Triad Conservative

MSM "Fact Check" Features Not To Be Trusted

The corrupt media/left complex commonly runs stories and develops common talking points on certain issues. This often happens in unison, in almost a coordinated manner. A mindset is disseminated; and the objective is often to overpower the conservative perspective on certain issues.

The use of the "Fact Check" feature is a great example. Many mainstream media organizations have developed a "fact check" feature or capability, usually to counter certain conservative claims. While they present the facade of objectivity, these features cleverly incorporate political bias; and should be ignored for the most part.

A great example is Governor Roy Cooper's veto of the infant-born-alive legislation passed by the North Carolina General Assembly. I had posted about this item nearly a week ago.

Abortionists occasionally fail when attempting to murder unborn children; and the baby is mercifully born alive. One key controversy surrounding this legislation is whether state law currently punishes abortionists who do not affirmatively provide state-of-the-art care for infants born alive under such circumstances.  

McClatchy came out with one of these stupid, manipulative "fact check" pieces. Check out this language: 

Legal experts say there are multiple laws, state and federal, that cover infants regardless of their birth circumstances.

"There is no lack of statutory or constitutional law that would protect babies through a live birth or a failed abortion," said Neil Siegel, an attorney and professor at Duke Law School.

Ah, but note that the authors of the piece fail to cite a single state law that affirmatively requires the abortionist to provide state-of-the-art care for the infant. It was a lengthy piece, but they refused to provide a single citation that backed up this argument they were making. It would be interesting, by the way, to know more about Professor Siegel's background, and his personal position on abortion.

Senator Joyce Krawiec, to her credit, disseminated a piece that explains more about this topic. I will excerpt:

Existing law covers...

• Involuntary manslaughter, which is killing another human being by a culpably negligent act or omission (G.S. 14-18) -- more on this one later.

... The involuntary manslaughter statute does not clearly apply to caring for an infant after a botched abortion. That is because a healthcare provider has no legal duty to provide care to the infant, which would make prosecution under the involuntary manslaughter statute very difficult....

What the new law would cover:

• Updating the criminal code to create a duty to care for an infant after a botched abortion (this duty does not currently exist in law);
• Creating a felony for health care providers who violate the duty to care for an infant after a botched abortion.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analysis Division exists to weigh in on just these types of questions. Regarding the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, the nonpartisan Legislative Analysis Division wrote: "The deliberate killing of infants, including those who have survived an attempted abortion, is a criminal offense. There are currently no laws requiring an affirmative duty of care to preserve the life of infants who survive attempted abortions."

In a nutshell, the McClatchy "fact check" piece artfully danced around the central issue this bill raises, and refused to provide any documentation for its argument. Krawiec provided specifics as to the defects in current law, and why it does not adequately deal with this situation.

I am not writing this post to provide cover for the Republicans. This bill only addresses a tiny sliver of the overall abortion problem. We should have made much more progress on the abortion issue by this time; but it simply has not been a Republican priority. The world has seen 3D and 4D ultrasounds for nearly two decades. Yet there has been no political determination to prevail on this issue; and efforts to improve the judiciary have been lackluster.

But it still would not be inaccurate to say that the Republicans are dealing with an extremely dishonest, entirely corrupted mainstream media.

Unplanned Life is Life, Nonetheless

Four Guilford Legislators Sponsor Physician Assisted Suicide Bill

The North Carolina Family Policy Council reports today about a bill filed in the North Carolina House that would allow citizens to request and receive from physicians a prescription that will intentionally kill them.

Pro-life citizens oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia because it is contrary to God's will as expressed in scripture. Actively taking human life is wrong even when it might seem to be the expedient thing to do. The fifth commandment remains applicable today.

Christians might want to take note of the fact that Jesus Christ was presented repeatedly with the sick and the lame. His response was not to kill them.

It turns out that four Guilford-area legislators sponsored this bill. These include Pricey Harrison, Jon Hardister, Cecil Brockman and John Faircloth.

It is understandable that Harrison and Brockman would sponsor this bill. Harrison is militantly pro-abortion and anti-life. Brockman is a member of the LGBT community.

But Hardister and Faircloth are both Republicans-- and Republicans are supposed to be pro-life. Right?

Never mind the drastic transformation of the role of the physician. Previously his purpose was to save lives, help people manage their medical problems, prevent disability and restore health. But under this new framework, his role would be to help people kill themselves-- a drastic violation of the ethics of the discipline, and an offense against morality.

It turns out that all four legislators discussed above are manifestations of our dark, postmodern, post-Christian age in which huge numbers of babies are killed for convenience; perversions are celebrated and elevated; people of genuine faith are persecuted; physicians are encouraged to act as executioners of the sick and the lame; and relativism prevails.

We are living in a dark age; and these four legislators are a reminder of that fact.

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.