Triad Conservative

Living in the Age of Orwell: When "Dixie" is Impermissible

The same progressive/socialist dimwits in Winston-Salem who previously arranged the removal of a Confederate monument are now forcing a name change for the regional agricultural fair held each fall-- the Dixie Classic Fair.

Some people might understand the term "Dixie" to refer to the old Confederacy. But for most people today, it merely is used to label the southern United States with a widely recognizable term.

We are living in an age when George Orwell's prophecies are coming to fruition. The political agents in control of our cities are attempting to erase history, and create a new identity that homogenizes our common spaces to a cultural Marxist ideal-- i..e., banality via the forced elevation of diversity and multiculturalism.

My understanding is that the Dixie Classic Fair is one of the top agricultural fairs in the state. For many decades, it has been a source of pride and fun for the people of all the towns and rural counties that surround Winston-Salem. Children doubtless look forward to it every year; and many folks appreciate how the fair honors their rural traditions which are inextricably linked to their common history and heritage.

This political whitewash to achieve the goals of political correctness is absolutely shameful. The men and women who lead Winston-Salem, just like their counterparts in Greensboro, simply possess no honor or integrity. This change reflects an ongoing trend whereby our cities repeatedly expose themselves as utter cesspools politically, devoid of common sense. 

Winston-Salem leaders are giving people the opportunity to suggest a new name, but they have taken the old name off the table. The decision has already been made, out of public view. There has been no vote; and the city council is clearly tyrannical. 

There is reason to believe that public sentiment is quite opposed to the change. But that apparently does not matter to the urban twits who run our local governments. The general public should respond by refusing to patronize the fair.

Immigration and Wages

Cooper's Infant Born Alive Veto: Putting It in Context

North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper-- a liberal mainline Presbyterian-- vetoed last week the bill passed by General Assembly Republicans to protect infants born alive during botched elective abortion procedures. Cooper claimed that current law protects the newborn infant.

The media/left complex has raised questions as to whether this scenario has been a problem in North Carolina. If enough abortions are performed, however, infants will be born alive. National reporting has suggested they are then often subjected to willful neglect until they succumb. (In fact, this is precisely what the Virginia governor famously advocated recently.)

WRAL had an editorial last week that typifies this point of view:

This bill doesn’t protect the lives of anyone who isn’t already protected under current law. INFANTICIDE IS AGAINST THE LAW.   If a baby is born alive, no matter the circumstances, doctors must take all appropriate measures to preserve that life. It is already a crime to kill a baby.

Any doctors that do it violate the law, their medical ethics and go to jail.

Others have claimed that a doctor would be in trouble with the Medical Board if the baby were to die.

I am not so sure about these interpretations.

When an abortion procedure is performed, the physician's contract is with the mother-- the pregnant woman. The pregnant woman is his patient-- not the baby. His role is to kill the baby, so it is difficult to conceive that he has a traditional doctor-patient relationship with the baby, and all the obligations that kind of relationship implies.

Let's presume that the abortion is botched-- and the infant is born alive, but in medical distress. Let's further assume this is a freestanding abortion clinic where no other doctors are present. Does the abortionist have an obligation to provide care for the baby? Remember, the baby is NOT his patient; and the pregnant mother-- who IS his patient-- wants the baby dead. Is he affirmatively required to provide state-of-the-art medical care including resuscitation for the baby born alive, even when he does not know how to provide this care properly, and even though it is outside his training and experience? Is he required to provide this care even though he has not agreed to do so?

Moreover, when this happens, is the North Carolina Medical Board likely to require this of the abortionist, even though his sole obligation is to the mother who wants the baby dead? Nobody is truly responsible for the appropriate care of the baby in such an instance. This is the hornet's nest created by Roe v. Wade.

I think this scenario likely has occurred in North Carolina on numerous occasions. And it has likely occurred in the shadows, beyond the view of the public, and beyond any real accountability. All that is required is for a few people to remain silent.

Cooper's liberal mainline Presbyterian heritage is overtly pro-abortion. Let's remember the various worldview elements held commonly within liberal mainline Protestantism-- radical feminism, sexual liberationism, secularism, cultural relativism and socialism. In fact, the worldview elements common within Cooper's denomination are very similar to those typically held within contemporary Judaism. Some might argue the denomination is not authentically Christian because it is systematically unrepentant.

Cooper was not going to sign this bill. No way. It would have been contrary to his worldview.

Let's hope the General Assembly is able to override, even though the GOP no longer enjoys a veto-proof majority.

School Bond Issue Coming for Guilford County Taxpayers?

Ten years ago, the democratic socialists then in control of the Guilford Board of County Commissioners, as well as Republican commissioners Linda Shaw and Billy Yow, passed a massive school bond issue.  They did this even though a recession was brewing. It has taken the passage of a decade, and years of relative fiscal austerity, for the county to recover from this hit.

A recent school facilities study has recommended $1.5 billion in new school construction spending. Even though Republicans now control the Board of County Commissioners, it appears that taxpayers might be facing another bond issue:

News and Record:

(Chairman Alan) Branson put county residents on notice that they will be asked to consider additional spending in the coming years to keep the Guilford school system functioning effectively, based on a 2018 study that recommended $1.5 billion in system-wide renovations, additions, new schools and other changes.

“It is important that you know that these recommendations will come back to you, the citizens, in the form of a school bond referendum in 2020,” Branson said.

Rhino Times:

Branson spoke about a school facilities study that, in January, revealed findings of a great deal of needs for area schools.

“The study resulted in a recommendation approximately of $1.5 billion in construction and restructuring goals,” he said,  “In order to continue towards this investment and commitment to our schools, the county will work with the schools on a prioritized master plan, which will address an affordable funding and implementation schedule, to be completed in the next several months.”

Republican commissioners are in a no-win situation with this issue. If they do not propose a $1.5 billion bond issue, the local media/left complex will howl and scream and portray them as being unresponsive to the needs of "the children". In addition the TREBIC/Melderec forces locally will want real estate and construction interests to benefit from a huge school bond issue.

But local conservatives will want commissioners to do the right thing, and forego bonds completely. "Pay-as-you-go" is the responsible way of handling this. Using bonds invites over-spending. It is irresponsible because it generates interest expense, and requires future taxpayers ultimately to pay back the principal amount.

Branson's comments are a bit worrisome. His actions seem to be paralleling those of the man who sponsored him to run for county commissioner-- Mr. Yow. 

We learned ten years ago that only one or two Republicans-- in combination with the democratic socialists-- can vote to place a bond issue on the ballot. And once this happens, the language on the ballot tends to fail to clearly communicate to voters that the bond issue will require a tax increase.

Such a bond issue during the 2020 presidential election season would assure that loads of mindless college students in Guilford County, who come from out-of-town, will vote to raise our taxes... along with lots of other mindless local voters. That is precisely what happened during 2008.

What compounds the offensive nature of this plan for a bond issue? Many Christian and conservative parents feel they cannot use the county schools system because of the manner in which the schools are run. This has been a problem literally for decades. But we are asked to fork over ever-increasing amounts of money.

Who controls the agenda at commissioners' meetings, and what is being voted upon? Who controls what the language on the ballot will be?

Socialist Duopoly: Both Major Parties Support Legal Plunder

Notre Dame and its Charred Remains

Tom Piatak, Chronicles:

In the last few days, the world has been considering what it would mean to lose one of the masterpieces of medieval Christendom for all time. There is widespread agreement that such a loss would be profound. And there is reason to hope that the near loss of something that people have come to realize is so dear to them will cause at least some to reflect upon their attachment to Notre Dame and, as a result, come to cherish the civilization that built her. The civilization that built Notre Dame was the result of the Western Church's sustained effort to unite the Gospel with Greco-Roman culture and the folkways of the barbarian tribes, including the Goths who gave their name to the architectural style so memorably embodied by Notre Dame de Paris. May the near loss of one of the greatest monuments of Western civilization and an irreplaceable treasure lead us back to the Faith without which the West would not have come into existence, and without which the West will not continue to exist.

How Will County Commissioners Respond to Yvonne Johnson's Ongoing Conflicts of Interest?

Skip Alston's Cure Violence proposal is getting aired for possible funding within Greensboro city and Guilford county government. Recall that this is a Chicago program ostensibly intended to reduce inner city violence. 

This is properly a city initiative, because that is where the problem is. But the GOP county commissioners are being put on the spot to fund this proposal; and they are allowing it to be considered, at least for now.

What complicates this picture? Mayor Pro Tem and City Council member Yvonne Johnson directs a local non-profit; and the Cure Violence initiative is being slated for this organization. Moreover, both Johnson and Alston have been affiliated with the Simkins PAC which makes endorsements in local elections.

And Ms. Johnson has participated in meetings with other public officials on this proposal, which is a clear conflict of interest.

John Hammer has a good article at the Rhino Times website that illustrates the absurdity of this situation:

It is curious that while councilmembers and commissioners say there is nothing improper about awarding the contract estimated at $600,000 a year to a nonprofit directed by a councilmember, the discussions on doing it were held at unannounced, secret meetings closed to the public and media...

At the April 1 City Council meeting at Vaughan’s request Johnson gave an update on where they were in planning the program and signing a contract with One Step Further. 

Johnson said that she did not seek the contract for One Step Further and added, “I will not accept or receive any financial fiduciary money for this because that to me would be a conflict and I wouldn’t do that.”

Vaughan said, “Obviously any vote we would have, Yvonne would have to abstain from.”

But abstaining would create a problem because councilmembers are required to vote unless they have a direct conflict of interest.  If they do have a conflict of interest not only are they not allowed to vote, but they are also supposed to refrain from any discussion of the matter.  You often see elected officials leave the dais when they have a conflict of interest, so they won’t even be present for the discussion.

In this case, Johnson has participated in the discussions both as a councilmember and as the executive director of One Step Further.  In fact at this council meeting it appeared that she was making no attempt to separate the roles, speaking about meeting with the County Commissioners and in the next breath about the requirements of One Step Further in contract negotiations.

The way the statutes have been interpreted in the past, if it is not a conflict of interest then Johnson will have to vote on awarding the contract to One Step Further and if it is a conflict of interest then she can’t vote but she also isn’t supposed to participate in the negotiations or discussions which she has been doing.

In a nutshell, the local political culture is trying to pull a fast one-- as usual. One day, she behaves as if there is no conflict. The next day, we are to believe there is a conflict that requires her recusing herself from voting.

The big question is how the GOP county commissioners are going to handle this situation. If they approve this funding, they become participants in this corruption.

NC-03 GOP Congressional Primary

The field in the GOP primary for the 3rd Congressional District is ridiculously large. Seventeen candidates are running. 

This is a bit reminiscent of the primary for the seat that Ted Budd now fills in the Triad. Budd faced a very large number of opponents during the primary. That worked out fairly well for conservative voters because Budd received heavy backing from one or more national conservative organizations; and was able to prevail. He has turned out to be as good as the GOP will produce.

It is unclear that same dynamic is taking place in the 3rd district. At least a few conservatives are running; although it is unclear from a distance whether any of them have a sufficient political base and/or funding to prevail.

It is arguable that one GOP candidate-- Dr. Greg Murphy, who serves in the General Assembly-- is an incremental socialist. He has recently proposed a socialist program that promises the equivalent of expanding Medicaid in the state of North Carolina. He also notably attempted to shoot down State Treasurer Dale Folwell's program for the State Health Plan. Murphy is apparently well-funded for this primary; and enjoys name recognition as an incumbent elected official. In addition, he has a certain degree of standing as a specialty physician who has practiced in the region for a number of years. His candidacy therefore must be taken seriously, but he is precisely the wrong man for the job.

Michelle Nix is the woman who initially identified herself with the Tea Parties before hitching her fortunes with the GOP establishment. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether she can be trusted.

Dr. Joan Perry recently flip-flopped on a defining issue.

A couple of sources provide information about the candidates. The Beaufort Observer has an excellent, particularly helpful article that describes the candidates' previous actions and positions on certain important issues. In addition, the North Carolina Family Policy Council has a Voter Guide that compiles the results of a questionnaire that was circulated to the candidates. 

In the GOP field, I have particular interest in the candidacy of Rep. Michael Speciale who appears to be a reasonably solid conservative. Jeff Moore and Francis DeLuca offer interesting candidacies; although it is unclear from afar whether they will have a sufficient base of support and/or sufficient funding to enable them to prevail.

Early voting has apparently already begun. This will likely be a low-turnout primary; and it is important that conservatives in the district do their homework about the candidates and choose someone upon whom they can rely. Of course, it is highly unlikely that the GOP will produce a solid, reliable constitutional conservative because the party and its primary electorate are not oriented in this direction.

It should be noted that the Constitution Party will have a candidate in the general election. His name is Greg Holt. I have had the opportunity to meet him. He is a local businessman; and appears to be a good man. In the event the Republicans nominate one of their typical establishment, moderate-to-progressive flunkies, perhaps conservatives from that region will turn to Holt's candidacy.

Christianity Was America's Founding Religion

McCrory's "Consolidation" and the Effect on Health Care Costs

Former establishment GOP Governor Pat McCrory often spoke about how we very much needed more consolidation in the health care industry. This means a smaller number of entities would be competing with each other; and these entities would necessarily be larger than what we had seen in the past. We were to believe this would somehow make things better.

Of course, this defied common sense. Less competition and less choice do not equate with quality and lower costs.

But now there is research to suggest McCrory was dead wrong.

Marilyn Singleton, MD, JD:

Take the large health systems’ claim that hospital consolidation and buying up physician practices would benefit consumers with cheaper prices from coordinated services and other unspecified savings. A major study of California hospital mergers found just the opposite. The analysis showed that the price of an average hospital admission went up as much as 54 percent. When the large hospital systems bought doctors’ groups, the prices rose even more. There was as much as a 70 percent increase in prices of medical services in geographic areas with minimal competition. This finding seems obvious to any of us who has the choice of shopping at Walmart or Target or Costco.

Nearly all of the health care reforms introduced over the 15 years by both major parties have been driven by large corporate donors-- insurers, hospital systems, drug companies and Big Data. The health care consumer, the taxpayer and governmental deficits have all taken a major hit.

This is political malpractice of the highest order.