are, and talking about the thing I think we agree on.

§ 7323. Political activity authorized; prohibitions

(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (, an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not— (1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;

(2) knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person, unless such person is— (A) a member of the same Federal labor organization as defined under section 7103 (4) of this title or a Federal employee organization which as of the date of enactment of the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 had a multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a [(a)(4)));

( not a subordinate employee; and

© the solicitation is for a contribution to the multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a (a)(4))) of such Federal labor organization as defined under section 7103(4) of this title or a Federal employee organization which as of the date of the enactment of the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 had a multicandidate political committee (as defined under section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a (a)(4))); or

(3) run for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office; or

(4) knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of any person who— (A) has an application for any compensation, grant, contract, ruling, license, permit, or certificate pending before the employing office of such employee; or

( is the subject of or a participant in an ongoing audit, investigation, or enforcement action being carried out by the employing office of such employee.

Now, I don't know if that law would actually apply in this case. (Did the guy encourage volunteers to promote the Democratic Party, or to promote the government's agenda? I can see a whole lot of doublespeak being thrown at that particular nit.)

But it is at least really close to the problem that I do have with that action.

I don't have a problem with the White House promoting volunteerism. But there is a problem when a person who has the authority over an agency who's purpose is to hand out government money to people forwards the call to volunteer along to people he has authority over.

It certainly could be interpreted as a hint that maybe your grant might depend on how enthusiastic a volunteer you are, even if no such intent was present.

And we all know that Washington is full of people who are really adept at the world of "nudge, nudge, wink, wink". (Not to be confused with "foot taps".) We'll never know if such an intent were really present. Too many habitual liars in there.

[Thiebear]

Seems to me he was caught and resigned.

Though he wasn't really HIDING it.

“Barack Obama is a figurehead of a movement, I would call it the progressive movement. My ‘Goal’ is to get Obama elected. I use 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 an Obama saying ; ‘We are the change we have been waiting for’” …Yosi Sergent, LA Weekly Article, September 2008

“Senate confirmed my boss today…and we’re off!” — As posted by Yosi Sergant on Twitter August 7th.

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.

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.”

The ONLY problem i would have for any of this is:

Hinting that a "grant" might NOT be coming if you don't help with the Government rules.

now on to the hypocrisy:

I'd doubt ANY Republican would have any problem with Pro-Military, Pro Iraqi posters and Pro Afghanistan pictures of us Kicking ass and taking names on the the "War on Terror". Megan Fox on a F117 would make any boys wall.

Be honest: The videos of the smart bombs rock.. and the HORAH! on the subject is great. Well, as long as you agree with the topic.

I do agree that the Yosi guy was a little over top, but i was way over the top in the frist two years of the Bush Presidency also.

[Mad Mike]

Well, if you can only produce art because the government is the one paying you, don't be shocked when the government starts making demands like this.

When they started taking government money, those artists ceased to be anything but propogandists.

Great artists and artistic organizations throughout history have gotten support from their governments. I support the NEA.

I do NOT support the NEA getting involved in any way, with promoting anyone's political agenda.

To me this sounds like some over zealous staffers and some people at the NEA who should have known better.

Slam the door shut on this stupid idea, punish and/or fire anyone those who knew they were breaking the rules and educate everyone else on what the rules are, and lets move on. :doh:

[IHOPSkins]

Larry

Why did the guy resign?

Why did the WH say it will change the way it does things?

Since you are so good at the propaganda thing....you might try landing that Opening the WH has now.......

they want someone who won't get caught this time

NEA = Obama Propaganda Tool

[Larry]

Larry

Why did the guy resign?

Why did the WH say it will change the way it does things?

What he did, looked bad. It may even have been illegal. (I've discussed what I think are the parts that would be both hard to prove, and would fit a whole lot of things that the government's been doing ever since politics was invented. But it's at least close enough to the line so that an accusation wouldn't be as bogus as, well, virtually every thing you've said in this thread.)

Since you are so good at the propaganda thing....you might try landing that Opening the WH has now.......

they want someone who won't get caught this time

:secret:The guy who resigned was at the NEA.

The guy who your stunning UPDATE is about was doing his job, and did absolutely nothing wrong. (Or at least, you haven't accused him of anything wrong.)