Charlotte: Some Facts

The riots that have broken out in Charlotte are supposedly inspired by the racism of the police in that city. Keith Lamont Scott, a black man, was killed by a Charlotte police officer who said Scott emerged from his car with a gun.

brentley-vinsonThe officer who shot Scott was Brentley Vinson, whose photo is here.

Now, if you are blind and someone else is reading my blog to you, you have an excuse for not knowing that Vinson is black also. But if you still have your eyesight, there is little excuse for believing that this shooting was racially motivated.

Vinson is a Charlotte native who followed in the career path of his father, who also is a police officer.

By all accounts, Vinson has been a role model to all, a star football player in college who has no record of ever having caused trouble in any way. And his college was Liberty University, which tends to make me think Vinson is a committed Christian.

The Charlotte chief of police, also a black man, says Scott did have a gun. The investigation continues, but I somehow doubt that the police chief is a racist against fellow black citizens.

No matter. As far as the protesters are concerned, the whole episode is awash in racism, thereby setting aside such obstacles as logic and facts. CNN is now reporting that 70% of those arrested in the riots have IDs showing they are from out of state. What we have here, apparently, are roving protesters who show up wherever they can create greater havoc.

We are being treated to constant coverage of the Charlotte situation, but I’m not going to fan flames of discontent by showing photos of the rioters. Instead, how about this one?

charlotte-protester

I also like this one, depicting North Carolina highway patrol officers kneeling in prayer before risking their lives to help stem the violence.

officers-praying

Some people want to foment hatred and division. Today, I prefer to highlight those who seek to bring peace to a troubled city.

The Promised Land of Restored Constitutionalism

As almost anyone who pays any attention to politics probably knows by now, the lawsuit against Obamacare by twenty-six states received a favorable ruling yesterday. Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson concluded that the law was a violation of the Constitution since it mandated that people buy health insurance.

Judge Vinson


Vinson went further than the Virginia judge who ruled against the law a number of weeks ago. Instead of declaring that only one part of the law was unconstitutional, he noted that you cannot sever that one part from the whole: since that one part was so foundational to the statute, the entire law is unconstitutional. That makes eminent sense.

Already the law’s backers are challenging the ruling. The Obama administration calls the decision “judicial activism.” How ironic. Obama stretches constitutional provisions beyond recognition, while Judge Vinson calls us back to original intent, and Vinson is the activist? There’s an academic term for that: baloney.

While this is an important milestone in the drive to overturn Obamacare, it isn’t the last word. It will be appealed through the system until it arrives on the steps of the Supreme Court, and there’s still no telling how the Court will rule.

Meanwhile, Sen. Jim DeMint has prepared an Obamacare repeal bill for the Senate, following on the House’s vote for repeal earlier. At last report, DeMint had all forty-seven Republican senators on board. That’s almost unheard of, considering who some of those senators are. All it will take is for four Democrats to come over to the Republicans’ side and this could be sent to the president’s desk. Yes, it will be vetoed if that occurs, but the sense of the entire Congress will be clear and Obama will be the lone obstruction. In a nation where more than 50% of the electorate (particularly among those who are most likely to vote) wants it repealed, he will suffer politically for his stubborn resistance to constitutional limitations.

Most of what Obama has proposed is unconstitutional; beyond that, none of it has ever worked for anyone else, so why believe it will work here?

There’s a lot that needs to be reversed after the past two years. The Promised Land of restored constitutionalism is not yet in view, but one gets a feeling we’re at least marching in the right direction.