Protests occurred in North Carolina following an off-duty police officer's shooting of an unarmed black man. The individual is said to have leapt on top of the officers' car and ripped off the wipers. This assertion was refuted by the cousin of the man who was shot, who stated that it was out of character for him to do such a thing. An internal investigation is underway, and the officer has been placed on administrative leave until the investigation is completed.

While the facts are still unfolding and we cannot be certain who was correct and who was incorrect, the question remains: should people be protesting a subject about which they do not have all of the facts? We've seen this a lot. The most recent case was the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, for example, where the media and protesters appeared to continuously highlight false reports that he crossed state lines with a firearm, when it turned out that this never happened and he was never charged for it.

What are your thoughts? Do you think people should protest first and ask questions later?

Blog 2:

The Supreme Court of the United States is set to hear the case FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, in which Ted Cruz seeks to invalidate a federal statute that limits candidates' ability to reimburse themselves for campaign loans up to $250,000.

Prior to the enactment of this law, candidates could lend money to their own campaigns, charge the campaign a high interest rate on the loan, and then repay themselves the money they gave to their campaigns plus the interest rate that they set. Candidates who were successful in raising a lot of money (which becomes easier after money is loaned) could readily profit from loans they made to themselves in cases like this. For example, a candidate could loan their campaign $100,000 at an interest rate of 10%, and pay themselves back $110,000 from their campaign after the raise enough money.