The Washington Gadfly
Deja Jew At TNR

Is Frank Foer the new Stephen Glass?
Who fact checks Jon Chait? Ruth Shalit?
Is Lawrence Kaplan a girl?

Pressed for comment, Marty the mega-Jew makes strange noises; Leon offers fecal matter metaphor.

Evan Gahr received the above email above from Marty Peretz just weeks after he alone among Jewish conservatives in Washington, DC denounced Paul Weyrich for writing on his Free Congress Foundation web site that "Christ was crucified by the Jews."

Within ten days of his calling Weyrich a "demented anti-Semite" Mr. Gahr was dismissed from his salaried job at the neo-con controlled Hudson Institute and blacklisted by the Jewish-dominated American Enterprise Institute magazine.

Both purges are now widely believed to have been instigated by the White House. That's probably why why the right's denunciation of Mr. Gahr was so vicious, clumsy and desperate.

The email provided the moral sustenance which helped Mr. Gahr endure the ugliness to which Marty allude. Yet neither man realized at the time that some of the most pernicious Jews guilty of grotesque double standards, and worse, were comfortably enconsced at Marty's own magazine: Editor Peter Beinart, plus staff writers Jon Chait, Frank Foer and Lawrence "the girl" Kaplan.

Only early last year had Mr. Gahr sufficiently recovered from the tramaus to think clearly again and understand that the aforementioned Jews had usurped the power and prestige of the New Republic to cover-up for the latest calculated effort by neo-con Jews to sanitize the anti-Semitism of their Christian Right allies.

Unlike Dan Rather and CBS News this kind of stuff was no good-faith mistake or the consequence of prosecutorial zeal by journalists who should be objective or sloppiness.

It was lies, lies and more lies.

Here's what happened.

About ten days after the Hudson purge, TNR published Frank Foer's piece which was titled and purported to explain, "How Bill Kristol Ditched Conservatism."

The title alone should have raised skeptical questions by editors. How could Foer claim that Kristol had "ditched" conservatism if he remained editor of the most influentional conservatie magazine in DC, and arguably the US, namely the Weekly Standard? Does this mean Kristol lost control of the magazine and is merely a figurehead? If so, who is really calling the shots? Etc.

True to the title Frank Foer glorified Bill Kristol and Marshall Wittmann as beleagured free-thinkers on the right--a decidedly curious characterization given that Foer knew full well that only weeks earlier Kristol and Marshall Wittmann, both associated with the Hudson Institute, hewed to the real orthodoxy on the right, which prohibits denunciation of white Christian allies for religious based anti-Semitic outbursts, when they kept quiet after Weyrich likened them to Christ Killers.

Foer also claimed that neo-cons had broken with the Christian Right way back in 1996 Presently, Foer explained that the neo-cons or their subset, "national greatness conservatives" namely David Brooks and Bill Kristol had come to "scorn" the Christian Right.

These assertions are demonstrably false, and truly blood libel. Legally, libel obtains if the speaker or writer says something he can not possibly believe and the libel has consequences, in contradiction to just a harmless lie. Foer meets both critera.

First, the consequences.

Foer's claim provides cover for Jews such as Bill Kristol and Norman Podhoretz who had just colluded with the very anti-Semitism that nearly turned the parents of Eric Breindel, both Holocaust survivors, into a pile of ashes and has been responsible for the spilling of countless amounts of Jewish blood.

Foer could have exposed the mendacity. Instead, he not only allowed these Jewish liars to escape scrutiny for their cover-up he re-wrote history and extolled them as free speech advocates.

How could Foer believe that the national greatness conservatives such as Bill Kristol and David Brooks had broken with the Christian right when they had just countenanced, through sins of omission and commission, the anti-Semitic outbursts by one of its founders?

How could Foer believe his suggestion that the likes of Kristol had come to "scorn" the Christian Right given that only weeks before Kristol had publicly discounted the fracas over Weyrich's claim as much ado about nothing?

Can Foer name even one time--just one--when Kristol unequivocally denounced his white Christian right White for anti-Semitic remarks let alone called one of them an anti-Semite?

What about Norman Podhoretz? Can Foer provide examples of just how and when he scorned the Christian Right? Just the opposite was true. He continaully excused their anti-Semitism..

How could Foer possibly believe his contention that the neo-cons had broken with the Christian Right when Norman Podhoretz only the previous year had, true to the Kristol/party line, written in National Review that denunciations of the Christian Right for anti-Semitism were overwrought, unfair and largely the province of Jews less wise than him?

(It's also well to note that when Weyrich said the Jews killed Christ Norman Podhoretz was then a senior-fellow at the Hudson Institute which paid him about $200,000 to do what it's not clear. He kept quiet about Weyrich and the subsequent purge. What a Jew.)

One of Foer's biggest fabrications was to claim that the neo-cons, wary for some time, finally broke ranks over a symposium in First Things, the journal edited by Richard John Neuhaus, which suggested American law were immoral and perhaps should be disobeyed. This was, Foer told readers with an omniscient tone, the "breaking point."

Oh, really? If it was such a breaking point why does Midge Decter, the wicked witch of neo-conservatism, remain on the First Things advisory board?

Ditto for Rabbi David Novack.

Just who broke ranks?

Did Bill Kristol?

If so, when. Why? What did he say:

Did Irving Kristol?

If so, when. Why? What did he say:

Did David Brooks? If so, when. Why? What did he say:

Even just one person would not be enough. The "breaking point" is used by Foer to clearly mean that neo-con Jews bolted from their Kosher Coalition with the theo-cons en masse. Gertrude Himmelfarb did resign from the advisory board of First Things but that hardly qualifes as a definitive breaking point.

According to my research there is no account in databases of some kind of definitive "breaking point."

Nobody ever claimed an such thing. Until Foer did.

On what basis did Foer?

How could Foer possibly believe that Hudson was a bulwark for free expression among conservatives when he knew full well that the think tank had just fired one of their own employee, quite possibly with the advance knowledge of Bill Kristol, then officially associated with Hudson, for denouncing a Christian Right leader?

Or did Foer believe Hudson that the dismissal was un-related to the journalist's denunciation of Weryrich, but rather, necessitated by his improper use of a stuffed chimp during a cable television debate?

Worse yet, Foer got Karl Rove off.

By withholding the entire story of the dismissal from eaders Foer made TNR an acessory to the White House.

Heallowing Karl Rove and his underling Tim Goeglein to escape scrutiny for their improper and arguably illegal phone calls that immediately preceded Hudson's otherwise inexplicable decision to cut Mr. Gahr loose just two months before his contract would have ended anyway.

How could Foer claim that Hudson was receptive to free expression given that Hudson president Herb London, a neo-con stalwart, not only failed to condemn Weyrich for his remarks but even wrote him that despite the controversy he remained in high regard with Hudson. London even refused to address the historical veracity of Weyrich's claim when questioned by the Jewish Forward.

How did all these dubious assertions, many counter-intuitive, get past the post-Stephen Glass fact-checking system--and TNR editor Peter Beinart?

Most transgressions are not isolated incidents, but rather part of pattern behavior.

Has Frank Foer served up this many whoppers in other stories? Have other errors been brought to the attention of Peter Beinart who in turn ignored them? Or do only falsehoods involving Christian anti-Semitism and its neo-con apologists go uncorrected?

Foer has undoubtedly left the magazine open to charges of racist double standards. Foer allowed the white Jewish fellow travelers of the Christian Right to, amount other things, escape scrutiny. Yet TNR has harped on black anti-Semitism, and its enablers dating at least back to the Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" remarks.

As mentioned above, TNR took Cornel West to the woodshed for merely speaking at a conference headlined by Louis Farrakhan. That's quite a tenuous connection compared to the ties that bind Foer's Jews and their white Christian Right allies. Or is outright collusion the better word? Foer's favorite Jew, Bill Kristol, even advised the organization founded by Farrakhan's white counterpart and moral equivalent, Pat Robertson, how to deflect charges of anti-Semitism.

TNR gives Leon a platform to make Cornel West his personal Negro punching bag.

But the magazine absolves white Jews of their cover-up for white Christian anti-Semitism. Cornel West has many sins. Advancing the deicide charge is not one of them.

What does precious Peter Beinart have to say about all this?

Finally, reached on the telephone this week, Beinart was asked if he planned to make Frank Foer the magazine's new fiction editor. "I'm not talking to you, Evan. [click]."

Fine, Petey, don't talk to me.

Talk to Monique Breindel, Eric's sister.

Talk to Ellie Wiesel.

Talk to Daniel Goldhagen.

Talk to Ruth Wisse.

Talk to Esther Jungreis "the Rebetzin " and"Jewish Billy Graham" who survived Buchenwald.

Someone should talk to Jon Chait. Perhaps his editors outside TNR. Considering the stuff below why should they trust assertions in his freelance pieces.

--Lies beget lies. Foer covered for Hudson. Jon Chait then covered for Foer.

Writing for "the editors" in response to a letter from David Horowitz that claimed "Gahr" is not really conservative, Chait gave a brief synopsis of Mr. Gahr's employment history but left out the trifling detail that he had just been fired by the Hudson Institute and blacklisted by AEI apparently under pressure from the White House. Chait "explained" that Mr. Gahr is as conservative as they come "having worked" for conservative foundations. He omitted why Mr. Gahr didn't work for these foundations any longer, namely the White House purge.

Having worked for?

Chait does not explain why Mr. Gahr no longer works for these foundations.

This sentence has all the accuracy of saying "Jane Cooke is about as much an expert on child heroin addiction as they come, having done front page stories on the topic for the Washington Post."

In legal proceedings witnesses pledge to tell the "whole truth." Chait told only part of the truth. What is that called if done under oath? Perjury?

Perjury cases are rarely prosecuted because the lies don't necessarily have consequence. Chait's did, however, If TNR had told the truth that might have led other publications to follow-up on the story, and further embarrassed Hudson and the White House. Instead, thanks for Jon boy Karl Rove escaped scrutiny for instigating an anti-Semitic purge. Hudson too. The right-wing think tank Hudson certainly must have been grateful for this free ride.

--TNR foreign affairs writer Lawrence "the girl" Kaplan has since landed a gig with Hudson as senior fellow. (Kaplan earned his nickname because he won't give out his number to just anyone. He'll call you instead. He needs to feel comfortable with you before he gives out his number. Sound familiar? What is he some kind of girl?)

Anyway, freedom of association is all well and good. But Kaplan, and by extension his boss Peter Beinart, has openly colluded with Hudson's rabidly anti-gay lawyer Bob Brame, who long served on the board of a Christian reconstructionist group that---I kid you not--is on record in support of capital punishment for homosexuals caught in the act.

They do, however, require two witnesses.

Gee, what civil libertarians. No stoning without due process.

Suppose there's a tie? Who breaks it? Do they have some kind of Sodomy Supreme Court? Just who are the witnesses? Who gets that job? Low man on the church totem pole? Brame's junior law firm associates?

According to ADL material, the group, American Vision is not too crazy about blacks or Jews either.

That could have meant double trouble for Bayard Rustin.

Anyway, Brame, who Hudson previously paid perhaps $100,000 to blame its anti-Semitic purge on improper use of a stuffed chimp, has worked with Kaplan to illegally--says Linda Chavez--prohibit Mr. Gahr from attending Hudson events that are otherwise open to the public.

To put it simply: Kaplan is helping Hudson break the law.

Attorneys say that Hudson has flouted both local and federal anti-discrimination statutes with its edict.

In a letter written under the direction of Bob "homo hunter" Brame Mr. Gahr was told in early 2004 that he was not welcome at Hudson events because he had manifested hostility towards the government-subsidized think tank by asking Hudson officials and persons remotely connected with Hudson about his illegal dismissal and Mona Charen's now fabled fear that he swings from the other side of the tree. Kaplan was among those to whom the Brame letter refers.

But this month Kaplan is really in bed with Bob Brame (pardon the inapt metaphor.) Kaplan is one of the keynote speakers for a Hudson luncheon on the future of neo-conservatism. The other speakers are Bill Kristol and Irwin Stelzer, editor of the Neo-con reader. All three have ignored requests by Mr. Gahr that they allow him at the lunch. This makes Kaplan more than just the conduit of information to Brame he was last year; along with Stelzer and Kristol he is an active player in the illegal edict. Under the legal doctrine of silent acquiescence, TNR is liable for this prima facie violation of public acommodations laws culpable because Marty Peretz and Precious Peter refused to disassociate the magazine from Kaplan's antics.

The unwillingness of TNR to rebuke "the girl" for collusion with this bible-banging bigot against the Jew who took on the Christian Right raises a host of discomfiting questions for Leon's magazine.

Why should anybody take the magazine's stance in strong support of gay rights seriously if it refuses to condemn its own writer (and presumably salaried employee) for collaboration with the likes of Bob Brame?

So the magazine favors marriage for gays but doesn't mind if their lawyer wants to hunt them down on the wedding night?

Don't ask. Don't tell. TNR's lawyer will figure it out anyway?

Just like Beinart, Marty and Lawrence "the girl" Kaplan, at least one Hudson official refuses to disassociate himself from Brame's pro-homo hunting stance. The following exchange is real.

Evan Gahr: Hudson's lawyer was long tied to a group that favors capital punishemne for homosexuals caught in the act. Do you favor capital punishment for gays caught en flagrante?

Michael Horowitz, Hudson senior fellow: I have no comment.

Neither does Jeff Rosen.

The TNR legal affairs write who agonizes over the proper balance between liberty and security in the post 9/11 world, doesn't seem to lose much sleep over "the Girl" and helping Hudson and its homo-hunting lawyer flout federal law regarding the lunches. Rosen ignored repeated emails and phone messages about this topic.

Rosen, by virtue of the doctrine of silent acquiescence, is an accessory to far more serious and unambiguous violation of civil rights than the stuff for which he upbraids John Ashcroft.

It is an open question debated by serious lawyers and scholars, left and right, whether Ashcroft illegally infringed on civil liberties. That the Hudson edict, however, violates public accommodation laws is not likely to be seriously questioned by anyone.

Is linking Kaplan and by extension Rosen and TNR to Bob Brame and the illegal behavior unfair "guilt by association?"

No, it's very fair guilt by association.

Most journalists and organizations play the guilty by association game

TNR certainly does. When Cornel West merely spoke at a conference that also heard from Louis Farrakhan, TNR published an item, which read like it was written or edited by the Mega-Jew Marty Peretz himself, sharply criticizing him.

West has far less connection to Farrakhan than TNR now does to Hudson. Cornel West or anyone else in his employ at his black studies fiefdom is not known to have an official position with the Nation of Islam. If they did it most likely have been reported by now and almost instantly the subject of one of TNR's snotty "Notebook" items.

--Speaking of guilt by association: The New Republic, was the only major media outlet contacted that completely ignored the series of exclusive reports for about the collaboration between religious conservatives and reputed terrorist friendly Muslin groups to oppose gay marriage.

One of the premiere Jewish members of this queer coalition was Rabbi Barry Freundel, spiritual leader of the shul that Leon Wieseltier and Peter Beinart attend. Again, this is a much closer connection then the Farrakhan speech which prompted Marty's hissy fit.

What kind of Jew is Leon that he won't publicly condemn his own rabbi for Hamas slumming?

What kind of journalist is Beinart that he missed a story which countless others, gay, Jewish, mainstream, left, right, seized upon?

Like the anti-anti-Communists of yesteryear, Leon, however, reserves his ire for the person who blew the whistle on wrongdoing rather than wrongdoers themselves. Reached at home, the Big Bad Jew Wolf hung up on his caller the minute he identified himself as Evan Gahr. How's that for name recognition? Moments later I asked him why he can't stay on the phone with me.

Sounding more sad than angry Leon responded, "Oh, EvanYou've caused a lot of shit at my magazine."

Damn straight--to use another of Eric's catch phrases.

What would Eric have to say about all this? He was a very forgiving person but it's hard to fathom that in this case he woulddo anything other than urge Marty to summarily dismiss Frank Foer, Jon Chait and Beinart.

What does Marty have to say about this?

Asked for comment, he made this strange stammering noise, some kind of permutation on "oy gevalt" and I've gotta go back to sleep. The sound someone makes when they wake up and just can't deal with things.

After that brief phone call has been silent. Judging from my conversation with Peter it doesn't seem he told him anything one way or the other.

Marty's silence is profoundly disloyal to Eric. "Christ was crucified by the Jews," perhaps the most horrific phrase in the English languge, responsible for more suffering and mayhem than any other single phrase, set in motion an engine of hatred that culminated in the concentration camps which nearly turned Dr and Mrs. Joseph Breindel into a pile of ashes.

Then there would have been no Eric. Imagine that. No Eric. And therefore a very different Marty.

And a very differnt me.

I believe, or maybe it's more accurate to say I need to believe or I want to believe that Marty's lack of reprimand thus far is due to the difficulty and pain he must face in grappling with the heinous deeds of those who usurped the power and prestige of TNR to make blood libel politically palatable.

Marty and Eric: The Gods that Succeeded

On August 12, 1992, the lead editorial of the New York Post followed up on the exclusive Insight magazine report that Hillary Clinton had helped funded PLO front groups when she headed a left-leaning foundation in the late 1980s.

The Insight piece was written by a journalist, who had already made a name for himself in conservative circles by breaking the House Bank story (later stolen by Roll Call) was ecstatic. As he rode the metro down to the platform from the Roslyn stop, he just stared at the editorial in utter bliss, the way a proud papa might stare at his new born baby.

"Now, Evan Gahr of Insight magazine reports that..." Journalism, his labor of love, the only thing he ever wanted to do since sophomore year in college had born fruit. Ecstatic he showed the editorial around the office, and sent many copies to many people, including then-New Republic owner Marty Peretz.

He had read with fascination and somewhat infatuation about Marty for years, how he blew the whistle on black anti-Semitism, how he tried to expunge the weirdos from honest liberalism. They had talked only briefly once before. It was a rather perfunctory conversation about Charles Krauthammer for his profile of the intense Washington Post columnist for DC's local Jewish paper.

Although he had many calls to New York Post columnist and editorial writer Scott McConnell to persuade him to follow up on his exclusive, he had not put much energy into contacting Marty, just sending the original piece and the New York Post editorial page to "Marty Peretz, Sociology Department, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138."

Years later he would call Marty and Eric the Gods that succeeded, a play on the famous book of those who grew disillusions with their CPUSA membership, the Gods that Failed.

Much like a prayer you didn't think much about it or expect a personal response. So the Insight Magazine, the Sister publication of the Washington Times, although some might call it TWT's crazy aunt in the attic publication, answered the phone at his desk in the crowded yet collegial newsroom on the second floor of the newspapers building in Northeast Washington, he assumed it was just a routine call; one of the sources he had already cultivated to get fun stories about political correctness run amok, especially on college campuses.


"Evan Gahr?"



The voice was pure gravitates.

It was Him.

These days almost everyone identifies themselves by their first name in yet another manifestation of pseudo- intimacy. But in the singular case of "Marty" it's neither intimate nor contrived.

Marty is Marty .

If you need further elaboration you probably don't know or care who he is anyway.

Marty thanked Mr. Gahr for sending him the article and "Eric's editorial."

Who is Eric, he thought. Oh, yeah, Eric Breindel who Marty helped get back on his feet after all that drug stuff happened.

They schmoozed a little bit more. Mr. Gahr casually told Marty that the liberal who arranged for Hillary to fund the PLO was an activist named Gail Pressberg.

Seemingly out of nowhere Marty then intoned, "Gail Pressberg is a pinko Jew.

The comment was venomous, yet almost nonchalant. Dripping with extra contempt than he might have applied to non-Jews who shilled for the PLO. The obvious parallel--blacks calling each other nigger--would not obtain here. Black comediens use nigger with ironic effect, to defang the word. In this case there was neither humor nor irony; just pure revulsion and contempt for the worst kind of pinko, a pinko Jew.

They talked more, and the person at the other end of the line probably said something asking if he could send him ,ore of his stuff, which he did. After many requests from Mr. Gahr, the two men finally met at TNR's DC office, then on 19th St. They schmoozed and Marty was amused when Mr. Gahr made jokes--planned in advance--about the worst excesses of racial preference policies.

Amid all this Marty asked what Mr. Gahr was doing next. Oh, he said, I'm going to New York to work for your friend, Eric Breindel.

"I love Eric."

His whole face lit up with the kind of smile you might expect from a father talking about his son.

The comment caught his visitor off guard. Men usually don't talk like that about other men. Not because it would be perceived as gay or anything like that. They just don't.

But then Eric was a unique person and Marty loved him like his own son.

At the New York Post working for Eric, first as editorial writer then columnist, Mr. Gahr didn't talk much to Marty.

Like a puppy dog, however, Mr. Gahr would watch Eric Breindel from his desk, as he took calls from "everybody," the entire media and cultural elite it seemed, with the exception, ironic given the turn of events, of Paul Weyrich. Eric had a politician's smile, which was quite good, and a real smile--reserved for a select few such as his father who Eric adored.

Marty was one of the few, the chosen people?, who got the genuine smile.

When Mr. Gahr at the behest of Mr. Breindel did a very thorough hit piece on the leftie beast Alexander Cockburn, his boss told him "fax it to Marty," which he did, and Peretz, like a true gentlemen, quickly replied with his own fax of thanks.

In January 1997 Eric left his post as Editorial Page Editor, which he had held since 1986 when Marty helped him get the job, to become NewsCorp senior vice president. The next month, his successor Scott McConnell expelled Mr. Gahr from the Post, a decision which Eric had no advance knowledge of and was quite angry when he found out. Eric then recommended Mr. Gahr for various jobs at Heritage, National Review and the new magazine, long since defunct, of Steve Brill. Nothing panned out for a variety of reasons. NR editor John O'Sullivan, for example, seemed on the verge of giving Mr. Gahr a job when he was relieved of his post for a variety of reasons. The new editor, Rich Lowry, didn't much care what Eric said.

In January 1998, Mr. Gahr asked Eric to call William Buckley for him.

He would have but he didn't

One Sunday morning, the phone rang, and his mother, as always thinking of her family first, thought it would be particularly painful if he unexpectedly picked up the paper and read what she just had.

"[Evan] something shocking happened to someone at the Post."

Eric Breindel was dead at 42.

In the months following Eric's funeral, Mr. Gahr began speaking, schmoozing regularly with Mr. Peretz. Marty, like noone else could have, because he is to use his own descpriton "Eric's other father" filled a gap that was left for Evan, so utterly devestated by the departure of Eric that for years he could not even call the funeral a funeral. Instead, simply "that awful day in March."

About six months later, Mr. Gahr asked to meet Marty Peretz next time he was in NYC so that he could help him career wise. Marty agreed right away, but his schedule was such that it took awhile before they met at the Regency Hotel where Marty always stayed on his business trips to NYC. Mr. Gahr said to him simply that he had a slew of pieces published in high profile outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal, but he just would not get the kind of job he wanted, opinion writer-reporter, without help from a big name person such as Marty. You helped Eric when all that stuff happened he said, a rather circumspect description for Eric in 1983 having been busted for buying Heroin in Washington, DC, and quickly lost his choice job with Senator Moynihan. It turned out he was a Heroin addict. Overcoming the devastation, Eric cleaned himself up and Marty then helped him get jobs first at the Daily News, the New York Post as editorial page editor.

At Mr. Gahr's request, Marty agreed to call one of the world's biggest media magnates on his behalf, which he did. After concluding the business at hand, the two men schmoozed for probably close to one hour. Marty would cackle with gravitates when his visitor made clever comments or told stories that impaled the liberal orthodoxy both men detested. This is so cool, his visitor thought, Marty is laughing at all my jokes.

This was the pattern for several meetings. More than help with any specific career-related endeavor, Marty gave Mr. Gahr a certain spiritual sustenance, which he alone--with Eric gone--could provide. Marty acted like something of a priest for Mr. Gahr, providing moral, intellectual sustenance and, like priests who have access to God, higher authority. Moral absolutes. If Marty said something he did was right than it was right.

Wrong, and it was wrong and he wouldn't do it again.

Or, as Mr. Gahr told one journalist, "I only answer to God and Marty Peretz."

In the early days of "Chimpgate" right after he was purged by FrontPage Magazine but before it was clear he would lose his Hudson job, Marty said "You have done a brave and courageous thing."

He played the words again and again in his head.

When it was obvious he was going to get fired, Mr. Gahr considered calling Marty to see if he could intercede but decided against it--because he wanted to fight his own battles. Given that the White House is now widely believed to have precipitated the dismissal Marty wouldn't have done much good anyway.

At first, right after the dismissal, Mr. Gahr met with Marty at the Regency; they both laughed at the viciousness of the conservatives with whom he long made common cause. Mona Charen calling him "paranoid" for example. Marty was also amused when he showed him the rude email he had w ritten to two of Weyrich's apologists at National Review. If you want to brown nose a brown-shirt he told them that's your business but don't stink me up with your shit and his.

In a delayed reaction that is consistent with post-tramautic stress disorder, Mr. Gahr soon felt psychologically brutalized by the dismissal. Instead of writing about it, he wrote emails to the key players; naively thinking he could rhetoricallyh knock some sense into them. But they either ignored him or got more vicious.

The delayed reactions was interspersed with lucidity and wit. Right after Mr. Gahr joined Linda Chavez's think tank as an unpaid "adjunct scholar" he and Marty had a fun conversation from the Center for Equal Opportunity's 15th St. office He was particularly delighted when Marty laughed very much out loud when his caller said of the dispute "there is two Horowitz and two Martys I feel like I'm in the middle of some kind of squabble at a Jewish summer camp."

Wow. I've never heard you laugh so hard.

The wit was capitalized. Other times he would speak with rage and shock had the hideous spectacle that had unfolded from just one quote in the Washington Post. It was probably this sensibility, rather than reporting and raw logic, that informed the prospective TNR piece he sent Marty after their "summer camp conversation."

Not long after that Mr. Gahr was surprised to see the sender listed as ""

Marty had never emailed him before.

He opened it. The words quickly left him transfixed.

"Dear Evan, you know that I have been a friend and want to continue to be a friend. This is not just out of loyalty but out of respect for your gifts. "It is obvious to me that you have been traumatized by the ugliness of your former comrades on the right who would not be traumatized. They are guilty of grotesque double standards, worst of all the Jews among them. "The relevant worlds now know about this. That is a triumph for you. You should know move on and make a point to them that they have not destroyed your life or your career." "I am returning to America the 1st of the month, let's have a long talk." Shocked yet exhilarated by the "Eric reference" the reader started crying. Marty had never initiated a discussion about Eric to him before. And most of those Evan did Marty didn't say anything in response; perhaps since the subtext was always how did this happen to Eric this wasn't supposed to happen, to which there is no conceivable reply.

The words inspired him yet concurrently caused great pain. He knew the right way to act, the way Eric might have acted, but was too traumatized to act that way.

And, of course, too traumatized to realize that TNR was one of the biggest culprits in his Borking by the Jewish right.

Finally, in early 2004 he came to understood the sickening truths about what Foer et al. did with Leon's magazine.

It's well to note that the malfeasance here is far more blatant than the stuff which cost Dan Rather and company theiir jobs.

Yes, CBS was arguably sloppy and driven by prosecutorial that is lethal for journalists. But it was a good faith mistake.

Nobody lied.

The same can not be said about TNR.

Calling Beinart from just outside the GWU library where he had written his exclusive series of reports that exposed the collusion between religious conservatives and radical Islam, Mr. Gahr left an angry voice mail message which conveyed his belief that in his opinion "Frank Foer is a bigger liar than Stephen Glass and far more pernicious."

He got no response to that message and others left on voice mail for Chait and Foer. Trying to provoke a response one of his messages called him a "rectal orifice."

Finally reached at home Chait said "I'm not going to talk to you after you called me that name."

This is the guy who lectures America on the Iraq war? But he can't handle one little rectum rebuke. Apparently not. Saying he didn't understand the gist of the message about his misdeeds and didn't care either Chait hung up. Later, informed by his caller that "this is not some little cutesy game to be in Howie Kurtz's column all this stuff has harmed me, my career and worse yet my family, Chait said "Oh, for God's sake."

Fascinating. This writer, not blessed with ESP like so many pundits, usually doesn't try to interpret what people say or what they really mean.

But this comment was the exception. "Oh, for God's sake."

What does that mean? You're making something out of nothing? Your assertion is absurd?

The comment suggests a sensibility on the part of Chait of an utter disconnect between his words and actions. The Iraq War is just another topic to tackle with his classmates Peter, Lawrence "the girl" Kaplan and their professor Marty Peretz?

Perhaps. Given that he crumples when challenged as evidenced from the following exchange that occurred the next morning.

First, Chait tried to hide behind the receptionist, which brought this rich exchange.

"This is Evan Gahr. Can I speak to Jonathan Chait?"

Receptionist: Hold on, please.

[She comes back on the line]

Receptionist: He didn't come in yet.

Evan Gahr: If he didn't come in yet why didn't you tell me that right away?

Receptionist: I though maybe he came in the back entrance.

Evan Gahr: What back entrance? There is no back entrance? Where is the back entrance?

Receptionist: I can't give you that information, sir.

Evan Gahr: You can't give it to me because it doesn't exist. What is this Star Trek? Did you think he just beamecd himself up or something?

Beam me up, Marty?

Next, Chait, who instructs Americans about the war on Iraq, had the office manager run resistance for him.

The office manager? The woman who makes sure nobody gets more double A batteries than their entitled to was doing double duty as flack?

Apparently, so. She had the rotund black concierge in the lobby bar Mr. Gahr from entering the building when he arrived to discuss the matters personally with Chait.

Gee, who says TNR doesn't give blacks important jobs?

Finally, Mr. Gahr called Marty and informed of everything he had discovered. His only on-the-record reaction came when asked if TNR's office manager spoke for him when she said not to call "my employees" about anti-Semitism, was to make the kind of stammering noise that might be expected from someone who is waken up and informed of a big mess in the next room, can't deal with it now and just wants to go back to sleep.

The sad thing is that what actually unfolded might have been a great story for TNR when all of Precious Peter's predecessors were at the helm. Conservatives had acted like fools and tried to blame their anti-Semitic purge on a stuffed chimp. TNR could have mocked the right without adopting the worst excesses of the left.

Sort of the way many years back Chuck Lane did a classic TNR piece during the Reagan Administration about the group house for conservatives that was ridden with tensions between the social conservatives and libertarian inhabitants but eventually imploded over a porno video.

Today, as far as can be determined, you don't find much of that kind of stuff in Precious Peter's magazine.

The cliche, although apt, is that journalism is the rough draft of history. Today, TNR , in my opinion, often reads like the rough draft of a graduate thesis. Not even a PhD thesis which might imply a considerable amount of thought and history.

Just a bunch of graduate students who like to think that they alone have all the answers.

The TNR paradigm; liberals says X conservatives are right to criticize them but wrong when they offer Y as an alternative. But here's the way it really is.

Hundreds of millions of people in America, but only the 12 Jew boys at TNR know how things really are?

Apparently, so.

Case in point: during the last presidential election, Precious published a notebook item about the Dem's quota system for the selection of convention delegates. The item said yeah the GOP complaints but--aha--they are hypocrites because they too have quotas. TNR, like the grad student determined to outdo his professor, then cite some obscure quotas of the Republican party for convention delegates. True enough. But the reader would have been left with the impression that the two quota systems are alike.

This is false. Anybody who knows anything about the Democratic Party knows full well that the quota system for convention delegates is exhaustive and usually results in all kind of absurdities. The GOP's is not that far-reaching or v ery far-reaching at all.

More recently, following the passing of Ronald Reagan, Precious Peter wrote about his supposedly awful record on civil rights but ignored the minor detail that Reagan had signed, with GOP support, the 1982 extension of the landmark Voting Rights Act, an extension which really was an expansion, laying the ground work conservatives charge, for many lawsuits that exceed the intent of the original law.

How can you right about Reagan and civil rights without mentioning this. Very easily if you're TNR editor and nexis searches constitute reporting. Precious even included in his argument by nexis a critic of Reagan condemning his record on civil rights.

What great journalism, Precious Peter. No skepticism. Just rehash some quote from someone who for all you know is just two-bit hack. (Precious manifested even more obtuseness when he wrote about the Jewish vote for the Washington Post but didn't quote or acknowledge the famous words of Milton Himmelfarb that "Jews live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.)

This is the context for Frank Foer's article, and the related cover-ups by Beinart, Chait and Lawrence "the girl" Kaplan.

Posted about 10 days after the Hudson purge, "The Great Escape" purported to show how Bill Kristol ditched conservatism. Foer depicted the Weekly Standard editor plus his fellow advaocate of national greatness conservatism and Marshall Wittmann who was too independent a thinker to last long at Heritage Foundation as beleagured independent thinkers Jews neo-cons such as David Brooks and Bill Kristol.

Initially, they tried to defend their Christian allies of anti-Semitism charges. But amid a big fracas in 1996 over an issue by theo-con Father Richard John Neuhaus that suggested Americans disobey morally wrong they split due to irreconcialbe differences. Outsiders in their own movement, Kristol and Wittmann had de-camped to the Hudson Institute; Wittmann as senior fellow and Bill Kristol as co-director of the new conservative reform project, whose website had already irked the Bush Administration.

In the beginning, Foer, to show he's real hip and his writing a sympathetic yet skeptical piece about Bill Kristol, claims that in 1991 after Pat Robertson published his ravings about Jews both Kristols and both Podhoretzes defended him.

Oh, did they? How did this assertion get pat TNR editor Precious Peter Beinart. First of all, it is not congruous with database searches or common sense.

If the Kristols and Podhoretzes apologized for the anti-Semitic remarks why are their responses impossible to find any database searhces.

In 1991, Kristol was chief of staff to then-VP Dan Qualye. It's extremely unlikely and counterintuitive that he would have spoke out in his own name to defended Robertson. If he had it would have been big news. Around the same time, John Podhoretz was a columnist and editor for the Washington Times and then Insight magazine. There is no record of him defending Robertson etc.

There is however a long and lengthy paper trail that attests to the willingness of the Jewish Right to consistenly absovled their goyim allies of anti-Semitism.

It appears that Foer asserted these claims, which are counter-intuitive and manifest a deciedly problematic relationship with the truth so he could appear skeptical; he takes the Jew Cons to task for shilling for anti-Semitism. He's no lap dog. And the facts he stipulates by some strange coincidence fit neatly into his thesis that Kristol et al gradually drifted away from their Christian Right allies.

Foer has his dates wrong. The Jews diid not defend Pat Robertson when his books filled with anti-Semitism were published around 1991; the chattering classes missed the story. When Michael Lind finally brought it to the attention of the relevant worlds about four years later with his much ballyhooed piece for the New York Review of Books it was then that some Jews (not the ones he names) defended Robertson and, like the anti-anti-Communists of yesteryear, attacked the messenger (Lind) to absolve or obscure the wrongdoing of those he indicted.

In 1995, when Michael Lind's piece brought this to th e attention of the relevant worlds; conservatives circled the wagons. Norman Podhoretz wrote a Commentary piece that contained in defense of Pat Robertson the kind of equivocations and distinctions without a difference that he and other Jews rip to shred for good reason when offered in defense of the crass, but far less venal, anti-Semitism indulged by Jesse Jackson.

In 1994, Midge Decter and Bill Kristol defended the Christian Right against charges of anti-Semitism documend in the now infamous ADL report on the religious right. They defended Pat Robertson, imputed bigotry to his Jew detractors and completly ignored the report's detailed recounting of his classic anti-Semitic tale, in fact plagiarized by anti-Semitic sources, about some conspiracy of Jewish bankers.

These are incriminating details which Foer withholds. They directly contradict his thesis that the Jews were heading towards breaking ranks with the be lligernent goyim for quite some time.

Presto: He denounces the Jews for defense of Robertson they didn't make, and ignores the far more rationalizations for anti-Semtism which they did offer. That's a neat trick (to use yet another Ericism)..

There has never been a breaking point or even a schism. From the onset of the Christian Right the Jew cons, grateful for these powerful allies in their ongoing jihad against gays and feminists, overlooked the anti-Semitism. About one year after Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority with the help of Weyrich, one of the nation's most powerful protestant ministers, Bailey Smith, said God doesn't hear the prayers of Jews. He apologized quickly but even after he made clear he regretted what he said, Irving Kristol defended him in Commentary than edited by Norman Podhoretz.

And so on and so on.

This was the pattern for two decades. Christians defame Jews; they apologize, yet Jewish conservatives defend them nonetheless.

All than changed in 2001 with the onset of Christ Killer gate.

It is arguably the vilest phrase in the English language, "Christ was crucified by the Jews." Is there any single phrase responsible for more crimes than this one? Probably not.

Still, the Deicide charge that Paul Weyrich posted on his Free Congress Foundation web site might have gone unnoticed were it not for Marshall Wittmann, then a senior fellow at Hudson. Wittmann, long buddies with Kristol, was perusing the Free Congress website because Weyrich and Kristol were locked in a dispute unrelated to religion.

Wittmann saw that Weyrich had written "Christ was crucified by the Jews." I was out of the office the day he told Kristol.

The next day when I returned, Wittmann and Ken Weinstein, Hudson VP and director of the Washington office, told me about the charge and they had told "Bill" who "couldn't believe it." In other words Bill Krist had reacted like he believed that Weyrich's rehash of the deicide charge to a shocking outburst of bigotry.

Wittmann then told me that Weyrich is careful with language and had outright acted with malice towards Jews when he called Jews Christ Killers.

This was Thurday. I naively naively rushed to break the story for the next day because he assumed--duh--that Kristol would use it for the new issue the following Monday. I rushed to finish the piece for the website of conservative firebrand David Horowitz, who had recently made me a columnist and was undoubtedly delighted when my piece--that claimed Jesse Jackson had stiffed some waitress (uh given Jackson maybe that's unclear; not left her a tip) at some jazz club back in 1989--was picked up by Llyod Grove for his Reliable Sources column that was keeping track of tips by celebrities following a much publicized incident in which Hilalry Clinton campaigning upstate had stiffed a waitress.

The Jackson story was based on a single anonoymous source from 1989. Horowitz, however, said that my Weyrich column based on his own words posted on his own website and reiterated by his underling lacked sufficient evidence to criticize him. So he spiked it.

The American Spectator, however, accepted it for the next day. In keeping with my standard practice to circulate my scoops that dated back to the Hillary-PLO story, I sent it to various Washington Post reporters.

The same day the story appeared, Post political reporter Tom Edsall followed-up. He then quoted me accurately calling Weyrich a demented anti-Semite. Horowitz then purged me from his website the same day that quote was in the paper.

Lloyd Grove then followed up with his own little item about "conservatives being at each other's throats" over the controversy.

He called Kristol.

Kristol lied to Lloyd Grove.

Kristol told him that the whole conflict was much ado about nothing, the bickering of very excitable people.

Ever so gullible, Grove believed him, writing "At least Bill Kristol" is keeping his cool.

Yeah he was but for what reasons and how? Again the libel analogy obtains: Kristol had just privately likened Weyrich's remarks to a shocking and disgusting outbursts of anti-Semitism. "Bill can't believe he said that" is what Marshall Wittmann and then Hudson DC office director Ken Weinstein both told me.

Yet Kristol then publicly dismissed the controversy as much ado about nothing, How could he believe any such thing if he had just told friends he was shocked by Weyrich's remarks? He didn't. Kristol lied to the Washington Post about Weyrich.

Given his harsh criticism of Weyrich in other realms this might seem surprising. But it makes sense. He won't take Weyrich on over core issues, the root of his activism, his devout religious beliefs because he assumes--just like some white liberals worried about their hapless negro beneficiaries--that the Religious Right would bolt his Kosher Coalition if he told the truth.

Anyway, in additon to getting a free ride from Lloyd Grove, this beacon of honesty also got a free ride from Howard Kurtz when his Weekly Standard ignored the Weyrich story which approximately 30 publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Baltimore Sun , National Review and Boston Globe and New York Times, repoorted.

Why did the Weekly Standard ignore what by any measure was an important story?

Explains Richard Starr, managing editor: "I don't have time for this, Evan...What I'll never have time for is an interview with you."

Foer could have blown the whistle on these people.

Instead, in my opinion, he did a Walter Duranty.

And all that Leon can say is "You've caused a lot of shit at my magazine?"

Damn straight to use yet another Ericism.

Indeed. In much the same way that Victor Navasky, then editor of the Nation, might have said to Ron Radosh after his seminal TNR article that demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Juiluis Rosenberg was guilty of espionage related activities, "Oh, Ron, you've created a lot of shit at my magazine."

It took nearly two decades before the Nation published work that admitted Julius may very well have been guilty.

How long does it take Marty Peretz to honestly addressed what happened.

Actually, in my opinion, thanks to Marty it's quite easy to imagine:

Marty has managed to do what the disgusting writers at Spy and the Village Voice attempted but failed miserably; render him powerless and irrelevant. As if he never existed.

How can he bear the mantle, his unique role, as Eric's other f father when he countenances his own magazine covering for the very Christian anti-Semitism that nearly killed Eric's biological father?

At Eric's funeral, Marty, speaking before the main sanctuary of Park Ave Synagogue, literally packed wall to wall, on that awful day in March, said that with the permission of Eric's cherished father in

the audience he was Eric's other father. His speech was later mocked because it was rambling. What else could it be? How do you make any sense of what happened? The only thing that makes any sense is just to tell Eric stories, which is what he did

For one Jew seated in the back of the main sanctuary, the funeral had a sad, horrific symetry with Spy hit piece on Eric Breindel that opend with a scene from his wedding to Tamar Jacoby in 1988. "Everybody"--meaning the intellecutal elites--was present.

Now they had gathered again.

The Spy article hur Eric horribly because it dredged up his additction to heroin which cost him his job with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. His problems with drugs were cured by the time he became NYPost Editorial Page Editor in 1986 with the help of Marty. The article was vicious and morally obscence since it had no redeeming social purpose.

Yet despite the best efforts of Kurt Anderson who apparently commissioned the piece as Spy co-editor wsith Graydon Carter the article failed to diminisn Eric's power and prestige.

The only person who can do that now is Marty Peretz. If Eric were still here Marty would have taken definitive action when first informed how Foer et al. had usurped TNR's prestige for cover for Jewish liars and Christian anti-Semites.

But Marty does nothing and therefore acts like Eric never existed.

In my opinion, Marty's inaction in the face of the unique evil of anti-Semitism and its Jew apologists has for all intents and purposes, destroyed Eric's life and career.

   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.