Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Monday, September 21, 2009


Andrew Breitbart seems to be doing on the internet what Glenn Beck is doing with Fox. Both are stepping up and raising the bar for their mediums. Breitbart's Big Government site has served as a clearinghouse for the Acorn videos done by O'Keefe and Giles. Now, his BIG HOLLYWOOD site has exposed the NEA in a big way.

As bad as the Acorn scandal is for Obama, this one seems to implicate him more directly. The voices (and what they said) on an August 10th conference call is at the heart of the matter. Like Acorn, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) receives taxpayer dollars. Unlike Acorn, the NEA appears to have spokespeople on tape saying they're taking direction from the White House.

According to Big Hollywood:
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.
What? That would mean that a group subsidized by taxpayer dollars is actively promoting the agenda of a president who is fighting tooth and nail to keep a 50% approval rating. That would almost necessarily mean that 50% of the people in this country would disapprove of their tax dollars going toward pushing that agenda, right?

Key person in the conference call is named Buffy Wicks (pictured), Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement (whatever that is).
Much of the talk on the conference call was a build up to what the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was specifically asking of this group... Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, clearly identifies this arts group as a pro-Obama collective and warns them of some “specific asks” that will be delivered later in the meeting.
Not specific "acts". Specific "asks" (I guess there's no real difference) but here is part of what she said.
“I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda.”
So she's working in the White House, getting my money and working toward forwarding an agenda I completely disagree with?!

There's more....
Later in the call, “specific asks” were delivered by Yosi Sergant, then Communications Director of the National Endowment for the Arts. What were the “asks”? They were for this pro-Obama arts group to create art on several hotly debated political issues, including health care.
So not only are my tax dollars going toward an agenda I fundamentally disagree with but they're going to an agenda that is using those dollars to fight an agenda I support - namely, defeating the one I'm funding!

Here are some of Yosi's asks:
“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.”
“Again, I’m really, really honored to be working with you; the National Endowment for the Arts is really honored.”
“You’re going to see a lot more of us in the next four and hopefully eight years.”
Hey Yosi, what exactly gives you the right to use my money for your causes?
Rock the Vote, another participant on the call, announced a health care design contest. “We can’t stand by and listen to lies and deceit coming from those who are against reforming a broken system,” they stated in their announcement. “Enough is Enough. We need designs that tell the country YES WE CARE! Young people demand health care.”
Again, there's something fundamentally wrong with Yosi's indignation when he is using my money to fight the source of that indignation which actually happens to be me. This is personal when my dollars are used to fund my own defeat. I'm not saying that's what is happening but it sure looks like it.
This practice has never been the historical role of the NEA. The NEA’s role is to support excellence in the arts, to increase access to the arts, and to be a leader in arts education. Using the arts to address contentiously debated issues is political subversion. And the fact that the White House played a role in encouraging the arts to address contentious issues should also be considered a government overreach.
Be sure to read the entire BIG HOLLYWOOD report, which also includes the audio from Buffy, Yosi, and Skolnick.

By the way, regarding the audio, once you understand the Alinsky model that your people must enjoy any tactic you choose to implement, you'll understand that Buffy, Yosi, and Skolnick are being played. As Alinsky said, "if your pepole aren't having a ball doing it, there's something very wrong with the tactic."

As you listen to the exuberance in the voices of the conference call participants, it becomes readily apparent that they LOVE the tactic Obama appears to have chosen - using them to further his agenda.

h/t to DOUG ROSS


UPDATE AT 6:17PM CST. Well, it now appears that Manuel Zelaya is in fact in Honduras according to multiple sources. Specifically, he is said to be camped out inside the Brazilian embassy and this stinks to high heaven. The U.S. State Department appeared to know Zelaya was back before the U.N. did if reports are accurate.

THE AP is reporting that while Zelaya is inside the Brazilian embassy, neither Brazilian leadership nor the OAS seems willing to claim responsibility for Zelaya's arrival.
OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza called for calm and warned Honduran officials to avoid any violation of the Brazilian diplomatic mission, saying "they should be responsible for the safety of president Zelaya and the Embassy of Brazil."

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorin said neither his country or the OAS had any role in Zelaya's journey before taking him in.
This is really a despicable development. The current Honduran government did nothing more than defend its constitution and foreign nations seem to be attempting to force Zelaya back into power. The United States' continued support of Zelaya also calls Obama into question on these developments.

In July, Hillary Clinton called Zelaya's crossing into Honduras by foot, "reckless". His arrival in Tegucigalpa via the Brazilian embassy seems to be a bit more reckless than that. So far, I haven't heard a peep from Hillary.

Lesson for sitting president, Roberto Micheletti... When a thug in pajamas is in your custody, don't let him go.

Be sure to check out FAUSTA'S BLOG for granular details.
El Tiempo reported earlier that former Minister of the Presidency Enrique Flores stated that Zelaya was returned “thanks to a coordinated international operative”.
A coordinated international operative? If there's one thing we're learning about Obama it's that when he's on the wrong side of an issue, he ignores it. Has anyone seen him speak out about Honduras to any degree recently? The last time I remember him doing so included something about an illegal "coup" on the part of the Honduran government, which did nothing but protect and defend its constitution.

I particularly like how State Department spokesman Ian Kelly says he can confirm Zelaya is in Honduras but that he doesn't know where. Here's a partial transcript of a state department press briefing on the matter today:
QUESTION: How did he come in, and where is he? What –

MR. KELLY: Don’t know.

QUESTION: When did it happen?

MR. KELLY: Like I say, the Embassy is trying to find out these details. But I do know that we have confirmed that he’s in Honduras. Where exactly he is, I don’t know. And we’re just trying to find out more details.

QUESTION: Last time we tuned in, he was under threat of arrest if he came home. Is that still what’s in play right now?

MR. KELLY: I’d have to refer you to the de facto regime in Tegucigalpa. Of course, we believe that he’s the democratic – democratically elected and constitutional leader of Honduras.
Call me crazy but I don't believe for one second that Kelly doesn't know where Zelaya is.



Either former Honduran president Manuel Zelaya is lying or current president Roberto Micheletti is wrong (or lying). Based on what I've seen since June 28th, when Zelaya was forcibly removed, my money is on Micheletti telling the truth and being right.

REUTERS is reporting that Zelaya is claiming he's in the capital of Honduras right now (Tegucigalpa). Micheletti is on record saying Zelaya is not in Honduras at all.
"I am here in Tegucigalpa. I am here for the restoration of democracy, to call for dialogue." Zelaya told Honduras' Canal 36 television network.

A close aide said Zelaya, a close ally of Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chavez, was in a U.N. building in the capital Tegucigalpa.

But Roberto Micheletti, a bitter rival of Zelaya who has run Honduras since the June 28 coup, denied that the president had returned, saying he was still in exile in neighboring Nicaragua.
At one point this past summer, Zelaya crossed into Honduras by foot from Nicaragua with a white cowboy hat and a megaphone, nearly setting off an international incident. Even Secretary of State Clinton called the move, "reckless".

All of that aside, when it comes to Zelaya's whereabouts right now, regardless of who is right, Micheletti is in the right. If Zelaya is in Honduras right now, he is continuing his reckless behavior. Micheletti has said on multiple occasions that Zelaya would be arrested if he returned to Honduras. If Zelaya isn't in Honduras, then he is lying for no productive reason.

In Iraq, Baghdad Bob denied that American troops had entered Iraq as they were in the background of Bob's camera shot. With Zelaya, he appears to be doing that in reverse, claiming he is in Honduras when he really isn't.

If Zelaya is lying, what does it say about how badly he wants to return? Perhaps he wants to return so badly that he's begun lying to himself while believing it.

h/t to DRUDGE


I had to watch the part in question twice just to make sure I got it right. The money lines come toward the end when Obama dismisses Merriam-Webster's definition of a word that he apparently thinks means something else - that word is, "tax". But start paying close attention at the 1:00 mark.

The underlying theme of this exchange is what I found interesting. George Stephanopoulos' question is about whether or not mandating that every person get health insurance would be a tax. In "Obama-speak", a tax is something you do but rarely admit to, which may be why he expresses disagreement with Merriam-Webster when he's calling for one.

In defense of his insistence that everyone should have health insurance, Obama says,
"We're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you."
Uh, whatever happened to,
"When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"?
It would seem a bit inconsistent until you peel back enough layers. Obama told Joe the Plumber he wanted income redistribution. What he told Stephanopoulous is that he doesn't want income re-distribution while advocating a mandate that says everyone will have to pay into the system. The only thing missing there is the distribution part.

Obviously, he's learning that the majority of the American public sides with the fundamental belief expressed by JTP last year. Instead of heeding that advice, he appears to be trying to leverage it in order to impose the individual mandate (tax) while championing individual accountability.

On its face, Obama's analogy using car insurance is valid (everyone is required to have auto insurance so everyone should be required to have health insurance). However, two facts render it invalid.

One: he's saying that if you can't afford health insurance, you won't be penalized because it would be "piling on". As that relates to his auto insurance analogy, people who can't afford to insure their vehicle would still be allowed to drive.

Two: At least for now, the auto insurance industry is a private sector animal. You either buy insurance and drive or you don't. To use that industry in a comparison when you're arguring for a government option is apples and oranges.

The implication here is that everyone needs to be accountable not to themselves but to the government.

Be sure to watch all the way to the end as Obama gives Merriam-Webster the big smackdown. Oh, and if you run the Merriam-Webster website, don't be surprised if you get a call about the verbiage you use in your definitions.

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive