Conservative: Assassins? Media Shrug

“It’s difficult to overstate how extraordinary it is to have two assassination attempts against a former president and presidential candidate coming within weeks of each other,” remarks Ashley Rindsberg at UnHerd. Sunday’s “aborted shooting raises questions” on the Secret Service’s “ability — and willingness — to protect Donald Trump.” “If this were a systemic issue” with the agency, “then why would Trump be the only candidate subject to not just one but two attempts?” Yet, “we have seen virtually no journalistic task forces” and “no searing investigations into the Secret Service.” Worse, “a precedent is being set where political violence against a candidate” who’s “been positioned by the media as an imminent threat to American democracy itself is met with a collective shrug.”

Foreign desk: Stop Covering for Russia

“Pulsed microwave standoff attacks by Russian military intelligence operatives” caused traumatic brain injuries to his family, notes Mark Lenzi at The Hill — for which “the U.S. government has paid my family more than $1 million.” The attacks “caused panic in Washington but have since been buried and the details withheld from Congress.” “The greatest disappointment”? The government “completely turned its back on me and my family.” “The American people have a right to know which country caused the injuries for which their tax dollars have compensated us.” Yet “the State Department and the Intelligence Community have gone to incredible lengths to try to silence me, to prevent me” from briefing Congress. Legislators “need to hear the truth to serve your constituents as they deserve.”

Culture critic: Race Grifters Exposed

“To see how debased ‘progressives’ have become, behold Robin DiAngelo stumping up 30 bucks in ‘reparations’ to an African-American gent,” snarks Spiked’s Brendan O’Neill of a scene “in Matt Walsh’s new film, Am I Racist?, a Borat-style mockumentary that sends up race grifters.” DiAngelo offered “a grovelling apology: ‘It is not you, it is us.” “This is the irony of the white shame that is so à la mode in cultural circles: it hides a new species of white pride, where educated whites fancy themselves as morally superior to both unlearned white people and pained black people.” “Black people and white people could find great common cause in opposing this top-down racialism that dehumanises us all” — and should unite to “tell DiAngelo and her dwindling band of acolytes where to stick it.”

From the right: SCOTUS’ ‘Internal’ Attackers

“Political attacks on the Supreme Court are escalating,” warn The Wall Street Journal’s editors — with “the latest” coming from a New York Times story that claims Chief Justice John Roberts steered the court to help Donald Trump. The piece minimizes constitutional arguments while highlighting “political benefits” to Trump, to make the court seem political. Yet most “damaging” are the leaks about internal discussions, which bear “the possible fingerprints of one or more” justices. A “larger progressive political campaign” seeks to undermine the court’s credibility “to justify Democratic legislation” that’ll “destroy its independence,” and the possibility of court insiders participating “is all the more worrying.” We’re at “a dangerous juncture in American constitutional history” — and Trump isn’t the “greatest” risk.

Libertarian: Colleges Fail on Free Speech 101

“The actions of some” anti-Israel student protesters, “coupled with the reactions of some administrators, highlight a troubling lack of understanding of free speech principles,” argues John Bitzan at Reason. Per a “recent survey of college students nationwide,” “politically liberal students” show “the highest acceptance of anti-free speech actions”: 55% “think it is OK to disrupt campus by occupying buildings,” 37% deem it OK “to disrupt class with protests,” 26% say it’s “acceptable to shout down a speaker.” And 62% “of all students” believe that “professors should be reported for making controversial statements” on political issues. Schools must “stand firm and defend students’ rights to express their views,” but “ also need to teach students the limits of free speech: Violence, disrupting campus activities, shouting down speakers one disagrees with, and intimidating or harassing others are not free speech.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board