The Washington Gadfly
Who is Louis E. Chimpstein

Do conservatives have a speech code? Will they refuse to tell the truth about one of their own if the truth is uncomfortable? Evan Gahr thinks so.

Gahr has been fired from his job as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, only a few weeks after calling longtime conservative activist Paul Weyrich a "demented anti-Semite" because of an Easter column in which Weyrich blamed Jews for killing Jesus.

Officials at the Hudson Institute angrily deny that Gahr's termination had anything to do with his statements about Weyrich, saying that the think tank does not apply a litmus test to anyone's views.

Institute vice president and Washington office director Ken Weinstein said Gahr's termination was an internal personnel matter and that his immediate supervisor found it "impossible" to continue working with him. And the group's president, Herb London, said Gahr has acted in an "unprofessional way" by using curse words in an interview with The Washington Post -- words that were not printed, but replaced by "bleep." London also cited Gahr's "bizarre behavior" in a televised debate with conservative writer David Horowitz, in which he used stuffed animals, including a chimp named Louis E. Chimpstein, as props to make some of his arguments.

"The only bizarre behavior is Hudson's apparent willingness to implicitly paint Weyrich as the most righteous gentile since Raoul Wallenberg," said Gahr. "I was the Hudson Institute's golden boy until I publicized the odious words of Paul Weyrich," whom his immediate supervisor, conservative columnist Mona Charen, "considers a friend."

"Is that why after months of praising my work and being asked to write a chapter in her book, she now finds me impossible to work with?"

Charen did not return a call seeking comment.

Gahr accuses his bosses at the Hudson Institute of "carrying water" for Weyrich, and points out that no other prominent Jewish conservative -- or non-Jewish conservative -- has sided with Gahr.

London, who said he had written letters to Weyrich and Horowitz stating that Gahr's views were his alone and not the views of the Hudson Institute, said he was "not in a position to defend Weyrich," but he had "never seen any evidence of anti-Semitism" on the part of Weyrich.

Meanwhile, Gahr is considering legal action.

This story was published in the Washington Jewish Week on 5/10/01.

April 27, 2001 Friday
Transcript # 042702cb.253
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 1578 words
HEADLINE: The Repercussions Over Reparations
GUESTS: Evan Gahr, David Horowitz
BYLINE: Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes


HANNITY: As we continue on HANNITY & COLMES -- I'm Sean Hannity.

Some say talk radio is dominated by conservatives. Is that true? We'll tell you about the "Lone Liberal" tonight in talk radio. And also, we're going to get into the issue of me going one on one with Doug Hattaway, Al Gore's former campaign spokesperson.

But leading the battle zone tonight: When an ad entitled "Top 10 reasons why reparations for slavery is a bad idea, and racist too," was published, it started a firestorm of controversy across the country. Some universities refused to run the ad, and the author, David Horowitz, accused the schools of violating his First Amendment right to free speech. There is one person, Evan Gahr, who recently wrote an article criticizing a conservative who said the following, "Christ was crucified by the Jews," and David Horowitz fired Evan Gahr. Was there a connection? Whose rights were violated?

Joining us now, the president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, David Horowitz, and from Washington, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Evan Gahr.

I see you came with a prop, Evan. We'll get to that later.


HANNITY: First of all, you have done -- you -- your liberal credentials -- you were a hard-core leftist for years.

DAVID HOROWITZ, CENTER FOR POPULAR CULTURE: Oh, I'm -- I marched in my first civil rights demonstration in 1948, when -- it was on behalf of Harry Truman's Fair Employment Practices Commission. I have a 50-year record in the civil rights movement.

HANNITY: Including with the Black Panthers.

HOROWITZ: And -- well, I -- yeah, that's not quite civil rights, but...

HANNITY: Well, but...

HOROWITZ: I did. I raised a lot of money...


HOROWITZ: ... for a Panther school. I -- my whole career, I've got hundreds of thousands of words that I've written...


HOROWITZ: ... that, you know, in behalf of racial equality and equality for all people.

HANNITY: You believe reparations is wrong, but more importantly, you wanted to stir a debate on a college campus. And if we can't have...

HOROWITZ: Right, I...

HANNITY: ... a passionate debate on issues in a college campus, where can we have one?

HOROWITZ: Exactly. And so I put this ad up. There were -- you know, it's reasoned arguments. You know, how can you tell immigrant Mexican immigrants who are struggling to put bread on the table for their children...


HOROWITZ: ... to pay reparations for an institution that's been dead 136 years, and to pay it to Jesse Jackson and Johnnie Cochran, who are multi-millionaires? So it's not going to work. It's going to sow a lot of bad blood. It'll isolate African-Americans. Bad idea.

HANNITY: You -- the one thing that I noticed about you -- because I've known you for a long time, David, and I know that there's not a racist bone in your body. But you knew when you wrote this -- you knew when you wrote your book, "Hating Whitey," that there were going to be those in America that call you a racist.

HOROWITZ: Exactly.

HANNITY: You -- you -- you knew that this was coming. A lot of people would do everything they could do to avoid that in their lives. Why did you take that on?

HOROWITZ: Well, because I think this is one of the biggest political problems we have in America today. We live in an atmosphere of racial McCarthyism. It's exactly as it was in the '50s, only, you know, it was communism then, McCarthy. There were, of course, a lot of communists, and there was conspiracy. But McCarthy used it against his political enemies. If you were a liberal, you could be accused of having communist ideas, and you would be dead.

COLMES: You know, I think we talked about...

HOROWITZ: And today, it's racism. You -- people walk on eggshells...

HANNITY: Paint the "R" word on you.

COLMES: All right, David...

HOROWITZ: You walk on eggshells...

COLMES: I want...


HOROWITZ: If I can give one big example...

COLMES: I got to get the other guest in here.


COLMES: Look, both sides talk about...

GAHR: Are you sure you want me to talk?

COLMES: ... hypocrisy -- before we get to Evan, let me just understand here. You and Evan have a little issue going on here. You accuse the others of violating your 1st Amendment rights for those that didn't want to print your ad. You went to the defense of Jeff Jacoby, when he was suspended from the "Boston Globe," saying his rights were violated. But because Evan Gahr, your other guest here in our Washington, D.C., studios over at Fox News, wrote a piece critical of Paul Weyrich for saying Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, you decided that you didn't want Evan Gahr to publish anymore in your publication. Aren't you...

HOROWITZ: No, I didn't want to...

COLMES: ... abusing his...

HOROWITZ: He -- he, you know, called Weyrich a -- a...

COLMES: Right.

HOROWITZ: ... demented ant-Semite...

GAHR: Absolutely.

HOROWITZ: ... for one phrase...

COLMES: Right.

HOROWITZ: And you know, I don't think -- I think we need to end the time in America when a person who's got a 40-year public career...

HUME: Right.

HOROWITZ: ... has got to be afraid...

COLMES: But he has an opinion, just like you. But Evan, let me give you a chance to respond to...

HOROWITZ: Yeah, but I didn't fire him...

COLMES: ... what David said here...

HOROWITZ: ... because he never worked for me. You know, and he could have printed...

COLMES: Well, you decided...

HOROWITZ: ... this anywhere.

COLMES: ... you didn't want to publish him. Go ahead, Evan.

HOROWITZ: I didn't want to publish a slander.

COLMES: Let's give him a chance to respond. Go ahead, Evan.

GAHR: Well, first of all, I'm glad to see Drudge back, and I'm glad that Fox doesn't hold grudges. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said about David's friend, the demented anti-Semite Paul Weyrich. But basically, I've spent the last week or two being very naive and trying to use logic and basic facts to persuade David, which doesn't quite work. So I've decided he's acted like a big baby. And I can't see the monitor. Can you see the chimp, David?


GAHR: Because David's world view is "Conservative good, liberal bad."

HANNITY: Ha, ha, ha. You're cracking us up here, Evan.


COLMES: No, give him a chance to speak. Evan, go ahead.

HANNITY: I'm rolling over...


COLMES: Let him speak! Let the guest speak. Go ahead, Evan.

GAHR: I can't -- I couldn't tell who was making the sarcastic comment, "Keep cracking us up."

HANNITY: That was Hannity, the sarcastic one.

GAHR: Oh, Sean, remind me, please, Vatican II -- what did that say? Did that say the Jews killed Christ, or that -- did they renounce it?

COLMES: Well, let's be -- let's talk about this in a serious manner because this is a serious issue.

GAHR: Well, OK. I'm asking a serious question.

COLMES: Vatican II did say, and most Christian groups do agree that this phrase, "the Jews killed Christ," is, indeed, an anti-Semitic phrase.

GAHR: Right.

COLMES: And you admit, David, that Paul Weyrich should never have said this. He knew all along what he was doing. And all Evan did was try to attack that issue.

HOROWITZ: No, no. What he did was, he...

COLMES: And you didn't want to -- you didn't want to publish him because of that.

HOROWITZ: You know, I -- this is a -- has been a code for anti- Semites.

COLMES: Right.

HOROWITZ: A lot of Jews died because of it. But we have -- you know, we're living in America in 2001, OK? And there are anti-Semites out there, but Jews are not about to be put in ovens in America. And it's the same -- you know, it's the same thing with the "N" word or any -- anything like that. We've got to sort of draw back in this country from destroying people's reputations on the suspicion that they might be anti-Semites or they might be racists because of a remark that they made. That -- that's all. I mean, I think a man has a right not to be labeled a demented anti- Semite because he said in a pastoral letter...

COLMES: But if...

HOROWITZ: All of it was in passing.

GAHR: Pastoral letter?

HOROWITZ: "After the Jews crucified Christ."

COLMES: All right, Evan...

GAHR: What about on his Web site? What?

COLMES: Go ahead.

GAHR: Well, speaking of reputations, what is David doing to mine when he calls me demented and says I committed malicious slander and says that I tried to bully his editor when the e-mails and phone records would show the other?

HANNITY: We got 10 seconds.

GAHR: But again, I mean, it's a little...

HANNITY: We got to break.

GAHR: It's a little -- I can't hear who's talking. It's too -- I'm trying to tame David. If he acts like a pig, I have to wave this, because logic doesn't work. But...

HOROWITZ: I mean, this is just a publicity hound, and that's...

HANNITY: All right...

HOROWITZ: I don't want anything to do with him.

GAHR: What? I'm a publicity hound?

HANNITY: David, good to see you. Thank you.


HANNITY: Evan, thank you. Next time, you got to bring your stuffed animals, David.


A 'Christ-Killer' Slur Stirs Rightist Tussle in D.C.

APRIL 27, 2001

WASHINGTON - A leading Beltway conservative has set off a firestorm in right-wing circles after repeating the historic libel that "the Jews killed Christ."

Paul Weyrich, one of the most prominent conservative agitators and organizers for the past two decades, wrote in an article published on Good Friday that "Christ was crucified by the Jews.... He was not what the Jews had expected so they considered Him a threat. Thus He was put to death." Mr. Weyrich gained fame in the 1980s by running a high-profile direct-mail operation for conservative causes.

The article, titled "Indeed, He is Risen!," appeared on Mr. Weyrich's Free Congress Web site on April 13.

The comment elicited an immediate condemnation from the American Jewish Congress. Executive Director Phil Baum declared that "Weyrich's effort to slander the Jews for the death of Jesus places him at odds not only with the Jews he has demonized, but with the whole of Christendom, which has now repudiated the effort to blame the Jews for Jesus' death. Over the centuries, that view, now resurrected by Weyrich, led to endless pogroms, crusades and inquisitions."

Mr. Weyrich's essay also echoed throughout Washington conservative circles, bringing to life a debate started by William F. Buckley, who has sought to purge the right of the alleged anti-Semitism that stained the so-called paleoconservatives.

Mr. Weyrich's commentary was first denounced by Evan Gahr, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, in another conservative journal, the on-line edition of The American Spectator. In a second wrinkle, Mr. Gahr first submitted his article to the FrontPage Web site run by David Horowitz, for which he had been a freelance contributor.

Mr. Horowitz refused to publish the column, and, after Mr. Gahr disclosed that fact to The Washington Post, fired him from the Web site and demanded he apologize to Mr. Weyrich.

Mr. Horowitz went on to label Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, as "an unexpected prosecutor in this witch-hunt...whose organization has already joined in the Weyrich bashing."

In fact, the ADL and Mr. Foxman made no comments about the Weyrich affair before Mr. Horowitz's blast against them appeared. The Jewish civil rights agency later issued a statement characterizing Mr. Weyrich's comments as "appalling and deeply offensive,

especially from a religious figure of national standing and a political analyst of experience and high repute."

Calls to Mr. Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation were referred to his press representative, Notra Trulock, who said he doubted Mr. Weyrich would add any further comments to the debate. But in a subsequent posting on his Web site this week, Mr. Weyrich wrote, "My breath has been taken away at all of this. I defy anyone to hear [the Christian] Gospels read and to conclude anything other than that Jesus Christ was handed over to the Roman soldiers to be hung on the cross at the insistence of [his emphasis] the local Jewish authorities.... The people, egged on by their leaders, Jewish leaders, the chief priests and scribes, rallied the crowd. This is historical fact. Are we now to be forbidden to mention historical fact?"

Mr. Weyrich further protested that he had employed and worked with Jews on social causes. He also said that today's Jews are no more responsible for the the crucifixion of Christ than are today's whites for slavery in the Americas, or German-Americans for the Nazi crimes of World War II. Recent decisions by the Catholic hierarchy to renounce the claim that Jews killed Christ, he added, absolved modern Jews but not those contemporary with Jesus.

Mr. Weyrich concluded, "I write a defense yet I feel I need no defense. In saying what I said I was merely quoting Scripture. Scripture is truth. And the truth shall set you free."

A call to Mr. Horowitz's office in Los Angeles had not elicited a response by press time.

Friends as well as opponents of Mr. Horowitz, who recently generated an uproar when college newspapers refused to publish his advertisements attacking the concept of reparations for African Americans, condemned him for his defense of Mr. Weyrich and dismissal of Mr. Gahr.

"I think it is sad that this could be the demise of David Horowitz," Mr. Gahr said. "I think he has been a hero in his defense of free speech. But he has now made himself a fellow traveler of a demented anti-Semite rehashing the blood libel." Mr. Gahr, like Mr. Horowitz, is Jewish.

Mr. Gahr, who said he was acting independently of the Hudson Institute, said he was unafraid of legal action by Mr. Weyrich, who has a litigious reputation. "So sue me," Mr. Gahr said.

Mr. Weyrich, who has had a lengthy career as a conservative activist in Washington, was described in The Washington Post earlier this month as a "Catholic conservative," enthusiastic about the administration of George W. Bush.

According to The Post, "Weyrich wrote that he recently asked senior Bush adviser Karl Rove to tell the president 'that he has mastered the art of Catholic governance.'"

However, Mr. Weyrich's views are clearly out of line with present Catholic theology, according to Eugene Fisher, director of Catholic-Jewish relations for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Catholic Church, Mr. Fisher said, had repudiated any collective guilt for the Jews in the crucifixion of Christ, in 1965, during the Second Vatican Council. Last year, when Pope John Paul II visited Israel, he described the Church as "deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution, and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews."

Mr. Horowitz pointed out that Mr. Weyrich's comment reflected the latter's "capacity as a Melkite Greek Catholic deacon."

Melkite Greek Catholics are a small denomination based in the Middle East, who maintain a "Byzantine," or Eastern, ritual while accepting the leadership of the pope in Rome. Such believers are known as Uniates.

Announcing the dismissal of Mr. Gahr, Mr. Horowitz wrote this week, "to say, even in passing that 'the Jews killed Christ,' (or in this case words to that effect) is regarded as politically offensive (and therefore politically incorrect).... On the other hand, the statement somewhat clumsily (and inaccurately) constructed by Weyrich is also a reasonable interpretation of the history of the crucifixion told in the Gospels.... Mightn't this [accusing Weyrich of anti-Semitism] be considered a little excessive? Like identifying someone as a witch in 17th-century Salem?"

Mr. Gahr was unapologetic. "How long will it take for Republicans to denounce Weyrich?" he asked in an interview with the Forward.

Meanwhile, the ex-leftist historian Ronald Radosh, another contributor to Mr. Horowitz's Web site, compared the Weyrich flap with the weekend's uproar over anti-Semitic statements in The New York Times Magazine by New York Knicks player Charlie Ward.

"At least the Knicks members have a good jump shot," Mr. Radosh said. "Weyrich has no excuse."

Published 5/10/2001

Strange behavior?

Evan Gahr says the Hudson Institute dismissed him from his job as a senior fellow because of his accusation that conservative activist Paul Weyrich is a "demented anti-Semite." But conservative columnist Mona Charen, who was Gahr's immediate supervisor at the think tank, says Gahr was let go because of "strange" and "accusatory" behavior.

"[Evan] had done good work for me," she said, but there was a "sudden change" in his behavior. He refused to attend a lunch she had scheduled to talk about the book he was assisting Charen with, and she said an e-mail he sent to her was "unprofessional, disrespectful and paranoid."

"My sin in his eyes was my failure to write a column defending Evan," said Charen, who said Gahr's attitude was that if one did not agree with him "you were in league with his enemies."

Charen also cited a profanity-laced, "gratuitously nasty" letter Gahr wrote to editor and conservative writer David Horowitz after he was fired from Horowitz's magazine and an appearance on Fox News Channel in which he called Horowitz a pig and used stuffed animals as props as more evidence of Gahr's strange behavior that reflected poorly on her and the Hudson Institute.

Gahr told WJW that he never asked Charen to write a column, but "assumed she would."

"My assumption was based on the belief that she was committed to the truth and had no tolerance for people on the right who commit blood libels against the Jewish people," he said.

Charen emphasized that Gahr's comments about Weyrich were not the reason he was dismissed, but felt Gahr's depiction of Weyrich as an anti-Semite was unfair.

She said Weyrich's Easter column, in which he blamed the Jews for killing Jesus, was "insensitive to Jewish feelings" and "a little crude" but that Weyrich is not an anti-Semite.

"[Weyrich] was not attempting to stir up hatred of Jews," Charen said, and had never said anything anti-Semitic in the past.

Charen also denied Gahr's assertion in last week's WJW that he was writing a chapter in her book; she said he was helping her with a specific section of the book but she was always going to write the actual chapter herself.

Gahr said Charen "needs to have a long talk with God and a short talk with my legal advisers."

Gahr also has been removed from the masthead of the American Enterprise Institute's magazine The American Enterprise, where he had been listed as a contributing writer in previous months, and has been told by the editor of that magazine, Karl Zinsmeister, that he is barred from using its office facilities, even though he has done so in the past.

-- by Eric Fingerhut

Nat Hentoff
Who Did Kill Christ?
A Blood Libel Igniting Pogroms
June 22nd, 2001 5:00 PM

Lenny Bruce used to tell, in his act, about a Jew who was weary not only of being called a Christ killer but of occasionally being punched in the mouth by disciples of the Prince of Peace. Finally, this beleaguered Jew put a note in his cellar, where it could easily be found. He wanted to absolve all other Jews. It said: "I did it. Morty."

This question of the Jews' responsibility for the crucifixion has considerable resonance for me because I grew up in Boston, then the most anti-Semitic city in the country, and lost some teeth after being punched in the mouth by young hooligans whose after-dark sport was invading our ghetto and bashing Jews to avenge that deicide.

My mother told me that in the Old Country, when she was a girl and word spread that the cossacks were coming, her mother popped her into the oven, which fortunately was not lit.

Therefore, I have become much interested in a story out of Washington about a Jewish conservative journalist, Evan Gahr, who has been dismissed from three leading conservative institutions after charging Paul Weyrich with anti-Semitism. Weyrich, a founder of the contemporary conservative movement, was at one point its most successful fundraiser.

Thomas Edsall broke the story in the April 21 Washington Post. He cited an April 13 Paul Weyrich commentary, "Indeed He Is Risen!" on Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation's Web site.

The Weyrich statement, e-mailed to supporters, said, "Christ was crucified by the Jews who had wanted a temporal ruler to rescue them from the oppressive Roman authorities. Instead God sent them a spiritual leader to rescue them from their sins and despite the fact that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, performed incredible miracles, even raised people from the dead, He was not what the Jews had expected so they considered him a threat. Thus He was put to death."

In his article, Edsall quoted Evan Gahr, who had criticized Weyrich on the American Spectator Web site. Gahr called Weyrich "a demented anti-Semite" for that resurrection of Jews as Christ killers.

In Edsall's Washington Post article, there was further reaction from Marc Stern, a constitutional lawyer at the American Jewish Congress, whom I consult on establishment-clause cases, and Eugene Fisher, director of Catholic-Jewish relations for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Stern noted that, through the centuries, the "blood libel" that we Jews were the ones who killed Christ had ignited pogroms.

And Fisher declared that Weyrich's accusation "is exactly the type of collective guilt on the Jewish people that the Second Vatican Council specifically condemned in the declaration Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965." He added that last year, while in Israel, Pope John Paul II made clear that the Catholic Church is "deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution, and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews."

In the May 15 Wall Street Journal, David Novak, who teaches Jewish studies at the University of Toronto, noted that Weyrich is a deacon in the Catholic Church, which "has officially repudiated the old charge that the Jews, even the Jews of today, are responsible for Christ's death."

Novak added that "the greatest modern Christian theologian, Karl Barth," emphasized that "Jesus' death on the cross is atonement for the sins of all humans, even the sins of his followers. Thus, for Christians to deny their complicity in the death of Jesus, by shifting sole blame to the Jews, is to deny their own need for atonement."

And the head of the Anti-Defamation League, my friend Abe Foxman, with whom I often debate but not this time said of Paul Weyrich's assertion that "such destructive myths stated as fact may well reinforce the bigotry of the ignorant and uninformed, potentially leading to hateful anti-Semitic acts."

Like the removal of my teeth. But I do not call that a hate crime. Thirty days for assault would have been fine. No extra prison time.

On his Free Congress Web site, Paul Weyrich wrote on April 24 that Evan Gahr's charge "is absolutely amazing to me and shows how far down the road to political correctness we have come in our society." (And this response shows that one conservative can accuse another of political correctness.)

About his indictment of the Jews, Weyrich said, "This is historical fact. Are we now to be forbidden to mention historical fact? . . . I was merely quoting Scripture. Scripture is truth. And the truth shall set you free."

Evan Gahr's accurate description of what Weyrich wrote in "Indeed He Is Risen!" has set him free of all his writing and research assignments at three conservative organizations. Gahr has been removed from the list of contributing writers at the American Enterprise Institute's magazine and barred from using its office facilities. The Hudson Institute, where Gahr had been a senior fellow, fired him.

Gahr, who had been writing for David Horowitz's FrontPage Web site, has also been fired by that very paladin of free speech, who so vigorously attacked those college newspaper editors who refused to run the Horowitz ad denouncing reparations for slavery.

I have read the explanations these conservative warriors have given for letting Gahr go, and I have talked with the Hudson Institute. They all claim that Gahr was fired for other reasons. He does not believe this, nor do I. My congratulations to Linda Chavez, head of the Center for Equal Opportunity, who is not afraid of free speech and has brought in Gahr as an adjunct scholar.

If any of the conservative magazines or high-profile conservative intellectuals have spoken up for him, I haven't seen it. Stanley Crouch wrote about Gahr and Weyrich in the May 4 Daily News. But Stanley is not a conservative. He's part of the world of jazz, where free expression is the lodestar.

As Stanley writes: "Dissension in the ranks is a crime among hard-core ideologues, from far right to the far left."

Paul Weyrich has quietly implicated his own White House allies in the dismissal from a government-funded think tank, with obvious reason to maintain the good graces of karl Rove, of the Jewish journalist who ignited a nationwide firestorm which tarred him and by extension his Executive Branch buddies with charges of anti-Semitism over remarks that Weyrich has long since made clear he regrets the pain--unintentionally, he says--that they caused Jews.

The two men have since forged a seemingly improbably brotherhood that dates to their first meeting in mid-June about one month after the dismissal in which Weyrich himself volunteered informatiion that raises the specter of White House influence.

Weyrich volunteered that the White House had called him about the controversy. Elaborating further the next year he said his caller, "a Special Assistant to the President," and his white House collleagues were particularly interested in "the matter of your employment."

That same week, Mr. Gahr was cut loose, ostensibly for improper use of a stuffed chimp. By some strange coincidence, another Jewish Hudson employee who irked the White House and prompted complaints from Tim Goeglein, Special Assistant to the President, and liason to Hudson, Weyrich and the Weekly Standard, later parted ways with Hudson under mysterious circumstances.

Asked why Wittmann left his cushy job at Hudson, where he was always out the door well before 6pm each day, for the hustle and buslte of Capitol Hill, Hudson VP Ken Weinstein explained that "click."

Michael Horowitz, the normally loquacious Hudson senior fellow was only a bit more forthcoming when asked what role if any did the White House play in the dismissal of Evan Gahr?

"I have no comment. I have no comment until the end of time."

Time's up, buster.

Hudson's own website pretty much answers the question.

When Tim Goeglein was the featured speaker at Hudson luncheon in 2003, he prefaced his comments with an expression of gratitude to the good folks at Hudson.

Gratitude indeed.

Meanwhile, the American Enterprise Institute, home base for some of the country's premier war mongering Jews, starring in the new play about the WMD weapons debate, Waiting for Godot, does not dispute informed analysis from this journalist that the White House precipitated his purge from AEI as well. AEI president Chris DeMuth, spokeswoman Veronique Rodman and The American Enterprise magazine editor Karl "Fuck you with your lawsuit, Evan" all ignored detailed messages which asserted that Karl Rove phone calls are the only explanation for the otherwise seemingly inexplicable purge.

   Evan Gahr, a former press critic for the late New York Post editorial page editor Eric Breindel, recently broke the story of a race discrimination lawsuit against the Washington Post. He has written for almost every major conservative publication.