An agreement was possible here

Two Jews, three opinions. That sounds like a bad Mel Brooks joke, but it is exactly what the bipartisan Commission on Civil Rights testimony on campus antisemitism sounded like this month. The Jewish world appears genuinely divided on whether the federal government should take real, muscular action to protect Jewish students. I find that strange, bordering on surreal. The United States has been the greatest protector of the Jewish people in all recorded history. America welcomed refugees after pogroms and the Holocaust, stood with Israel when much of the world wouldn’t, and built the freest, safest diaspora community Jews have ever known. Yet a vocal segment of the community is seized by the fear that if President Donald Trump does anything in the name of stopping antisemitism (defunding universities that tolerate harassment, enforcing Title VI the way we enforce it for every other protected class), that will produce more antisemites. I’m sympathetic to Jewish nail-biting. I also have “chai” anxiety about politicos turning Jews into partisan footballs. But here, that fear is dangerously misplaced. The “not in our name” movement rests on two flawed assumptions. The first is that antisemitism is something we can manage or de-escalate through our own behavior. The second is that the hatred is ultimately about something we did. Neither is true. Antisemitism is an ancient, irrational hatred. It has survived every attempt at assimilation, every political realignment, every change in Jewish behavior. Jew hatred has been dressed up as religious duty, economic resentment, racial pseudoscience, and now as anti-Zionism. At bottom it is about who we are. We are a people who introduced monotheism to a pagan world, who gave the West its moral grammar, and who somehow produced outsized contributions in every field despite millennia of exile and massacre. Jew hatred isn’t a rational response to Israeli policy or campus activism or Jewish privilege. It’s a nasty virus that mutates but never dies. Jew hatred won’t disappear no matter what we do or who is in the White House. But university administrators who turned blind eyes toward anti-Jewish crimes respond to enforcement and career-ending consequences. Pretending Jews can stop antisemitism by rejecting help from the wrong president is pure mishegas. Think of the guy in the classic Jewish flood parable who waves off every rescuer, yelling, “Hashem will save me!” only to drown, wondering why no miracle showed up. (In Heaven, G-d shrugs, “I sent you three boats!”) The data from the antisemitism hearing in Congress itself proved the point. The surge in incidents didn’t begin with Trump’s second term. It exploded after Oct. 7, 2023, under the previous administration, while many universities and federal offices dithered, or worse. The students who testified are sincere and brave for speaking up. Their concern that aggressive federal action will politicize Jewish suffering and turn it into a pretext for other agendas is understandable. But I’m twice their age and that’s old enough to know, as the kids say, haters gonna hate. Worse, when even basic enforcement of existing civil-rights law is framed as a partisan assault, the antisemites win twice: once by attacking Jews, and again by making Jews afraid to accept defense. So where do we go from here? Stop treating protection as a partisan luxury. Equal enforcement of the law isn’t a favor to Jews or to Trump. It’s the bare minimum America owes every citizen. Demand civil rights for everyone, including ourselves.  The encampments are largely gone, and administrators are suddenly paying attention because universal rules are finally being applied without apology. Yes, we should watch for overreach and defend free speech. But the solution isn’t paralysis or waiting for the right president. It’s consistent, principle-driven action no matter who sits in the White House. In the end, Jews don’t get to pick and choose which forms of bigotry deserve zero tolerance. We don’t tell the fire department “not if that guy is driving the truck.” History has been brutally clear on what happens when we wave off the lifeboats. Clarity about who we are is what has always saved the Jewish people.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post 2 Jews, 3 Opinions on Campus Antisemitism appeared first on The Daily Signal.

REUTERS–The United States and Israel launched the most ambitious attack on Iran in decades on Saturday, and Israel said Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had been killed in the operation. Khamenei’s body has been found, a senior Israeli official told Reuters. Iran called the strikes unprovoked and illegal and responded with missiles fired at Israel and at least seven other countries, including Gulf states that host U.S. bases. President Donald Trump, who made the biggest foreign-policy gamble of his presidency after campaigning for reelection as a “peace president”, said the strikes were aimed at ending the threat from a country that has threatened the U.S. for decades and ensuring Iran could not develop a nuclear weapon. Trump called on Iranian security forces to lay down their weapons and invited Iranians to topple their government once the bombing ended. In a video posted overnight on social media, he also warned there could be U.S. casualties, although several hours later the Department of Defense said it had no reports of American deaths or injuries.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested the strikes had killed Khamenei, and called on Iranians to “take to the streets and finish the job.” There were many signs indicating Khamenei “is no longer”, Netanyahu said. He said Khamenei’s compound had been destroyed, and Revolutionary Guard commanders and senior nuclear officials had been destroyed. Iranian media had said Khamenei’s son-in-law and daughter-in-law were killed in the strikes. Originally published by Reuters The post Iranian Leader Khamenei Killed in Strikes, Israel Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Netanyahu: 'Many Signs' We Got Khamenei

ABC chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl joined Saturday’s Good Morning America to discuss any possible political fallout from President Trump’s decision to attack Iran. Despite polling showing Republicans broadly supportive of the idea before Saturday, Karl suggested there is “potential for significant blowback” from the MAGA base. Karl reported how he had “heard from one of Trump's key supporters in his MAGA movement, Tucker Carlson. I had asked him this morning what he made, and several other prominent supporters of the president, what he made of this, and this is what Tucker Carlson told me of the president's decision to attack Iran.”   ABC's Jonathan Karl tries to suggest Trump's political coalition may break now that he's bombing Iran, "Keep in mind, Tucker Carlson is a prominent supporter of Donald Trump, spoke at his convention, was at the White House as recently as last week, and Tucker Carlson told me it… pic.twitter.com/ohvfLnyXmW — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 28, 2026   Trying to build up Carlson’s credentials, Karl continued, “Keep in mind, Tucker Carlson is a prominent supporter of Donald Trump, spoke at his convention, was at the White House as recently as last week, and Tucker Carlson told me it is 'absolutely disgusting and evil.' So, I think that there is the potential for significant blowback from some of the president's strongest supporters for what's just happened.” Carlson’s Middle East beliefs are an outlier among Republicans. Israel joined the U.S. in launching combat operations against Iran and 70 percent of Republicans still hold more sympathy for Israel versus only 13 percent for the Palestinians. Carlson would be in the 13 percent. Carlson has also suggested Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a stabilizing event for the Middle East. Before the strikes, 57 percent of Republicans favored using the military to try to force regime change compared to only 18 percent opposed. Additionally, 71 percent of Republicans labeled Iran an enemy, while an additional 18 percent labeled Tehran “not friendly, but not enemies.” That would suggest that even conservatives who are skeptical or opposed to the bombing are not feeling sorry for the regime and any concerns are purely practical and not the moral “absolutely disgusting and evil” indignation Karl cited Carlson as having. Here is a transcript for the February 28 show: ABC Good Morning America 2/28/2026 7:34 AM ET JONATHAN KARL: Just moments ago I heard from one of Trump's key supporters in his MAGA movement, Tucker Carlson. I had asked him this morning what he made, and several other prominent supporters of the president, what he made of this, and this is what Tucker Carlson told me of the president's decision to attack Iran. Keep in mind, Tucker Carlson is a prominent supporter of Donald Trump, spoke at his convention, was at the White House as recently as last week, and Tucker Carlson told me it is “absolutely disgusting and evil.” So, I think that there is the potential for significant blowback from some of the president's strongest supporters for what's just happened.

The combined political and liberal media counteroffensive against President Trump was underway within hours of the Iran strike. As socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) launched a frontal assault on Trump’s decision — declaring the military action “absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment” — the New York Times provided covering fire, unleashing a barrage of skepticism about the justification for the strikes. Reacting to the joint U.S.–Israeli operation, AOC blasted the president’s move as “a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers,” accusing him of “impulsively risk[ing] launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.” (See her statement here.) Impeachment talk. On Day One of active combat operations. The New York Times likewise unleashed a hail of skepticism. In its live coverage of the unfolding strikes, the paper wrote that Trump “made little effort to argue that any immediate threat had prompted the latest U.S. and Israeli strikes.” It highlighted intelligence assessments indicating that Iran had not made a decision to pursue an intercontinental ballistic missile and noted that although Trump reiterated that Iran could never be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons, he did not attempt to show that Tehran was closer to producing one. (New York Times live coverage) Rather than emphasizing deterrence or strategic objectives, the nation’s most influential liberal newspaper concentrated on what it suggested were weaknesses in the administration’s case. The result was a striking one-two punch: impeachment demands from a leading progressive lawmaker paired with immediate media skepticism about the operation’s legitimacy. With American forces engaged overseas, the political and media barrage began at home within hours — unrestrained even as service members moved into harm’s way. There were other Times updates championing the Left (without labeling them as such):  Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York called the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran a “catastrophic escalation in an illegal war of aggression.” In a strongly worded post on X, the mayor said: “Americans do not want this. They do not want another war in pursuit of regime change.” ...Several dozen protests opposing the U.S.-led strikes in Iran are planned in cities across the United States as part of a national day of action today. The sponsors of the demonstrations, a coalition of organizations, including [radical-left] Answer Coalition, a group that opposes war and racism, said they were protesting the Trump administration’s “illegal attack” on the country. But they did find a "right-wing firebrand," of course:  The U.S. Agency for Global Media said it had “significantly expanded” Voice of America’s Persian-language service in recent months and was broadcasting Trump’s speech announcing today’s attack “to the brave people of Iran across every available platform, including satellite.” The agency’s head, Kari Lake, the right-wing firebrand who has overseen enormous cuts to U.S.-funded media abroad, posted on X: “Iran will be FREE.”

A video surfaced recently of a speaker at a Florida Education Association press conference encouraging students to walk out of school to protest federal law enforcement. Union officials have since attempted to distance themselves from the remarks, but the episode should not come as a surprise.The FEA’s parent organization, the National Education Association, recently adopted a resolution at its annual conference explicitly supporting efforts to help students organize similar protests.A handful of activists control workplace representation for thousands of employees who never asked for it.The walkout controversy reveals a much deeper problem: teachers' unions in Florida have abandoned their mission of representing workers and have become political organizations that put ideology ahead of students and the teachers they claim to represent.What happens when a union is forced to hold a recertification election is even more revealing. Only five of the 125 union recertification votes held for employees in Florida’s K-12 schools between March 2025 and January 2026 secured the support of more than 50% of the vote. Under current law, unions that did not meet this standard won recertification anyway. Even when a majority of the workforce declined to participate, the outcome still conferred exclusive bargaining authority.For instance, there are 2,034 instructional personnel eligible for the union in Santa Rosa County. Only 364, less than 18% of their total eligible membership, actually voted to recertify the union as the bargaining authority. In Gadsden County, it’s even worse, with only 15% of the 293 eligible instructional employees choosing to vote to recertify the union. And in Seminole County, 1,098 votes out of 4,407 possible, less than 25%, secured the union’s recertification.The same trend is occurring at universities across Florida. At the University of South Florida, the United Faculty of Florida secured exclusive bargaining authority over 2,169 employees. How many voted for the union? Forty-one. That's less than 2% of the workforce. At Florida A&M University, three votes out of 202 eligible voters certified a union to represent all graduate assistants.This is a system in which a handful of activists control workplace representation for thousands of employees who never asked for it.Here's what makes this so consequential: Certified unions in Florida don't just represent their members. They exercise "exclusive representation" and have sole legal authority to negotiate for every employee in the bargaining unit, whether those employees want union representation or not.Workers who think their union isn't serving their interests can't negotiate directly with their employer. State law prohibits it. The union speaks for everyone, even if almost no one voted for the union.If a union gets exclusive authority of a bargaining unit, it should be chosen by at least 50% of the employees. That's the principle behind House Bill 995 and Senate Bill 1296, now moving through the Florida legislature.The bills require unions to secure support from a majority of all eligible employees, not just those who happen to vote. Unions that maintain at least 60% dues-paying membership get automatically recertified. Those below that threshold would face an election to prove they represent the workers they claim to speak for.Critics say this sets the bar too high. But consider what these unions control: negotiations over pay, benefits, working conditions, and grievance procedures. They file lawsuits in employees' names. They consume taxpayer resources through collective bargaining and, in some cases, paid leave for union activities unrelated to contract negotiations.Given that level of authority, shouldn't we require genuine support from the people being governed?The legislation includes other common-sense reforms. Right now, public employees can take paid time off for union activities that have nothing to do with collective bargaining — political campaigns, fundraising, lobbying. The proposed bills preserve paid leave for legitimate work like contract negotiations and grievances but require unpaid leave for political activities. Employees could still voluntarily pool their time off for colleagues doing union work. This protects taxpayers while preserving employees' organizing rights.RELATED: My school’s AI challenge raised a scary question: What do students need me for? Andrei Apoev/Getty ImagesSome will say these reforms are anti-union. They're not. They're pro-worker and pro-accountability. Unions with broad support have nothing to fear — they'll be automatically recertified. Only unions that have lost the confidence of the workers they represent will face scrutiny.The recent student walkouts show what happens when unions lose their way. Instead of focusing on teacher pay, classroom resources, or working conditions, the FEA pushed a partisan political protest that could saddle students with disciplinary consequences on their permanent records.Teachers and families deserve better. They deserve unions that focus on delivering a world-class education, not unions that exploit their positions to advance political agendas with almost no accountability.These bills restore democratic accountability to workplace representation. When a union speaks for Florida's teachers and public employees, it should do so with legitimate support, not on the strength of three votes from a bargaining unit of 200.That's not asking too much. It should be the minimum standard for any organization claiming to represent working Floridians.Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearEducation and made available via RealClearWire.

This is thuggish behavior.

Jonathan Turley Reality Checks Dems Claiming Trump Launched Illegal, Unconstitutional Strikes on Iran

Poor Bill Kristol: Watching Trump Topple Dictators He's Fantasized About for Decades