Some legal scholars wonder whether we should expand the "clear and present danger" exception to the First Amendment, and thus curtail First Amendment speech, because of the rise of ISIS and their alleged success recruiting over the internet. Short answer: no -- the First Amendment doesn't run in one direction at a time, nor does it restrict free speech to one person at a time; someone can try to get you to blow things up, but other folks can also tell you why you shouldn't. Always Our Glorious Elites want to curtail your speech when some monster burns down a country, and always they think you're so weak that you'll easily succumb to anti-American propaganda. That's because they want to use their own anti-American propaganda.
Ho hum, Radley Balko at the Washington Post reminds us that 2015 did not bring some massive wave of cop-killing, nor did it bring some enormous crime wave. Sadly some 70 percent of Americans, according to Gallup, think crime is worse this year than last year. And simply presenting the facts won't help very much if the "liberal" media (not just Fox News!) foregrounds crime and violence in their programming as if nothing else ever happens in America.
Bernie Sanders says he can get Donald Trump supporters to vote for him. To which I respond: of course he can! That's why Our Glorious Elites convert the real grievances of Trump supporters into racism before folks like Mr. Sanders can get to them! But I do wish he'd make the most important link between terrorism and the income gap -- namely, that if we stop the rich from extorting debt tribute from us, we'll have a lot less terrorism everywhere. He'd better do that soon, too, so he has time to overcome the inevitable blowback from "liberal" media punditoids.
Fox Business host wonders how we'll ever be able to "get through these things that are going to happen" like the Tamir Rice shooting "and still be able to let the police do their job without any kind of real serious ridicule or things like Black Lives Matter?" OK, then: "Black Lives Matter" are not cuss words, "ridicule" (or, more precisely, oversight by the people) is not oppression, and the mere fact that corporate media can find black folks willing to brandish scare words like "the Ferguson effect" isn't all that interesting, the world being a big place and all. And courageous folks of all colors dare to imagine a world where shooting a 12-year-old boy with a toy gun isn't something that "just happens."
Finally, Donald Trump believes Bill Clinton's infidelities are "fair game" where Hillary Clinton is concerned, and even estimable liberals seem willing to let Mr. Trump achieve disaster with that idea, but I'm not sure he will. For one thing, while hitting Bill Clinton over his infidelities is a proven failed strategy, hitting Hillary Clinton over her toleration of those infidelities is something else entirely. Two, Mr. Trump, himself a committer of multiple infidelities, has clearly learned from right-wingers that you hit your opponents where you're vulnerable. And sadly, it's worked for plenty of them.