Triad Conservative

How Will Nancy Vaughan's Political Malpractice Impact Us This Snow Event?

Recall the windstorms we had this fall. We had widespread, prolonged power outages in the city of Greensboro. Trees snapped and damaged power lines and other electrical equipment.

Several years ago, Mayor Nancy Vaughan initiated one of her foolish crusades against Duke Energy. When the power company was attempting to trim trees within city limits to protect its power lines, she intervened and made matters much more difficult for the utility. And we saw the consequences this fall. Numerous Greensboro residents sat in homes and businesses without power for multiple days.

Now, we have a predicted snowstorm that is supposed to be associated with high winds... and possibly ice. That is a formula that could result in power outages. Greensboro residents once again might be vulnerable to the impacts from Ms. Vaughan's foolishness. Some of us wish Duke Energy, with all its experience and expertise, had been granted wide latitude to take the measures it deems necessary. But instead, we had nanny-state Nancy Vaughan wagging her crooked finger.

I hope the impact is minimal to none when the weather event arrives. But if we have widespread power outages, you know who to blame.

The other issue, of course, is snow removal. I don't know how much will accumulate on the streets; but let's presume the predictions are true that we might have anywhere in the range of 6-15 inches, depending on the forecast. It seems that the snowfall will begin overnight, and that the heaviest portion of the snowfall will be concluded by tomorrow night. 

That means the city of Greensboro has every opportunity to get all of the major roads mostly cleared by Monday morning. But that requires they get out and start working long before the morning rush hour on Monday.

If the city drags its collective feet clearing snow, and delays getting to work, it inevitably has major impacts on the local economy. It goes into a temporary, partial shutdown. That is often what tends to happen.

The city has every opportunity to minimize the impacts of such snow events on local citizens. That requires allowing Duke Energy to keep trees trimmed away from power lines and equipment; and doing a timely, conscientious job clearing snow. It is impossible to meet the first condition given Ms. Vaughan's previous actions; but the second still might be possible.

Let's hope the weathermen are wrong, because we cannot rely on our local government.

A Contrarian View of George H.W. Bush

Former President George H.W. Bush had many good personal qualities. He occupied the Oval Office at the apogee of American strength and influence. 

But many conservatives would argue that he was not a good leader. Let's remember that "Bush-ism" has controlled the GOP since 1988-- and the following articles reveal, even before then. That explains the party's downward descent. Check out these excerpts from two articles over at Conservative HQ:

(A)s Vice President, George H. W. Bush came to the White House with an extensive Rolodex of progressive establishment Republican friends and contacts whom he worked hard to place in key positions in the government—starting with his campaign manager and fellow Texan, James Baker, as chief of staff at the White House. With Jim Baker in that key role, it became that much harder to place movement conservatives in other policy-making positions in the government.

Vice President Bush, Senator Howard Baker, Congressman Bob Michel, and the rest of the establishment Republicans in Washington weren’t necessarily bad people, but their lack of commitment to the conservative principles that Reagan ran on, and that grassroots conservatives expected the GOP to deliver on, meant that the debate that went on in the Republican primaries between Big Government Republicans and the Reaganites who wanted to shrink government never really ended.

However, it is a tribute to Bush’s political instincts (or perhaps more correctly the political instincts of the late Lee Atwater) that while George H.W. Bush was no conservative, to win the presidency he was more than happy to run as a conservative...

If “Read my lips: no new taxes,” was the most memorable line of the 1988 campaign, George H. W. Bush’s decision to abandon that commitment was, politically, the most momentous act of his presidency.

The decision to go back on his pledge not to raise taxes didn’t take place until well into his term. But Bush’s betrayal of the Reagan Revolution started the minute he took the oath of office.

Within hours of Bush’s inauguration establishment Republicans, such as James Baker III, who had opposed many of Reagan’s initiatives from within the administration, were promoted. But throughout the government Reagan’s conservative appointees, many of whom were loyal Republicans who had supported Bush, were forced to resign, were stripped of their duties, or were summarily fired by a new administration that wanted no part of the relatively few movement conservatives left in the government on the day Ronald Reagan departed Washington for California.

During Reagan’s presidency conservatives frequently said, “Personnel is policy,” and Bush’s Inauguration Day massacre was a sure sign that he intended to abandon Reagan’s policies, and his principles.

While most commentators tend to focus on “Read my lips,” Bush quickly walked away from conservative principles on a long list of policies and decisions.

• Bush reversed himself and imposed a temporary ban on semiautomatic rifles—so-called assault weapons—after first opposing the idea.

• He signed and advocated the Americans with Disabilities Act, creating a whole new realm of litigation nightmares for businesses large and small.

• He bailed out the troubled savings and loans banks.

• He signed the Civil Rights Act of 1990, making it easier for employees to sue employers.

• He bought into global warming by signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

• He created a “no net loss of wetlands” policy out of whole cloth, with little legislative authority, outraging farmers and landowners across the country.

• And in what was perhaps his most lasting and damaging betrayal of conservatives, he appointed an obscure state judge, David Souter of New Hampshire, to the Supreme Court.

I could go on—the point is, establishment media commentators tend to focus on “Read my lips” to sum up Bush’s administration, but there were a host of policies where Bush deviated not just from Reagan’s principles of government, but from conservative policy goals that had broad grassroots support.

While it was hard for Bush and his advisers to believe that he could go from over 90 percent approval when Operation Desert Storm ended in 1991, to getting just 37.5 percent of the popular vote in the 1992 election, it is easily explained when you look at the litany of me-too policies he backed and the liberal bills he signed.

Support for the Second Amendment and property rights, imposing moral hazard, instead of government bailouts for failed business transactions and investors, and opposing the creation of new “protected classes” of potential litigants were all broad conservative, and Republican, principles that predated Ronald Reagan. Bush walked away from all of them and in the process not only abandoned the policies of Ronald Reagan, but he destroyed the Reagan coalition, and did serious and long-lasting damage to the Republican brand.

It will be hard for many establishment figures to accept that assessment, and no doubt I will be accused of being unkind, but one only needs to look at the Contract with America to recognize that to regain the majority in Congress and to rebuild the Republican brand, Republicans had to run away from George H.W. Bush.

Never before had Republicans engaged in an effort to so completely expunge the legacy of a Republican president only two years after his defeat, since practically everything in the Contract with America was intended to scream at voters, “We’re not George Bush!” and at least one of the provisions of the Contract, that on compensation of property owners, was intended to mitigate the harm caused by Bush’s wetlands policy.

At his passing we can and should celebrate George H.W. Bush the war hero, family man, and a human being notably generous to friends and staff.

However, in the age of President Donald J. Trump, those who draw unflattering comparisons between Bush and Trump and wax nostalgic for George H.W. Bush’s public decorum and old-fashioned Protestant rectitude want Americans to forget that behind the gentlemanly exterior was a politician whose policies were anything but conservative, and whose greatest political legacy was breaking the Reagan coalition and undoing many of Ronald Reagan’s hard-won victories.

Trump's Proposed Trade Deal with Canada and Mexico Has Multiple Critical Defects

The Republican Congress over the last two years has achieved virtually nothing of major consequence. It has failed to enact conservative, constitutional legislation; and it has refused to pass the reforms President Trump has sought regarding borders, immigration and the wall. Even the tax bill that was passed was a mixed bag.

But now, since the GOP cedes control of the U.S. House in a few weeks, there ought to be more urgency to get things done. And one of the items under discussion is the proposed USMCA trade agreement to replace NAFTA. The Republicans might try to pass this before the socialists take control of the House. And Trump says he will formally terminate NAFTA first to put more pressure on Congress to pass the new agreement.

One of Trump's biggest problems has been staff in his administration actively undermining what he is trying to do from a policy standpoint. He has been poorly served, in part because he has often gone to the GOP establishment and others opposed to his agenda to staff his White House and the various federal agencies.

It turns out that the staff negotiating the USMCA with Mexico and Canada provide a great example. They allowed numerous problematic provisions to be inserted that no constitutional conservative or cultural conservative would ever want to see enacted. The agreement is apparently over 1800 pages long, which suggests how much questionable content might be embedded within it.

Here are some of the issues:

• It contains language forcing the LGBT agenda upon us, threatening religious liberty. A letter has been circulated signed by 38 GOP House members expressing concern about this. Among them were Ted Budd, Mark Walker, Mark Meadows and Walter Jones from North Carolina.
• It apparently implements the UN Agenda 2030 program that forces "sustainable development" on an international basis.
• It shields tech companies from litigation to assure they can censor political and cultural speech without consequence.
• Its text is similar to that of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Trump scuttled, and has similar problems from the standpoint of eroding national sovereignty, and advancing globalist structures that impose regulation on the American people.
• Ron Paul suggests it might open the door to weakening Right to Work laws such as that which we have in North Carolina.

Trump has been poorly served by his staff on the USMCA. I suspect he is not aware of all of its contents, and all the implications associated with the agreement. I hope Congress does not pass the USMCA.

If Trump terminates NAFTA, we might be better off with no trade deal at all.

City's Response to Police "Homicide" Feigns Understanding of What Happened

John Hammer at the Rhino Times reports that the city has decided to hire mental health professionals within the police department to assist officers responding to situations involving individuals with psychiatric or substance abuse problems.

We had posted here last week regarding the state Medical Examiner's Office calling the death of Marcus Smith a "homicide" at the hands of police; and how this did not adequately explain what happened.

But Triad City Beat describes how our exalted council members arrived at a solution: 

While many, including Smith’s family and supporters, are calling for sanctions against the police, Mayor Vaughan and some of her colleagues said they believe the outcome might have been different if the city had better mental-health resources.

Vaughan watched the video on Nov. 30 with fellow city council members Michelle Kennedy, Sharon Hightower and Nancy Hoffmann. Kennedy is the executive director of the Interactive Resource Center, a homeless day center, and knew Smith personally. Due to her professional background, Kennedy has experience working with people experiencing mental health and substance abuse challenges. Based on Kennedy’s experience, the mayor said, “The city is going to embed mental-health workers in our police department. These professionals will be new hires who will be specially trained to assist police with their encounters with people suffering from mental-health or drug-addiction issues to help defuse and deescalate negative interactions. They will also provide follow up and treatment options.”

While Ms. Kennedy has experience dealing with folks who have mental health and substance abuse issues, that does not qualify her to determine what caused Mr. Smith's death. And if she does not know what caused his death, then the solution is not necessarily targeted to what actually happened.

Why was he acting in the manner he was on the video? Was it purely a psychiatric meltdown, or was it due to intoxication with some type of substance, or was it due to withdrawal? Or was it due to a combination of these factors, or a combination of substances?

Or was it a physical medical problem that was causing so much agitation? We don't know because there was no opportunity to do a full evaluation prior to his death. We might have some hypotheses, but these will be very difficult to prove.

Likewise, it is pertinent to ask what caused his death. Was it due to the same medical predicament that had been causing him to behave in an erratic manner immediately prior to his death? Was it because he developed respiratory failure or some type of lethal heart arrhythmia that developed as a consequence of his other problems? Was it due to drug overdose or withdrawal?

The explanation of the cultural and political left is positional asphyxia due to "hog-tying". But would a healthy individual have died if restrained by police in a similar manner? The police did not appear to be applying a huge amount of force to the upper part of his body; and therefore his chest was not being crushed into the ground. The blame-police-first crowd, of course, will hear none of this. 

The idea that a mental health professional could somehow have fixed this issue in the field under these circumstances is a presumption that may not be true. Again, we don't know precisely what the circumstances were; but the gentleman ultimately had to be restrained in order to be helped. In the medical environment, agitated patients can be "cooled down" with certain kinds of medication. But that is difficult to do in the field for various reasons.

Restraining agitated individuals is not necessarily pretty. And he resisted two previous attempts-- in the patrol car, and on his back-- that the police attempted.

Indeed, it could be argued that this gentleman might have caused his own death. We need to consider the bigger picture.

One of the drugs he used, N-ethylpentylone, is a "designer" drug that recently came into wider use, and that can be lethal at times. It is really bad stuff. It is described as being much more potent than Ecstasy or MDMA... a similar drug; and can be particularly problematic when mixed with alcohol. Both N-ethylpentylone and alcohol were found on his autopsy.

The Institutionalization of Pretending and Ignoring Reality

Goolsby on UNC Proposal

UNC Silent Sam Proposal Falls Short

The long awaited report from the UNC Chapel Hill Board of Trustees recommends that the Silent Sam statue be placed in a new history museum to be located in an obscure part of the campus-- around the far south edge apparently.

Carolina Journal reports: 

(UNC Chapel Hill Chancellor Carol) Folt detailed a four-part plan to preserve the statue and provide historical context, while also ensuring public safety on campus...

This excerpt reveals the first problem with the proposal. It places the university in the position of explaining away the significance of the memorial, making it appear immoral and unworthy of contemporary liberal deference. It would be presented in the context of racial guilt; and laced with criticism of the history of the southern United States and the state of North Carolina.

The Associated Press, however, identifies two other problems with the proposal:

North Carolina's law on historical monuments allows relocation in only narrow circumstances, such as to preserve the artifact or because of construction. University attorney Mark Merritt said the proposal meets those criteria because the statue was vandalized and ultimately toppled in its previous location and because of planned changes at the McCorkle Place quadrangle that many call the university's "front door."

Under the state law, a new location for a monument must be similarly prominent and accessible; the university's proposal says the new building housing "Silent Sam" will be in the middle of "the next area of growth for campus." 

Carol Folt had on multiple occasions expressed the sentiment that she did not feel the monument should not be present at the university's "doorstep".  It was located at a very prominent part of campus, and easily visible from Franklin Street, the main drag through town. The new proposed location is not nearly as prominent, and barely known to those outside the university. University officials are engaged in a huge deception by trying to make it appear this new location is comparably prominent.

In addition, the university attorney is making it appear that a construction plan at the old location necessitates the relocation of the statue. This is apparently a self-serving plan on the part of university officials who do not want the statue restored to its former location. There was no public discussion of construction at the old site prior to the development of this controversy.

I think the statue should be restored to its previous location as a memorial. In addition, I believe it should be enveloped by some type of secure, transparent enclosure that will prevent the vicious, violent left from damaging it once again.

It is unfortunate that is what needs to happen. But think about what churches have to do to protect their stain glass windows. All around the country, you see church buildings with special, transparent or translucent shatter-proof "glass" in place over stained glass exteriors for protection. That certainly was not necessary, say, 55 years ago. But now, with the introduction of cultural Marxism into significant swathes of the population, historical markers and churches must have added protection. 

The UNC Chapel Hill proposal now must be considered by the UNC system's Board of Governors, which is exclusively comprised of individuals appointed by the Republican General Assembly. It is now the Republican Board of Governors' responsibility to determine whether UNC Chapel Hill will be allowed to relocate Silent Sam to an obscure location, in violation of state law; and whether university lefties will be permitted to "contextualize" away the meaning of the memorial.

It is interesting because Republicans tend to represent the many North Carolina residents with deep roots in this state who revere their history, and who respect their ancestors' sacrifices. Will the GOP betray them, as they have done many times before, or will they step up to the plate this time?

Yes, the leftist mob re-emerged yesterday in Chapel Hill after the new proposal was announced; and they were unhappy. But there is a huge, silent majority of North Carolina citizens who are appalled at what has transpired; and who want the Republicans to do the right thing. The statue needs to be returned to its former location with additional physical protection.

Jailbreak Bill: GOP Split Between Law-and-Order Advocates, "Libertarianish" Harvesters of Black Vote

Given the fact that the GOP Congress achieved almost nothing during the last two years, and the democratic socialists are taking over the House next month, there is considerable pressure to get things done over the next four weeks.

One of the matters being discussed is the prison reform package that would ostensibly reduce prison sentences for low-level offenders.

Some within the GOP, like Tom Cotton, are opposing this bill on law-and-order grounds. But there are a fair number of Republicans who take a more libertarian approach to prison and sentencing; or who might otherwise want to ingratiate themselves with the black community to harvest votes. They have become convinced that it is vital to secure more black support in the future; and buying them off with prison reform is felt to be one way of doing this. It should be noted that President Trump favors the bill.

It is unclear whether Mitch McConnell will allow it to come up for a vote in the Senate. Cotton is turning out to be one of the more principled Republicans in the Senate.

I have concerns with this bill. It will apparently let off the hook some violent offenders, and kingpins who traffic in dangerous drugs including fentanyl. We have had a major increase in overdose deaths during recent years. The fact that we are even having this prison reform discussion is a bit perplexing, especially after the politicians had heavily increased regulation of the medical community because of all the overdose deaths.

Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review has done his homework on this bill. Matthew Boyle at Breitbart has also. Check out what they have to say.

We ought to have a principled discussion as to whether all the people held in federal prisons had been sentenced for truly federal crimes under the original meaning of the Constitution. Many crimes, of course, are not rightfully federal crimes.

But my concern is that we are on the heels of a prolonged period during which crime rates overall decreased; and politicians now feel comfortable letting people out of prison early. Here in North Carolina, one of the first things Republicans did when they took over the General Assembly was to shut down some prisons. They have felt emboldened to get more soft on crime because crime rates had become so much better.

But remain mindful that keeping criminals in prison is a critical part of the formula that reduces crime rates.

Perhaps the new tendency to get soft on crime is having an impact. Just a few weeks ago, there was a major report suggesting an increase in deadly shootings around the country.

I hope the GOP in Washington does not rush into passing the bill. They ought to re-examine the federal criminal code, and throw out any laws resulting in criminal penalties that do not reflect legitimately federal crimes. But otherwise, they ought not let the criminals out of prison because we need to maintain a commitment to public safety.

What Differentiates the NC Health Care Environment from Fascism: Dale Folwell's Last Stand?

Imagine government creating all kinds of tax incentives and funding mechanisms via governmental charity programs to assure that the general public accesses the services of a given industry. Add the dimension of granting de facto monopoly status to some of the major players within the industry.

Imagine further that the industry pays lobbyists to assure that legislation tilts the playing field in its advantage; and that it buys off political candidates to represent its interests.

Also, conceive of the possibility that government adds multiple layers of requirements that assure the costs of doing business within the industry are prodigious. Prices for consumers also become prodigious.

Imagine likewise how many of the players in the industry have an enormous "moat", and are thereby protected from major competition. The competition many face is only nominal.

Finally, imagine that many of the players within the industry are disguised as altruistic non-profits even though their numerous executives and higher level managers are paid very handsomely.

We are describing, of course, classical fascism, in which government and industry function as almost a single unit, intertwined and interdependent to the point that one is nearly the agent of the other. We are describing modern state and federal governments, and their respective relationships with the various health care systems and insurers around the country.

When we examine what State Treasurer Dale Folwell  is challenging with his proposal for the State Health Plan, it is quite necessary to understand the nature of the environment. Recent developments suggest that the hospital community and General Assembly Republicans are beginning to buck against Folwell's plan. Remain mindful that, as State Treasurer, he is responsible for the State Health Plan.

What is the problem? The Plan covers state employees, many teachers, state college and university employees and certain local government employees. It is huge. And the plan accesses the network of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) providers, which means that it has been entirely subject to reimbursement rates negotiated between BCBS and various hospital systems. And because these "private" contracts are kept confidential-- even when non-profits are involved-- Folwell has no way of knowing what precisely is being paid.

Some purchasers of health insurance must pay very dearly in order to access the services of the hospital systems benefiting from the entire fascistic set-up described above. One group that pays dearly is North Carolina taxpayers.

Folwell is trying to cut the taxpayer a better deal, and save the plan from insolvency. But the hospital systems have grown quite accustomed to the generous reimbursements they have received from the State Health Plan. For hospital systems located where there are many plan members-- the Triangle, locales with major state universities, etc.-- it would be a significant loss of revenue.

The Daily Haymaker is now reporting that Republicans in the General Assembly are developing legislation to prevent Folwell from fixing the situation. And he speculates whether, based on the timing of the legislation being developed, the GOP establishment will be planning a challenge to Folwell in the 2020 primary. It seems he might have crossed some of the wrong people when he advanced his plan.

He cannot fix the entire fascistic environment developed over 75 years by both major parties that led to this situation. But Folwell certainly can make a difference within his own domain.

The institutional GOP-- the party we are supposed to believe represents fiscal responsibility and limited government-- apparently doesn't want him to succeed.

Politicized State Medical Examiner's Office Says Greensboro Police Committed Homicide

The word "homicide" is a legal term. It is a term used by prosecutors.

It is NOT a medical term. It is not even a medical description or diagnosis.

Yet, today we learned that the State Medical Examiner's Office issued its report in a contentious case involving Greensboro police officers; and essentially accused the police officers of homicide.

A black male had died in the custody of our police nearly two months ago. The story making its way around the internet was that the gentleman was "hog-tied". Local anti-police forces have said this is a dangerous method of restraining a suspect. He was in a prone position-- on his belly-- when he was "hog-tied" in order to restrain him.

Here is what Triad City Beat-- a publication that hates police intensely-- said about the State Medical Examiner's report:

Based on the autopsy findings and circumstances surrounding the death, as currently understood, the cause of death is listed as sudden cardiopulmonary arrest due to prone restraint; n-ethylpentalone, cocaine and alcohol use; and hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” the autopsy states. “The manner of death is classified as homicide.”

The autopsy notes that toxicological testing performed on Smith detected n-ethylpentalone — described as “a drug commonly sold purported to be MDMA/ecstacy” — along with “a low level” of cocaine, and a blood alcohol level measured at 30 mg/dL.

The city released the video of the incident today. It reveals an extremely agitated, delirious middle aged black male running in zig-zag fashion in the street, placing himself at risk of being struck by a vehicle. The police were trying to help him. They had to get him to the hospital; and they faced the confounding task of immobilizing him so that he could be brought to the ER. They were reasonably gentle performing the task they were trying to complete. I did not see anything they did that would have caused the black male to die.

The autopsy lists three drugs found in the gentleman's system. A combination of multiple drugs of this type, including alcohol, can have unpredictable effects.

One of these drugs-- n-ethylpentalone-- is problematic because it

"can cause circulation problems, lethal heart palpitations and hallucinations". ^[7] It has been linked to a number of overdose deaths...

Alcohol itself can be problematic when withdrawal results in delirium tremens, otherwise known as "DT's". I do not know whether this gentleman was in DT's, but I think that ought to be investigated. 

Here is what Wikipedia says about DT's:

Mortality without treatment is between 15% and 40%.

That means DT's can kill people. And again, this gentleman seemed to be demonstrating agitation and confusion that could be consistent with DT's.

Emedicine states the following: 

The most common conditions leading to death in patients with DTs are respiratory failure and cardiac arrhythmias. 

Readers must understand that this gentleman was experiencing delirium. Delirium obviously occurs in DT's. But it also occurs in other medical circumstances that can lead to death, including but not limited to heart problems.

I don't know how the medical examiner's office arrived at the conclusion that the gentleman died of sudden cardiopulmonary arrest due to prone restraint. Would an otherwise healthy male in his age group, drug-free, have died if restrained in this manner? I highly doubt it. 

The classification of the situation as homicide reeks of political manipulation. The state medical examiner's office is part of the state Department of Health and Human Services. This is an executive agency under the control of Governor Roy Cooper-- a democratic socialist. It almost seems they wanted to blame the situation on police. What evidence did they offer that prone restraint caused the gentleman to die? I haven't seen any as of yet.

Something smells in Denmark, and it ain't Greensboro police. These police officers doubtless would have preferred not to have to deal with an agitated gentleman in these circumstances. They handled this situation for all of us. I have had to deal with these situations in the medical setting; and it isn't fun.

People need to cut these police officers a break. They were trying to do the right thing. They are now being placed at risk of a malicious prosecution or other types of litigation when they were trying to help the gentleman.

The deceased gentleman's family is all "lawyered up". I don't know whether they are seeking a financial settlement. But the city has set a precedent by handing out wads of cash whenever situations arise involving police. Word has doubtless gotten around.