I host a late night Internet Radio Show on Blog Talk Radio called “The Stage Right Show”.  I focus on many of the stories written here at Big Government and on our sister site, Big Hollywood.

When the infamous NEA Conference call story broke, I spent much time discussing it and the various players involved.  One of my very talented listeners, Gary Eaton wrote a song about the central figure in the saga, Yosi Sergant.

Andrew Breitbart liked that song so much that he had us post it over at Big Hollywood for all to enjoy.

Recently, Andrew “Volun-told” Gary to write a song for our favorite ACORN personality, Alvivon “Bon Bon” Hurd.  You remember Bon Bon.  She was that charming and talkitive ACORN protestor who admitted on tape that ACORN had worked nefariously to get Obama elected even though they were supposed to be bi-partisan.

Later we uncovered that Bon Bon was much more than a volunteer, she was a board member and leader of ACORN.  We also discovered that despite her association with an organization that carries a spotty record with regard to their voter registration procedures, Bon Bon holds the prestigious title of “Precint Inspector” for the LA County Board of Elections.

Andrew was right, Bon Bon was worthy of a song, And Gary Eaton has written her a worthy song, indeed.

For your Monday listening pleasure:

Some editors told me they were not immediately aware of the Acorn videos on Fox, YouTube and a new conservative Web site called BigGovernment.com.  When the Senate voted to cut off all federal funds to Acorn, there was not a word in the newspaper, although a report in the Caucus blog that day covered the action. When the New York City Council froze all its funding for Acorn and the Brooklyn district attorney opened a criminal investigation, there was still nothing.

Well Mr. Hoyt, welcome to the world of the “undernews” – Mickey Kaus’s apt word for the news that everyone in the blogosphere knows about but, apparently, no one who gets his news strictly from the Times, other major newspapers, the newsweeklies, and most of the networks has the slightest inkling of.

10. “Fistgate”

Why it’s important: Because Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” Kevin Jennings, appears to be the kind of guy parents used to warn their kids about, and his elevation by Obama to a position of national prominence shows how far and how fast the culture has changed.  Jennings’s views – alien to most of America, but perfectly normal in his Harvard-educated social circle – are only now beginning to sink in, as his at least tacit approval of teaching various gay sexual practices to children has come to light.

Why the MSM ignored the story: Are you kidding?  And get branded as “homophobic?”  Far better to simply mainstream homosexuality in a non-judgmental way,  which has been one of the goals of the The New York Times for years now.   For a time after his appointment, Jennings appeared to be on the ropes over his 1988 counseling of a teenage boy regarding a sexual relationship with an older man.  But the boy turned out to be 16 at the time, not 15, so that’s okay then. (For a defense of Jennings, such as it is, go here:

9. Van Jones

Why it’s important: Because a self-identified communist, “Free Mumia” radical and 9/11 “Truther” nut became, however briefly, Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar,” a bogus position addressing an imaginary issue that turned out to be just another way to get Hussein’s camel’s nose under the tent in the president’s continuing end-run around the Constitution.

Why the MSM ignored the story: Are you kidding?  Jones is exactly the kind of target the MSM isn’t going to go near: black, articulate, persuasive – and absolutely hostile to the kind of country America used to be.  Fundamental change!  What’s not to like?  Which is why the Huffington Post readers were stunned when Glenn Beck finally got Jones’ scalp.  Oh well…

8. Anti-Americanism as official State Department policy

Why it’s important: Because  Foggy Bottom – long regarded by sensible policy-makers as “Indian country” – has now fully embraced its inner Kim Philby and has gone completely over to the other side.  Yes, an institution so penetrated by enemy operatives that it makes porn star Jenna Jameson look like Bernadette of Lourdes, came down squarely on the side of the mullahs as protesters battled the evil Iranian regime during the recent “elections” and, via its lapdogs at CNN, barked at the Hondurans about an illegal “coup,” as they, perfectly constitutionally, removed a Chavez-wannabe from office and, in an orderly transition, replaced him and then held free elections.

Why the MSM ignored/distorted the story: Are you kidding? The CNN en Español correspondent on the case was named Krupskaia Alis, “Krupskaya” being the famously randy wife of you-know-who; they don’t call it the “Chavez News Network” south of the border for nothing!  (Remind me to tell you my favorite Soviet-era joke about “Lenin in Warsaw” some day.) In lockstep, the rest of the media parroted the White House party line that what occurred in Honduras was a “coup” — apparently the only word they could think of to describe a “constitutional regime change.”   Bravo to the Hondurans for telling the State Department to go pound sand.

7.  The National Endowment for the Propagation of Obama

Why it’s important: The White House and the National Endowment for the Arts were recorded during a conference call encouraging pro-Obama arts types to create “art” on the theme of health care (among other issues) at a time when health care reform legislation was heading toward hot-button status. This shameless attempt at propaganda was abruptly halted after the appearance of the story on Big Hollywood, and the revelations led to the resignation of the NEA Communications Director, Yosi Sargent, and the issuance of conduct guidelines by the White House to deal with the “appearance” issues of the call.

Why the MSM ignored the story: Are you kidding? There was a direct connection to Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama’s top aides, since Sergant’s boss, Buffy Wicks, reports to Jarrett, the jewel of Shiraz, Iran, who’s a major player in Obama’s Chicago mafia.  And you know how disinclined the MSM is to harm a Democratic administration, especially while their legs are still tingling.  Luckily, Sergant’s forced resignation gave the media a perfect excuse to roll over, go back to sleep, and not cover the story.  La Buffy, meanwhile, could not believe her good fortune:  “I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda.” Smile, Buffy — you’re a model public servant!

6. Andy Stern and the SEIU

Why it’s important: Return with us now to those glorious days of yesteryear, when the labor movement ruled the roost and “collective bargaining” was often negotiated at the point of a gun, one way or the other.  It was a time when labor and capital were at each other’s throats, and every right-thinking, soon-to-be-the-parent-of a red diaper baby knew whose side the Engels were on.  Because, if your cause is just, it’s OK to beat the crap out of Kenneth Gladney, a conservative African-American selling patriotic gear, and call him a “nigger.”  After all, in the ongoing struggle between labor and capital, the ends justify the means, and if a black guy gets in the way of Hope and Change, tough.

Why the MSM ignored the story: Are you kidding?  Under Andy Stern – the most frequent visitor to the Obama White House – the Service Employees International Union has gone from “who?” to the most powerful muscle operation in the country.  Recruiting heavily from the minority community – which he uses as human shields, testifying by their presence to his good motives – Stern has cleverly positioned his collection of labor gangsters as the champions of the Little Guy, the better to fly under the radar of the MSM, which is more concerned the with the “narrative” than, you know, the facts.   Following in the footsteps of such great “labor leaders” as Louis “Lepke” Buchalter and Jacob “Gurrah” Shapiro, the new Stern Gang bids fair to surpass their achievements.  But he might want to avoid their fate:

This Afternoon: Part Two

~~~

After the jump, Flynn talks with Larry Kudlow about the 2009 elections, the tea party movement, and the possible rebirth of the Reagan coalition. 

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.

Although the charity Corvington works for, Annie E. Casey Foundation of Baltimore, Maryland, has granted funding to ACORN during his tenure, it is unclear if Corvington has ties to ACORN.

Nonetheless, Corvington is part of the same cluster of organizations that provides financial and other support for ACORN which is a longtime fixture in the activist community.

Since 2001 the Annie E. Casey Foundation has pumped at least $1,705,500 into the ACORN network, according to philanthropy database information.

Of the $1,705,500, at least $850,500 was earmarked for ACORN operations in Baltimore, Maryland, home of the ACORN branch office first shown in the recent undercover videos that debuted on BigGovernment.com. Those videos show James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles pretending to be a pimp and a prostitute and receiving mountains of advice on evading laws pertaining to tax evasion and prostitution (among other things).

The Annie E. Casey Foundation is a major funder of other groups on the left.

Looking at just the first letter of the alphabet, its grant recipients are labor federation AFL-CIO, abortion rights think tank Alan Guttmacher Institute, and liberal policy shop the Aspen Institute.

Although most of its grants go to groups on the political left, the foundation has funded at least one think tank on the political right. It has provided a few grants to the American Enterprise Institute.