Why political violence is rising, armed forces must be exclusive and other commentary

The killing of Brian Thompson follows years of assassination attempts, political riots, intimidating protests and bomb threats, muses Charles Fain Lehman at The Free Press.Yet it’s not really “new.

The late 1960s and early 1970s were wracked by political violence.” But then “political violence became almost unimaginable.What changed? We stopped justifying” it.

Sixties-style violence “was ended by the National Guard and the FBI’s targeting of far-left groups,” which shows it can “be ended by something other than addressing so-called root causes through radical social change.” That is, by rejecting the idea “that violence was merely the effect of structural injustice.” This means that “every time someone utters the line ‘violence is never justified, but . . .’ they are increasing the rewards for engaging in exactly the violence they are nominally condemning.”“Less than 1% of our nation has served in the armed forces, making the U.S.

military an exclusive organization,” observes Navy vet Hung Cao at RealClearPolitics.Yet a judge “ruled that the U.S.

Naval Academy’s race-conscious admissions policy did not violate the Supreme Court’s recent decision to curtail affirmative action.” Huh? “Never once while in combat or performing special missions underwater have I ..

.ever wondered about the skin color” of fellow fighters.

“The military is not a place for social experiments.We have the hard task of defending a nation.” “It’s time for President Trump’s new military leadership team to stop the deterioration of our military readiness.” “Our job is to defend a nation and preserve peace, and we need an exclusive team to do that.”“Don’t blame the banks” for news of tech and crypto entrepreneurs, Melania Trump and others being debanked, as they’re “merely acting under government pressure,” notes The Wall Street Journal’s Allysia Finley.

“The Bank Secrecy Act requires banks to” monitor cus...