The name of Obama funder and terrorist sympathizer Jodie Evans turns up twice in recently released White House visitor logs.

Buffy Wicks, center, 2008 photo by St. Louis Argus

The logs show that a ‘Jodie Evans’ met with Buffy Wicks, the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement (OPE) on June 19, 2009. The meeting came just days after Evans’ group, Code Pink, visited the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza from May 28th to June 14th and was given a letter by Hamas to deliver to President Barack Obama.

On December 30th, the Obama administration released 25,000 records of visitors to the White House complex from the latter half of September. Mixed in those records were visits from other dates, including two by ‘Jodie Evans’ in June.

One visit is listed as a two-person meeting with Buffy Wicks in Room 146 in the Old Executive Office Building (OEOB). The meeting was scheduled at 19:02, June 16th for 10:30, June 19th by Ashley Baia, Staff Assistant with OPE. The meeting end time is recorded in the default setting of 23:59 for that day.

The record slots are blank for arrival, departure and cancellation notations, as are many of the records for visitors. There is no record of who was the second person in the meeting between ‘Jodie Evans’ and Buffy Wicks.

A week later, on June 24th, ‘Jodie Evans’ is listed as part of a group of 183 people given a “10 AM STAFF TOUR” that the log says met in the “RESIDENCE” in “WH.”

The log shows that visit by ‘Jodie Evans’ was scheduled five minutes after the tour began and was set by “VISITORS OFFICE.”

The June 24th appointment was apparently made by ‘Max Palevsky,’ a name shared by Jodie Evans’ ex-husband and current partner (it’s a California thing), on June 22nd at 17:53.

Taliban sympathizer Jodie Evans and President Barack Obama, Oct. 15, 2009

Like Jodie Evans, Max Palevsky was a bundler and donor for Obama’s presidential campaign. He was a co-host of Obama’s breakthrough Hollywood fundraiser in February 2007 along with Jodie Evans and the Dreamworks Trio.

When names of controversial associates of Obama and his administration have turned up in the visitor logs, the White House has denied that it was the controversial person and just a coincidence that similarly named people were on the list–including  ‘Jeremiah Wright’, ‘Bill Ayers’ and ‘Malik Shabazz’.

In last week’s holiday data dump, the name ‘Bertha Lewis’ turned up. The White House went on the record to deny that it was ACORN chief Bertha Lewis who visited the Obama residence in the White House. ACORN’s Bertha Lewis also denied it was her on the list.  In Big Journalism’s debut on Jan. 6 (Big Government’s sister publication), Andrew Breitbart reported about his confrontation with ACORN’s Bertha Lewis regarding her name on the White House Visitor Log.  She again denied it was her.

The White House will have a harder time denying that it was Obama funder and terrorist sympathizer Jodie Evans who twice visited the White House in June.

Last month, Jodie Evans wrote about her working with Obama’s Office of Public Engagement to coordinate communications undermining public support for Obama’s recently announced Af-Pak war strategy.

Since Obama was elected president, Jodie Evans (and Code Pink) has met with the Taliban, Hamas, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and President Obama, raising questions as to whether she is acting as a conduit for the terrorist groups to or from the president.

Jodie Evans has been quite outspoken in her her sympathies for terrorist groups that target the United States and our allies.

In a reprise of Code Pink’s aid for ‘the other side’ in Fallujah five years ago, Jodie Evans helped deliver ‘humanitarian aid’ to Hamas-controlled Gaza this past week. The trip was Code Pink’s seventh “delegation” to Hamas-controlled Gaza this year.

Jodie Evans was joined in her efforts aiding Hamas last week by Obama’s Hyde Park, Chicago friends and neighbors Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn–both former Weather Underground terrorists who waged war against the United States.

Are they circling the wagons?  The Democrat-party-front-group-acting Media Matters for America took great delight in hectoring Big Government over its report on ‘Bertha Lewis’ visiting the Obama White House.

Media Matters has ignored BG’s articles about Obama and Jodie Evans so far. Let’s see if they also try to knock this story down about Jodie Evans’ visits to Obama’s White House.

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

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

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

It is important to note that 18 U.S.C. §1913 only applies to federal officers or employees and not to the private recipients of federal grants, contracts or other federal disbursements.  Thus, while the artists who responded to the NEA’s request for political help may not have violated this particular provision of federal law, Yosi Sergant, who was apparently the main person behind the NEA phone call, and other members of the White House staff who were involved in the May 12 meeting at the White House, may very well have violated §1913.  Those staffers included “people very close to the President” according to Mike Strautmanis, Chief of Staff for the Office of Public Engagement.  Punishment for such a violation can be severe – a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each violation.

The behavior of these administration officials may have also violated 18 U.S.C. § 607, which prohibits anyone from promising “any employment, position, contract, or other benefit derived in whole or in part from an Act of Congress, as consideration, favor, or reward for past or future political activity.”   Ben Shapiro’s article relates that Mario Garcia Durham, the Director of Presenting for the NEA, told the gathered artists at the White House meeting that the “government and its policies should be shaped by participants’ voices in connection with the NEA,” a pretty direct statement that the NEA considers its mission to be ensuring the president’s policies are being supported by its constituency – which are the artists who get its grants.

Whether or not the conduct of NEA and White House officials violates the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §7324) hinges on how broadly the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which has jurisdiction over Hatch Act violations, construes “political activity” and who specifically was involved in these calls and meetings.   In general terms, the Hatch Act prohibits all federal employees (except for the President and the Vice President) from engaging in “political activity” in the workplace.  While certain federal officials, such as some assistants to the President and some in Senate confirmable positions, are bound by the Hatch Act, they are exempt from the prohibition on engaging in political activity.  So who was involved in the alleged conduct is the first question.  

The second question goes to the underlying conduct.  “Political activity” is defined as activities that are “directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.”   That phrase has historically meant activities that were oriented towards campaigns or elections as opposed to simply political in the legislative sense, and the underlying intent is important.  As an example, the Bush Administration came under OSC scrutiny regarding briefings that were held in federal buildings that analyzed the political landscape in the run up to the 2004 and 2006 election cycles.  In this case, the alleged conduct appears to be even more forward looking – not rooted in an upcoming election cycle per se, but leveraging past campaign resources to promote a legislative agenda that may have an electoral benefit down the road.  It would be a much easier analysis if comments were made about the 2010 cycle or about the need to help out in vulnerable member districts.

 In the era of the permanent campaign – and the references to past support by the artists that apparently occurred on both the phone call and at the White House meeting – it remains to be seen if such conduct could be attributed to future and potential campaigns. On the other hand, the Hatch Act also prohibits soliciting or discouraging political activity by anyone with business before a federal agency – and there is no question that the artists the NEA was talking to had business (grants) before the NEA.  The issue again is whether the NEA was soliciting political activity.

Another interesting side point is that historically – and in some cases problematically – so called “political activity” by the White House has been within the purview of the White House Office of Political Affairs.  That office has not been without controversy.  Senator John McCain pledged to eliminate it during the 2008 campaign and Congressman Henry Waxman has also called for its abolishment.  But shortly after the election, President-Elect Obama announced that he would keep that  office although it has been relatively quiet over the last eight months.  The political conduct with the arts community seemed to come out of the White House Office of Public Engagement.  So it would seem that the desire to push a political agenda has drifted into other White House offices. 

But the ultimate question is whether the White House Counsel, the Office of Special Counsel or the Justice Department determines there is  enough evidence from the NEA telephone call and the meeting at the White House to form the basis of an investigation into the actions of White House and NEA staff.  That will serve as the ultimate indication as to whether this administration represents the promised new era of accountability or simply more politics as usual.

I believe the following information might help explain Bim Ayandele’s involvement.  Not only did he help set up the Office of Public Engagement, but before joining a division of one of the largest PR firms in the world — which specializes in “grassroots organization”, “issues management” and “crisis communications” — Ayandele:

served as the Director of Cures Now, a Los Angeles based non-profit organization leveraging a coalition of actors, directors, producers, musicians, and writers to promote the rapid, responsible and ethical advancement of science-related social issues, such as stem-cell research and diabetes awareness.

It seems Mr. Ayandele’s expertise is in “leveraging” the entertainment industry to “promote” health care related issues. A skill which would have been useful should, say, the White House or another interested third party wish to get NEA grant recipients to push President Obama’s health care agenda.

But it doesn’t end there. His company boasts that:

Ayandele developed and implemented some of the pioneering guerilla marketing techniques that were instrumental in deciding the 2008 United States presidential campaign.

To recap:  A professional PR guy who has past experience pushing those in the entertainment and arts to lobby for health care issues is in on the NEA phone call.  His company bills him as behind some of President Obama’s guerrilla marketing techniques.

One definition says the objective of guerrilla marketing is:

to create a unique, engaging and thought-provoking concept to generate buzz, and consequently turn viral.

And the firm he works for bills itself as a leader in the kind of campaigning which might be used to push, say, President Obama’s health care initiative in non-traditional ways.

However, as much as social media creates risks, Web 2.0 can also be a valuable tool for those who want to understand and potentially manage the actions, trends, and opinions that shape their reputations. As a borderless window to millions of minds around the world, Web 2.0 offers the opportunity to better understand global trends and opinions in the making – a knowledge which is critical to anticipating issues and/or crises and developing effective response strategies…

Whether it is by blogging, tweeting, linking, or creating their own forums, organizations must be proactive online if they want to maintain control over their reputations. They must engage with online communities, be aware of participant concerns and, when appropriate, develop responses to those concerns. In the Web 2.0 global village – where people live and learn through uncensored dialogue and near instantaneous interactions – traditional external communications utilizing earned and paid media are no longer enough.

Managing issues and enhancing the reputations of our clients has been the highest priority of my firm, Winner & Associates, since its founding in 1975. Our global Advanced Reputation Management System gives our clients a competitive advantage in the constantly evolving world of Web 2.0.

A professional astroturfer who specializes in viral campaigning and pushing entertainers to lobby for health care related issues involved in what appears to be misuse of the NEA to push President Obama’s health care agenda, and yet we are told this is all just a big misunderstanding?

I’m sure the sudden interest by entertainers and artists in groups such as the “non-partisan” Rock the Vote in pushing President Obama’s vision of health care is just a coincidence.

Nothing to see here folks.  Move along…..

Thanks to Bim’s newest buddy, Darth Odieus, and various anonymous commenters.

At the very beginning of the call, the general ‘moderator’ of the call, Michael Skolnik, political director for Hip-Hop mogul Russell Simmons, explains the genesis of the call:

I have been asked by people in the White House and folks in the NEA about a month ago in a conversation that was had. We had the idea that I would help bring together the independent artists community around the country.

This is important, because in the immediate aftermath of the breaking story, the NEA has tried to state that a ‘third party’ organized the call. This clearly isn’t true. The e-mail invitation to the call was sent from Mr. Sargent’s government-provided NEA e-mail address. In addition, as the transcript reveals, Mr. Sloknik was “asked” by the White House and NEA to organize the call.

Mr. Skolnik goes on to comment to the participants:

…about the role that we played during the campaign for President and also during his first 200 some odd days of his presidency and the President has a very clear arts agenda and has been very supportive of using art and supporting art in creative ways to talk about some of the issues that we face here in our country and also to engage people.

Throughout the call, the speakers, all public officials, except Mr. Skolnik, make references to the campaign work done by call participants. The call is conducted with the presumption that all participants were active supporters during the Presidential campaign. This is troubling since the call was organized by a non-partisan government agency.

Especially since Mr. Skolnik goes on to comment:

And I think all of us who are on this phone call were selected for a reason…You   are the ones that, if you create a piece of art or create a campaign for a company, and tell our country and our young people sort of what to do and what to be in to; and what’s cool what’s not cool.

He then adds:

…the goal of this phone call [instigated at the request of the White House and NEA] is to get involved in things that  we’re passionate about as we did during the campaign but continue to get involved in those things, to support the President’s initiatives…”

If the call ended here, it would be troubling enough. To recap quickly, there were 21 different artist organizations on the call, all of whom, it seems, were active in the Obama presidential campaign. Sixteen of the organizations had recently—within the previous 150 days—received grants from the NEA. To sum up, the White House and NEA had organized a call of 21 artistic groups who had been active in the presidential campaign, most of whom had recently received federal support, to explore ways they could become involved in supporting the President’s agenda.

The most troubling aspect of the call came with the introduction of Buffy Wicks, with the White House Office of Public Engagement. Ms. Wicks is a long-time progressive activist. Prior to working for the Obama campaign, she was political director  for WakeUpWalmart and a lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Both of these organizations funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN, to help support their organizing and protest campaigns. Ms. Wicks also worked on the Howard Dean campaign in 2004 and was a legislative aide to Rep. Bob Filner, one of only 75 Congressmen to vote in favor of ACORN continuing to receive federal funds. Ms. Wicks is also the lead White House official on United We Serve, the parent organization of the Serve.Gov web portal.

She described her White House role at the Office of Public Engagement:

We have about 20 folks and we work under Valerie Jarrett, she’s one of our fantastic leaders, and Tina Chen.

It is sometimes hard for outsiders to navigate the DC nomenclature. Here’s a quick synopsis: Ms. Wick’s mention of Valerie Jarrett indicates to all participants on the call that this discussion has Ms. Jarrett’s stamp of approval. As one of the more important advisors to President Obama, the message to call participants cannot be more clear.

Ms. Wick begins her discussion—again on a call organized by the non-partisan NEA and the White House with a shout-out to the recently-concluded campaign:

I, first of all, want to thank everyone for being on the call and really just a deep, deep appreciation for all the work you all put into the campaign for the two plus years we all worked together…And, you know, we won and that’s exciting, and now we have to take all that energy and make it really meaningful.

Ms. Wicks main focus, however, is on the Serve.Gov portal, and the United We Serve program. They are leading initiatives of the Obama Administration to promote ‘national service.’ As Dana Loesch has reported at Big Government, the Serve.Gov portal funnels volunteers to programs supported by ACORN and other leftist organizations. Ms. Wicks seems to acknowledge this by noting during the call (emphasis added):

We wanted to connect folks with local non-profit organizations in their community. We wanted them to connect with local city council members or local elected officials. We wanted to connect them to federal agencies, with labor unions, progressive groups, face groups, women’s groups, you name it. [you name it, as long as it is part of the center-left movement.]

Throughout her time on the call, Ms. Wicks lays out the vision for the President’s ‘national service’ initiative. Remember, this is a government-sponsored initiative, complete with non-partisan federal agency oversight and taxpayer-funded web resources. There are three main problems with the vision articulated by Ms. Wicks. To summarize:

1. The volunteer initiative are focused on only four areas, as explained by Ms. Wicks:

One is health care. Obviously, that is a big issue…Second was energy and environment…Third was education…and then the fourth category was community renewal.

Americans coming to the Serve.Gov portal would be steered into one of these four areas. Repeatedly throughout the call, it is mentioned that these are the four categories for the national service campaign. Americans who responded to the President’s call to volunteer would be ‘nudged’ into one of these areas. Each of these has an obvious political component towards the President’s legislative initiatives.   

2. The initiative seems to mimic a campaign operation. As explained by Ms. Wicks:

And then another tool we’ve been working on is on the ground presence. We obviously don’t have the kind of field staff that we were used to in terms of producing events and encouraging local contacts, but we’re partnering with national organizations, local affiliates across the country and with Americorps members, we have been able to generate this sort of on-the-ground enthusiasm…

This is really close to propaganda. It is hard to see why a focus of a ‘national service’ initiative should actively concern itself with an ability to mobilize large numbers of grass-roots activists for individual events. It is interesting that Ms. Wicks sees this as something to make up for their lack of the large ‘field staff’ that you would have in a presidential campaign.

3. The initiative seems not only focused on very specific issue areas, but, as noted above, the possible channels for ‘volunteering’ have a strong leftist bent. As Ms. Wicks explained, their strategy is to match up volunteers with either government agencies, elected officials, labor unions or progressive groups. Not only are they restricting the issues promoted at the government-operated Serve.Gov, they are restricting the manners in which one can engage those issues.

When Ms. Wicks is finished with her call, she turns the call over to Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach of the Corporation of National and Community Service, the independent agency that is the parent of the President’s “United We Serve” initiative. In starting her remarks, this official from an independent, non-partisan federal agency describes her role as follows:

This will sound very familiar to many of you, we’ve basically been working to do this using the same tools we found so successful in the campaign,

She went on to note:

So our primary goal here is to ask those people and arm them with the skills and tools they need to really do what they’re already doing but do it as effectively as possible…

After a bit more rhetoric, Ms. Abernathy turns the call over to Mr. Sargent, but states that she will stay on the call until the end. Mr. Sargent procedes to urge the artists to engage on the President’s initiatives:

This is all being sorted out. We are participating in history as its being made. So bear with us as we learn the language so that we can speak with each other safely and we can really work together to move the needle and get stuff done.

When Mr. Sargent is finished, he turns the call back over to Mr. Skolnik. After closing remarks, there follows a period of Q & A. One of the callers asks about the relationship between Serve.Gov, the government-run portal for national service and Organizing for America, the Obama campaign arm now housed at the DNC. Ms. Abernathy, a public official with the independent federal agency, the Corporation for National and Community Service interjects herself into the question. It is worth reviewing her extended remarks:

Yeah, I can address that a little bit, and the reason only a little bit is largely because of my role at a federal agency, I’m precluded from going too far down the specific steps what people can do to advocate…We use the techniques, organizing strategies, because basically they’re both run by people from the campaign…So, if you’re interested in getting involved with OFA that’s run through the DNC now, I could probably put you in – I could help you with who to contact. I could get that information to Michael [Skolnik] and he could get it out.

Mr. Skolnik immediately follows up by noting that:

Well, I can speak to that because fortunately, or unfortunately, I don’t work for the government…

Mr. Skolnik then speaks of very political matters. Ms. Abernathy, who is clearly still on the call, doesn’t stop him, in spite of the fact that she is a government official and that government entities organized the call.

Throughout the call, the government officials hint strongly to the artists—most of whom are federal grant recipients—that they are needed to promote the Administration’s national service initiatives. There is a lot of rich detail in the full audio recording, but the basic facts are simple—and troubling. To summarize:

The White House and NEA organized a call of former Obama campaign supporters from the art community, most of whom recently have received federal funding.

1. These artists are reminded of the great work they did during the campaign and urged to do similar work to promote the President’s agenda.
2. They are also asked to support the President’s initiative for ‘national service.’ They are told that their art can inspire people to participate.
3. The ‘national service’ agenda will funnel people into four critical areas: health care, environment, education and community renewal
4. The organizations recommended to those wishing to volunteer will be government agencies, politicians, labor unions and progressive groups

Within two days of the conference call, all 21 artistic organizations participating released statements endorsing the President’s health care reform initiative.

The lead White House official heading up the effort is a long-time leftist activist, with deep ties to ACORN and a major labor union.

Wrong.

There’s only one problem: the ACORN mentality – pinpointing and mobilizing particular groups in support of a radical-left agenda – is no longer restricted to government-funded private non-profits like ACORN.  The ACORN mentality now dominates the government itself.  Taxpayer dollars are being used by elected officials to encourage the deification of President Obama and his agenda.  And one of the chief organs of the government propaganda machine is the National Endowment for the Arts.

Let’s start from the beginning.  On August 25, artist Patrick Courrielche told the story of a conference call he attended on August 10.  That conference call was hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve.  The goal of the conference call: “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.”  The call would push “a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!” (more…)

Should the National Endowment for the Arts encourage artists to create art on issues being vehemently debated nationally?

That is the question that I set out to discuss a little over three weeks ago when I wrote an article on Big Hollywood entitled The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?”

The question still requires debate but the facts do not.

The NEA and the White House did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable.

President Obama with the NEA’s Yosi Sergant

But some have claimed that the invite and passages, pulled from the conference call that inspired the article, were taken out of context. Context is what I intend to establish here.

On August 10th, the National Endowment for the Arts, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and the Corporation for National and Community Service hosted a conference call with a handpicked arts group. This arts group played a key role in Obama’s arts effort during his election campaign, as declared by the organizers of the call, and many on the call played a role in the now famous Obama Hope poster. (more…)