Triad Conservative

Dear Nancy's Descent Into the Abyss

I never thought it would come to this. The city of Greensboro has been grossly mishandling the Travis Cole matter over the last week. And Mayor Nancy Vaughan is making Robbie Perkins look good by comparison. That is saying an awful lot.

John Hammer from the Rhino Times was present at the circus-like city council meeting on Monday. The Rev. Nelson Johnson was seated in the audience. Hammer reports that Vaughan was receiving and responding to signals directed at her by Rev. Johnson.

The city council made a big fuss over releasing the video even though the involved officer had already resigned his position. There are problems with viewing such a video in a vacuum because it does not provide a total picture of all the visual and auditory cues the officer must consider. In addition, it fails to provide context. The release of such videos inflames public anger unnecessarily because critical information is not presented. This places police officers in a highly compromised position. It is inherently unfair to cops.

Marc Ridgill, in fact, helped provide context for this specific incident involving Cole. Ridgill makes all those who have been screaming for vengeance seem entirely ignorant.

Having videos from dash cams and body cameras was hailed as a major advance. But instead, they have opened a Pandora's box. They invite armchair quarterbacking with police officers' careers often hanging in the balance. And notwithstanding whatever happened in this case, the existence of the videos inevitably will make officers more reticent to defend themselves when necessary.

These police officers do dangerous work; and at this point it is difficult to see why any of them would want to try to do a conscientious job.

Billy Jones reported yesterday that the female officer involved was being pressured by Deputy Chief James Hinson to resign her position. Today, we learned that she did, in fact, resign. Some in the local black community apparently wanted her scalp. But it is unclear as to any wrongdoing she might have committed. (The very idea that Hinson is Deputy Chief is all you need to understand what Greensboro is all about.)

Meanwhile, our idiotic city council asked District Attorney Douglas Henderson to reconsider his handling of Cole's case; and he utterly refused even though he has been connected with the Simkins PAC. He had a lot more information at his disposal than the city council and the agitators. Council members want the officer charged as a criminal; and also are seeking to destroy his career.

The person who was "assaulted" by Officer Cole, by the way, had a fairly distinguished criminal record.

Nancy Vaughan is a reprehensible public servant. She is on the wrong side of nearly every important issue. She has no idea what she is doing-- even though she creates a great appearance. And she is emboldening the anti-police forces in Greensboro in a manner that we have never seen. She is taking it to a whole new level.

That is no minor achievement in a city like Greensboro.

Obama on Hillary

Rings True

Perspective Regarding Police "Misconduct"

The Reality on the Ground in Charlotte (with Greensboro Aspiring to Emulate)

I have a grapevine that leads directly to the boots on the ground in Charlotte. The picture is not entirely pretty.

What is the reality? The police department and the others maintaining "security" have not been doing everything they can to quell the unrest and to limit the disruptions to area businesses. I saw a piece on Fox 8/ WGHP last night that discussed the amount of money businesses are losing in Charlotte's uptown/ downtown areas; but in fact, this story has largely gone unreported otherwise. The media overall doesn't care that people's livelihoods are being affected because a Higher Virtue is being pursued.

The police are being called to work very long hours, often with limited sleep; and yet they are not being led to deal definitively with the situation. They are at risk in this environment, and a number have been injured; but the situation drags on. They are maintaining a presence, but are doing far less than they are truly able to do.

The mayor declared a midnight curfew several nights ago; but the curfew has not been enforced. It appears to be a ruse.

Police officers are asking their command staff what precisely is going on. And the command staff is apparently telling the police officers they really don't know.

The police chief in the city of Charlotte reports directly to the city manager; and the city manager reports to the entire city council, just as in Greensboro. The police chief appears to be a good man; but his employees strongly suspect he is being restrained and micromanaged.

But here is the big question. Who is restraining the Charlotte police chief from doing what he needs to do?

The most obvious potential explanation, of course, is the city manager and the city council. Charlotte has become an extreme left city in a very rapid period of time; and its civil government has deteriorated markedly.

But another party is suspected of exercising de facto control over how the local police chief is responding. It is the woman sent to Charlotte from the US Department of Justice employed by Obama and Loretta Lynch. We cannot rule out the possibility that our awful federal government is pulling all the strings with regard to Charlotte's response. The feds have a huge stick they can wield-- the enormous amount of grant monies and other funds supplied to eager municipalities.

Meanwhile, we are beginning to learn the facts regarding the black man who was killed. It turns out his wife had filed for a restraining order against him. He apparently had in his possession a stolen gun; and he had committed acts of violence against members of his own family. He even had threatened to kill them. He was a convicted felon.

Meanwhile, the Charlotte City Council met yesterday and faced protesters in their own chambers. It sounds like an absolute zoo.

The national media is now reporting that murders surged 10.8% between 2014 and 2015. Of course, that time frame is precisely when all the racial protests and straight-jacketing of police began.The media/left complex cheered these developments intently, and now they count the dead bodies.

The situation in Greensboro is not much better. Our city council has spent the last week posturing over the release of a video involving a police officer who has already left the department. The objective is obviously to nurse the grievances of the local black community including the Guilford County Community PAC, which was started up by a group of far-left African-American pastors whose interest in sowing racial unrest far exceeds their interest in saving souls. Mayor Vaughan is in their hip pocket.

Greensboro's city council conducted a circus of its own yesterday. The emerging "wisdom" from these proceedings is that the department needs to begin taking away from police officers their due process rights. A decade ago, when black officers were engaged in wrongdoing in Greensboro (including two current deputy chiefs), we heard how important it was that their due process rights had to be protected. Now, it no longer matters because the shoe is on the other foot.

Two of the state's most important municipalities-- Charlotte and Greensboro-- have descended into the cesspool of left wing radicalism. Their respective city councils are an absolute joke; and their police chiefs are emasculated.

The state of North Carolina needs to consider these two police departments-- in Charlotte and Greensboro-- and take them out of the control of the respective municipalities. Instead, Mecklenberg and Guilford Counties, respectively, ought to be granted control of these two police departments. That would allow a broader, more level-headed population to elect public servants who control each respective department. The demographics within the city limits in Charlotte and Greensboro assure that these departments will not be managed appropriately.

The city of Charlotte has brought massive national discredit upon the state of North Carolina twice within the last year. This is a situation that cries out for the intervention of the North Carolina General Assembly because the people of Charlotte obviously cannot govern themselves.

Charlotte is a major banking center. Wells Fargo has 23,000 employees locally, and Bank of America has 15,000. It would be devastating for the metropolitan area and for the entire state if these employers were to decide that they need to leave Charlotte behind. Even though these are both progressive/ liberal companies, there is only so much they will tolerate.

Update: Marc Ridgill has an excellent post that points out the Greensboro City Council relied excessively on the video, and did not sufficiently consider the overall context of the interaction, when it staged its circus on Monday.

Why Do We Have Terrorism in the United States? The Surprising Explanation

The existence of terrorism here is a relatively new development. It did not exist hardly at all prior to 2001 in the United States.

This is a matter of considerable interest because of the repeated instances of terrorism within the United States over the last year. We had an incident in Washington state this weekend. The attack in Manhattan last weekend struck close to home because my eldest son works approximately 6 blocks from the site of the Chelsea explosion.

What factors have previously been blamed for terrorism in the United States?

1. Western interventions and/or presence in the Middle East at various times ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the partitioning of its lands;
2. Retribution for Western creation and support of the nation of Israel; and
3. The very nature of Islam itself.

But there is a more proximate explanation for the existence of terrorism in the United States.

Prior to 1965, immigration to the United States was sharply restricted; and we had very little immigration to the United States from many portions of the world. A law passed during 1924 limited immigration even from the eastern and southern parts of Europe, thereby tilting immigration policy in favor of those from the northern and western parts of Europe. It was a specific measure to maintain the composition of the United States as primarily Anglo-Saxon and Christian. Those involved in passing and supporting the law were concerned about the changes brought by new groups to the United States.

But then the 1965 law passed, and it blew the gates wide open. Immigration from the Middle East, the Near East and Africa now would become much more voluminous.

The big question is why that law was passed during 1965. In politics, nearly all things happen for a reason.

The answer is contained in a 1998 book by Kevin MacDonald who was a professor of psychology on the faculty at California State University at Long Beach. The book is "The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements".

MacDonald's book is heavily referenced and annotated. It is a major academic effort. The author explains the history of the Jewish people as victims of anti-Semitism, marginalization and violence at various points throughout their history. In the United States, however, this group rapidly took advantage of the capitalist system and became prosperous. They have had certain cultural strengths including a tendency to value education and an entrepreneurial flair for innovation. MacDonald also cites research that suggests the Jewish people tend to have a higher IQ than many other groups.

MacDonald has been accused of anti-Semitism because he wrote this book, even though it is heavily reliant upon historical facts.

The author methodically laid out the case that the Jewish people since the early part of the 20th century have been the chief group arguing against the types of restrictions on immigration contained in the 1924 law. He notes numerous Jewish individuals and groups that pushed to overturn it and ultimately pass the 1965 law. The Democrats held both the presidency and Congress during the mid-1960's; and they gave Jewish Americans major influence in shaping and passing the new legislation.

MacDonald explained that Jewish Americans pushed this new immigration framework for their own self-interest. The objective was to diminish the power and sway and influence of white Christian Americans; and to make the United States more diverse and multicultural. Their thinking was that it would help their own group to diminish the proportionate share and influence of white Christians. He explained that Jewish individuals and groups involved often used lofty, idealistic, humanitarian language to justify changing immigration law; but in fact, it was primarily motivated by the self-interest of their own group in response to their own history elsewhere.

We saw an example of this phenomenon here in Greensboro nine months ago when the issue of Syrian refugees was being discussed. Local Jewish voices, paradoxically, were among the most insistent we must admit these people to the United States. At first glance, this would seem to make little sense given the severe antipathy of many Muslims toward Jews. But in fact, there is a larger agenda.

MacDonald further makes the point that other major Jewish initiatives we have seen over the years-- the support of black aggrievement, socialism, the LGBT agenda and church/state separation, for instance-- also were advanced and advocated in large part because of Jewish self-interest. Again, the objective was to diminish the power and sway of white Christians for their own group's benefit.

Conservatives often discuss the progressive "march through the institutions" and the influence of factors such as the Frankfurt School. But when we discuss progressivism and incremental socialism, we often tend to underemphasize that a considerable amount of the financing, brainpower and impetus within the cultural and political left is supplied by Jewish Americans. Not all of it, by any means, but a big chunk.

I urge conservatives to read The Culture of Critique because it is critical to understand the activities and motivations of Jewish Americans in order to understand the American left.

In any event, we now have a cogent explanation as to why we have terrorism and race riots and the like within the United States.

MacDonald quoted one of the major politicians in favor of immigration restrictions in 1952, Senator Pat McCarren, who stated that "this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished...(W)e have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not been integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain."

He further stated that the enemies of immigration restrictions "will have contributed more to promote this nation's downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation."

The man was a prophet.

Have a Grievance Against the Government? "Don't Pay Your Taxes!", says former N&R Editor

Treating various parties equally is very important... except when it is not. That is the message of the media/left complex this week.

One item in the Raleigh News and Observer pointed out that a convention for Democratic women in Charlotte had to be cancelled because of all the racial unrest. This was treated in a matter-of-fact fashion, as if there was no great outrage, even though there were likely economic losses in Charlotte as a result.

But when events are cancelled because of HB 2, it is reported as being cataclysmic in scope.

Another great example was a blog post by former News and Record editor Lex Alexander. Lex argued that "people of color and their allies" ought to boycott paying their taxes as a protest against the killing of black people by police. I invite you to read the entire post to get a feel for the thinking of a former MSM editor in North Carolina.

Lex is a nice guy to meet in person. But let's consider some of the implications if conservatives and/or Christians could refuse to pay their taxes because of certain grievances they might have with the various levels and branches of government. Here are a few examples. We could refuse to pay our taxes if:

1. We didn't like the fact that the federal government requires that the killing of tens of millions of unborn children must be legal;
2. We didn't like the fact that government at all levels takes away our property and wastes it away;
3. We didn't like the fact that government at all levels gratuitously interferes with our ability to do business and support our families;
4. We didn't like the fact that government is stacked against authentic Christians in various ways;
5. We didn't like the fact that elected officials are often corrupt, and fail to do the right things; and
6. We didn't like the fact that government routinely takes away our liberty.

You get the idea. The possibilities are endless.

I have a question. If conservatives took this position, how far do you think we would get? How would the media treat the issue?

I know. Why even bother asking?

Yet, Lex feels emboldened to float this as a serious policy proposal.

A Major Change in North Carolina

The Great Blackout in New York City during 1977 is a fairly vivid memory. Massive looting and instances of arson took place. That type of event leaves a lasting impression. The mayor at the time was Abe Beame. Weak Democratic leadership had followed weak liberal Republican leadership under John Lindsay, during whose mayoralty the city's welfare loads swelled dramatically.

1,616 stores were looted or damaged during the Great Blackout. There were 1,037 fires and 3,776 people arrested. 31 neighborhoods were affected. It was massive.

Limp-wristed, weak-minded, unprincipled leadership invites this type of mayhem. New York was an awful place at that time.

Fast forward to Charleston, SC during 1989. Hurricane Hugo mowed over the city. Charleston's black police chief, Reuben Greenberg, explicitly communicated to city residents that he had directed his police officers to beat any looters they encountered with riot sticks. There were no looters after Hurricane Hugo.

What happened this week in Charlotte is having a profound effect. It changes one's perception of the city and state in which you reside. It could have easily happened in Greensboro.

Charlotte and North Carolina can no longer be regarded as wholesome, peaceful places where citizens can feel secure and safe.  Now, instead, we have the New South. In Charlotte, NC and in Greensboro, we see leadership that is much closer to John Lindsay and to Abe Beame than it is to Reuben Greenberg.

The Obama presidency, the breakdown of the black family and many decades of the welfare state have absolutely ruined the African-American community.

It was shocking to see the degree of barbarism and savagery in the Queen City. But then we learned that Charlotte's idiotic mayor explicitly turned down support from the state. She was thereby inviting the riots.

Meanwhile, a couple of the state's Historically Black Colleges and Universities originated some protests. Those bastions of state-sponsored segregation apparently are not working their students hard enough.

The demographics of Charlotte (and similar cities) are suddenly very worrisome. The 2010 census reveals the city is 35% black; and is otherwise majority-minority. The percentages of minorities in Charlotte have been creeping upward over the years. Those kinds of demographics make it highly unlikely that the city can have good political leadership. It is past its "tipping point"; and that foreshadows further decline.

But this week in North Carolina, the unthinkable has happened. Our self-conception as a state can never be the same now that we know what can happen in our urban areas. This is a problem that needs to be fixed politically; and it seems doubtful that Charlotte is capable of fixing herself. In fact, she likely has no clue.

City of Charlotte Gives State of North Carolina a Black Eye

Charlotte used to be the pride of North Carolina. It was a successful, prosperous city that welcomed business and industry, and that provided enormous opportunity for its citizens. It also had the reputation as a God-honoring city given the fact that it was the boyhood home of Billy Graham, and had a vibrant Christian community.

Those conditions are under attack. Banking took somewhat of a hit several years ago. Like everywhere else statewide, heavy industry is not as vibrant as it used to be.

Then, earlier this year, Charlotte's idiotic city council enacted its foolhardy LGBT ordinance, and set in motion the conditions that led to the passage of HB 2 in Raleigh. Only a couple of days ago, we learned how its city council members acceded to lobbying from a Democratic member of the General Assembly to refrain from repealing its ordinance.

They are apparently quite interested in having the issue this election season.

Now, we have witnessed an ugly night of riots that received extensive national attention. Sixteen officers were injured last night, looting ensued, at least one police vehicle was severely vandalized, university students joined the protests and an interstate highway was shut down. Tonight, there are more reports of violence. The metro police department has explained the original circumstances on its website.

Unfortunately, the animals have had their way in the city of Charlotte over the last 36 hours. The city has failed to maintain civic order.

One can only conclude that Charlotte has gone astray. It has ineffective leadership that opposes morality.

And this is yet another awful commentary on the failures of the Obama presidency which has emboldened governmental entities like the city of Charlotte to persecute people of faith; and which has also inflamed inner city residents to riot and engage in heinous violence.

But Charlotte was exceedingly eager to jump aboard and to ride Obama's dystopian train.

It has now hurt its own reputation, perhaps irreparably; and has given the state of North Carolina a black eye before the entire nation. When a municipality has demonstrated an inability to govern itself properly, the General Assembly has every reason to step in.

Addendum: It turns out that it was a black officer who originally shot the fellow who had a gun.

Update 09/22: Now the crowd at NC A&T here in Greensboro has joined the fun.

Response to Terrorism and America's Christian Heritage