Monday, September 30, 2013

Black Priest Calls Kevin Merida and Dean Baquet "Slaves to Money"


Father Lawrence Lucas, a controversial black priest, says that Kevin Merida, the first black managing editor of the Washington Post,  is a "house boy" for the power structure and "slave to money" because he refuses to report that his own paper is being sued for race discrimination by a longtime black  advertisement department employee who was fired by his white boss just days after she shrieked at him for no apparent reason. 

The lawsuit was first reported by Washington Gadfly Evan Gahr. 

In an interview, Lucas,  longtime pastor of a Harlem church,  made the same comments about New York Times managing editor Dean Baquet, the second black man to hold that post at the no longer paper of record.  Baquet has known about the story for almost three weeks.

"I’ll be damned. It’s awful," Lucas says. "Not every black face have the black community at heart rather than where the money’s are coming from. They’re slaves to the money and they don’t want to get the money baggers upset. These guys are not going to stick their not out. They are only thinking a bout their necks. It’s like expecting one cop to tell the truth about the other one."
Lucas said that the "money baggers" are advertisers who might be offended if the paper does the story. 
Evan Gahr, a former press critic and editorial writer for the late New York Post Editorial Page Editor Eric Breindel, has written for almost every major conservative publication, plus the Washington Post.  His reporting has been picked up by Page Six, the Reliable Source, the New York Times, the Huffington Post and the Forward. Lloyd Grove, who did multiple items on Gahr as a gossip columnist for the Washington Post and New York Daily News, dubbed Gahr a "Washington gadfly." 

Twitter: @EvanGahr 

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Eric Breindel on Evan Gahr

Friday, September 27, 2013

National Review and Independent Women's Forum Purge Evan Gahr


National Review and the conservative Independent Women's Forum barred Evan Gahr, from their conference last week because he wanted to ask questions about a sexual harassment scandal at the Family Research Council.

Gahr has written articles for the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator and even the IWF attacking feminists--but his recent expose of sexual harassment at the Family Research Council was apparently too much of a thought crime for National Review and the IWF to handle.

Nat Hentoff, the civil libertarian writer and fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, told Gahr, who has also written for National Review, that "You should not have been barred." 

The September 19th conference, which was to be moderated by Jonah Goldberg, was designed to counter the widely held perception that the GOP is at war with women.  
But it is hard to pretend there is no  GOP war on women if someone asks you about the little insurrection the Family Research Council just waged against women at its own office.

Just hours before the conference was set to convene,  National Review publisher Jack Fowler told  Gahr he was barred because his questions would have disrupted National Review's "agenda."

Here's the back story.

Last December, Gahr reported exclusively that the Family Research Council was sued by a woman they fired after she complained about sexual harassment by her supervisor, William "Bill" Saunders. She said he was emailing her, "Hi, cutie," pressuring her to attend parties and opining that  young women who use birth control pills are "whoring around."

The Family Research Council never disputed that the sexual harassment occurred. They just denied Moira Gaul was fired for filing a formal complaint with the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission about it.

William "Women are whores" Saunders, who left the Family Research Council shortly after Gaul fired her complaint, did not respond to repeated emails

The story was picked up by the Huffington Post, Wonkette, TalkinPointsMemo, Think Progress, the Washington Blade, and several gay websites.

Gahr signed up for the IWF/NR conference early last week online and  received an automated confirmation.

On  September 18, he emailed Independent Women's Forum Executive Director Sabrina Schaeffer and told her he wanted to ask questions about Moira Gaul's lawsuit against the Family Research Council. Among the questions: Did the IWF share the view of the Family Research Council that young women who use birth control pills are "whoring around?"

The IWF says feminists exaggerate the prevalence of sexual harassment. Did the IWF consider Moira Gaul to be a victim of sexual harassment? Or was having your supervisor volunteer his august opinion that millions of sexually active women are whores just all in a day's work?

The obvious rejoinder to these questions would have been that, yes, Moira Gaul was the victim of some really ugly sexual harassment but hers was an isolated incident. 

Of course, National Review and IWF want to pretend that sexual harassment is an entirely a figment of feminists' imagination. 

The morning of the September 19 conference, which was scheduled to kick off  at 6pm with an open house reception,  Gahr received an email from National Review flack Amy Mitchell. She said the conference was over booked and he could not attend.


It soon became clear that the real problem was that there was no room for Gahr's questions or ideas.

Gahr emailed Mitchell and National Review publisher Jack Fowler in mid-afternoon to ask why,  if the conference was overbooked,  were they still letting people register online.  He also said if there were truly no seating for the panel discussion he would like to attend just the cocktail reception.

He then called Fowler,  who made quite clear he could not attend because he wanted to ask about the Family Research Council lawsuit.

You're not going,  Fowler thundered.  "This conference is about our agenda not yours."

Agendas, indeed.

This is not the first time Jonah Goldberg and National Review has waged an intellectual jihad against Gahr.
In the late 1990s, Gahr wrote a bunch of articles for National Review,  including two that heaped ridicule and abuse on liberal blacks,  such as the distinguished historian John Hope Franklin.

But the relationship with National Review quickly soured in 2001 when Gahr attacked one of National Review's white Christian allies.

Gahr called Paul Weyrich, who coined the term "Moral Majority" for Jerry Falwell and co-founded the Heritage Foundation,  "a demented anti-Semite" for saying the Jews killed Christ.

The Hudson Institute, where Gahr was a senior fellow,  fired him.

To justify the dismissal, Hudson cited an email, provided by Goldberg, that Gahr wrote  to National Review writer Ramesh Ponnuro.  Gahr told Ramesh Ponnuru, who had defended Weyrich, that he was "brown nosing a brown shirt."

Goldberg also told Gahr that he deserved to be fired.

Pressed on the dismissal, Jay Nordlinger, then managing editor of National Review, said, "Shut the fuck up, you big bully. I would have fired your also."

(Nordlinger more recently showed his willingness to countenance bigotry by calling Mexicans wetbacks.)

Gahr also has had a tumultuous relationship with the Independent Women's Forum. The late Ricky Silberman, founder of the IWF, had recommended Gahr for his job with the Hudson Institute and arranged for him to write for the American Spectator and the IWF's publication.

But when Gahr sought her help following his dismissal from Hudson Silberman told him never to talk to her ever again. /
Charlotte Hays, the editor of the IWF's flagship publication,  told Gahr he could probably never write for her again

The exclusion of Gahr from the conference because his pesky questions would have embarrassed the GOP shows that the Independent Women's Forum is about as independent of the Republican Party as Pravda was of the Kremlin.  

National Review and the Independent Women's Forum who claim feminists impede free expression have, with their little blacklist,  displayed the some grotesque double standards regarding free speech.

From: Jack Fowler
To: EvanGahr ; evan22209
Subject: RE: Tonight's Event
Date: Thu, Sep 19, 2013 3:54 pm

That is fine Evan. You don’t really think I would say anything in private that I wouldn’t say in public?

Be at peace.


From: EvanGahr []
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:53 PM
To: Jack Fowler;
Subject: Re: Tonight's Event

I'm sure you know that in New York and Washington it is entirely legal to record phone conversations without the person's knowledge. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Fowler <>
To: EvanGahr <>; Amy Mitchell <>
Sent: Thu, Sep 19, 2013 3:47 pm
Subject: RE: Tonight's Event
I handle everything Evan.

By the way, this event is about our agenda, not anyone else’s.

Be at peace with the decision.


From: EvanGahr []
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:37 PM
To: Amy Mitchell
Cc: Jack Fowler
Subject: Re: Tonight's Event

If you're overbooked why did I just get an email at 2pm saying you looked forward to seeing me?
And why are you informing Jack Fowler about such a small matter that the publisher would not normally deal with.
This is not the kind of thing that a publisher would handle. You are obviously barring me because I wanted to discuss the Family Research Council lawsuit.

-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Mitchell <>
To: evangahr <>
Cc: Jack Fowler <>
Sent: Thu, Sep 19, 2013 9:53 am
Subject: Tonight's Event

Thank you for registering for this evening's Mad Women Debate. We have the unfortunate duty this morning to inform registrants that we are over capacity for the event and therefore we will not able to provide seating for those who registered late. We appreciate your interest in attending but know you will understand and can appreciate that we must follow codes.

Thank you,

Amy Mitchell.
Amy K. Mitchell
Vice President, Communications
National Review
233 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20003
P: (202) 827-4106
Twitter: or

Evan Gahr, a former press critic and editorial writer for the late New York Post Editorial Page Editor Eric Breindel,  has written for almost every major conservative publication,  plus many outside the conservative ghetto, including the Washington Post. 

His reporting has been picked up by Page Six, the Reliable Source, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Huffington Post and the Forward. 

Check out his ambush interview of Barney Frank.

Twitter: @EvanGahr

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Reliable Source Columnist Amy Argetsinger Tells Washington Gadfly Evan Gahr She Eloped

Journalists routinely make gratuitous references to themselves in stories.

As a New York Post press critic for the late Eric Breindel I called it "Journalism I-disease."

(Yes, that's a gratuitous self-reference. See down further for more gratuitous self-references and border-line name dropping.)

Anyway, it is  routine in celebrity profiles for the reporter to say how he arrived at the subject’s house and they went out for lunch. "I told Clooney we should try a great Sushi place on Hollywood Boulevard."

Little steps for little feet: the reader does not care about you.  He is only interested in George Clooney.

Another glaring example is when columnists write, “I think” or “In my opinion.”


You have your name and picture on the column. Does it really take a whole lot of guesswork by the reader to figure out just whose opinion is being expressed?

Or, "a spokesman told me."

Is that really such a coup? Getting a spokesman on the phone? 

Maybe it would be justified to write, "In her first interview since 1963 the reclusive Harper Lee told me . . . "

But are readers supposed to be impressed that you talked with someone whose job is to talk to you?

Amy Argetsinger, longtime  “Reliable Source” gossip columnist,  is one of the few journalists not afflicted by Journalism I-disease.

Washington Post Style editor Frances Sellers told staffers September 6 that Amy, who is engaged and pregnant, is leaving the Reliable Source for a position  with more stable hours.

But it looks from Google that Amy didn’t write about this herself. Or mention her engagement in the “Love, etc.” section of the Reliable Source, which she co-authors with Roxanne Roberts.

Now, it turns out that Amy also left readers in the dark about the fact that she eloped on September 12.  She did mention it casually in an email to this journalist, with whom she occasionally schmoozes,  on September 19.

Amy said she was sorry she had not replied to his September 12 email but “I was racing off to elope that very afternoon (seriously!).”

This reporter asked Amy if she would do a "Love, etc." item on that but she did not reply.

She, however, has done items on other items on couples eloping.

The veteran Postie--who recently did an item on this non-blog blog's scoop that Herman Cain was hawking a bogus cure for ED; he made his name as a salesman but has now devolved into a snake oil salesman for the one eyed snake--did not reply to an email asking for more details: Where was she married? Who performed the ceremony?

But in a profession populated by people--especially in DC--who are more self-absorbed than entire the cast of "Seinfeld" combined her silence is decidedly refreshing.

Evan Gahr, a former press critic and editorial writer for the late New York Post Editorial Page Editor Eric Breindel, has written for almost every major conservative publication, plus the Washington Post.  His reporting has been picked up by the Reliable Source, Page Six, the Washington Post, the Forward, the Huffington Post and the New York Times.

He just broke the story that the Washington Post is being sued for race discrimination. The Washington Post refuses to cover the story.


Evan Gahr's Human Events Exclusive on Obama's Columbia Essay

This was picked up by the Reliable Source, Politico and the New York Times. 

Young Obama Wrote Article Blaming America For ‘Growing Threat of War’

You won’t find it in his memoir or any of the oodles of words written about him during the campaign, but this reporter has discovered a strikingly naive article Barack Obama wrote about the anti-war movement as a Columbia University senior in 1983.
If Obama still has this sensibility, he could be poised to take American foreign policy sharply to the left, notwithstanding the centrist foreign policy team he has assembled. Moreover, since Obama didn’t recognize the Soviet menace during the Cold War and blamed the possibility of war entirely on the United States, there’s good reason to think that today he could lack the moral clarity needed to fight radical Islam.
The article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” published by the Columbia magazine Sundial, is a wholesale endorsement of all sorts of leftist claptrap fashionable at the time.
Obama deems the Reagan era defense buildup a “distorted priority” and  “dead end track.” 
Writing in the midst of the Cold War, Obama was nevertheless oblivious to the threat the Soviet Union then posed to the United States. Indeed, he does not even mention the Soviet Union in his article. Instead, Obama blames — you guessed it — America and its “twisted” world view for the “growing threat of war.”
If only Americans would change their thinking, he argues, the threat would subside. Give re-education a chance.
“Most students at Columbia do not have first hand knowledge of war,” he begins. “Military violence has been a vicarious experience, channeled into our minds through television film, and print . . . We know that wars have occurred, will occur, are occurring, but bringing such experiences down into our hearts and taking continual, tangible steps to prevent war, becomes a difficult task.”
That’s why campus peaceniks are so important. “Two groups on campus, Arms Race Alternatives (ARA) and Students Against Militarism (SAM) work within these mental limits to foster awareness and practical action necessary to counter the growing threat of war. Though the emphasis of the two groups differ, they share an aversion to current government policy.
“These groups, visualizing the possibilities of destruction and grasping the tendencies of distorted national priorities, are throwing their weight into shifting America off the dead end track.”
“The thrust of ARA is towards generating dialogue which will give people a rational handle [on the threat of war]. . . this includes bringing speakers like Daniel Ellsberg to campus.’’
Note here for Obama that rational means liberal. It’s a safe bet the ARA’s endeavors to foster dialogue in 1983 didn’t involve bringing Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger to campus.
The group, much to Obama’s delight, also agitated in favor of the Nuclear Freeze movement and opposed the deployment of Pershing II and Cruise Missiles.  These positions, of course, put them against the Reagan Administration and in favor of policies congruent with Soviet interests.
Sounds very leftist, but Obama says the group is actually non-political.  Like other party line liberals Obama thinks have ideology, everyone else is just working for the common good.  “By taking an almost apolitical approach to the problem ARA hopes to get the university to take nuclear arms issues seriously.”
For Obama, the only thing wrong with the nuclear freeze movement is that it’s not ambitious enough. One “is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem instead of the disease itself.
Turning to the other group, Obama casts his lot with draft dodgers. “Students Against Militarism was formed in response to the passage of registration laws in 1980 [that required 18-year-olds to register for the draft].”
“At this time the current major issue [for SAM] is the Solomon Bill, the latest legislation from Congress to obtain compliance to registration. The law requires all male students applying for federal financial aid to submit proof of registration” or be denied financial aid.
So Obama sided with a group that wanted students to not register for the draft with impunity.  That would strike a blow against warmongers. “By organizing and educating the Columbia community, such activities lay the foundation for future mobilization against the relentless, often silent spread of militarism…by observing the SAM meeting last Thursday night, with its solid turnout and enthusiasm, one might be persuaded that manifestations of our better instincts at least match the bad ones.”
Obama concludes by placing the two anti-war groups in the tradition of America’s greatest thinkers. “Indeed the most pervasive malady of the collegiate system specifically and the American experience generally, is that elaborate patterns of knowledge and theory have been disembodied from individual choices and government policy. What the members of ARA and SAM try to do is infuse that they have learned about the current situation, bring the words of that formidable roster on the face of Butler Library, names like Thoreau, Jeffferson and Whitman to bear on the twisted logic of which we are today a part.”
The twisted logic of these right-wing meanies who pushed for the deployment of missiles and implemented an arms buildup is widely credited with playing a role in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Obama was on the wrong side of history. Does Obama still hold to the views he expressed in his essay? If not, when did he change his opinion?
During his presidential bid, Obama seemed to echo some of the themes of the article. College student Obama believed war could be avoided through better understanding.  Candidate Obama promised to restore America’s image in the world that supposedly suffered because of the Iraq War.
Both formulations disregard the threat posed by our country’s enemies — the Soviet Union when Obama was a Columbia undergraduate and radical Islam today. Anti-American sentiment does not turn on the nuances of foreign policy; it’s a function of fundamental moral differences between America and its detractors or enemies. Lots of nations and people hated us long before the Iraq War. 
In any event, it remains to be seen if the “change” Obama has promised includes a sharp departure from the morally obtuse and simplistic left-wing views he espoused at Columbia 25 years ago.

Monday, September 23, 2013

Page Six on Washington Gadfly Evan Gahr's Herman Cain Hard News Exclusive

Liberal Censorship

 Click on article to read.

Evan Gahr, a former editorial writer and press critic for the New York Post, has written for almost every major conservative publication.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Washington Gadfly Evan Gahr Exposes Race Discrimination Lawsuit Against the Washington Post

Washington Gadfly Evan Gahr reported exclusively in a September 11 Daily Caller opinion piece that  the Washington Post was sued for race and age discrimination by a longtime black advertisement department employee who fired by his white boss, Noelle Wainwright (below), just days after she shrieked at him.

Washington Post opinion writers Jonathan Capehart and Eugene Robinson did not return repeated calls about the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says 18 other older blacks were also fired.


New York Daily News
Thursday, May 17th 2001, 2:21AM
Although it hasn't risen to the level of general public notice, there is a purge going on in conservative circles that should concern every American. It doesn't matter that you've probably never heard of the victim. Everyone ought to care - and raise objections - when people who represent themselves as defenders of free speech and the American way of life behave, in fact, like totalitarians.
The person being purged is Evan Gahr, a conservative writer and investigative reporter. It all started when Gahr went after Paul Weyrich, whose status among Republicans is assured by his position as commander of the right-wing Free Congress Foundation.
Weyrich wrote an Easter message on his Web site that flailed Jews with the old slur that they killed Christ. Gahr, who happens to be Jewish, was appalled and went public with his disgust.
After that, things changed for him very quickly. He was attacked by conservative gadfly David Horowitz, who is also Jewish, and informed that his column would no longer be welcome at Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine on the Internet.
The Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, then informed Gahr that the sudden pain he felt in his backside was the result of its kicking him out. This, despite the fact that Herb London, head of the institute and himself a Jew, had told the Forward, a Jewish weekly, that although he did not think Gahr had always acted professionally, he was in no danger of being dismissed from Hudson because "at the institute, we don't tell people what to say."
Shortly thereafter, Gahr told me, he received an E-mail from the institute's Mona Charen, a conservative columnist (and also a Jew), alerting him to expect a call from the head of the Washington office informing him he had been dismissed. Charen added: "I sincerely hope that you will take this opportunity to seek psychological or psychiatric help."
It has not stopped there. In his most recent booting, Gahr's name has been taken off the masthead of The American Enterprise magazine. He was listed as a contributing writer in the May issue of this journal of politics, business and culture. He is gone in June.
What's more, Karl Zinsmeister, the editor in chief, has told Gahr he no longer may use the magazine's facilities for research. Zinsmeister says the problems with Gahr preceded the Weyrich incident, but that does not justify an apparent purging.
We should remember that Gahr's "offense" was blowing the whistle on a person who had indulged in anti-Semitism. His action is something that just about everyone except those who put allegiance to the cause above all else would see as a form of public service.
Gahr's punishment reminds me of Milan Kundera's "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting." The novel is a satire, often heartbreaking, of Eastern Europe under the Communists. It was a time when the regime would celebrate a person - until he was purged. Then his name would disappear from official documents. Then his image would be airbrushed away.

Evan Gahr then sued the Hudson Institute, which fired him under pressure from the White House,  for religious Discrimination.  Dubbed a Washington Gadfly by Lloyd Grove, Gahr's investigative reporting has been picked up by the Reliable Source, Page Six, the New York Times, Politico and the Washington Post.  He was a press critic and editorial writer for the late New York Post Editorial Page editor Eric Breindel.

Twitter: @EvanGahr