Of all the conservatives who went Never Trumper, Jennifer Rubin has done more to make her entire past history into a mockery of sham than anyone.

And that includes the entire stable of Never Trumpers at the Washington Post.

Formerly, pro-Israel, Rubin kissed all that goodbye to fit in with the Democrats. For a while, conservative Twitter could score easy points by comparing Rubin’s old views to her new views. 

But now Rubin has taken an even lower step into the DNC sewer by defending an antisemite.

At issue is Kristen Clarke, a Biden DOJ civil rights nominee with an ugly antisemitic history. Since the nomination, the Democrat media has flooded the zone with spin so it’s worth going back to the time and place when this happened.

Last week, Wellesley Professor Tony Martin spoke at Harvard at the invitation of the Black Students Association (BSA). Martin, the author of an anti-Semitic tract entitled The Jewish Onslaught, used his Harvard forum to denounce the Jewish tradition and the Jewish people for holding a “monopoly” on centuries-worth of the notion of divinely ordained African inferiority. Repeating his belief that the “so-called Sages” of the Babylonian Talmud were the earliest racists of recorded history, Martin urged Harvard students to consider The Bell Curve, a controversial new book linking race and intelligence, as only the latest manifestation of a racist tradition spawned by Jews.

Sitting in Boylston Auditorium, listening to my heritage be defamed and lied about, my thoughts turned away from the anti-Semite at the lectern and to the young woman who had introduced him. In fact, immediately after the introduction, Martin lavished praise on Kristen M. Clarke ’97, the BSA president, who, he said, had courageously invited him “in the face of enormous pressure from the forces of reaction.”

Jennifer Rubin flails, as usual, in one of her four-a-day columns, and relies on assorted useful idiots willing to give Clarke a retroactive pass. Rubin tries to avoid the antisemitism question as much as possible.

Tony Martin, a Black Wellesley College professor, offered to come speak at Harvard. Clarke, not aware he had recently written an anti-Semitic book, accepted the invitation as president of the Black Students Association… I also spoke to former Harvard student Michael Goldenpine, a Hillel student leader who ran an interfaith committee at the time and was a representative to the minority student alliance. He said the Black Students Association did not go looking for a controversial speaker to debunk “The Bell Curve.” He recalled, “Tony Martin invited himself.” 

Rubin claims that Clarke was not aware of Martin’s views. The Harvard Crimson article from the time disproves that.

Members of both the Black Students Association (BSA) and the Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel are seriously assessing the damage done to their relationship after a speech on Wednesday night by a Wellesley professor who is widely criticized as being anti-Semitic.

The event, sponsored by the BSA, was entitled The Bell Curve and Other Issues of Racism,” but Wellesley Professor of Africana Studies Anthony Martin devoted much of his hour-long address to what he alleged was a Jewish “tradition” of persecuting Blacks.

Martin is the author of the 1993 book The Jewish Onslaught, which alleges a pattern of Jewish racism against Blacks…

BSA President Kristen M. Clarke defended the choice after the speech Wednesday.

“Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact,” she said.

Clarke’s defense of Martin came after his antisemitic talk. 

This is actually the second editorial Rubin scribbled in defense of Clarke. Her previous one quoted Sheila Katz, the head of the National Council of Jewish Women, an anti-Israel group which has made it clear that it will work together with anti-Israel figures.

That featured even worse flailing from Rubin as she whined that, “Republicans have been throwing fits about “cancel culture” and disinviting controversial speakers on campus…. Are we’re supposed to believe they care one whit about antisemitism?”

Are we supposed to believe that Rubin cares?

Then Rubin insists that, “Clearly, Republicans’ opposition to her is not about some newfound concern about antisemitism. It’s about making a woman of color, whose qualifications are beyond question, into a scary, radical figure.”

Rubin defends an antisemite by accusing Republicans of racism.