Displaying the most recent of 92136 posts written by

Ruth King

Betrayal: Lipstadt’s silence about the Biden administration’s failure on antisemitism Jonathan Tobin

https://www.jns.org/betrayal-lipstadts-silence-about-campus-jew-hatred-under-the-biden-administration/?utm_campaign=Daily%20Syndicate%20Emails&utm_medium=email&_

It turns out that what the country needed most was an antisemitism envoy to the United States and not to the rest of the world. And when the plague of Jew-hatred surged in the streets of American cities and on college campuses, what was also needed was for that envoy not to stand by in silence while the administration she served chose to be neutral about the issue for partisan reasons.

Sadly, that failure will constitute a major part of the legacy of Deborah Lipstadt.

Lipstadt is an eminent Jewish historian whose groundbreaking work on Holocaust denial earned her acclaim in her field. It also led to an important court case in Great Britain where Holocaust denier David Irving unsuccessfully sued her for libel, an ordeal that not only inspired her own book on the subject but also the 2015 movie “Denial” (she was portrayed by Jewish actress Rachel Weisz).

She deserves to be remembered for her scholarship and for writing some excellent books like her 1985 Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust, 1933–1945 and the 1993 Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, as well as the 2005 History on Trial: My Day in Court With a Holocaust Denier.

Her recent acknowledgment of the failure of the Biden administration to adequately respond to the explosion of antisemitism under her watch, however, should not be overlooked.

Denouncing Columbia

It was just one sentence in an article she recently wrote in The Free Press that was devoted to explaining why she refused to consider an offer to teach at Columbia University. But in so doing, she buried what should have been the lead.

Hamas prisoner deal to be paid in future dead, warns terror victims’ group head David Isaac

https://www.jns.org/hamas-prisoner-deal-to-be-paid-in-future-dead-warns-terror-victims-group-head/

IDF Lt. Col. (res.) Meir Indor has waged an uphill battle against mass terrorist releases by Israel since 1986, when he founded the Almagor Terror Victims Association.

His latest effort was against the current deal, which saw some 1,900 terrorists, including hardened killers and 274 serving life sentences, released in exchange for 33 Israelis, some of whom were no longer alive.

Indor knows something about fighting terrorism. As an IDF soldier, he was a member of the first unit of mista’arvim, Israeli combat teams that disguise themselves as Arabs to operate undercover within Palestinian populations.

As a civilian, he became an activist in the wake of the Jibril Agreement, a prisoner exchange deal that took place on May 21, 1985. That deal marked the first mass prisoner release by Israel, in which 1,150 security prisoners were exchanged for three Israelis captured during the First Lebanon War.

Those terrorists would become the leaders of the First Intifada, which broke out less than three years later.

JNS spoke with Indor about the dangers of Israel’s approach to hostage agreements.

JNS: How many terrorists who have been released from Israeli jails return to terrorism?

Indor: We don’t have an organized tracking system. The Almagor Terror Victims Association is a voluntary body. Our dream is to establish a research division. But we occasionally receive different numbers from security agencies. There is a report that approximately 80% of released terrorists return to carry out more terror.

Pro-Terror Professors Targeted in Freedom Center’s Fall Campus Campaign Exposing the “Hamas Loyalists” who are teaching terror on our campuses. by Sara Dogan

https://www.frontpagemag.com/pro-terror-professors-targeted-in-freedom-centers-fall-campus-campaign/

Over the past year, headlines in mainstream publications and the legacy media have finally validated what supporters of the Freedom Center have long known—American campuses are awash in a crisis of Jew hatred and Hamas fetishism. From Columbia to UCLA, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison to the University of Texas-Austin, last spring the public witnessed the hostile takeover of campuses by supporters of the genocidal Hamas regime.

Shouting such genocidal slogans as “Globalize the Intifada” and “From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free” student protestors—aided by radical faculty members and coddled by university administrators—proudly established and defended zones that were effectively declared Judenrein—no-go zones for Zionists and supporters of the world’s only Jewish state.

Students belonging to Muslim Brotherhood-linked campus organizations including the Muslim Students Association and Students for Justice in Palestine celebrated Hamas’s barbaric October 7 massacre of innocent Israeli Jews and did not shy away from encouraging more bloodshed.

In every aspect of these macabre exhortations for Jewish genocide, these students were encouraged and led by university faculty members, in many cases highly celebrated tenured professors in the world of academia, who have gleefully championed the slaughter, mutilation, and rape of innocents as justified revenge on Israeli “colonizers.”

Determined to expose these Hamas apparatchiks, the Freedom Center published a lengthy and detailed report naming the ten most extreme pro-terror professors as “Hamas Loyalists” and documenting their statements and actions in support of the terrorist regime.

Michael Lachanski, Jonah Davids A Simple Tax-Code Change Would Protect Academic Freedom Donors want their gifts to universities to fund exceptional scholars, not bloated bureaucracies and ideological initiatives.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/tax-code-change-university-donations-scholars-academic-freedom

Every year, donors give billions of dollars to American colleges and universities. Some give for social or sentimental reasons, but most do so because they want to aid exceptional students, faculty, and research. Yet, far too often, these donations disappear into administrative costs and ideological projects that do little to advance real scholarship. At the same time, scholars who challenge the consensus within their fields, or simply hold opinions unpopular with their colleagues, frequently find themselves without support from their department or institution.

It doesn’t have to be this way. A simple change to the tax code—making direct payments to faculty and graduate students tax-deductible, just like donations to universities—could strengthen scholarship, revitalize independent inquiry, and ensure that donors can directly support the people who matter most to our intellectual future.

The practice of institutional control over scholarly funding emerged at a time when direct payments were hard to process, and universities could be trusted to steward academic funding. Neither of these conditions holds today. Consider Amy Wax, a tenured University of Pennsylvania professor who was suspended last September for controversial remarks about race and immigration. Those who admired her teaching and scholarship, with its uncommon conservative perspective, would typically donate to Penn’s Law School, where she teaches. But this same law school has now withdrawn Wax’s research funds, undermined her tenure protections, and constrained her academic freedom. Donations to Penn’s Law School and the University of Pennsylvania were diverted, at least partially, towards the undermining of Wax’s academic freedom via a dubious, ideologically motivated disciplinary process. In this manner, universities can use institutional donations to subvert the viewpoint diversity that donors hope to foster.

Sally Satel Medical Schools’ Botched Pass-Fail Experiment The early results of the United States Medical Licensing Exam’s new grading process are worrisome.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/united-states-medical-licensing-exam-pass-fail-grading

Medical schools and institutions are now among the zealous champions of progressive ideology. Within days of George Floyd’s death in May 2020, the Association of American Medical Colleges demanded that the nation’s medical schools “employ anti-racist and unconscious bias training.” The following year, the American Medical Association called on physicians to “dismantle white supremacy, racism, and other forms of exclusion and structured oppression.” But efforts to enhance diversity among the medical student body—too often by compromising standards of excellence—have long been in place at America’s medical schools, from affirmative action policies to pass-fail grading of courses and clinical rotations.

In a recent Journal of the American Medical Association commentary, however, four Stanford University-affiliated scholars pushed back on these changes—a ripple that suggests a potential academic shift. In their essay, Drs. James Agolia, David Spain, and Jeff Choi, and medical student Allen Green, denounce the “diminishing objectivity” of the residency-admissions process. “We believe that some objective standards are necessary,” they write, “for programs to identify candidates who best fit their program in a fair, consistent, transparent, and efficient fashion.”

Specifically, the authors lament that the United States Medical Licensing Exam made its initial test pass-fail. The USMLE, which all would-be doctors take, is administered in three parts. Step 1 is taken after the second year in medical school to test pre-clinical medical knowledge; Step 2 is taken after the fourth or final year to assess clinical knowledge; and Step 3 is taken after the first year of residency to evaluate clinical decision-making.

The change was several years in the making. The exam’s co-sponsors, the National Board of Medical Examiners and the Federation of State Medical Boards, first recommended making Step 1 pass-fail in 2019. Other groups, including the AMA and AAMC, collaborated in developing the proposal, which was eventually adopted in 2022.

The death rattle of ‘the Resistance’ The Democratic ‘revolt’ against Trump’s Congress speech was next-level cringe. Brendan O’Neill

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/03/05/the-death-rattle-of-the-resistance/

Remember when the phrase ‘the Resistance’ would conjure up visions of sexy French youths in berets battling actual Nazis? Now all it brings to mind is ageing dullards in pink suits holding up signs saying ‘This is not normal’ while sporting the most turbo-smug look on their faces. As US president Donald Trump spoke to a joint session of Congress last night, ‘across the aisle the Resistance was stirring’, gushed the Guardian’s DC reporter. His piece was illustrated with a pic of some congresswoman in pearls and a balding Democrat looking aghast as Trump talked. Seriously, if this is ‘the Resistance’, the world’s tyrants can rest easy.

Yesterday’s ‘Democrat fightback’ and ‘resistance to Trump’s rhetoric’ – journalists are literally calling it that – was next-level cringe. It occurred during Trump’s 100-minute speech, the longest Congress talk in 60 years. As Trump bashed Joe Biden and bigged up Elon Musk, the Dems came over all soixante-huitard. Fury coursed through their ranks. Then the revolt started. The Squad’s Rashida Tlaib held up a scrawled sign saying ‘That’s a lie!’. Dem representative Al Green ‘shook his cane and pointed his finger’ and cried ‘You have no mandate’ to cut Medicaid. How the regime must have quaked at the sight of this revolution!

The way some hacks are talking about this tantrum masquerading as a protest you’d think it was a modern-day storming of the Bastille. The Dems’ ‘stirring’ acts of rebellion will have ‘given hope to the Resistance’ and sent a message to ‘the world’, said the Guardian. Nurse! Even leftists who’ve been disappointed with the Dem establishment seemed to get a moral kick from this political pantomime. So far, the ‘resistance’ to the Trumpist tyranny has been ‘splintered’, but now we know it’s ‘getting better’, fawned Vox. Perhaps, it said, we’ll soon see the ‘aggressive resistance’ we really need.

Can these people hear themselves? Overpaid politicians holding up mass-produced black placards with hackneyed complaints like ‘False’ and ‘Liar’ are not ‘the Resistance’ – they’re the establishment cosplaying as campus radicals for likes and headlines. In one especially squirming scene, some Dems ‘removed their outer business wear’ to reveal black t-shirts with the word ‘RESIST’ in ‘bold white letters’.

Social Security Administration Identifies $800M in Savings for Fiscal Year 2025 By Eric Lendrum

https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/05/social-security-administration-identifies-800m-in-savings-for-fiscal-year-2025/

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has managed to identify at least $800 million in cost savings for the agency for the fiscal year 2025.

As the Washington Examiner reports, many of the savings have come from the reevaluation of contracts and grants, as well as payroll, information technology, changes to travel policy, consolidating office space, and switching from printed paper to electronic forms.

“For too long, SSA has operated on autopilot,” said Acting SSA Commissioner Lee Dudek in a statement. “We have spent billions annually doing the same things the same way, leading to bureaucratic stagnation, inefficiency, and a lack of meaningful service improvements. It is time to change just that.”

The main source of savings was a hiring freeze on SSA Disability Determination Services and a reduction in overtime pay, which accounted for $550 million. Another $150 million was saved by cancelling non-essential contracts in the agency’s Information Technology (IT) systems. The agency saved $15 million in canceled contracts and another $15 million in canceled grants.

Five Ukrainian Fables Trump pressured NATO, armed Ukraine, and imposed tough policies on Russia, while Europe postures without action—leaving real deterrence to the U.S. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/06/five-ukrainian-fables/

Fable One: Donald Trump Is Appeasing Russia?

Who wiped out the Wagner group in Syria? Who sold offensive weapons to Ukraine first? Who warned Germany not to become dependent on the Russian Nord Stream II deal?

Who withdrew from an unfair missile deal with the Russians? Who cajoled and berated NATO members to meet their military investment promises made following the 2014 invasion of Ukraine?

In contrast, who originally conceived a Russian “reset” in 2009? Who publicly virtue-signaled pushing the red “reset” button in Geneva with the current Russian Minister Sergey Lavrov?

Which ex-European leader got a million euros a year working for Russian energy companies?

Of the last four presidents, under whose watch did Putin not invade another country?

Which American president, in hot-mic style, offered to (and did) dismantle US-Eastern Europe missile defense plans in exchange for temporary Putin quietude (“space”) to aid his 2012 reelection?

Fable Two: A Trade War?

Donald Trump is not wildly slapping tariffs on Europeans.

He is simply saying that 1945 is now 80 years past and that the asymmetrical tariffs that Europe imposes on U.S. imports should be corrected. The massive trade surpluses Europe accumulates each year should give way to fairer, more balanced trade.

If Europe does not want tariffs, then simply calibrate its own tariffs on what America places on European imported goods, and work down jointly to zero tariffs on both sides.

Fable Three: America Is Bullying Europe?

The U.S. does not actively interfere in European elections and politics.

Rebuilding Gaza is Pointless Unless Hamas is Eradicated by Khaled Abu Toameh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21453/rebuilding-gaza

The establishment of a new government in the Gaza Strip while Hamas maintains its military capabilities there unfortunately will not work. Hamas’s presence during reconstruction will only result in the emergence of the Lebanon model: Hezbollah, another Iranian proxy terror group, simply created a terrorist state-within-a-state.

Worse, having a new government that would oversee reconstruction and humanitarian efforts in the Gaza Strip while Hamas is still there would exempt the Palestinian terrorist group from its responsibilities towards Gaza’s residents. The new government would not be able to stop Hamas from rearming, regrouping, and preparing more attacks against Israel — as Hamas has unremittingly vowed to do.

The new government would be busy rebuilding homes and skyscrapers and delivering humanitarian aid, while Hamas and the other terror groups would have all the time in the world to rebuild tunnels and manufacture weapons.

Hamas never cared about the well-being of the Palestinians under its rule in the Gaza Strip. The terrorist group could have built schools, universities, and hospitals. Instead, it chose to invest millions of dollars in building a vast network of tunnels to attack Israel, smuggle and hide weapons, and torture Israeli hostages.

The reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and the resumption of humanitarian aid should be conditioned on the removal of Hamas from power and disarming of all of Gaza’s terror groups.

Hamas should be completely excluded from any plan to rebuild the Gaza Strip because all it cares about is pursuing its Jihad (holy war) to destroy Israel and murder as many Jews as possible.

As Arab and Western leaders continue to discuss plans to rebuild the Gaza Strip, the ran-backed Palestinian terrorist group Hamas has again rejected laying down its weapons.

For Hamas, preserving its weapons and military wing, Izz a-Din al-Qassam, is apparently more important than the reconstruction of thousands of homes and buildings destroyed during the Hamas-Israel war, which erupted after the terrorist group’s October 7, 2023, bloodthirsty attack on Israel.

Victor Davis Hanson: Can Trump Revolutionize America?

https://www.thefp.com/p/victor-davis-hanson-can-trump-reset

 https://newcriterion.com/article/maga-agonistes/\

The Trumpian agenda to “Make America Great Again” emerged during the 2015–16 campaign and ensured Donald Trump’s nomination and eventual victory over Hillary Clinton. This counterrevolutionary movement reflected the public’s displeasure with both the Obama administration’s hard swing to the left and the doctrinaire, anemic Republican reaction to it.

Although only partially implemented during Trump’s first term, MAGA policies nevertheless marked a break from many past Republican orthodoxies, especially in their signature skepticism concerning the goal of nation-building abroad and the so-called endless wars, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, that tended to follow. But like all counterrevolutions, there were intrinsic challenges in the transition from simply opposing the status quo to actually ending it.

There was a promising start during Trump’s first administration. Corporate interest in a porous border to ensure inexpensive labor was ignored; immigration was deterred or restricted to legal channels, and the border was largely secured. Deregulation and tax cuts, rather than deficit reduction, were prioritized. Selective tariffs were no longer deemed apostasies from the free market, but acceptable and indeed useful levers to enforce reciprocity in foreign trade. Costly middle-class entitlements were pronounced sacrosanct. Social Security and Medicare were declared immune from cost-cutting and privatization.

This “action plan to Make America Great Again” went hand in hand with an effort to transform the Republican Party. What had once been routinely caricatured as a wealthy club of elites was reinvented by Trump as a working-class populist movement. Racial chauvinism and tribalism were rejected. Race was to be seen as incidental to shared class concerns—notably, reining in the excesses of a progressive, identity politics–obsessed bicoastal elite. Athletes who in 2020 had bent a knee to express outrage at “systemic” racism were in 2024 celebrating their scores by emulating Trump’s signature dance moves.

Despite intense resistance from the media, the Democratic Party, and the cultural left, the first Trump term enjoyed success in implementing many of these agendas. After losing the 2020 election—in which nearly 70 percent of voters in key swing states voted by mail-in ballot—Trump left office without a major war on his watch. He had overseen a period with 1.9 percent annualized inflation, low interest rates, steady economic growth and, finally, after constant battles and controversy, a secure border with little illegal immigration.

Yet during the succeeding four-year Biden interregnum, the world became far more chaotic and dangerous, both at home and abroad. Biden’s general agenda was to reverse by executive order almost every policy that Trump had implemented. And while Trump was successfully reelected in 2024 after reminding voters that they had been far better off under the MAGA agenda than during Biden’s subsequent shambolic tenure, the changed conditions in 2024 will also make implementing that agenda even more difficult than after Trump’s first victory.

Trump has now inherited an almost bankrupt country. The ratio of debt to annual GDP has reached a record high of nearly 125 percent—exceeding the worst years of World War II. The nation remains sharply divided over the southern border. Trump’s own base demands that he address an estimated 12 million additional unvetted illegal aliens; diversity, equity, and inclusion mandates and racial quotas; and an array of enemies abroad who are no longer deterred by or content with the global status quo. The eight-year Obama revolution, in retrospect, did not change American institutions and policies nearly as much as the more radical four-year Biden tenure. And so often, when drastic remedies are proposed, their implementation may appear to the inured public—at least initially—as a cure worse than the disease.