Friday, November 10, 2017

David Saperstein and the Union for Reform Judaism Miss Court Deadline to Quash Subpeona

Exclusive: Saperstein Falls to Quash Subpeona


Rabbi David Saperstein's 16 years plus neo-con house of cards is crashing down--all without one inquiry from the Washington Post.

The famed Jewish leader and the Union for Reform Judaism today missed the deadline to file a motion to quash the subpoena for likely very incriminating emails and phone logs related to his aiding and abetting the 2001 criminal harassment of Evan Gahr’s father by his secret neo-con ally,  Michael Horowitz, point man for the alliance between Jewish neo-conservatives and intrinsically anti-Semitic Christian Right leaders.  The younger Gahr, then a neo-con golden boy, had just upended the alliance by calling Heritage Foundation and Christian Right co-founder Paul Weyrich “a demented anti-Semite” for saying the Jews killed Christ.  

His quote to the Washington Post went viral but all other conservatives either kept quiet or defended the Christian Right leader.     


Hudson Institute president Herbert London, for example, wrote to Weyrich and told him despite what Gahr, a senior fellow said to the Washington Post he was held in “high regard” at the Institute.   (London and Weyrich had never even met. And Weyrich didn’t even know his name until London sucked up to him.  London had made a career of attacking black anti-Semitism for political expediency.  When the longtime New York University professor and dean ran for New York State Comptroller on the Conservative Party line  he lied that his opponent H. Carl McCall was soft on black anti-Semitism. Stay tuned for the chapter on conservative racial dictatorships and double standards.)

The subpoena, served on Saperstein at his Georgetown home late Tuesday afternoon, was issued for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia harassment lawsuit against him and the URJ that is scheduled for mandatory mediation on November 27.  After being served Saperstein schmoozed it up with the subpoena server.  

Ponder that for a moment.  Most people served presumably slam the door in the guys’ face or maybe hit him.   But Saperstein was friendly and charming.   He is an obvious sociopath. The popular perception is that sociopaths are serial killers.  But they are really the outliers. Most sociopaths are well integrated into society, and, like David, highly intelligent and charming.  The classic book on this is called The Sociopath Next Door.

Rabbi Jonah Pesner, who succeeded Saperstein as executive director of the Dupont Circle-based Religious Action Center, Washington office of the Union for Reform Judaism, is also named personally in the lawsuit.  

The Washington Metropolitan Police Department considers the statute of limitations on Horowitz’s menacing phone call and Fed Ex package to the journo's doctor father inapplicable because of continuing harm, which means Saperstein and the URJ have considerable civil liability for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.     

Especially because Saperstein engaged in what MPD agrees is “upper class” criminal harassment this April.   The lawsuit, based on public records Saperstein does not dispute says, that  “purposely flouting repeated and frantic communications [to him and Jonah Pesner] to communicate publicly only about matters of PUBLIC concern, Saperstein, in a mendacious email on Passover morning 2017, wished me and my parents (“the animals”) a good Pesach then proceeded to re-ban me from RAC and [ban me from the upcoming] URJ convention, frightening my mother and father (who he helped Michael Horowitz terrorize in 2001).  Due to psychiatric problems from the email I left the Passover Seder early.”

In the email Saperstein purported to be breaking his silence and finally responding to Gahr after ignoring him for months in the spirit of the holiday.  

That was a lie.   

He was clearly under pressure from his staff to shut him up because Gahr had just filed a complaint with the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission, which personally named Jonah Pesner, for banning him from RAC.     

Wow. That’s the kind of stuff for which juries issue big awards and gives him considerable civil and criminal liability.   

But Saperstein has apparently concluded “no worries” because the Washington Post is not writing about “Evan Gahr.”  That formulation might sound facetious but it is not. Saperstein,  who just served as Special State Department Envoy for John Kerry,  is making no attempt to de-escalate the situation and just tried lying about Gahr off the record to a New York Times reporter he thought inquired about these matters.   

Motions to quash can only be filed, since this is a small claims case, in person at the clerk's office. With the Court closed Friday Saperstein can either abide by the order to make the documents available to Evan Gahr Friday at the office of Union for Reform Judaism president Rick Jacobs--or blithely ignore it and risk being held in contempt of court.

Meanwhile, current RAC executive director  Jonah Pesner and his staff are obstructing service on a separate subpoena for him issued for the same harassment lawsuit, for which the young Jewish leader and the URJ are also defendants.

Today, they  freaked out when Gahr's server returned to the Dupont-Circle based-RAC,  the URJ Washington office,  after being turned away yesterday. Did they actually think he wasn’t returning?  RAC staffers, acting belligerent, condescending and obnoxious to the white  male server insisted, like they did previously, that Pesner was not there. That is probably a lie but this journalist does not have specific info one way or the other.  If Pesner’s staffers are lying to the server they are doing so at his behest or encouragement, possibly under duress.  That is an ABUSE of power by his part.

People reading this should forget that you know the author really well.  Never mind me. Concentrate instead, please on what it tells you about Pesner and Saperstein.

This is how they act when they think nobody is watching.

They BULLY young staffers into doing their dirty work.  Pesner was just lionized in a front page New York Times story for cancelling the traditional Pre-High Holidays conference call between liberal Jewish leaders and the President.  Because Donald Trump is such a threat to the American Way.  Yeah, well, Trump has his faults--but bullying young staffers to evade service on lawsuits is not one of them.

Anyway, Gahr’s next server is going to be either a black man or a woman of color.

Possibly Micro-Aggression by RAC  

Do these white Jewish liberals really want to act so haughty and obnoxious towards “a person of color” while his or her camera is rolling? That would be quite a bit of what liberals call micro-aggression, right?   Micro-aggression, per the contemporary parlance of college campuses, is very subtle racism directed at “persons of color” by whites.

The phone logs from June 2001 that Saperstein is required to turn over are likely to show a flurry of calls to and from Horowitz shortly before he called and FedExed the 66-year-old doctor father of the neo-con golden boy who had just broken ranks by calling Paul Weyrich "a demented anti-Semite" for saying the Jews killed Christ.   During the phone call, MH repeatedly yelled at and berated Dr. Gahr and tried to frighten him so he would silence his son.   The doctor hung up on him, essentially putting MH on legal notice to cease and desist from all communications.  But Horowitz followed-up with a next day Federal Express package.  

Saperstein and MH apparently believe that legally they are in the clear because it has been so many years since they pulled this stunt.  But MPD considers that a distinction without a difference because of continued harm--namely Evan's parents still believe the lies MH peddled with Saperstein's help.   They agree with his characterization that Sapertstein and MH are engaged in “upper class” and “Ivy League” style criminal coercion and criminal harassment dating to their 2001 stunt.

To convince Dr. Gahr that his son was fired for being deranged and was now a danger to himself and other MH collected the journos’  letters to other conservatives, all covering for Weyrich, and trying to bait them and taunt them into good quotes.  MH knew that the elder Gahr would not understand the context and used the letters to argue his son was clearly unhinged. But Horowitz, a top official of the Ronald Reagan White House and Justice Department purposely the letter that Evan Gahr wrote him about Saperstein. Gahr told MH I know you're lying when you told me that I was not fired for criticizing Hudson because you told David Saperstein that is exactly why I  was fired.

Earlier this year, Saperstein refused repeated and frantic requests--many of them private or quasi-private from the younger Gahr to release the letter so his parents would understand that Horowitz purposely misled them.   Fighting PTSD and dealing with recovered memories, he finally retrieved the letter from paper files that he  forgot he had in his closet.  Saperstein’s refusal to exercise his power and influence over MH to urge him to release the letter amounts to prima facie negligent intentional infliction of emotional distress, a tort rarely used in lawsuits because it has such a high bar.  


Omitting the letter makes the FedEx package ipso post facto libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress because it establishes pronounced malice on MH's part.  The fact that he made these calls while anticipating litigation and right after the younger Gahr vowed to investigate Hudson donors means Saperstein and Horowitz engaged in a criminal conspiracy under federal law. Specifically, Section 1983, most often used these days in police brutality lawsuits but it also applies to private actors. The law prohibits two or more persons from conspiring to interfere with the rights of somebody else.   As a direct result of these ongoing antics, as well as his December 2016 dismissal from the Daily Caller for loudly objecting to Christian Right anti-Semitism and its neo-con apologists, Gahr is currently being treated for Major Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder  and memory blackouts.  The dismissal re-awakened the traumas from that FedEx stunt.  

All the assertions in this article are a matter of public record; the normally voluble Horowitz disputes nothing.   Saperstein is keeping his big trap shut as well.

In 2001, in addition to withholding that letter, MH also withheld the letter from the doctor’s precious and adored son vowing to investigate Hudson donors. And another to National Review mocking two of its writers for defending Paul Weyrich.  Instead, he only included the specious response to Gahr from NR star writer Jonah Goldberg.

Horowitz, colluding with Saperstein,  acted just days after the younger Gahr implicated the Bush White House, namely then-OMB general counsel Jay Lefkowitz, in his dismissal and vowed to investigate Hudson donors.  In other words he had both an economic motive and was trying to impede very specific exercises of First Amendment protected activities.

This is hardly the only way Saperstein did and continues to do Michael Horowitz’s bidding.

Longtime American Jewish Congress honcho Marc Stern and ADL head Abe Foxman quickly condemned Paul Weyrich for re-hashing the Deicide charge.  But Saperstein, to avoid offending his powerful and secret neo-con ally, with whom he worked on a number of issues, uttered nary a word of criticism of Weyrich.

In 2002 to help Evan Gahr with his lawsuit, the co-founder of the Moral Majority and Heritage Foundation, in a written statement, implicated the Bush White House and OMB general counsel Jay  Lefkowitz, in the right-wing journalist's dismissal from Hudson.  

Lefkowitz, who also worked in the George H.W. Bush White House, is a notorious apologist for Christian Right anti-Semitism, who famously told the New York Times in defense of Reverend Pat Robertson that “a little anti-Semitism is good for the Jews.”
Despite knowing Lefkowitz is an apologist for Christian Right anti-Semitism and having seen the Weyrich email many times, Saperstein in 2004 helped Michael Horowitz get the neo-con luminary named Special Envoy for North Korea.  

Saperstein, who, based on information and belief, had never even met Lefkowitz, a longtime law partner of Ken Starr, praised him to the New York Sun as an ideal choice because he is a great coalition builder.

Yeah, well, David, here is the key coalition Jay Lefkowitz built.


Get the Jew

Lefkowitz lied to White House political czar Karl Rove that the Weyrich controversy was a political liability because the Christian Right leader was tied to the Administration.   And Rove  needed to shut up the guy who started created it and was continuing to stir the pot.   In fact,  almost none of the articles about the fracas even mentioned the connection between Weyrich and the Bush White House.  Gahr’s continued presence at Hudson was really just a threat to neo-conservative Jews like Lefkowitz who had long endeavored to whitewash Christian Right anti-Semitism because the Christian Right leaders were powerful allies, pro-Israel and anti-gay.  

The subpoena also requires Saperstein to turn over emails and phone logs for the time period when he banned Evan Gahr from the Religious Action Center just weeks after, for all intents and purposes, New York Daily News columnist Lloyd Grove quoted him saying that Jay Lefkowitz got him fired from Hudson.   Any communications between Michael Horowitz and Saperstein connected to the ban would mean Saperstein was acting as a proxy for the Bush White House when he issued it.  

As a direct result of the ban, just as Saperstein could have reasonably anticipated,  indeed intended since he know Gahr was already fighting depression,  the journo was soon walloped with Major Depressive Disorder and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder that left him utterly professionally and personally incapacitated for years.  And fighting both maladies to this very day.  Before the RAC ban and the Saperstein/Horowitz FedEx stunt his only mental problem was low grade depression known as dysthymia.  It was treated perfectly with antidepressants.   After the RAC ban and FedEx stunt he tried and failed multiple medication regimens.  

The traumas Saperstein and Horowitz purposely inflicted to shut up Evan Gahr so he would stop reporting on them and discrediting them rendered the anti-depressants suddenly ineffective.   If somebody reading his medical reports didn’t know the contest they would likely think he is either a grown-up altar boy who was violated by a priest or an Iraq War veteran who did multiple tours of duty and escaped physical injury but witnessed untold horrors. He is still battling  both ailments, even though folks reading his stuff might find that hard to grasp because of the linguistic fluidity.

Confronted publicly and unexpectedly early this year, Saperstein is now trying to his staff members from 2005 take the fall for his unilaterally banning Evan Gahr from RAC, a place of public accommodations.  The ban violated Jewish teaching (which forbids rabbis from banning Jews from synagogues)  as well as the District of Columbia Human Rights Act and 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibitions against discrimination in public accommodations.

Saperstein actually issued it shortly after Gahr publicly upbraided him for running interference for Michael Horowitz and the Hudson Institute--including betraying confidential conversations--the whole time he was purporting to act as his rabbi and lawyer.    He also met Gahr’s parents and took a donation to them.   They had trusted Saperstein to protect their son from further harm but he ended up hurting him more than any other conservative did.   And violated him, albeit non-physically and betrayed trust after cultivating him just the way pedophile priests violated altar boys.   Gahr had the same kind of lustrous relationship with Saperstein, dating back some 15 years when he was barely out of college, that altar boys have with priests before they suddenly get molested.    Gahr has even praised Saperstein in the pages of the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page, in the course of attacking Jewish organizations for rank liberal bias, as a man of considerable integrity and honesty.

That whole plot is the subject of a separate lawsuit against Saperstein for fraudulent representation, essentially attorney misconduct.    


This “counseling” also included Saperstein telling the younger Gahr not to make a public issue of Michael Horowitz harassing his father.  But it was only this April that the journalist determined and Saperstein for all intents and purposes admitted that he helped MH do it.

Saperstein re-issued the ban and banned Gahr from the upcoming URJ convention on the morning of Passover, in an email for public consumption titled “a good Pesach.”  The email is part of the harassment lawsuit against Saperstein because it was sent privately after he and  Jonah Pesner were repeatedly put on notice to cease and desist all private communications--because they are medically injurious and leave Gahr feeling threatened--and communicate publicly only about matters of public concern.

Gahr is arriving with a video camera at the midtown Manhattan office of the Union for Reform Judaism Friday at 5PM to pick up the documents.   

Whether Saperstein is going to abide by the subpoena or flout it remains an open question.

But it is readily apparent that when there are no cameras around David Saperstein cares about civil rights “as much as yesterday’s  piss”--to use a great expression of my grandfather
Louis Goldstock.

Stay tuned.

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

IWF President Carrie Lukas & Other Neo-Racist Conservatives

Exclusive: Charlotte Hayes secretly made virulently racist remarks to another Washington Times employee


In a prima facie complaint to  the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission, the conservative Independent Women’s Forum was charged today with rank anti-Jewish bias for illegally barring Washington Gadfly Evan Gahr from their November 15 star-studded banquet headlined by White House counselor Kellyanne Conway.

IWF president Carrie Lukas,  vice-president Amber Schwartz and IWF editor Charlotte Hayes were repeatedly told in private or quasi-private emails from Gahr that banning him from the dinner--just as they banned him from their 2013 joint event with National Review--would be blatantly illegal under District and federal law.  

The exclusion is discrimination in public accommodations based on religion and illegal retaliation for protected activities--namely his prior lawsuit against the IWF’s fellow travelers at the neo-con Hudson Institute  for religious discrimination, following his dismissal, under Bush White House pressure, for denouncing Christian Right/Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich for saying the Jews killed Christ.

But IWF officials, with the insouciance, condescension and lawlessness that classic Southern racists displayed toward proud black men who they felt threatened their power and prestige, ignored the detailed entreaties from Gahr asking to attend the event.

The right-leaning journo explained in considerable detail that given multiple legal exigencies here dating to his 2001 denunciation of Weyrich,  the exclusion, absent the articulation of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, would be blatantly illegal.    

So either give me a ticket or a non-discriminatory reason for the exclusion, OK?

They did neither.

Carrie Lukas and Amber Schwarz and Charlotte Hayes  apparently figured,  just  like Southern racists who relied on secrecy, that they can get away with such blatant discrimination because Washington Post media blogger and reporter Erik Wemple is not writing about Gahr and he only has 230 or so Twitter followers.   

This attitude bespeaks considerable ignorance about American jurisprudence,  hostility to civil rights laws and the same kind of contempt for the American Way that many liberals,  leftists and elite reporters often manifest.



IWF is also guilty--like the classic white Southern racists--of what this reporter calls  “pretext free discrimination.”

“We don’t serve coloreds here.”

That is an assertion not an argument.  It is descriptive but bereft of an explanation.  

It begs the question of why don’t you serve them?

Well, because they are “coloreds.”    

Similarly,  IWF has been banning me from their public events since 2013 but to this day has not provided any reason for  doing so.

“We don’t allow Evan Gahr at our event.”

Why not?

Because he is “Evan Gahr.”

Gahr is just as much a threat to their power and prestige as black students were at segregated Woolworth’s lunch counters.   

IWF officially enjoys tax-exempt status as a nonpartisan research organization. Their whole public persona, as defending free expression and robust debate against intolerant feminists and liberals, is impossible to square with their acquiescence with the Hudson Institute firing him for denouncing Christian Right anti-Semitism in 2001.  

And their fellow travelers at  Daily Caller doing the same thing in December 2016.   


Doesn’t it  sound incongruous for somebody to get fired in 2016 for what happened in 2001. Especially because at the Daily Caller in 2015 his investigative reporting in 2015 on the little-noticed trial of then MSNBC host Ed Schultz implicated the president of the cable channel in perjury and led to Ed’ ouster.  He became an industry pariah--running a superPAC out of a UPS store before Vladmir Putin hired him for his American television station.   At the Daily Caller in early 2016, Gahr’s investigative reporting prompted a congressional investigation of th Department of Homeland Security for firing and illegally smearing an ICE whistleblower.  But then months later on December 7, 2016, publisher Neil Patel, with full subsequent support from co-owner Tucker Carlson, fired him for what happened in 2001?

It’s hard to think of another Washington whistleblower who got fired twice--by the same people!--for the same thing.

But remember: the whole Weyrich fracas is an open matter. It was never settled, legally or journalistically, like most Washington controversies.  Conservatives say that Muslims need a reformation to disentangle the religion from terrorism and extremism.  Conservatives need their own reformation to disentangle themselves from Christian Right anti-Semitism.   

To this day, not a single prominent conservative, other than Linda Chavez, has condemned or reproached Weyrich for his anti-Jewish broadside.   In addition to IWF, Gahr has been barred by National Review publisher Jack Fowler, a pre-Vatican II Catholic, from attending NR events that are open to the public. And presumably writing for the magazine; his NR articles included excoriating the black basketball player Dennis Rodman. But going after a white Christian got him blacklisted by National Review.   Star writer Jonah Goldberg even did his best to help Hudson fire him and aided senior fellow Michael Horowitz in the harassment of his father to shut him up.

The backlash in 2017 is particularly curious because in 2002 Weyrich went to the Holocaust Museum with Evan Gahr  to show he regretted the pain his remarks caused Jews.   

Weyrich refused a request from his former detractor to put out a press release, which may have garnered considerable press coverage about the visit.  The Greek Melkite Catholic said it was a purely personal visit for him and he would issue a statement afterwards.  (Greek Melkite Catholics are distinct religiously from Roman Catholics but are ultimately under the authority of Rome.)

Plagued with just about every health malady somebody could have, except cancer, and still have a heartbeat, Weyrich delayed doctor’s visits so he could keep the arranged date.  
Afterwards, he jokingly referred to himself as “an ex-demented anti-Semite.”


Got that, everybody?

Conservatives are still Borking and blacklisting Evan Gahr for calling Weyrich a demented anti-Semite 15 years after he admitted to being one. This is reminiscent of Communists in this country refusing to condemn Stalin even after Khrushchev denounced his crimes.   

Charlotte Hayes, for whom this reporter  wrote from 1999 to 2001 at the personal recommendation of IWF founder Ricky Silberman, told Gahr in 2002 shortly after he sued Hudson for firing him for denouncing Paul Weyrich for saying the Jews killed Christ that he could never write for her again.  This makes the dinner ban, concurrent with denial of employment, blatant illegal retaliation for protected activities.  In addition to discrimination based on religion.  And discrimination based on disability since she accused him of having psychiatric problems.

“Take your meds.”   

Conservative Racial Dictatorships and Double Standards
Of course, it was standard modus operandi of the Communist Party USA to impute mental instability to political opponents.   For some strange reason all of my obvious mental problems went unnoticed by Charlotte Hayes and conservative during the 10 years I was doing “hit pieces” for them on liberal blacks, feminists and gays.  But suddenly I was accused of having a psychiatric problems when I went after a white christian for anti-Semitism instead of a black Christian named Jesse Jackson.

That bespeaks some very ugly and telling racial standards on the right’s part.    

It is well to note that Charlotte Hayes , a Mississippi native, is more than a neo-racist and guilty of more than racial double standards.

Charlotte Hayes is just a plain garden variety white Southern racist.

When I was a reporter for Insight Magazine, sister publication of the Washington Times, Charlotte was the gossip columnist.  

My Insight colleague, Steve Goode, a West Virginia native, really sweet man and great writer and reporter, kept telling everybody in the newsroom how horrified he was whenever he had lunch with Charlotte (presumably in the Washington Times cafeteria.)

Goode said that Hayes would make blatantly racist remarks to him, assuming that as a fellow Southerner from an earlier era he would really dig them--even though she couldn’t talk that way to other folks not from the South.

But Goode found her casual racism revolting and told everybody about these lunches repeatedly.  Charlotte can’t deny any of this now.  And she can’t dismiss these charges of conservative racism--stipulations really--as left-wing character assassination. Like conservatives normally do; sometimes with justification.  

I am the Jewish Whittaker Chambers.  

The ex-communist broke ranks with the paper and exposed Alger Hiss, the epitome of the liberal Washington establishment as a Communist, who was in the same Party cell as him.  Nobody could refute the charge from Whittaker. And Hiss was eventually convicted of perjury for denying the charges under oath.

I exposed the co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Christian Right, “one of the founders of the contemporary conservative movement”--to use the WaPo description--as “a demented anti-Semite.”  

Meet the Heterosexual David Brock

I was a golden boy in this insular conservative world for 10 years--adored for my “hit pieces,” which combined investigative reporting with Christopher Hitchens-esque writing,  on pretty much every liberal imaginable.  I was “a right-wing hit man” to use Media Matters founder David Brock’s famous description of himself before he broke ranks. But I am not gay so I was not, like Brock was, something an outsider, who conservatives felt uneasy with and guarded with. Nobody was guarded with me. They adored me.    

Longtime AEI magazine editor Karl Zinsmeister once said to me, Evan, you’re so conservative it gives me an erection.  Then about one month later, he dismissed me as a columnist after Special Assistant to the President Tim Goeglein, complained to him about me, at the behest of Karl Rove, incited by OMB general counsel Jay Lefkowitz, the notorious apologist for Christian Right anti-Semitism who famously said in defense of Pat Robertson, “a little anti-Semitism is good for the Jews.”

I witnessed everything and know really embarrassing secrets about some of the biggest names in the DC conservative world.  Stuff that undermines their credibility and can’t given my background be dismissed as liberal bias and character assassination.  This includes gay bashing; the same folks who claim their opposition to gay marriage is not bigotry privately call gays “fags.”

Stay tuned for the dirty little secrets (to borrow the famous phrase in a different context of longtime Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz, another neo-con apologist for Christian Right anti-Semitism) of David Frum, the highly-regarded speechwriter for President George W. Bush

When there are no cameras around Frum is nothing like his public persona.  His wife, Danielle Crittenden, was editor of the IWF publication, the Women’s Quarterly, for which I wrote.

The IWF ban is medically, personally, professionally and economically injurious to me.  I need to go to these kind of  DC events to get new stories and socialize because I am fighting major depressive disorder and social isolation in New York City makes it worse.   In addition to the civil rights violations, the IWF is guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

IWF and particularly Charlotte Hayes need to understand that Washington, DC in 2017 is not Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1962.   We have laws against the kind of things they are doing now.

And contrary to what IWF president Carrie Lukas has concluded they need to follow them even if the Washington Post is not writing about the “uppity Jew” they are excluding from their dinner.    

IWF is also carrying water for their fellow travelers at the  Family Research Council, the nation’s most powerful Christian Right organization,  with the ban.  They don’t want Gahr asking them about the sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against FRC that he exposed for his blog in 2012.   The annual FRC convention, Values Voters Summit, this year was headlined by President Donald Trump.   Virtually all GOP presidential contenders speak there.  

The story about FRC firing a woman who complained her supervisor was emailing her “hi cutie” and inviting her to parties and telling her that young women on birth control pills are “whoring around” was picked up by the Huffington Post and quickly went viral.  

The lawsuit, of course, entirely implodes the IWF party line that sexual harassment is just a feminist myth.   IWF leaders are frightened about being asked about this lawsuit, just as they are terrified about being asked about Paul Weyrich.

But these are the people who purport to protect free expression and robust debate from the left.

The Independent Women's Forum is about as independent from the Republican Party as Pravda was the Kremlin.

When there are no cameras around, IWF cares about free expression about “as much as yesterday’s piss,” to use a great turn of phrase of my grandfather Louis Goldstock.  

Adapted from Tucker Carlson, Christian Right/Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich (who also coined the term pro-life), Louis E. Chimpstein & Me: the shockingly putrescent but patriotic story of how “everybody” in Washington acts when they think “nobody” is watching . . . but inspirational moral of the story,  nobody is “a nobody” unless he acts like one and allows others to treat him like one