Triad Conservative

Dan McCready's Sleazy Shot on Mark Harris

HT: NCVC

McCready had already joined the anti-Christians:

The Media Not the Primary Enemy of the People

Chilton Williamson, Chronicles:

From the days of the yellow press down to the era of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the major news networks, the media have shown little interest in reflecting public opinion, whether at the local, regional, national, or international level.  Instead, motivated by economic and political considerations, they have sought to shape it to a national and international standard that reflects the consensus of modern liberal democratic-industrial capitalism—that is, of the owners and operators of liberal-democratic capitalism.  To this end they have deployed the resources of technology, corporatism, high finance, and what used to be called “high” politics—the politics of the ruling establishments—and they have done it very well.  So well, indeed, that until quite recently the majority of their “consumers”—the “masses”—did not realize what was happening.  Now, owing to the arrogant hubris of the Establishment and the Establishment media, and to the Internet, they see the situation all too clearly for the Establishment’s comfort and the security of its future.

Journalism, here, everywhere, and always, has never been “objective,” nor has its audience really wished it to be—nor, finally, is “objectivity” actually possible.  Journalists have always written from rooted pre-assumptions, exaggerated the facts, and lied on behalf of their interests, point of view, and political affiliations, and they always will.  What has happened between the relatively recent past and the present is that the media have become intellectually and politically monolithic, from the big-city newspaper taken by millions each day to the small-town broadsheet, the latter typically owned and edited and written by small-town people aping the opinions of their more prestigious and influential colleagues in New York, Washington, Boston, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles—or else republishing the AP wire and syndicated liberal columnists.  Virtually all of them take for granted that there is no politically, intellectually, or morally acceptable alternative to their liberal opinions and convictions...

(J)ournalism, which until the 1920’s or so had been viewed by cultivated people as a grubby trade practiced by unlettered ignoramuses and hacks, has over the last few decades become accepted as an honorable profession for the college and university graduates who today make up the new aristocracy that includes not just writers but also media showmen and celebrities.  This aristocracy, which includes academics and is assumed to represent highbrow culture, brooks no dissent, especially when it comes from what it regards as “below”—uneducated persons who persist in clinging to “wrong” thought and “wrong” opinions.

The enemy of the people is not “the media” as such, but the almost monolithic cultural and political Establishment that owns or directs nearly all of its most powerful and influential organs, which from ideological zeal have made advocacy journalism, formally one of several branches of the journalistic trade, the dominant one.  Donald Trump is correct in recognizing in the media the enemy of the American people in their great majority.  But they are the secondary enemy, not the primary one; that is postmodern liberalism itself.  “Journalists serve society best,” Professor Daly avers, when they are “independent—of political parties, of sponsors, of advertisers, even (sometimes) of [their] audience.”  ... He should have added to his list Marxist (liberal) ideology, and the ideologists who personify it. 

Pre-Existing Conditions and the Historical Pattern

This election season, Washington Republicans are straining themselves to demonstrate that they do not support repealing the Obamacare mandate that insurance companies must cover folks with preexisting conditions at the same rate as those without preexisting conditions. The Republicans are effectively announcing to the entire country that they support the Obamacare framework of charging everyone exorbitant premiums in order to cover a smaller group at a lesser rate.

Even Trump is taking this position. He announces it openly at many of his rallies that he wants to protect preexisting conditions.

These people are not stupid. They know very well that the entire economic framework of insurance is blasted away with such a provision. But they obviously believe there is political benefit to taking this position. They run away, scared to death, from asserting that mandating coverage of preexisting conditions at the federal level with community rating is TERRIBLE policy.

Never mind that the Constitution does not even remotely authorize the federal government dictating health insurance coverage.

This month's Imprimis features a very good article by John Steele Gordon that discusses the history of medical insurance. I suggest taking a peek in order to learn how this entire mess evolved.

In addition, Jeremy Snavely at AAPS has written a masterful article recently. He recounts the entire sordid history of federal intervention in the health care marketplace. If you scan this article, you will see that many of the measures were passed when Republicans controlled the presidency or Congress or both. He describes, by my initial count, approximately 73 separate legislative or executive actions that meddle unconstitutionally in this sector of the economy. These measures took place over a period of 75 years, ever since 1942. Included among the offenders, of course, is the current Republican Congress. Mr. Snavely's article can be read in this PDF. Check it out.

Advice to Contemporary Judaism: "Look Inward"

Members of my own ethnic group were, many years ago, the target of the worst mass lynching incident in American history. Eleven Italian immigrants were killed in New Orleans by an angry mob during 1891. There were reportedly hundreds of shots.

We also need to remember the 26 folks killed at the Baptist church in Texas. Unfortunately, mass killings at houses of worship are not uncommon these days.

Over the last five days, we have witnessed repeated media/left talking points over the murder of eleven Jewish congregants at a progressive Pittsburgh synagogue. We are told that this incident must teach us certain lessons about "hate" and various types of speech. Trump, of course, is ultimately blamed.

Liberty Headlines reports that the killer had been aggrieved over the fact that the congregation was involved with advocating for refugees and for immigration. 

A political rally was held at a local synagogue in Greensboro last night in response to the incident. A Jewish clergyman at the event publicly stated the following:

The past few years has seen the ripping open of a vicious underbelly of bias, bigotry, racism, homophobia, sexism and antisemitism in our country. 

It would be a cover-up of the historical record-- and of contemporary activism-- if the longstanding progressive Jewish advocacy for non-Western immigration and refugee efforts were not accurately described and pointed out. The worldview they espouse-- which includes multiculturalism and diversity and globalism and unrestricted immigration-- has taken away the good livelihoods of many millions of Americans. It has also sometimes threatened their sense of security, and the very character of the country they love.

This group also successfully and prominently advocated for the LGBT juggernaut; and that resulted in religious liberty being taken away from orthodox Christians.

They are uniquely influential and powerful. The group is very prominently represented within the media; academia; the judiciary; the financial industry; and most importantly, within the democratic socialist party. It is therefore very important for the American people to understand precisely where they stand.

Murdering folks because of their political and cultural advocacy is never justified; and the Pittsburgh killer rightfully will be held accountable by the legal system. But the temptation will be, once again, to restrict free speech-- to hinder the description of certain facts of history and of contemporary political life.

Larry Klayman-- notable for Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch-- is a Jewish gentleman who converted to Christianity. He has a column today that challenges the media/left talking points this week about the Pittsburgh tragedy. But very interestingly, he states the following: 

The Jewish Left, particularly in this country, is not representative of the overwhelming majority of Jews here, in Israel and worldwide. But regrettably, they are giving professed sick cause to lunatics like the Pittsburgh shooter to work their evil.

So its time for the Jewish Left to... look inward for some of the reasons for the rise in anti-Semitism.

Indeed. It is perhaps time for a bit of introspection, humility and self-examination on the part of those within this powerful group. It would be appropriate to begin this effort right now.

Constitution Party Perspective

City of Greensboro Using Taxpayer Money to Get-Out-The-Vote for Democratic Socialists

The news was fairly striking earlier today that the city of Greensboro is waiving transit fares on its city buses in order to assist citizens getting to the polls to vote on Election Day. Yes!Weekly reports that other cities are pulling this stunt also.

Of course, when cities waive these fares, it is not conservatives who are being chauffeured to the polls. It is going to be Democratic voters who support socialist candidates. Cities furnishing bus service are already heavily tilted toward the democratic socialist side from a demographic standpoint; and bus riders will be even more heavily within this camp.

Does this move strike you as sleazy and dishonorable? Of course! But hey-- this is Greensboro. What can you possibly expect? They are using taxpayer money to water down our own votes.

All of our friends on the far left like to speak repeatedly about "equality". But the city's provision of free bus service to facilitate more democratic socialist votes hardly qualifies as equal protection under the law. Is the city providing similar financial assistance to conservative voters? Is it providing us with reimbursement for gas expense, and for wear-and-tear on our vehicles? After all, anyone who drives to the polls is undertaking expense. We just don't think about it that way.

You see, the Politically Virtuous City revels in providing unequal protection of the law.

For many of us, we are getting pretty sick of living side-by-side with other citizens whose sole purpose seemingly is to take us for a ride... and to ruin the country in the process.

Shady Tax-Exempt PAC Tries to Help Kathy Manning, Hurt Ted Budd

Most of us are familiar with the "Johnson Amendment" that prohibits churches from engaging in partisan political activity. Some Christians have wanted this particular amendment repealed.

It turns out, however, that Kathy Manning is the direct, intended beneficiary of a hit piece mailed by a PAC that has apparently been organized as tax-exempt under IRS rules.

The Center for Voter Information sent this mailing that highlights the positions of Manning and Budd on three issues: requiring health insurance to cover pre-existing conditions; cutting Medicaid; and cutting taxes for millionaires and corporations. The obvious intent was to help Manning, and to hurt Budd.

The organization's own website uses generic language to claim it is trying to provide objective, unbiased information to voters.

Guidestar provides more detailed descriptions of its true agenda:

TO PROMOTE SOCIAL WELFARE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON DETERMINING HOW TO INCREASE THE SHARE OF RAE - (RISING AMERICAN ELECTORATE), DEFINED AS UNMARRIED WOMEN, YOUTH, AND PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE ELECTORATE, DEVELOPING PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS THAT MOTIVATE VOTER REGISTRATION AND PARTICIPATION OF RAE, ADVOCATING FOR PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES THAT AFFECT THE LIVES OF UNMARRIED WOMEN, AND PUBLICIZING THE POSITIONS OF ELECTED OFFICIALS CONCERNING THESE ISSUES.

Its cause is described as "women's rights".

ProPublica states the organization is organized as a 501(c)(4) organization and again refers to "women's rights" as its main classification.

The IRS has some specific requirements of such organizations receiving this kind of exemption. It states the following: 

To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements)...

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. 

The FEC lists the Center for Voter Information as an unauthorized PAC.

It would be interesting to know how much this organization does other than helping socialist candidates like Manning. Is it truly operating within the law? It seems pretty questionable.

Moreover, is socialism inherently good for women? The basis for this organization's existence and its political activities hinges upon this assumption. We are supposed to believe that women need socialism; and that this organization must therefore enjoy tax breaks to help them get it.

The mailer uses a Raleigh return address that traces back to a UPS store.

When this particular mailing landed in my box today, it had all the trappings of an ultra-shady, illegal activity. Those who have been involved in politics know that campaign mailings can be pretty expensive. From where did the money come, and if this is truly a 501(c)(4), are they paying taxes on those monies given the fact they are promoting candidates?

Some interesting questions.

How to Vote 2018

It is time to make some recommendations for the choices on the ballot in Guilford County this fall. Many have already voted; but some are confused as to some of the decisions to be made. I will discuss many of the races and other matters on the ballot, in the order in which they will appear:

Congress

It is important to look at the New American Freedom Index, Heritage Action lifetime rating and Conservative Review scorecards for the performance of your representatives. 

Ted Budd scores 74, 98 and 95 respectively.

Mark Walker scores 64, 92 and 80.

Ted Budd deserves re-election; and I will be voting for him. I have discussed his race here recently. While he is a Republican, and therefore will have some tendency to embrace a less-than-constitutional stance at times, he is far better than his three opponents. He is a Freedom Caucus member who is conservative with a good level of reliability.

Mark Walker is better than his opponent. He cast his lot with the establishment GOP leadership from the outset; and his voting record overall is fair. His votes overall seem to be improving, however. I do not recommend his opponent; and readers will need to make a decision as to whether to vote for Mark Walker or skip the race. I would probably vote for him if I lived in his district, but with some definite misgivings.

North Carolina General Assembly

Incumbents Phil Berger, Rick Gunn, Jerry Tillman, Trudy Wade, Jon Hardister and John Faircloth all voted to repeal HB 2. Faircloth has recently advised the NC Family Policy Council he supports anti-discrimination protections for the LGBT community, which means he effectively supports the persecution of orthodox Christians.

I regard the HB 2 repeal vote as a deal-breaker. I cannot recommend any of these incumbents. Surrender and betrayal on a defining issue such as this is simply unacceptable. I suggest that readers simply skip over these races.

The only GOP challenger in Guilford County I can support at this point without reservation is Kurt Collins who faces Cecil Brockman. Many of the other GOP challengers did not respond to the NC Family Policy Council questionnaire.

In Rockingham County, Kyle Hall and Jerry Carter appear to be worthy of support.

Board of County Commissioners

Alan Perdue and Justin Conrad, both GOP incumbents, have opponents this year. I recommend voting to support them to assure the democratic socialists do not regain control.

In many respects, the GOP majority has run out of steam, and is making conflicted decisions. Their passion to cut spending was markedly blunted after the first couple of years the GOP took control. This past session, the GOP majority supported enhancing the county MWBE program. They adopted very bad policy for political reasons. But things will get much worse if the socialists gain a majority.

Board of Education

Marc Ridgill deserves an opportunity to serve. He is a former police officer who served in the schools as a resource officer. His emphasis is on restoring safety and order in the schools. This is a perspective that needs to have much greater prominence on the school board. His opponent, Winston McGregor, is an education establishment insider. Her candidacy is intended to maintain a corrupt status quo.

Anita Sharpe deserves re-election. She has been a conservative voice on the school board.

Linda Welborn, another Republican, does NOT deserve re-election. She is an education establishment board member. I recommend skipping her race.

Sheriff

BJ Barnes is a long-time incumbent. He is a GOP establishment guy. His leadership has had some good aspects, and some bad aspects. We had reported here last year about the fact that he has been completely unwilling to assist federal authorities on certain aspects of their efforts to deal with illegal immigration.

I was disappointed in his response to the controversy when a sheriff's department vehicle killed multiple passengers in another vehicle during a high speed chase. I did not feel his handling of the matter was sufficiently supportive of the deputy sheriff involved, and the public's interest in pursuing the bad guys.

Barnes has been a big spender, always seemingly advocating for expensive facilities for his department. This smacks of empire-building. Jeff Phillips recently raised questions when one of his projects amassed cost overruns.

In addition, Barnes has been endorsed by the Replacements Ltd. PAC suggesting support of the LGBT agenda.

The alternative to Barnes would be considerably worse. Voters have to decide whether supporting Barnes is worth it when he is unwilling to fight illegal immigration.

North Carolina Supreme Court

This might be the most important race on the entire ballot. Barbara Jackson is, by far, the best candidate. She is the incumbent. 

Chris Anglin, another "GOP" candidate, is engaged in a dishonorable deception. He is a former Democrat who switched parties this year to run for the Supreme Court as a Republican, and undermine Jackson's candidacy. Less than ten years ago, he pled guilty to DWI and also later trespassing. He has a criminal record.

Anita Earls, the democratic socialist candidate, is a radical leftist. 

It is very important that Barbara Jackson win her race.

North Carolina Court of Appeals

I recommend Andrew Heath, Jefferson Griffin and Chuck Kitchen.

District Court Judge, District 18 Seat 2

The incumbent is Jon Kreider. He has been endorsed by the Replacements Ltd. PAC suggesting acquiescence with the LGBT agenda. (We had previously recommended this candidate, but this recommendation must be withdrawn.)

Constitutional Amendments

The NC Family Policy Council provides a nice summary including links to the actual amendment language.

1. Right to Hunt and Fish-- I recommend a vote in favor. There have been concerns expressed about people descending on private property without permission to hunt or fish but the amendment specifically deals with that issue.
2. Victim's  Rights-- Although my sympathy and concern is with the victim, I think this amendment goes too far and will cause unintended consequences. I recommend voting against.
3. Income Tax cap-- I recommend a vote in favor.
4. Voter ID-- Vote in favor. This ought to be a no-brainer.
5. Judicial Vacancies-- I recommend a vote against. This is a partisan attempt by Republicans to gain greater input into these appointments because of their current control of the legislature. Creating a commission based on temporal circumstances is not a good solution.
6. Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement-- Vote against this also. This is another partisan attempt by Republicans to gain greater control over an agency in which they have acute interest. Once again, this is policy-making based on temporal circumstances.

I hope the above is helpful.

The Spectre of Losing Public Health Rules: Pleading for a Second Chance

A couple of days ago I had posted here about a large body of public health rules in North Carolina lapsing because of some dysfunctional work and interplay between two state commissions-- the Public Health Commission and Rules Review Commission.

There has been more action on this matter over the last couple of days.

First, the Public Health Commission's emergency meeting on Saturday resulted in its report finally being delivered to the Rules Review Commission yesterday with yet another request for an extension. Their letter is found here. They explained that key staff members retiring or taking leave; the recent hurricanes; and their work with the World Equestrian Games all rendered them unable to meet their deadline. (Of course, the commission had had considerable advance time to get their work done.) They try to make the case that the rules have not yet been invalidated, but that they will be if the Rules Review Commission fails to act.

In response, the Rules Review Commission set an emergency meeting for Monday, October 29 at 1:00 pm to accept the report and consider the extension request. It is unclear whether a sufficient number of commission members will be present for the meeting, and vote in favor. 

What hangs in the balance? Basic public health rules that have been existence for many decades-- and in many cases, upwards of a century, in all likelihood-- on matters such as sanitation, food service, lead poisoning, child care centers and the like.

It seems likely that pressure came down to bear on both state commissions because of the major public health concerns that would potentially arise from any prolonged suspension of the regulations. It will be interesting to see if this will be fixed. Basic public health measures implemented a long time ago were responsible for major increases in longevity, and decreases in early mortality.  We would theoretically be at risk of surrendering these types of gains if certain rules were invalidated for a prolonged period of time.

Caravan Implications: "Anchor Babies" Are Not Rightfully US Citizens