Pressed on his blacklist of the reporter who exposed the AFM-ISNA alliance, he serves up more Whoppers than Bill Clinton Get thee to a Burger King.

By EVAN GAHR with ERIC BREINDEL
September 29

Hymietown -- The Jewish World Review, one of the internet's most dynamic right-leaning outposts, has blacklisted the investigative journalist whose exclusive series of reports for JWR about the anti-gay group that joined forces with reputed terrorist-friendly Muslim groups to outlaw homo matrimony single-handedly embarrassed the organization, Alliance for Marriage and its genius founder Matt Daniels into expunging two different Islamist organizations from its advisory board.

Implemented following harsh criticism by the journalist from the Jewish right, the purge marks the ninth African-American listing of the journalist in retaliation for his outspoken opposition to Christian anti-Semitism, particularly its Jewish apologists.

Once adored in conservative circles for his unique brand of hit pieces which turned liberal cows into chopped meat for the right, the journalist is now reviled by his former comrades on the right because of three choice words he used to describe Paul Weyrich to the Washington Post when asked about his assertion that the Jews killed Jesus.

To cite some examples from those who protest the coarsening of our culture

"Shut the fuck up, you big bully," Jay Nordlinger, National Review.

"Oh, Evan, what the fuck is wrong with you," Michael Horowitz, Hudson Institute

"I don't have time for this [questions why the Weekly Standard ignored the Weyrich controversy which was reported by most every other major publication]," Richard Starr, managing editor, "What I'll never have time for is an interview with YOU.

We spiked our follow-up of the AFM-ISNA controversy because you suggested it, Ira Stoll, New York Sun (paraphrase)

You are delusional, seek help, Linda Chavez, Center for Equal Opportunity, the think tank which doesn't give many opportunities to folks outside Linda's family since she employs her two sons in two key positions.

The animus against the Hymie-American scribe might seem particularly queer given that Paul Weyrich himself has long since taken extraordinary steps to make clear that he regrets the pain his remarks caused Jews and forged a seemingly improbable brotherhood with the journalist. But the conflict was never about Weyrich, whose so-called friends on the Jewish Right care about him as much as yesterday's piss. If Weyrich were the issue than his mea culpa would have ended the whole squabble. The continued conflagration is testament to the plain reality that this is Jew v. Jew; the Jewish Right livid that another Jew had violated their speech code regarding the Christian Right, denouncing one of the Moral Majority's founder

The conflict is between one Jewish journalist and a bunch of poseurs, mostly Jewish, ostensibly journalists and scholars but are actually conservative activists whose cachet depends on the privileged positions they occupy at high-profile think tanks and publications whose ostensibly neutral posts allows them to advance and enforce right-wing dogma far more effectively than the GOP's most hard right members. Jesse Helms, for example, got busted and lost credibility for saying he wanted to throw up when he saw two lezbos kissing in San Francisco. Conservative "scholars," however, in the Midge Decter mold, keep their disgust to themselves as they fight gay marriage with the fatuous argument that it would harm heterosexual marriage. (Just which marriage between man and wife has suffered since many homos exchanged vows in San Francisco? Can somebody name one? Just one?)

The personal is political. If these scholars and academics were purely ideologues they would welcome, notwithstanding their previous bickering and Borking a stuffed chimp, recent pieces by their nemesis which eviscerate liberal journalists and activists on such seminal issues for the right as the legitimacy of domestic anti-Communism, dishonesty of the abortion rights movement regarding partial birth abortions and, now, the blatantly illegal and goofy conduct by the John Kerry campaign--kicking out a journalist for allegedly taking pictures in the waiting area, the kind of stuff that normally would have sent the Right-wing noise machine full blast.

How about, in tribute to their spiritual heirs, our own little nonaggression pact. Publish the stuff in return for keeping quiet about Chimpgate for a while?

No can do.

To acknowledge the journalist's existence, let alone post or publish his stuff, would raise discomfiting questions that his former comrades on the right can't or won't answer. Why was he fired? Why have they refused to condemn anti-Semitic remarks that clearly violate Vatican 2 and which even the speaker now regrets? Etc. This is why they must deny his existence. "Nothing happened," David Frum told him. "Nothing happened," insisted Midge Decter, who denied that her husband was a salaried employee at Hudson when the purge occurred, a rather curious insistence since the Hudson 990 showed just that.

These days it's not just TNR that is awash in fecal matter. And now the Jewish World Review is also.

Jolkovsky has a dirty little secret. He's not what he pretends.The produce he peddles is himself and an agenda, as blatantly political as the GOP platform, but disguised as an outpost of Jewish-Christian values

Profiles and mentions in such varied publications as the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Sun-Times simply regurgitate his strictly kosher pablum about being the lone defender against a secular society ridden with anti-Christian values. If "the media" is so hopelessly retrograde anti-Christian and anti-religious why does he get so good press?

The man fancies himself the lonely outpost against Sodom and Gomorrah. It's the victimization game perfected by those who denounce parallel tactics on the left by blacks they love to hate. In the conservative universe, breaking ranks is the first step towards making it and, JWR the exception, insuring considerable riches. The 1970s when those who broke ranks

In fact, those who call the shots on his website are not liberals but the Jewish Right itself. Often times, in acceding to the perceived wishes of Jewish Right stalwarts, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager and Bill Kristol, Jolkovsky acts like the real anti-Christian bigot. The patronizing variety. His decisions of what to run and what not to run are predicated on the curious assumption that his largely Christian readership would crucify him if he subjected their fundamental beliefs and actions to the same withering scrutiny that his website is downright giddy when applied to secular liberals, blacks the right loves to hate, and the anti-Christ himself, Abe Foxman.

This sensibility animates the Jewish Right. In conversations with Marshall Wittmann who informed him of Weyrich's remarks and Hudson VP Ken Weinstein, Bill Kristol likened his rehash of the deicide charge to a shocking outburst of bigotry. "Bill couldn't believe it," they both told their Hudson colleague, who 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.

Instead, Kristol lied to the Washington Post when asked about the fracas, calling the whole matter much ado about nothing. Moreover, while 30 newspapers covered the first segment of the controversy, Weyrich's remarks and his detractors purge by FrontPage Magazine of free speech guru after he called him a demented anti-Semite, Kristol's Weekly Standard deliberately ignored the story.

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, is 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.

Why would he hold to this belief? Weyrich didn't exactly hold a grudge to his detractor, sometimes speaking with him as much as he might do his wife, Joyce. (Can any of his so-called friends say they know his wife's name? Or where the Big Macher among the Goyim is from? Wisconsin.)

Nevertheless, this sensibility, combined with his outright fear of the Jewish Right clearly informs his editorial decisions. Liberal orthodoxy is not nearly as well enforced. Yeah, yeah, Bob Casey was barred from speaking at the Democratic convention because of his outspoken anti-abortion views. But at least he spoke out. Other than this writer can somebody name one Jewish conservative who even denounced one of their Christian Right allies' anti-Semitic outbursts? Let alone call him an anti-Semite. The outbursts date to 1980 when Bailey Smith said God didn't hear Jews prayers. He aplogized but Irving Kristol nonetheless took to the pages of commentary to "understand"--well look who's non--judgmental now--his remarks and explain it was not anti-Semitic.

Jolkovsky, who could blow the whistle on these people if he had what oxen lack, instead is point man for the true right-wing conspiracy

Consider--

The AFM stories submitted took various Jew Right members to task for keeping quiet about their collusion with Radical Islam. Big names were named.

Bill Kristol. Dennis Prager. Bill Bennet.

They were certainly luscious targets. Kristol's mag had published an account of the AFM's alliance with ISNA that cited the Muslim group's membership on the AFM advisory board to show its diversity and broad appeal. He and his editors were either incredibly sloppy or incredibly dishonest.

Dennis Prager trying to ingratiate himself with Jolkovsky who had stopped running his flatulent musings on the moral foibles of liberals who occupy his imagination told Jolkovsky his radio show producer was informed of the controversy and left the impression he would call soon for a segment.

He never did. Surprise, surprise.

"Dr. Bennett"--which part of my body can he fix?--ignored repeated inquiries even though he heads some Americans against terrorism outfit.

Jolkovsky also spiked pieces by regular contributors, Stanley Crouch and Jonathan Tobin when they tackled Chimpgate.

What's his take on all this? Perhaps those who worry that the Ten Commandments have been eviscerated because some religious fanatic judge couldn't get them to say would do well to consider how their Jew boy adheres to them.

Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness

Why did you ignore my emails?"

"I didn't get them."

How could you not get them. If you didn't they would have bounced back to me.

Not always.

Due to the technological difficulties experienced by JWR, he would never lie, following this conversation, the sender re-sent it about 25 times .

Lo and behold those got through.

One of the New York Times reporters who exposed the Tawana Brawley hoax recalled a few years later that it was an exceedingly difficult story because "Sharpton would tell one lie. We would spend weeks disproving it. Then he would just tell another lie."

But Jolkovsky would never act like Sharpton.

"Tell me who complained about me and got me blacklisted."

Nobody complained.

You told me they did.

Oh, well I have short term memory loss.

Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness

I have the emails and maybe tape recorded our conversations. Would that refresh your memory?

Maybe

His other big Jew no-no concerns those who have complained about this writer, including Rabbi Daniel Lapin who was kind enough to inform Jolkovsky one winter evening that the story he was about to publish was written by someone who was dismissed from three disreputable conservative institution for disreputable tactics, and that no reputable conservative would talk to him.

The truth is no defense against Lashon Horah, although that excuse would not obtain here.

He also said that no reputable conservative would talk to him.

Under Jewish law someone who is told Lashon Horah is supposed to walk away. Did he do the same? If not why not?

"You were not blacklisted. "

Thou Shall not Bear False Witness

"Come up with an idea and I'll use it."

You don't apply such stringent standards to she who is foul. You publish all her stuff regularly. Why? It's so good? So witty?

"Come up with an idea and I'll use it."

How about illegal activities by the Kerry campaign?

Can you prove it?

I have it on digital video.

"Oh, well, it's not for us."

Jolkovsky , his Show Jews and devout pre-Vatican 2 Catholics, such as National Review's sickly looking editor, Rich Lowry, also decry the coarsening of our culture. To that end, when pressed on why he i ignored a message requesting one of his columns that whimpered about ostensible Christian bigotry, he explained, "First of all, asshole, I didn't get your message. Second of all, find it yourself."

"Click."

Let's compare Jolkovsky's genteel response to leading and belligerent questions to how top editors who answered their own phones at the hopelessly liberal, out of touch New York Times handled similar questions by someone whose interviewing style makes a bull through a china shop seem by comparison like a meek wasp with social anxiety disorder.

NYT Deputy Editorial Page Editor Andy Rosenthal: Editorial Page Jew Gone Wild: Andrew? Andy Rosenthal: Yeah? Evan Gahr: Hi, this is Evan Gahr, I graduated from Columbia Prep just like you..Tom Friedman hit a reader. Does the New York Times have a policy on columnists smacking readers?" Andy Rosenthal: You're postulating a series of facts that I'm not sure are correct.

What a great New York Times sentence; look at the sheer intelligence in wording, highly skeptical but open to different conclusions.

Cursing is macho preening. The junior Mr. Rosenthal had no reason to curse because the question did not speak to the general credibility of the New York Times or even raise the prospect of serious malfeasance. In this respect, Jewess Jill was correct when she dodged similar questions by saying the whole matter was "silly."

But Jolkovsky is on the ropes (metaphor courtesy of Tom Friedman) and he knows it.

If he admits that he blacklisted the AFM-ISNA reporter, whose series of scoops date to his salad days at Insight Magazine when he broke the House Bank story (then stolen by Roll Call), Jolkovsky concedes serious credibility problems. But to publish his work mean, he fears, to incur the wrath, not of the supposed doctrinaire liberals, but the Jewish Right.

Frightened and embarrassed he is left to lie--insist black is white.

Here is some of the stuff ignored and not even acknowledged by the website that has not blacklisted the author.

BAD CASE OF THE HUGGIES
Politicians reach out and hug someone---way too much
By EVAN GAHR

Did anybody notice the bottom of the New York Times front page early last month?

It had photos of men hugging men from one end to the other. First a bunch of shots of Bush and McCain going at it. Then a picture of two Olympic swimmers embracing in the water.

The whole thing is queer, as the word was used before being appropriated by those who swing from the other side of the tree.

Not homosexual.

Just strange and unseemly and tacky.

Who did the Senate minority leader hug and when did he hug him?

Tom Daschle, with his thick head of hair and re-assuring manner, seems like a Washington politician right out of central casting. But in at least one key respect the suave Dakotan has bucked, perhaps unwittingly, societal trends, left and right.

Creating quite a bit of buzz inside and outside the Beltway filmmmaker Michael Moore that he hug hugged him at a screening of Moore's red hot flick, Fahrenheit 911, and offered his support for the film.

Given the comparative sizes of the compact Daschle and the humongous Moore, a lumbering Daniel in the Lion's den when he goes where he's not wanted to embarrass his targets, you might think a hug is not something Daschle would forget.

It became he-said, he said.

Washington hasn't been so entranced over who touched what when since Monicgate. Speculation on Daschle's right is that he sent the hug down the memory hole to avoid a close association with the controversial Moore. Finally, it turned out that someone who resembled Daschle had hugged Moore.

Still, the flap was undoubtedly the exception to the rule. Indeed, the front-page of the New York Times Did anybody the bottom of the New York Times front page last month?

It had photos of men hugging men from one end to the other. First a bunch of shots of Bush and McCain going at it. Then a picture of two Olympic swimmers embracing in the water.

The whole thing is queer, as the word was used before being appropriated by those who swing from the other side of the tree. Not homosexual. Just strange and unseemly and tacky.

Maybe feminists have it right: men need to learn to keep their hands to themselves.

Just as the sexual revolution denuded sex of considerable cachet and allure by making it more acceptable and easier obtained, huggers run amok have turned what may have once been a rare and therefore all the more poignant coming together of two men into an utterly meaningless gesture.

Everywhere you look--from football fields to party conventions--men are hugging men. Even the manliest of men think nothing of a quick squeeze.

This not gay, just queer in the larger sense of the word. Strange. Think about it. As for other guys--even the manliest of men, the types who wouldn't dare drink a wine cooler in public, let alone ask for driving directions in the middle of the Siberian wilderness, think nothing of hugging each other.

Consider John McCain and President Bush. Whatever else his sins, nobody has accused George Bush of being a sissy. Ditto for the senator whose early political education included a stay at the "Hotel Hanoi." But there they were on stage together TK, all touchy feely, as if McCain had just been released from the Vietnamese prison.

Instead, it was just the first occasion they had shared a stage since the 2000 Presidential campaign when they did the equivlanet of hand-to-hand combat in a bitterly fought primary contest which, McCain supporters insisted, took some dirty tricks for Bush to prevail

The hug has replaced the handshake. These two forms of greetings could not be more different. When days were old and knights were bold, men shook hands to insure neither carried a weapon. Now when a guy meets or greets another guy the only bodily harm he risks is a cracked rib from a bear hug.

Unlike writing with pink magic markers, there is nothing inherently unmanly about one man hugging another.

Just the opposite: a real man can show his feelings in public, at the appropriate moment. The key word is moment, not every minute. It's certainly understandable that men were hugging men at emotional Sept 11 memorials and related events.

Rudy Giuiliani, not usually a touchy-feely kind of guy, seemed to hug everyone within reach when he officiated at these tragic gatherings last year as mayor. Still, the rampant hugging clearly pre-dates September 11.

But this unfortunate trend started more recently than you may think.

When Paul Weyrich, first came to Washington in 1967 to work for Colorado Senator Gordon Allot, hugging was confined to a group of Southern senators, he recalls. "Everybody else was very reserved and they didn't do that."

The unofficial no touching policy continued throughout the Reagan and Bush administrations, recalls Weyrich, now president of the Free Congress Foundation. "We did not hug."

Enter Bubba. Hugs galore.

Robert Reich, the diminutive intellectual giant of the Clinton administration, cites the serial hugging in his memoir, Locked in the Cabinet. Like so many other Clintonesque obsessions, such as "diversity," promiscuous hugging soon infested GOP and conservative circles. Today, even at conservative events Weyrich is besieged with huggers. When the hands go out he wants to "hide," Weyrich says.

So do I. Hugs should be reserved for special occasions. I generally hug another man about every two or three years; the hugs are a function of circumstances, not goals, timetables or quotas. In 1992, I hugged my precious friend Jorden from summer camp at his wedding.

The next hug was in 1995, just days before I left Washington for a new job in New York City. The hug was initiated by my journalism mentor. He hugged to express delight because I had landed a position with a major paper. Then, another hug in 1997 for a college friend at his wedding.

All these guys I've seen quite a few times then since then. We shook hands.

Maybe this is a family trait. We male Gahrs are neither huggers nor hugees.

Keep your hands off us, please.

In 1999, my sister brought her then-boyfriend to a family dinner so he could officially meet the folks. Quite the 90s guy, he ended the evening by hugging my father. Big mistake. My father grew up admiring the likes of John Wayne, not Alan Alda. He recoiled with shock and disgust.

Flash forward one year: boyfriend has just become brother-in-law.

At the wedding I delighted the guests with a sweet and funny speech welcoming into the family. Afterwards, we hugged, in plain view of the guests, the videographer and my father. "You see, he didn't hug me, "my father said with uncharacteristic smugness. Still, the embrace was appropriate for the moment.

Such moments should be few and far between.

Unfortunately, they are not. Even for the manliest of men boxers, whose only previous association with hugging may be head holds.

- In the 1970s, they fought like men. At their next meeting, Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier plan to hug like women.

Until last year, Joe Frazier had never quite forgiven Ali for Borking him outside the ring. On the 30th anniversary of their 1971 fight at Madison Square garden, however, Frazier suggested the two heavyweight giants publicly bury the hatchet--with a hug. Ali welcomed the olive branch.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee and now hug like a lady?

The champ told the New York Times that he had called Frazier an Uncle Tom and even compared him to a gorilla in order to promote their fights. It was nothing personal. But he was sorry. So far, so good. Alas, the champ then agreed to hug his former antagonist.

Meanwhile, my friend Jorden from summer camp of the groovy yet not huggin 1970s era, insists that we hug at our planned re-union this August.

No way. It's not a special event like a wedding. Except for chance encounters on the streets of New York City in 1996 and early 1998, we haven't really seen each other since 1993 when he showed me the new house he and his wife had recently bought on his native Long Island.

Our friendship is such that despite all the years that have passed it seems like only yesterday since we last saw each other in person. (Don't mistake that sentiment for anything particularly uplifting. It means in part that our warped and disturbed sense of humor has remained virtually unchanged since our summers together at Camp Woodcliff in the 1970s.)

In any event that's my mindset regarding my determination to abstain from any hugging.

But Jorden remains adamant, somewhat teasingly, as, given societal trends its doubtful that he's male hug depleted.

Still, he won't back down.

What to do? What to do?

Should I send the jilted Michael Moore to provide a surrogate hug? Or would even that concession to societal trends embolden the huggies? Perhaps its best to just say no, and insist that gentlemen always keep their hugs to themselves.

Evan Gahr EvanGahr@aol.com has written for the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Washington Jewish Week and many other publications.