Washington Gadfly Evan Gahr

Bloomberg and CAIR

2010-08-26T18:42:00.000-07:00

Go here for story

Michael Steele Sneak Interview

2010-08-02T07:50:00.001-07:00

Michael Steele was a big “get” for George Stephanapolous but he got nothing.

On April 5, 2010 Stephanapolous, host of the Sunday morning mainstay “This Week” got the first interview with Steele since the Daily Caller made him a national laughing stock by disclosing that his charges plunked down nearly $2000 at a bondage-themed night club in Hollywood.

Rather than grill Steele about strippergate and other misdoings at the RNC, Stephanapolous, who needed to stay on Steele’s good side so he’ll do the show again, let him do more spinning than a Chanukah dreidel.

For example, when Steele said he’s held to a higher standard because he’s black the obvious follow-up would have been, “Oh, really? Can you name one head of a white organization who turned his group into a national laughing stock but wasn’t forced to resign.”

At least Stephanapolous brought up strippergate. Chris Wallace didn’t even ask Steele about GOP scandals when he appeared on Fox News Sunday May 24. Neither did CNBC when Steele appeared June 22 on its “Squack on the Street.”

And that’s been it for interviews.

Nevertheless, I was determined to get Steele on the phone and ask him questions that Wallace, Stephanapolous and CNBC should have but didn’t.

Still, I knew Steele, a walking argument against affirmative action, wouldn’t talk to me or any other reporter.

(In fact, I later heard that when a television producer showed up at his house to ask him questions he slammed the door in her face.)

But maybe he would talk to a potential donor with deep pockets.

The idea, which is a standard journalism tool, was get him to talk about one thing that excites him and he’ll inevitably start talking about other stuff.

And Steele just loves to talk.

It was just a matter of breaking the ice.

And, of course, everyone loves money. Steele needs lots of it for his private jets.

On July 26, around 930pm, I called Steele at his listed home number in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.

Well, actually my alter-ego who works at a hedge fund called him.

And sure enough Steele picked up.

Or did he?

The conversation went as follows.

Michael Steele: Hello

Evan Gahr: Michael?

Michael Steele: Can I ask who’s calling?

Evan Gahr: Yeah, this is Bertram. I work in a hedge fund and I’m interested in making a donation but I’m worried my money is going to go to strippers and that kind of thing.

Michael Steele: Well, let me leave a message for him.

What a goofball. He’s been on television gazillions of times but Steele thinks nobody could possibly recognize his voice?

Evan Gahr: It sounds just like him.

Michael Steele: [Laughs]. Who is this?

Evan Gahr: I said that’s my name, Bertram. I want to make a donation but I'm worried the money will go to strippers.

Michael Steele. That’s crazy. That was a staffer who got fired as soon as I heard about it. We put all the appropriate controls and not one dollar goes to that kind of activity.

Evan Gahr: How do you feel about Norm Coleman possibly challenging you for re-election as GOP chairman, as Politico reported?

Michael Steele: "Norm is an old friend. Norm is not going to challenge me for RNC chairman. If he does I’ll put my record up against anyone who comes after to me. I feel confident we’ll get re-elected. I’m not worried about that part of it."

This is actually newsworthy. It’s the first indication from Steele that he intends to seek re-election when his term expires next year. And it’s his sole comment on the Politico story about Coleman.

Back to his unintentional interview.

Evan Gahr: Chris Matthews and Frank Rich said you weren’t fired because you’re black.

Michael Steele: [Laughs.] I didn’t hear that. Everybody’s got a reason why I haven’t got fired. I haven’t been fired because I’ve been doing my job. My won loss record is better than any chairman in the last 10 years.

Evan Gahr: The RNC says you need private jets [when no commercial flights are available--

Michael Steele: I don’t take private jets.

Evan Gahr: You’ve taken them in the past. Where did you go that no commercial flights were available?

Michael Steele: On election day I flew from BWI to [Trenton]New Jersey to spend part of the day with Chris Christie. Then flew to down to Richmond Virginia to watch the election results with the governor. You tell me the commerical flight that will get me to New Jersey and then to Virginia and then back to New Jersey at 10 pm.

Evan Gahr: Where else did you go that there were no commerciall flights?

Michael Steele: I don’t know. Check with the staff. Certain parts of the Dakotas are tough to get to for two for three events in one day.[Or] you go from Florida and Wisconsin to Michigan in one day.

Evan Gahr: In terms of making the GOP a hip hop party have you thought of going around with baggy jeans?

Michael Steele: No. That’s not the point of that. The idea was to take the party into communities that don’t sound like typical Republicans.

Evan Gahr: Now, there’s been a lot of people fired--

Michael Steele: I don’t mean to cut you off but I’m in the middle of something.

Evan Gahr: There have been a lot of people fired. Are you responsible for what your subordinates do?

Michael Steele: Ultimately at the end of the day. I’m making sure the organization does what it’s supposed to do.

Evan Gahr: You said you have a lower margin of error because you’re black. Can you name one head of a white organization who brought nationwide embarassment on the group but was not forced to resign?

Michael Steele: Well, I don’t know. Howard Dean went through a lot. People thought he said some shit and done [sic] some embarassing things.

Evan Gahr: I’m really a reporter. Why are you avoiding interviews? What are you scared of?

Michael Steele: Who are you with?

Evan Gahr: The Washington Gadfly, a new iconoclastic website.

Evan Gahr: Has anybody had enough chutzpah to call you at home.

Michael Steele: [Many] people do. Next time you should identify yourself as a reporter. That’s the ethical thing.

Evan Gahr: If I did you wouldn't have talked to me.

Michael Steele: That’s probably true because I’m not doing any interviews. Activists call all the time. They don’t try to sneak an interview. That is not kosher.

Evan Gahr: Reporters go undercover all the time. The New York Post just went undercover to expose Medicaid fraud.

Michael Steele: Well, ok. There's no fraud here.

Michael Steele: Ok.I’ll talk to you buddy.

Evan Gahr: Bye.

Thanks for the interview, buddy.

Especially because Steele continues to be elusive.

Four days after I called Steele abruptly cancelled an appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists convention in San Diego, where he was expected to be grilled about past statements and and his scheduled appearance at a GOP fundraiser (since cancelled) with conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart.

Steele’s aide claimed he cancelled the NABJ appearance due to food poisoning.

Did he get that from sticking his foot in his mouth one too many times?

--EVAN GAHR

Kagan's Illegitimate Daugther

2010-05-11T15:26:00.000-07:00

Elena Kagan has no children--unless you count Geneva Crenshaw.

And that would make the father Derrick Bell, a proponent of critical race studies, essentially blame whitey in legal vernacular.

Although it's impossible to tell from the Harvard Law Review masthead or any articles when Kagan was one of the editors who helped publish a work of fiction by Bell about civil rights leader Geneva Crenshaw.

jewishworldreview.com/0510/kagan_blemish2_gahr.php3

Brokaw on Olbermann

2010-04-28T07:48:00.000-07:00

By EVAN GAHR

Professional Angry Person Keith Olbermann already silenced Donny Deutsch.

Now, its Tom Brokaw.

Brokaw was at the 66th and Broadway Barnes and Noble last night to moderate a discussion with musician Peter Buffet, son of Warren Buffet, about his new book, Life is What You Make It. (If you write a book that’s one big cliche does that mean your life is also?)

Anyway, after Brokaw left the event room I corned him and said how do you feel about Olberman getting Donny Deutsch kicked off MSNBC.

Brokaw said, “I don’t go there,” patted me on the arm like a frisky dog and walked away.

Where’s Olberman going to go with that? Who does he silence next now that Brokaw has declined to take issue with his Stalinist purge?

And there you have it: the very embodiment of NBC News and ostensibly objective journalism has no problem with censorship by his own network.

Contrast that with how liberals would have shrieked if the Bush Administration tried to get a NBC journalist who criticized them kicked off the air.

Brokaw told me he is writing a book of advice for his grandchildren and the next generation.

What lesson is Brokaw giving his grandchildren by keeping quiet about Keith Olbermann?

Let a bully at your organization run wild if he makes it lots of money?

Evan Gahr has written about the press for the American Spectator, Wall Street Journal and the New York Post.

Kagan Coverup Uncovered

2010-04-26T07:28:00.000-07:00

United States Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who President Barack Obama interviewed April 30 to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court is considered a blank slate..

But is she?

True, Kagan, a former Harvard Law School dean, would be the first person without judicial experience appointed to the Supreme Court since William Rehnquist in 1972, doesn’t have much of a paper trail.

Her views on most of the hot button issues she would likely decide on the Supreme Court--race relations, abortion and federalism, are mostly impossible to discern.

But Kagan does have an identifiable, though overlooked, track record on one matter and it’s a telling one. As Dean of Harvard Law School in 2004 and 2005 she treated two liberal law professors with kid gloves when they were busted for plagiarism. Her chicanery was so blatant that even a leftist academic said she should be fired for her “whitewash.”

Kagan’s essential absolution of both professors has been virtually unnoticed in the flood of stories about her possible Supreme Court nomination this year and in 2009 when she was considered a top candidate to replace liberal Justice David Souter.

But the way she handled professors Larry Tribe and Charles Ogletree, when they both were caught swiping the words of others, seems to violate basic principles of fairness.

She let the professors off easy for the kind of offense that for which any Harvard undergraduate or law school would have been suspended if not expelled.

As the Harvard Crimson wrote after Kagan and Harvard president Larry Summers declined to punish Tribe, “the glaring double standard set by Harvard stands as an inadequate precedent for future disappointments.”

It also could say a lot about Kagan would behave on the bench. Through inaction and disingenuous statements that disregarded Harvard’s own disciplinary policy Kagan exonerated Tribe and Ogletree of any malfeasance.

In other words, like a good liberal activist judge, she ignored precedent and the plain meaning of relevant texts to create an outcome that struck her fancy.

The copycat cases came to light in the Fall of 2004. Ogletree was busted first for his book, part history part personal memoir, All Deliberate Speed.

Following a Harvard investigation ordered by Kagan when she received an unsigned letter claiming that Ogletree’s book had ripped off a collection of essays about Brown Ogletree issued a September 3 statement on the school website.

The professor, who taught both Michelle Obama and Barack Obama at Harvard Law School, said that his book contained six paragraphs, almost word for word, from the essay collection, What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said. The 2001 book was edited by Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin.

Ogletree, who gained prominence when he served as Anita Hill’s lawyer during the Clarence Thomas confirmation battle, said he took “complete responsibility” for the errors. Then he blamed it on his research assistants.

He said one assistant put quotation marks around Balkin’s words so the other assistant could summarize it with “proper attribution to Balkin.” But the second assistant mistakenly removed the quotes and and sent a book draft to the publisher.

So much for contrition what about the punishment?

Ogletree told the Boston Globe that he would face disciplinary action but neither he nor Kagan’s spokeswoman would specify it.

Kagan said in a statement that Olgetree was guilty of “a serious scholarly transgression.”

But Ogletree was not suspended, which is the minimum that undergraduates and graduates face when they are busted for plagiarism. How seriously then did Kagan really treat this transgression?

Certainly, the statement Ogletree issued, which was “approved” by Harvard according to the Boston Globe, relied on an excuse, unintentional copying, that Harvard Law School’s student handbook explicitly says is not exculpatory. “Students who submit work that is not their own, without clear attribution of all sources, even if the omission is inadvertent will be subject to disciplinary action.”

As the controversy festered, Harvard Law School professor Larry Tribe, a party line liberal, came to Ogletree’s defense. Tribe told the Boston Globe that Ogletree is someone who “because he often says yes to them many people all over the country who ask for help on all kinds of things, he has extended himself even farther than someone with all the energy can safely do.”

Tribe vouching Ogletree’s character quickly sounded like Eliot Spitzer vouching for your monogamy.

A law professor who read about Tribe’s defense tipped off The Weekly Standard that Tribe’s 1985 book, God Save This Honourable Court, had purloined quite a bit from University of Virgina emeritus professor Henry Abraham’s acclaimed 1974 book, Justice and Presidents.

In a humongous article posted on the magazine’s website September 24 Joseph Bottum documented multiple passages from Tribe’s book, the bible for liberals who Borked Robert Bork in 1987 when he was nominated for the Supreme Court in 1987, that were clearly lifted from Abraham’s.

One phrase was taken verbatim. “Taft publicly pronounced Pitney to be a ‘weak member’ of the court.”

Many others were virtually identical. Consider Bottum’s many examples. Abraham: “Caleb Cushing was unquestionably highly qualified and possessed of a superb mind."’ Tribe: "Cushing was possessed of a fine mind and undoubtedly highly qualified."

And that was the lest of it, Bottum, now editor of First Things, noted that “The historical sections of the book typically consist of a long passage from Abraham crunched down by rephrasing and the elimination of detail -- as one might expect when Abraham’s 298 pages of material are made to provide the facts around which Tribe builds his own thesis in [only] 143 pages of text."

Tribe quickly issued a non-apology apology. Just like Ogletree he accepted full responsibility for the plagiarism--and then proceeded to say it was all a harmless error.

Tribe contended that his “well meaning effort to write a Book accessible to a lay audience through the omission of any footnotes or endnotes in contrast to the practices I have always followed in my scholarly writing came at an unacceptable cost: my failure to attribute some of the material the Weekly Standard attributed.”

Why just some? He didn’t identify what the Standard supposedly got wrong.

And what was Kagan’s reaction to Tribe’s mea not so culpable? She refused any comment to the Boston Globe and appointed a three person panel to investigate the matter.

In other words, she stonewalled. Why did she need to investigate what Tribe had already admitted? Tribe didn’t challenge any facts in the Weekly Standard opus.

A mere seven months later the panel presented its report to Kagan and then Harvard president Larry Summers.

What did they find? Nobody knows. The report was not released and former Harvard president Derek Bok, one the authors, refused to discuss it when reached at home last week.

The only “punishment” Tribe got was a statement by Kagan and Summers that cleared him of any malfeasance.

“The unattributed materials relates more to matters of phrasing than to fundamental ideas,” they said, offering a distinction that would have been irrelevant to Harvard if a student had done the same thing. “We are also firmly convinced that the error was the product of inadvertence rather than intentionality."

“Nevertheless, we regard the error in question as a significant lapse in proper academic practice.”

A lapse? That’s like saying someone who bounces check didn’t swindle anyone the bum checks were just a lapse in accounting procedures. Or the shoplifter had a lapse in memory when he left the store without paying.

And again, just like Kagan’s statement on Ogletree, if the lapse was so “significant” why wasn’t Tribe sanctioned?

In a lengthy article for his blog, Massachusetts School of Law Dean Lawrence Velvel said Kagan and Summers should have been axed for their “whitewash.”

He cited example after example of how Kagan and Tribe essentially offered excuses for the very actions they purported to condemn.

For example, Summers and Kagan said that they had “taken note that the relevant conduct took place two decades ago.”

Why take note? Velvel asked. “Do we forgive criminals because their crimes were committed 20 years ago, but they managed to hide them for two decades?)

Well, maybe Velvel is just a conservative ideologue determined to bludgeon liberals with any rhetorical weapon available?

Uh, not exactly. In September 2008, Velvel held a conference to plan the prosecution of Bush Administration officials for “war crimes.”

In his analysis of the Kagan-Summers statement Velvel, who could not be reached for comment, was also subtle. “What can one say of this travesty? “ he asked. “Only, I suppose, that it is a travesty. Its language is misleading, its logic miserable, and its spirit corrupt. “

Corrupt, indeed. Law school students, however, caught with purloined words just like Tribe and Ogletree don’t have it so easy.

The current Harvard Law School handbook describes three cases of plagiarism by students in “recent years.” One student was suspended. The other was suspended and not allowed back to complete his studies.

The third student had already graduated when his plagiarism was discovered. His degree was rescinded.

Maybe they can get jobs as research assistants for Ogletree or Tribe.

As for Kagan and her possible new job, given how little integrity she displayed at Harvard is there any reason to think she’ll have any at the Supreme Court?

--Evan Gahr has written about law for many conservative publications.

Are Bloggers Journalists?

2010-04-09T13:22:00.001-07:00

Virtually all bloggers don't have editors.

What kind of journalist doesn't have an editor? What does it say about a writer who thinks he doesn't need an editor?

--EVAN GAHR has written for almost every major publication.

RNC Expense at Club Macanudo Not Connected to PA National Committeewoman, Christine J. Toretti

2010-04-09T13:03:00.001-07:00

Recently I wrote an article in response to all of the coverage on questionable RNC expenses. Today, I want to acknowledge a mistake made in my article and set the record straight.

I reported that the RNC spent $9,000 on a “shindig” at Club Macanudo in New York hosted by respected business magnate and National Committeewoman, Christine J. Toretti, of Pennsylvania. After further exploration and more detailed investigation I have discovered that in fact the $9000 RNC expense was for a separate major donor event that happens to be held at the same venue Ms. Toretti uses for as she said “a private party.”

The two events are separate and the RNC expense has nothing to do with Ms. Toretti or her annual event. In no way did Ms. Toretti have knowledge of or authority over the RNC expense. I do apologize for the misunderstanding.

Another RNC Spendthrift

2010-04-09T11:37:00.000-07:00

By EVAN GAHR

Everyone has heard quite a bit about Republican Party chairman Michael Steele's private jets, expensive hotels, the $1946.25 that his charges plunked down at West Hollywood Voyeur and liquor store purchase s they called "office expenses."

But an exhaustive review of all the RNC 2009 disbursement reports finds some stuff charged to the RNC that sound even less work-related than the West Hollywood Voyeur tab.

Meet Republican National Committee worker bee Nancy Hibbs, whose job title is classified. Hibbs last year received $761.00 for what the RNC disbursement report calls "automotive maintenance" at "CS Dealer Services" in Arlington, VA.

Except that CS Dealer Services does not repair cars. They just sell all kinds of electronic goodies for your auto, such as CD systems, DVD players and iPods and other nifty stuff that would be really cool to buy with money that belongs to somebody else.

And just what does Hibbs do with her car? Well, the RNC last July gave her $350 for "traffic violations." Maybe the charges were incurred on a business trip?

Uh, no. The money was paid to the DC Department of Motor Vehicles.

Asked why she charges the RNC for what look like personal expenses Hibbs pleaded (feigned?) ignorance. "I don't know what you're talking about,"she huffed before hanging up.

Who is Nancy Hibbs? Google her name and Republican and almost nothing comes up.

And just what does Hibbs do for the RNC, anyway? The goober who answered Michael Steele's phone said, "We don't release that information." It was tempting to ask, "Do you think you're the CIA?"

But the point would have gone right over the head of the goober, who seemed bereft of any sense of irony.

Another mystery: The RNC last year paid somebody’s rent at Hill House Apartments near Congress. But there are no offices located in the building. Was the pad rented for official RNC business?

It could be for somebody's monkey business. For all we know it could be Michael Steele's love nest. Although the ultimate love nest for Steele, a walking argument against affirmative action, is a TV studio.

Yes. There could be innocent explanations for these expenses. Still, given the GOP spending exposed thus far the RNC doen't deserve a presumption of innocence. They should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

And nobody should be ashamed of experiencing major Schadenfreude as they watch Michael Steele send the party down the toilet. The GOP deserves all the headaches they got from Steel because they believed a black chairman would get them black votes or praise from the mainstream media.

Blacks are not androids easily programmed to vote Republican candidates because the party chairman is black. Like everyone else they'll vote for candidates on the basis of how his or her policy stances and personality resonates with them.

Instead of playing diversity-fetish politics like liberals Republicans should have stood tall for color blind hiring. But they didn't.

If you sleep with animal companions--to use the politically correct term-- you wake up with fleas.

Evan Gahr has written for almost every major conservative publication.

Why Is Gore Vidal Speaking At the Y?

2009-08-24T13:55:00.000-07:00

Gore Vidal is scheduled to speak at the 92nd St. Y this October.

Why does Manhattan's premiere Jewish community center want to provide a prestigious forum to Vidal?

Again. He spoke there at least one previous time.

If a writer had said the kind of thing about blacks that Vidal did Jews it's doubtful he would have been invited.

There's nothing wrong with having speakers critical of Israel. Still, at some point a line must be drawn and Vidal is a good place at which to draw it.

All the News That's Fit to Steal

2009-07-06T08:35:00.000-07:00

By EVAN GAHR

The New York Times yesterday published a humongous front-page story about an anti-war essay that a Columbia University undergraduate named Barack Obama wrote in March 1983.

The piece, written by veteran reporters David Sanger and William Broad, even included part of the actual essay--yellowed with age--from a now defunct campus publication, Sundial.

Sanger and Broad, who don't seem to notice Obama expressed the same kind of views disseminated by Soviet apologists at the time, declared with typical Timesean omniscience that the article "came to light on the internet just before the inauguration" but precisely "how the article found its way onto the internet is unclear."

Uh, unclear to anyone who doesn't read Human Events, the Washington Post or the Politico.

The Obama essay didn't just show up on the internet out of the ether one day. I extracted it from Columbia with aggressive reporting.

I first heard of the article from one of Obama's classmates but he wouldn't give it to me.

The issue of Sundial where the essay appeared was strangely missing from the Columbia archives and not accessible to the public online. Columbia Today, an alumni publication, quoted from the article in the class notes section of its November 2008/December 2008 issue but refused to reproduce the actual essay.

The class notes section which quoted the essay was only available to Columbia students, faculty and alumni. Journalists couldn't get it.

But I managed to browbeat Columbia into giving me a scan of the article.

On January 7, I asked David Stone, Vice President for Communications, if the school really wanted to be known as keeping relevant information about Obama from the public. In other words, keep it up and O'Reilly's producer is likely to show up on your lawn.

Voila: the article appeared in my inbox the next day.

On January 9, I was the first journalist to write about the essay, exclusively for Human Events, a longstanding conservative publication, not a blog.

The Washington Post gossip column January 13 did its lead item on the essay, which they noted I "excavated."

The same day, Ben Smith wrote about the essay on his widely-read Politico blog. Smith posted the actual essay--with credit to me.

So much for the mystery.

The Times claim about the article's unknown origins is demonstrably false.

Moreover, someone at the Times surely knew it was false because the paper reproduced part of the actual essay, which appeared online only at the Politico.

So they apparently took something from Politico but don't know where they got it?

Given that the Times is imploding thanks to online competition why would the once mighty paper of record want to pretend that traditional reporting is nothing more than internet gossip?

New York Times Washington bureau chief Dean Baquest was asked how the origins of the story were unclear if the Washington Post and the Politico stated the source. "You're acting like a jerk," he explained, but "I'll look into it."

But a conversation with William J. Broad, the Times veteran science reporter who wrote most of the piece, proved quite instructive. His combination of arrogance and laziness is astounding.

The following is not parody.

Evan Gahr: Why did you say it was unclear how the article ended up on the internet?

Bill Broad: It looked like you were first but I couldn’t be certain.

Evan Gahr: You work at the New York Times and can’t figure out how something ended up on the internet.

Bill Broad: That’s right. It’s like science.

Evan Gahr: But aren’t you a science reporter?

Bill Broad: That’s right.

Evan Gahr: Why did you say it was unclear how the article appeared on the internet if the Washington Post and Politico had it there first.

Bill Broad: I don’t care what they said.

Evan Gahr: You don’t care what the Politico and Washington Post said?

Bill Broad: That’s right.

Evan Gahr: Why was the Post article unclear? Was it written in Swahili?

Bill Broad: You’re insulting me.

His combination of arrogance and laziness is astounding.

--EVAN GAHR has embarassed liberals with their own words for the New York Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal and American Spectator.

MSNBC's Very Late Breaking News

2009-06-23T07:27:00.000-07:00

MSNBC fancies itself the "Place for Politics."

But the dismally rated cable network, which leans so far left it often falls down on the job, could more accurately be called "The Place for the Other Week's News Tomorrow."

MSNBC yesterday morning did a brief item about Hollywood talent agent, Ari Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, emerging as a major Tinseltown power broker.

Anchor Carlos Watson interviewed Sharon Waxman, editor of TheWrap.com, a lackluster Hollywood website, about Emanuel.

Fascinating stuff. Except for the trifling detail that the New York Times did the same story about Emanuel 12 days earlier.

On its front page.

Does anyone at MSNBC read the Times?

Or at least glance at the front page?

Ironically, the Daily News this February gushed that Watson is "ready to lead the Obama generation into a new era of information."

Some leader.

In the days ahead look for other scoops from MSNBC.

New York Times fires reporter Jayson Blair for fabricating and plagiarizing news stories.

Obama longtime member of Chicago church headed by reverend known for his fiery anti-American sermons.

Democratic National Committee's headquarters at the Watergate office and apartment complex in Washington, DC burglarized.

--EVAN GAHR has written about the media for the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, American Spectator and National Review.

Keeping Up with Larry King

2009-05-29T09:24:00.000-07:00

Larry King encourages guests on his CNN talk show to blather about everything and anything.

Is that why King seems oblivious to the concept of TMI? (Too Much Information.)

At a Manhattan Barnes and Noble May 21 to promote his latest memoir, King, 75, boasted that he sired his two young boys with his decades-younger wife "without Viagra."

The comment drew guffaws from the crowd, some of whom had waited hours to hear the legendary talkmeister talk about his new book, My Remarkable Journey.

Interviewed at the store by CNN morning anchor John Roberts, King also dished on his sexual stamina.

King recalled that early in his broadcast when he hotfooted it over to the house of a female caller who propositioned him on the air he only needed about 30 minutes to do his business. And that, King said proudly, is all he needs today.

--EVAN GAHR has written about the media for the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, American Spectator and National Review.

Laura Ingraham's Big Fat Mouth

2009-03-17T13:56:00.000-07:00

Conserative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham rails about liberal intolerance but she sure finds conservatives who disagree with her party line right-wing views quite intolerable.

Some weeks back Ingraham suggested to Arlen Specter that he supported President Barack Obama's stimulus plan because he was "wined and dined at the White House."

Now, Ingraham has mocked blogger Meghan McCain, daughter of Senator John McCain (R-AZ), because of her much discussed column on the Daily Beast website that attacked conservative firebrand Ann Coulter for intolerance and a multitude of other sins.

Ingraham called the junior MCCain a "plus sized model," which of course is irrelevant to her views. The attack makes Ingraham sound remarkably petty and mean-spirited.

Obama's Other Jeremiah Wright

2009-01-19T10:27:00.000-08:00

By EVAN GAHR

The illustrious Jeremiah Wright was not invited to Barack Obama’s coronation. But the Rev. Joseph Lowery is an apt substitute.

Lowery, who is scheduled to deliver the benediction when the new president is installed January 20, has paled around with Yasser Arafat and promoted a hodgepodge of leftist causes over the years. The Alabama native won’t outright call Arafat a terrorist but he likens George W. Bush to George Wallace.

Although the selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation was widely scrutinized because of his opposition to the gay rights agenda the press has ignored Lowery’s well-documented PLO slumming and fancy for Marxist dictators. The January 14 Washington Post profile of the Methodist minister entirely omitted his far left endeavors.

This is par for the course. Conservative white preachers are generally treated much harsher by the media than their black counterparts. Indeed, the media almost never uses the term Christian left for the likes of Jesse Jackson. He gets the non-ideological label “civil rights leader.”

It would be more accurate to call Lowery a hardcore leftist. In 2006, Lowery turned the funeral of Martin Luther King’s widow Coretta into an anti-Bush rally--with Bush seated on the stage behind him.

Lowery said in his eulogy that, "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor!"

Like many civil rights leaders Lowery, who founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King in 1957, started off fighting for equal rights under the law for blacks but then drifted off to all sorts of causes entirely disconnected from--and in the case of affirmative action contradicting--Martin Luther King’s goal of a color blind society.

Lowery and other career civil rights activists, whose power and prestige depends on fighting “injustice,” like to say that the country has made progress but has a long way to go before Martin Luther King’s dream of a color blind society. Actually, we don’t.

The nation long ago ended legal discrimination. The 1964 Civil Rights Act barred discrimination in employment and public accommodations. The next year the Voting Rights Act ended the disenfranchisement of blacks. In 1968 housing discrimination was outlawed.

So civil rights leaders sometimes need new causes and one of their favorite in the 1970s was the PLO. In 1979, Andrew Young, the United Stats ambassador to the United Nations a former lieutenant for Martin Luther King, secretly met with the PLO’s representative to the United Nations in violation of US policy that forbid any talks with the PLO. Young was fired. To show their solidarity with Young, Lowery and other civil rights leaders ventured to Lebanon to meet Yasser Arafat.

At their meeting in West Beirut Arafat and the civil rights leaders linked arms to sing the movement’s signature song, “We Shall Overcome.”

Afterwards Lowery told the Washington Post that he was pleasantly surprised by Arafat’s charm and charisma. "I expected a mean, brutal, gruff and rough fellow," said Lowery. "In fact, he's a very charming fellow -- very informed, intelligent, an engineer by vocation. He gave us a history of the struggle. He started out softly, and then when he warmed to his task, he got emotional."

Lowery declined to label Arafat a terrorist. But the PLO chieftain himself was a bit more candid in the meeting with Lowery and his comrades. He vowed to continue “our struggle and confrontation inside the occupied territories.”

Lowery and the other ministers then invited their warm and fuzzy friend to visit the United States but Arafat never showed. Instead, in the 1980s Lowery turned his attention to Nicaragua where he supported the Marxist Sandinista government that was battling the US-backed Contras. Lowery even held a reception for Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega in Atlanta, according to religious left expert Marc Tooley.

When not busy schmoozing with Ortega Lowery served on the board of the Christic Institute, which peddled all sorts of conspiracy theories about the United States involvement in Latin America. Lowery took up that cause. In 1996 he called for a Congressional investigation to determine if the US government tried to sell drugs in black neighborhoods to raise money for the Contras.

Arrested outside the DEA headquarters to protest the alleged connection Lowery said "There is evidence inside those buildings that confirms that the CIA helped to destroy black folks. That's called genocide.

Rev. Wright, of course, also traffics in these kind of conspiracy theories. Now wonder that Lowery has told reporters he’s the same kind of preacher as Wright.

These days, Lowery’s heads the Georgia Coalition for the Peoples' Agenda, an advocacy group that seems to take the politically correct view on most every issue. The group claims to favor education empowerment but ignores school choice. It wants shorter sentences for criminals but overlooks the sad spectacle of black on black crime.

Lowery doesn’t seem to focus on much overseas anymore but his prior dalliance with Arafat still makes Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, jittery “To have Lowery as part of the inauguration only plays into” concern by Israel supporters “that Obama is going to be less friendly and less sympathetic to Israel’s difficult situation than other presidents have been. I am concerned that a person who is so hostile to Israel is going to participate in a visible way in the inauguration ceremonies.”

Lowery did not respond to interview requests.

Evan Gahr has written about race for the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times and American Spectator.

Obama's anti-American Essay

2009-01-12T16:55:00.000-08:00

by Evan Gahr
HumanEvents.com
Posted 01/09/2009

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.

Mr. Gahr has written about liberal apologists for the Soviet Union for the New York Post, Washington Times and Wall Street Journal.

Ann Coulter's Jewish Problem

2009-01-05T07:51:00.000-08:00

The National Jewish Democratic Council wants NBC to cancel conservative firebrand Ann Coulter's appearance tomorrow on the "Today Show." She is scheduled to hawk her new screed, Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America.

It's hard to tell whether this is simply a cheap publicity stunt or a manifestation of genuine outrage by the NJDC, which launched an online petition that asks the peacock network not to host her. Either way, it's unlikely to convince NBC to dump her but could provide Coulter more fodder to caricature all liberals as intolerant.

The NJDC complains that Coulter "has a rich history of inflammatory and inappropriate remarks," such as saying that Jews need to be "perfected" and calling Al Gore "a total fag."

"Let's be clear," the NJDC said in a January 2 email, "Coulter has a constitutional right to

'free speech' but a prestigious network such as NBC is not obligated to amplify her outrageous message."

Let's examine the NJDC's argument (at the risk of violating the adage never to argue with a fool because people watching won't be able to tell who is who.) Nobody says bouncing Coulter would be the equivalent of government censorship. The issue is whether NBC should give her a forum. The "Today Show" has every reason to feature Coulter. She is a prominent public figure and author of many best-selling books.

She is an obvious guest. It is incumbent on NBC, however, to grill Coulter. For all her carping about the liberal media the reality is that journalists often treat her with kid gloves. Time magazine did a favorable cover story on her. Previously on the "Today Show" she got softball questions.

Coulter is never at a loss for words but the "Today Show" could ask Coulter about some matters that would leave her genuinely uncomfortable. For example, how can someone who is unmarried and childless defend family values against liberals?

The "Today Show" should also ask Coulter what she says about Jews behind closed doors. It's an open secret in conservative circles that Coulter indulges anti-Semitism.

Conservative apostate David Brock, in his 2002 memoir/apologia, Blinded by the Right, says that Coulter regularly made anti-Semitic comments to him. She also did to Weekly Standard founder John Podhoretz when they dated.

Podhoretz and Coulter don't say otherwise.

Coulter did not respond to this reporter's repeated email inquiries about Brock's charge. Podhoretz said it's "none of your business."

Moreover, Coulter pals around with conservative writer Joe Sobran, who was fired by National Review after years of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel invective. Coulter even wrote the introduction to one of her books.

Instead of trying to silence Coulter the NJDC should challenge her to a debate. Sunlight is the best disinfectant--especially for Coulter's stench of anti-Semitism.

--EVAN GAHR has written for most every major conservative publication.

Happy Holidays . . . You're Fired

2008-12-26T13:21:00.000-08:00

Score another victory for mandatory tolerance.

Air Force Veteran Tonia Thomas says she was fired by a Florida real estate management company earlier this month because she refused company instructions to tell callers, "Happy Holidays."

Thomas, a rental assistant for Counts Oaks Resort Properties in Panama City, told her supervisor that she would say "Merry Christmas" or skip holiday greetings all together but "Happy Holidays" would contribute to the secularization of Christmas in violation of her religious beliefs.

When Thomas explained her position to company president Andy Phillips on December 10 he fired Thomas, who worked there since July 2007, for "insubordination." He then said sarcastically, "We are going to have a Merry Christmas here. Are you going to have a Merry Christmas with no job?"

Phillips told her to leave immediately or he would call the police, which he did when she tried to get her purse from inside her desk. The police made her leave.

Phillips says Thomas was not fired for refusing to say "Happy Holidays" but declined to give a reason for the dismissal.

Thomas filed a complaint with the EEOC. Liberty Counsel, which represents victims of religious discrimination, has taken up her cause.

Legally, she may have an uphill battle. Employers have considerable latitude over how employees speak for the company, according to recent decisions.

But a reasonable compromise would have been to just let her answer the phone without an special greeting. Would that have really hurt business? Phillips seems fanatical in his desire to enforce tolerance.

But then again tolerance always is at least a little oppressive because it tells people how to think or act. Be tolerant--or else.

Thomas took the or else and now she's out of a job.

--EVAN GAHR has written about religion for the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Washington Jewish Week and many other publications.

It's Finally Christmas at Costco

2008-12-17T07:33:00.000-08:00

Costco has surrendered in the war against Christmas.

Threatened with a boycott by the American Family Association because its website and stores were almost entirely bereft of any references to Christmas, Costco reversed course. The private retail giant now has references to Christmas in its stores and emails to customers, according to the American Family Association. "Holiday cakes" are now Christmas cakes.

And employees at the private retail giant's corporate offices now answer the phone with "Merry Christmas from Costco."

Indeed.

--EVAN GAHR

MSNBC to Jews: Vote Obama or You're Racist

2008-10-31T12:53:00.000-07:00

By EVAN GAHR

David Gregory took over MSNBC's prime time election coverage earlier this year from Professional Angry Person Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews because Olbermann embarrassed the poorly rated cable network with his blatantly partisan tirades against the GOP, conservatives and really anyone who doesn't share his hyper-liberal world view.

But now Gregory has proved himself as big a partisan as Olbermann--maybe even bigger. On his "Race for the White House" show October 27 Gregory casually accused Jews who don't support Obama of racism when he questioned Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl).

Gregory asked her if now that Obama's initially low poll numbers among Jews have risen to levels equal to John Kerry's in 2004 means that "some of the out and out racism in the Jewish community" and other concerns that once led Jews to withhold their support has "dissipated."

Out and out racism?

But not it "dissipated?"

But who says it was there in the first place? Who besides Gregory?

He offered no evidence to back up his indictment of the entire Jewish community in Florida as either recovering racists who now support Obama or current racists who favor McCain.

The only stereotyping here comes not from Jews but Gregory. He presumes that anyone who doesn't support Obama is an out and out racist.

Obama's growing support among Florida Jews could be due to a multitude of factors. Maybe they're flocking to him because the economy has imploded. Maybe they no longer believe that Obama is insufficiently pro-Israel or even hostile to the Jewish state. Maybe they are no longer bothered by his association with the illustrious Jeremiah Wright.

As a reporter and the new objective face of MSNBC shouldn't Gregory ask why Jewish support for Obama was initially low in Florida? Instead, he passes off his own personal opinion--his own slander, really--as accepted fact.

Of course, there are plenty of good reasons for Jews not to vote for Obama. News last week about his warm relationship with Palestinian "scholar" Rashid Khalidi is one good reason.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, an Obama supporter, said via email that for "anyone to be for McCain does not mean they are racists. They and I believe in most cases Jew or Gentile are impressed with McCain's war hero status and alternative ideas on government.

"Normally, Gregory is a fine reporter. Jews have every right to be concerned about the security of Israel. I have concluded that Obama and McCain will stand up to Islamic terrorism."

Some Jews, like some of any other group, are prejudiced. But upon even cursory examination Gregory's assumption collapses under the sheer weight of its own stupidity. If "out and out racism" is why many Jews initially withheld their support from Obama there is no reason to think that this kind of inveterate racism would have "dissipated" within weeks.

It took segregationists George Wallace and Strom Thurmond, for example, decades before they embraced black voters.

Even re-education camps can't get the desired results in just weeks.

Even more curious is Gregory's assumption that Jews should vote for Obama. Again, says who?

And of course if "out and out racism" by Obama supporters had dissipated the logical corrollary is that Jews who support McCain are racist. Again, where is Gregory's evidence?

It's even more troubling that Congresswoman Wasserman-Shultz accepted the premise of Gregory's question. "Absolutely," she said, "I will predict that Barack Obama will actually do better in the Jewish community than John Kerry did."

By agreeing with Gregory, Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz has essentially called her own constituency either recovering bigots (new Obama supporters) or current bigots (McCain supporters).

So much for Obama's being a post-racial campaign.

Gregory, who identified himself as Jewish at a DC synagogue forum this June where he even donned a yarmulke did not respond to a faxed request for comment.

--Evan Gahr has written about the media for the New York Post, Washington Times and American Spectator.

Jesse Jackson's Black Talk

2008-08-05T12:37:00.000-07:00

Special rights advocate Jesse Jackson was humiliated last month when Fox News cameras he thought were off recorded him threatening to emasculate Barack Obama and saying that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee patronizes "niggers."

He quickly apologized for his crude and crass remarks. Lost amid the nationwide furor over his remarks was the context. Jackson made his comments to another black guest and probably took it for granted they would remain private.

Sound familiar? During his 1984 campaign for president Jackson would have what he called "black talk," off-the-record discussion with black reporters. It was during this "black talk" that Jackson called New York "Hymietown."

Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman told another Post scribe about the comments. The paper then mentioned it in passing towards the bottom of a long article about Jackson.

Jackson was forced to apologize and he's been tainted with anti-Semitism ever since. For breaking ranks with Jackson. Coleman was threatened with his life by Louis Farrakhan.

Back to the present. Once again Jackson's been burned by his own "black talk."

What does it say about Jackson that he talks one way with whites and another with blacks?

Certainly, it should make his calls for common ground suspect. If Jackson says one thing to blacks and another to whites why should anyone take him seriously when he tries to find common ground between the races?

Most of all, it shows Jackson is the moral equivalent of a segregationist. He sees America as two separate parts: a black world and a white world. And they are so at odds that he can't even speak the same way to blacks that he does whites. They are separate and unequal. Blacks are allowed to use certain words that whites are not.

No wonder he supports affirmative action which treats blacks with one standard and whites to another. In this scenario, the country is dived between the privileged and underprivileged.

That's white and black.

Martin Luther Kings dream that blacks would be judged by the content of their character not color of their skin is not even an aspiration for Jackson.

--EVAN GAHR

Gingrich's Other Calling

2008-06-29T18:44:00.000-07:00

By EVAN GAHR

Gerald Ford often said that his ambition was always to be Speaker of the House, not President.

Now, it turns out that Newt Gingrich, who obtained the post that eluded Ford, also aspired to something else.

In his introduction to America’s Best Zoos: A Travel Guide for Fans and Families, released last month by Intrepid Traveler publishing company, the former House Speaker reveals his unrequited dream. “Long before I aspired to enter the field of politics, I wanted to be a zookeeper.

“As I was growing up in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, my relatives would take me to the big zoos in Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, DC,” Gingrich recalls. “They would also take me a few miles away to a small zoo in Hershey, Pennsylvania. I fell in love with seeing animals in all their glory and diversity. I found animals fascinating.

“When I was ten, I went to an afternoon matinee of two animal films. When I came out of the movie, I saw a sign for City Hall. I promptly walked over and asked how Harrisburg could get a zoo. The kind, older park official . . . took the time to show me the records for the Harrisburg Zoo in the 1930s. He told me they had closed the zoo during World War II because of rationing and that my job was to come to the next city council and explain why Harrisburg needed a zoo.

“The next Tuesday, I was right there. The following day, the Harrisburg Patriot-News published a nice article about a young boy calling for a zoo. I was hooked on animals, zoos and citizenship from that point on.”

Gingrich’s fascination with zoos carried into his political career. As a Georgia congressman, Gingrich helped the Zoo Atlanta (yes that’s its name) in his district acquire Pandas and other animals, including Boma, a black rhino from Czechoslovakia. He also helped them with fundraising.

On official and unofficial business around the country and the world Gingrich often visited local zoos.

Allen Nyhuis, co-author of the guidebook with Jon Wassner, says that Gingrich just last year visited the famous Berlin Zoo Polar Bear, named appropriately enough, “Knut.” (Pictured above.)

And this February, during his VIP tour of the Zoo Boise in Idaho, Gingrich lovingly rubbed the neck of an elderly tortoise, firing off questions to the zookeeper to determine if the creature was being properly treated.

And what are the similarities between Zookeeper and Speaker?

Well, both try to keep order over unruly creatures. Not always successfully.

Gingrich recalls a rambunctious scene in 1995 when Jack “Jungle Jack” Hanna, former director of the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, brought a bunch of creatures, including a monkey, baby cougar and cockroaches to his Capitol office. The monkey climbed on his head. As Gingrich held the baby cougar it nibbled on his chin. "If only my political opponents at the time had been so gentle!"

The combative Speaker likened the cockroaches which crawled all over him to Democrats, the Milwaukee Journal reported.

The book evaluates 97 zoos nationwide. The Bronx Zoo fares quite well. An adjunct professor of statistics at Indiana University, co-author Nyhuis tells this writer that "on our 'Top Ten' lists, the Bronx Zoo did better than any other zoo in the book, except for San Diego. We ranked the Bronx as the #1 zoo in the nation for displaying Asian animals, primarily because of its highly-acclaimed JungleWorld rain forest building, its monorail tour of Wild Asia, and its nearly-as-good Tiger Mountain and Himalayan Highlands (snow leopards and red pandas) exhibits. In addition to Asian animals, we also put the Bronx Zoo on the Top Ten lists for the following: Birds; Small Mammals (#2); Cats; Hoofed Animals; Indoor Tropical Rain Forest (#2); Children's Zoo; and Rides."

When planning his guidebook, Nyhuis, who knew about Gingrich’s keen interest in zoos, wrote the former Speaker in March 2007 to ask that he pen an introduction. Gingrich quickly agreed and delivered his introductory essay to Nyhuis just days before a draft of the book was due with his publisher on October 1, 2007.

Nyhuis said Gingrich’s introduction made the book a tough sell. “My publisher was skeptical because of the image that conservatives don’t like the environment.”

But the publisher relented when Nyhuis told him about Gingrich’s longtime affinity for zoos and his pro-environmental record.

In a telephone interview Nyhuis worried that what he calls the “liberal media” might ignore the book because of the introduction. But he is hopeful that the conservative media outlets will take note.

If so, the book could be hailed as the most important synthesis of conservatism and the animal kingdom since "Bedtime for Bonzo."

--EVAN GAHR has written for most every conservative publication. His recent scoops have been picked up by Lloyd Grove, Drudge, the Washington Times, the Forward, Gawker and the Huffington Post.

Tax Less and Spend Liberal Keith Olbermann

2008-05-30T07:49:00.001-07:00

If liberals love taxes so much why won't professional angry person Keith Olbermann pay his?

The MSNBC host, who tries to boost meager ratings for his “Countdown” show with concocted charges of White House lawbreaking, seems himself guilty of illegal conduct.

OlbermannWatch.com reported May 29 that New York State has issued a tax warrant or judgment against Olbermann for $2,269.50 in back taxes owed by his personal corporation, Olbermann Broadcasting Empire, Inc.

Asked about the delinquency Thursday night by conservative journalist Evan Gahr, the otherwise loquacious Olbermann uttered nary a word as he scurried inside his Trump Palace apartment building on the Upper East Side.

Gahr, a former Post press critic, grilled Olbermann when he walked south on 3rd Avenue and 69th Street to his condominium, where he bought apartment 40B last year, according to public records.

Walked?

Is the belt-tightening so severe at NBC that the peacock network can't afford a car to take Olbermann home? Not even a cab? Subway fare?

Don't they have enough money from all the business parent company GE, according to Bill O'Reilly, does with Iran?

Anyway, if Olbermann is denied paid transportion he should think on the bright side: nobody can call him a limousine liberal.

Perhaps a better term is taxless and spend liberal.

--Evan Gahr has written about liberal media bias for the Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator and the New York Post.

Yellow Fever

2008-05-19T15:05:00.000-07:00

Why do so many men have a fetish for Asian chicks?

One oft-repeated answer is that they are "exotic."

Exotic?

There are literally billions of them.

--EVAN GAHR

Three Cheers for Guilt by Association

2008-04-30T04:02:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has turned Barack Obama's denunciation of Jeremiah Wright into a racial injustice.

The paper of record's editorial today on Obama finally heeding calls to break with his race-baiting minister bitches that "African-Americans are regularly called upon to explain or repudiate what other black Americans have to say, while white public figures are rarely, if ever, handed that burden."

It takes a willful disregard of recent history to make that claim. When the white supremacist David Duke ran for Louisiana State Representative in Louisiana almost two decades ago the national GOP and then-President George H. W. Bush unequivocally denounced him, as liberals demanded.

To cite another of many examples: when right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan made blatantly anti-Semitic remarks in 1990 there were calls for conservative patriarch William F. Buckley, Jr. to condemn him. Buckley rose to the occasion with a 20,000 word essay--later turned into a book--that branded Buchanan an anti-Semite.

Ronald Reagan also unequivocally broke with the far-right John Birch society when he ran for California governor in 1966. Guilt by association is the standard by which blacks and whites are usually judged. And for good good reason. The willingness to break ranks with compatriots is a crucial moral test for anyone engaged in public ranks. It takes tremendous courage to denounce allies or associates for unconscionable behavior. You can end up with diminished influence and your former comrades new found enemies. It's a price honorable men and women, of all ideological stripes, have willingly paid over the years.

Cold War liberals such as Joe Rauh and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. founded Americans for Democratic Action in 1947 to separate liberals from communists. The ADA's charter explicitly barred membership for communists.

More recently, in the 1980s, David Dinkins, the first black mayor of New York City, with little public pressure denounced Louis Farrakhan, even though Dinkins had almost nothing in common with the minister other than skin color. Renouncing allies is a rejection of the ends justify the means ethos. The demand for solidarity in the ranks, by contrast, is the stuff of totalitarians.

--EVAN GAHR

Donna Brazile sides with McCain in Hagee flap

2008-04-21T09:00:00.000-07:00

The rappers who support Barack Obama would likely call Democratic strategist Donna Brazile a "n-----" and "b-----." But she's not concerned.

Brazile, a CNN talking head who managed Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign, tells this reporter that it's "plain stupid" to expect Obama to renounce the rappers and equally dumb to ask John McCain to "renounce, denounce and explain" his endorsement by controversial minister John Hagee.

"If we get into the business of asking every political leader to renounce, denounce and reject people who are favorably inclined to back someone, will we ever get anything done?" she asks.

Still, Brazile, a Democratic superdelegate, expects the Republicans to make an issue of Obama's collaboration with rappers.

"Of course, the GOP will play their old hand in roughing up Obama, Clinton, etc," she says.

Humorlous Hillary

2008-04-11T07:35:00.000-07:00

By EVAN GAHR

Scores of books and thousands of articles have been written about Hillary. Every conceivable angle, all sorts of minutia, her every step; these are all covered. But has anyone ever discovered any evidence that Hillary has a sense of humor.

Has she ever told a joke not written for her? Has she ever made any witty off-the-cuff remarks.

Nothing comes to mind.

Obama's Other Jeremiah Wrights

2008-03-31T21:31:00.001-07:00

By EVAN GAHR

Jeremiah Wright is not the only supporter Barack Obama needs to explain.

Although the media has finally exposed Barack Obama's ties to the unhinged pastor his support from rappers who propagate equally pernicious nonsense has gone almost entirely unnoticed.

Rappers are gaga over Obama. The superstar Jay-Z, who raps about “b------,” “hoes” and “n-----,“ even urged voters to support Obama in a robo-call for the March 4 Ohio primary and caucus. The equally foul-mouthed rapper Will.I.am, whose hit songs include “I love my B----,” has hyped Obama in two widely-viewed videos posted on YouTube.

The rappers have good reason to praise Obama. He has at times been an apologist for their “music.” His complicity with rappers dates back to at least 2006.

Late that year he met with the rap giant Ludacris in his Chicago office. Ludacris, who Pepsi dropped as a spokesman in 2004 after Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly exposed his putrid lyrics, said afterwards that Obama felt like family to him. In March 2007 Ludacris, whose hit songs include “Move B----,” headlined an Obama fundraiser in Atlanta.

Obama even recorded a voice over for a new album out this June from rapper Q-tip. Will it contain lyrics like these sonnets from another Q-tip song? “Close the door, ‘ight let a n---- rock. Cause we ‘bout to eat real s---, not s--- slop.”

Who are these members of Obama’s amen corner? Many are the industry’s leading lights, who have become rich and famous thanks to the willingness of liberals like Obama to ignore or excuse their glorification of sexism, drugs and violence. Without this kind of collaboration they would just be unemployed thugs instead of millionaires.

Obama thus far has equivocated on rappers. He has criticized their language, but adamantly refused to denounce the whole sordid genre as the unique cultural problem that it is.

“I haven’t just singled out rappers,” Obama told Al Sharpton’s National Action Network conference last year, according to the New York Observer. “I’ve said I’ve heard those words [used by rappers] around the kitchen table in some homes. I hear them in the barber shop. I hear them on the basketball court. All of us have been complicit in diminishing ourselves.”

Obama here relies on the pro-forma defense of rap music. Yes, apologists say, it’s racist and sexist but it only reflects the racism and sexism of society.

Oh, really? Where else but rap do folks talk so openly and regularly about b------, n------ and hoes? What other industry makes millions of dollars from those words? Obama says he’s heard this kind of language on the basketball court. Which one? Not any NBA game. Players who curse during games are suspended and fined.

Where else but rap do you hear words like these from Obama supporter Jay-Z in his song “99 Problems?”

Now once upon a time not long ago
A n---- like myself had to strong arm a hoe
This is not a hoe in the sense of having a p---
But a p---- having no God Damn sense

Besides Jay-Z, Obama has also won support from rap mogul Russell Simmons, rapper Nas, whose new album is titled “N-----“ and 9/11 conspiracy theorist Mos Def.

It’s high time the media ask some tough questions. Why has Obama collaborated with rappers? Is he familiar with their words? How could he not be? The senator’s spokesperson said that when he and Ludacris met the two men found common ground on AIDS prevention. How do you find common ground on sexual behavior with someone who calls women “b------?”

Have any rappers donated to his campaign? Will he return the money? Why has he not renounced support from rappers? Is this going to take 20 years like it did with Reverend Wright?

At stake here is something more fundamental than Obama’s rank hypocrisy. The willingness to break ranks with allies or anyone in your general orbit is the fundamental moral test for anyone engaged in public life.

In the 1980s, David Dinkins, New York City’s first black mayor, without any public pressure unequivocally denounced Louis Farrakhan. (In contrast to Jesse Jackson who has not to this day.) Dinkins did not try to offer any context for Farrakhan’s hate mongering or liken him to a misguided uncle as Obama did with Wright.

Obama should follow Dinkins’ lead. The senator should say that instead of performing songs for him rappers would be better off playing in the Rev. Wright’s choir.

Evan Gahr has written extensively about race for the New York Post, the American Spectator and the Washington Times.

Obama's Compromise

2008-03-25T12:31:00.001-07:00

Race, the American dilemna, continues to perplex.

Instead of roundly condemning his pastor for shockingly anti-American remarks, Obama said he only condemns the man's word but not the man himself. This is a false dichotomy. Did the words just shoot out of the pastor involunarily? Tourette Syndrome?

The man is his words.

Obama instead choose to equate the pastor's words with his grandmother's fear of criminal activity by black men who pass her on the street. That's hardly the equivalent of saying "Goddamn America." When he equates the two he makes worry about crime by blacks equivlaent with the hate speech of the pastor. How then can he claim to understand both sides of the racial divide if the concerns of whites are compared to the deranged rantings of a minister?

Obama famously said that words matter.

And his pastor's matter more than he's willing to admit.

His formula, and stated need to start a dialogue about race, suggest the country is sharply divided by black and white. It's not.

Blacks are integrated into every semblance of America, from Secretary of State on down.

The person doing the dividing is the pastor--now with some amunition from Obama.

Spitzer: Oink, Oink

2008-03-23T07:33:00.000-07:00

The man is a pig.

It's that simple.

All the pscyhological analysis is overwrought.

If he really had a destructive streak as many claimed he would have imploded a long time ago. Yes, he was arrogant and thought himself above the law.

But the plain reality is that he succumbed to his most base instincts.

Why was he so reckless? Didn't he fear getting caught or blackmailed?

Sex makes men reckless and do foolish things.

That's why it's sex.

CAIR's Rabbi: Marc Gopin

2006-02-15T10:42:00.000-08:00

By EVAN GAHR

CAIR, the putative Muslim civil rights organization, has hit publicity pay dirt yet again.

First, New York Post Editorial Page Editor Bob “Edith Bunker” McManus, published their op-ed.

Then, conservative writer David Frum praised CAIR’s Canadian affiliate to settle its libel lawsuit against him, first reported by chimpstein, with follow-ups by the Washington Times and Forward.

Now, CAIR which adamantly denies charges by author Steve Emerson of being terrorist-friendly, lists a prominent Washington area rabbi among the scheduled speakers at its February 16 conference on the Muhammad cartoon fracas

On Valentines Day, CAIR announced that its February 16th forum at the National Press Club, "Religious and Political Perspectives on the Cartoon Controversy," from Noon-4pm, offers “two panel discussions featuring speakers such as Georgetown University Muslim Chaplain Yahya Hendi, InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington Executive Director Rev. Dr. Clark Lobenstine, University of Maryland Professor Louis Cantori, Dr. Ali Darwish, and Rabbi Mark Gopin, director of the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University in Arlington, Va. ”CAIR Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed, Executive Director Nihad Awad and Research Director Dr. Mohamed Nimer will also take part in the panel discussions.”

Gopin, whose first name is actually Marc, could not immediately be reached for comment.

But, it's well to note, to use yet another Eric Breindelism, that his presence is entirely congruent with the rationale which Rabbi Barry Freundel and Rabbi Daniel Lapin used to justify working with another controversial Muslim group, ISNA, alongside the advisory board of the Alliance for Marriage, which opposes equal marriage rights for homosexuals.

Freundel and Lapin, who, we kid you not, once volunteered to William Buckley to defend the genuine demented anti-Semite Joe Sobran against charges of anti-Semitism, refused to resign from the AFM board.

Anyway, AFM-ISNA said they would work with any Muslim group not under federal investigation. CAIR is not under investigation and is never known to have been under investigation.

Finally, adverse adverse publicity generated by investigative reporter Evan Gahr in his exclusive reports for Ben Jolkovsky's JewishWorldReview led ISNA to formerly withdraw from the advisory board.

Are Barry Freundel and Danny Lapin ready, willing and able speak at the event also?

Steve Emerson tells Gahr via email that "Rabbi Gopinspeaking at a CAIR event is truly disturbing for it means that he legitimizing a jihadist organization that was created by Hamas front groups. It means that CAIR can point to a "useful idiot" in helping to legitimize its message. As for other Rabbis speaking at CAIR events, I don't keep a comprehensive tracking of such things but certainly it is not common or frequent. It is deeply disturbing that he would lend himself to conferring legitimacy to such a group, which has sponsored jihadist and anti-Semitic conferences in the past."

The official response from CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: "If you're quoting Emerson, you've already got the story written."

Hooper says Jewish leaders often appear at CAIR events, most recently in LA, but he could not think of any specific rabbi who has done so previously.

He was not aware of any other rabbis being invited to the panel discussion scheduled for tomorrow. This reporter does not remember any either.

Does Hooper expect conservative to intimidate Gopin from speaking?

"There are a lot of anti-Muslim bigots out there."

Does Hooper realize he spelled Gopin's first-name wrong.

"That's a problem."

Oh, you must have a journalism background. That's the first rule: get the spelling correctly.

"I have a masters degree."

Hooper is charming. He has an agenda.

But who advances his agenda?

The onus is on them, not CAIR, to explain themselves to the relevant worlds.

CAIR is CAIR.

It would be utterly foolish for the neo-con cabal to intimidate Gopin from speaking.

Let the Show Jew show.

Cancellation would merely pre-empt debate and allow CAIR to contend, not unreasonably, that anti-Muslim activists impeded their free speech rights.

Let's not kid ourselves.

CAIR's critics are, generally, anti-Muslim.

Not all anti-Muslim sentiment is hateful bigotry.

But they are anti-Muslim.

CAIR is an advocacy organization.

CAIR and other advocacy groups which Emerson criticizes depends on enablers in the media who never examine the group's background.

Gopin, ordained as a rabbi at Yeshiva University in 1983, his GMU website says, holds a Ph.D from in religious ethics from--where else would a Jew who speaks at CAIR events do his grad work?--Braindeis University?