Let England

Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Does anyone else see the irony emanating in the nation's capital?

On Monday the Supreme ruled against the state of Texas in a case that
challenged its law to ensure abortions are performed under circumstances
that insure maximum safety for women.

The majority ruled 5-3 the Texas law would place a substantial obstacle
and an unnecessary health regulations on a woman seeking an abortion
impose.

As expected there were cheers and tears, the first for protecting the right,
the second for increasing the risk.  Go figure!

But, consider, less than two miles away, at Washington's City Hall the
strict regulation imposed on 'hair braiding'!  

We should not be surprised that in the nation's capital,  born on a swamp,
such decisions would be made!

Incidentally, here in NC, our Republican led General Assembly passed
legislation which was signed by our Republican governor that repealed
a similar hair braiding law that has burdened African-Americans hair
stylists which was enacted in 2010 by Democrat led legislature and
Democrat governor.


Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com
 "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Finding value in political parties is not easy...

Earlier I wrote a piece about George Will leaving the Republican Party.  

Will stated he changed his affiliation from Republican to "unaffiliated",
deciding to become a true 'outsider' of the two party process, limiting
his role to his Election Day vote. Piece found at link:  bit.ly/28W2I5p

Will chose to join the growing number of Americans who have left the
two-party system, preferring not be active members in either party's
events or its conventions, nor participate in closed primaries.

Will's decision brings up an interesting topic, at least to me, what does
it mean to be a member of a political party?

I've wrestled with my role in the Republican Party since I began attending
monthly meetings, joining other like minded partisans to eat and mingle with 
no particular purpose other than chat on issues we agree on and bitch about
Democrat opponents. 

During election season the number of attendees increase as candidates flock 
to meetings to campaign and seek donations. Party  leaders also begin to sign 
up volunteers to energize the electorate by walking the precincts and making 
phone calls. 

Yet, with all I have seen, I'm still at a lose, what is the purpose of a political 
party if it does have a goal to benefit its members, and be more than getting 
a member elected.

Its not that there aren't enough issues, they hit us each day in newspapers
and over the airwaves. But, how many party clubs take on the challenge
and press their representatives at all levels to do something to fix problems?

I don't have the answer....but as you ponder the question read what George
Washington wrote in his Farewell Address letter to Congress at the end of
his presidency. At one point he gave his colleagues as well as future 
generations a warning about "factions", which we call political parties.

In his two terms as president Washington saw first hand the damage which 

could be done by people whose desires included destructive weakening of 

lawful authorities.

 Washington spoke of factions twice, as follows:

17 All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

19 Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

 I'd appreciate any comment you have posted on this blog.

Regards




Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

"A women's right to choose", where do you stand?

The battle between pro-lifers, those who want to prevent an unborn from being destroyed
and the pro-choicers, those who believe women can destroy the life of an unborn if she
chooses to do so has been going even since 'conception'...of Roe V. Wade.

Most would agree women should control their own bodies, but equally affirmative is that
life, even an unborn one, is deserving of preservation.

This is the forty-three year tug of war we find ourselves in that created its own multi-billion
dollar industry of legal representation, non-profits on both sides of the issue, and big money
to influence law makers.

But, is this what it comes down to, destroying more than a million lives a year in the name
of a 'right'? Even as an estimated two million couples are eager to adopt.

In today's America we treat leftovers better then unwanted unborn, table scraps for our pets!

Today there were cheers and tears as Texas abortion restrictions were struck down,
restrictions written into 1973 original Roe V. Wade decision.

But, in today's world restrictions of any kind are unacceptable.  There will be no ultrasound
so a young woman can see the life she is carrying.  In fact, the pro-chosers won't even allow
the word 'life' be part of the conversation.....the name fetus tissue is what a fully formed child,
with fingers and toes, is the only acceptable description.

The pro-choicers are winning the battle so what can the pro-lifers to do?

They should continue to volunteer in pro-life organizations to aid and comfort young women
fortunate enough to go through their doors rather than an abortion mill, notably Planned
Parenthood whose shameful record is 320,000 abortions a year, and an equally shameful
1100 adoptions annually!

Especially visit Black churches and help them fight the abortion industry which cares little
about the decision young women, often without parental knowledge, are urged to make.

Pro life advocates cannot count on the courts, but they can count on themselves. They can
go forward and save one life at a time,  the worthiest endeavor anyone can have....
Get to work!!!



Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

What "BRexit" means...an awakening of the American electorate!

 As Americans look across the Atlantic at what just occurred in Great Britain they may not
understand that the European Union is a 'sibling' of our own governance.

The media has reported those who voted to leave the European Union ('BRexit) are not
pleased with being dictated to from Brussels. But, the media dares not offer a comparable
relationship our American states have with Washington, DC.


The Federal govt. is no different than the European Union it governs from afar, controlling
most elements of the peoples lives and using its power of the purse to dictate to independent
states.

There is no difference between the European Union telling its member nations which toaster
can be purchased....and Congress writing more than 2000 new laws each year and Federal
agencies adding over 1000 new regulations each week.

The only difference, the majority of Brits have rebelled while most Americans have conformed!

Maybe our submission is due to the slow speed in which it has been done, beginning with
the father of the 'new world order' President Woodrow Wilson, who used the same trappings
one hundred years ago the European Union founders used to get almost thirty countries to
sign away their sovereign authority.

Conformity is what govt. wants, but conformity should not be mandated from Brussels or  in
Washington. It must come from a consensus, close to the voter, not the desires of vested
interests indifferent to what is best for the people.

What we have observed in England may be replicated in November if Donald Trump is
elected. He sees what the people want while Hillary Clinton knows what her patrons want.

But, like Great Britain, the decision is in our hands!



Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Two cursed words you will not hear coming from Washington....

I can only begin by stating, "nice work if you can get it".  That sums up my feelings

reading that more than two-thirds of Federal workers receive annual bonuses, 

whether their performance warrants it or not.

Each year as many Federal agencies exceed their budgets, and still fail to meet the 

requirements of the job, as chronicled about the Veteran Administration, the IRS, 

and even FEMA, employees receive bonuses, exceeding $400 million annually.

Such a 'small' amount is a rounding error given the size of the Federal budget, but

this is not about money, its about degradation of service to the public without cost.

Why bring this up now?  Well, the thought occurred after reading the following tweet

from Donal Trump after he returned to New York after the opening of his golf course

in Scotland.  

The tweet: 

Just landed in New York - a one night stay in Scotland. Turnberry came out magnificently. 

My son, Eric, did a great job - under budget!

Trump used two words I have never heard used by anyone in politics or even working in 

the Federal bureaucracy...."under budget". 

Those two 'cursed words', that will never find a home in Washington, DC!

The American people have accepted unaccountable incompetence as a standard of

governance. The bureaucrats who spend more than $3 trillion in taxes and $1 trillion in

debt have no compunction to serve the public with honor which comes from deeply

rooted principles.

Maybe this innocuous tweet tells us something the public should be aware of, this

year one candidate who is running may be the steward of the people's money we have

not seen in decades.  

Trump may be the first president to hold Federal agencies accountable and strive

to serve the people while staying "under budget".

Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Stop the Presses! George Will leaves GOP over Trump!

WOW!  How can the party survive without George Will?

But, don't expect to see a vacuum in the Republican ranks.  What
Donald Trump, this 'non-conservative', is doing is showing what
it means to be conservative with offered solutions, not campaign
rhetoric.

For the first time the Republican Party is growing its ranks. For
every 'George Will' who leaves, the replacement will be thousands
who understand Trump's message, woven with solutions, not
promises which will never be fulfilled by globalists using bait and
switch to gain favor!

Why is Trump's candidacy the reason for Will to depart?  Wasn't
the treatment of the eighty newly elected conservative Tea Party
members of Congress enough?  Wasn't the outrageous attacks
on Sen. Ted Cruz by Republican leadership enough?  Wasn't the
refusal to use legislation to challenge the Obama Administration
enough?

And, what can we make of George Will, who has been pontificating
conservative virtues for over forty years while the Republican Party
grew non-conservative governance as much as Democrats have.

Trump is not talking about adding more federal agencies as Nixon
did. Trump is not talking about making trade deals that kills American
jobs as Bush did, Trump is not talking about central planning of
public education  represented by Common Core blessed by most
Republicans. Nor is Trump talking about deficit budgets and raised
debt ceilings as Republican presidents and Congresses have agreed to!

Trump is doing what no Republican has done since Patrick Buchanan
in 1992, warning the American people our nation cannot not sustain its
role as the free world's leader as it is gradually morphed into Europe!

The  media will make hay out of this big news, but will not mention
bigger news, more than ninety percent of the American people do not
know who George Will is or care less about anything he has to say.


Perhaps if Hillary Clinton is our next president George Will will host
a welcoming party for her at his home as he did for President Obama!


Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

The neglected responsibility of the European Union

Most Americans have little understanding of the European Union, a group
I fall into. For this reason I researched its website to learn about it.

europa.eu/index_en.htm.

The European Union (EU) was a long time coming, a seventy year journey,
the product of the best of intentions, but flawed with a glaring omission.

Before reading on, look over the index and read the topics. See if you
can find what topic is not listed. europa.eu/pol/index_en.htm .

While the proponents of the EU are quick to describe it as an economic

powerhouse of twenty eight members (until the UK voted to leave) with

more than 500 million people and a $15 trillion economy, it neglects to
take ownership of its own defense from major threats beyond the pin
pricks of scattered terrorist attacks across the continent.

While the EU bureaucrats have labored to dot every "I" and cross every
"T" so the people know exactly the requirements of conformity, the EU
offers no Euro-military force to protect its members.

Was this an oversight? Or, does the EU feel no need to have its own force

since the United States has over 65,000 troops deployed in Europe?

It appears the latter.  The free world has the comfort of knowing the

United States will be there to protect them, putting our military at

risk and our taxpayers paying the cost.

The world has changed. Europe no longer needs an American

military presence. The United States should withdraw its troops
from Europe and use the money saved to strengthen our economy.

Its time the EU add one more topic to its list, security!

Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Will Republican leadership stand up to Democrat sit in?

If you listened to the media reporting of the protest by Congressional Democrats
in the House you would think they were in hibernation since Jan. 20th, 2009, the
day President Obama was sworn in.

Here we are, nearly eight years later, and the media is reporting how terrible the
Republican leadership is for not allowing a vote on yet another gun bill that was
already defeated in the Senate, not an unusual step both chambers often do.

The media will not offer what Nancy Pelosi did in the House in 2008, refusing to
allow Republicans to offer an energy bill.

Nor, will they remind us President Obama told Republicans "I won, you lost"
when concerns over the size of the stimulus package was questioned in 2010..

And, there was no Hollywood support for Republicans seeking fiscal sanity as they
do now supporting  the Democrat boycott.

No, this is the world we live in, and we either get used to it or fight like Hell so our
nation will not be further 'transformed' as candidate Barack Obama promised and
has successfully done since elected.

Unfortunately, Speaker Paul Ryan is clueless about what to do. He can pop up on
cable channels and offer rational reasons to counter the empathy-driven visual
argument by Democrats that they have no voice.

But, this will gain no traction, the media couldn't care less about 'rational arguments',
they prefer to report a car crash, which is what has been orchestrated by Democrats
and their willing accomplices..

Ryan has so little confidence in the majority of the electorate, so afraid of his own
members who have their eyes on November, he does not want a vote.

If only Ryan had the spine of former speaker Pelosi who shut out the lights in the
Capitol and adjourned, maybe the folly of what is going on in the House, would
have not gotten off the ground.

And, Republicans in the leadership think Donald Trump is the problem!



Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Attention to world wide human rights criminal behavior

Donald Trump has brought a serious matter center stage which no American politician
has ever done. Not Carter, Reagan, Bush-41,Clinton, Bush-43 or Obama.

Ever since the gay movement became a political force several decades back fighting for
the same rights all other American have our nation has only addressed 'gay rights' within
our borders, ignoring that around the world gays are treated  unfairly, jailed and even
murdered.

Yet, what have we done?

We may have 'polite conversations' with leaders of countries that consider homosexuality
a crime, often harshly punished. But this does nothing to help gays in these countries.
Such talk is 'filler' for public consumption, and does not seriously address the issue.

This election year that all may be changing, thanks to Donald Trump who has brought
the issue center stage.

While national media is fixated and openly opposed to North Carolina passing legislation
that only individuals of the same sex are allowed to use designated rest rooms and similar
 facilities, the real threat to gays are ignored.

LGBT organizations publicly protested the law, entertainers have canceled appearances
in NC and media has been saying this is an affront that must end. Yet, no outcry comes
from the LGBT community, politicians and the media when gay men are tossed from
roof tops in Iran or beheaded by ISIS?

Where is the demand by our UN ambassador on the floor of the United Nations no member
nation should discriminate as many of the Arab states currently do? Where are the sanctions
against these nations as there were against South Africa for it discrimination against Blacks?

The answer is plain for all the see, there was none than, and there is none now!

Our country has no trouble accepting human rights abuses by our trading partners, has for
years and will continue to do so unless the LGBT make their protest go beyond our borders
and on the world stage.

Unlike Hillary Clinton who has claimed when speaking of the LGBT community, "I am one
of you". But, don't expect Hillary to join Trump, as she remains in the pocket of the
Saudis who have given her more than $20 million. Donald Trump could be the one person who
can do this.

Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Comparing 'apples' in a crate of 'oranges'

Once again the sports media is beside itself  in its incessant desire to promote an argument
comparing two outstanding athletes.

The 'who is better' argument has risen once again comparing LeBron James, who just led
his team to the NBA championship, with Michael Jordan. The discussion has been around
for a couple of years, but now reappears due to James outstanding performance.

But, can we seriously compare individuals in a team sport? Is it fair when 'so many pieces'
must work in unison to achieve success?

The sports media has all the numbers at their fingertips, but no mention of 'team'. Its an
argument that provides no value other than be a 'filler' between commercials.  Tune it out!

Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View"
blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Twitter followers, and others who may be interested.....

I really enjoy Twitter.  It allows me to select people, media, businesses and
organizations I am interested in following.

I especially find political and media groups interesting for they provide view
from diverse perspectives.

But, I do find some groups particularly odd, including Media Matters, Politico,
Huffington Post, its sister, Huffington Politics, Mother Jones and Daily Kos.

I know they are Left leaning which is fine. But, they also have something
else in common, all are Hell bent on destroying Donald Trump's candidacy,
as demonstrated by the multitude of daily anti-Trump tweets with links to
anti-Trump stories.

I can understand a Left leaning source on Twitter wanting to bring attention
to negatives on Trump, but what I cannot understand is how little is being
tweeted positively about Hillary Clinton! Where are the tweets of why she
is best to lead our nation? Can't they find anything to say about her tenure
as a senator or Secy of State?

Perhaps there is 'dual message' on display, which other followers of these
media sources should question as I do. So-called media are as far away
from the industry as a clam, with their only 'assignment', offer mindless and
hateful drivel, not worthy of more than a glance!

Will I "un follow" them?  Not at all which so much bad news being reported,
a little comedy is always welcome!





Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

A Reasonable Question for the times

In the aftermath of another murderous attack on innocent civilians in Orlando,
its not surprising this question be asked, even in the polite conversation over
a Father's Day dinner.  "Why should people be able to legally own so much
fire power?" This is fair due to overwhelming damage such weapons cause.

However, while there is a media and politically driven outcry "something be done",
we should first evaluate what has been done already.

Most people asking the question may not be aware govt., at all levels, have taken
numerous steps to limit availability of fire arms of all types.

In total, more than 20,000 local ordinances, state laws and  Congressional legislation
relating to gun ownership are on the books. Yet, across the country carnage occurs,
most notably by hand guns on the streets of poor, crime and drug infected cities.

So, at this point what 'silver bullet' (pardon the pun) can be offered to stop the gun
violence?

With all the newspaper editorials, all the attacks on the National Rifle Assoc, all the
disingenuous political hyperbole, nothing concrete has been proposed, only 'banning
assault weapons' by people who incorrectly pin this name on any type of multi-shot rifles.

In fact, Democrats now using the Orlando attack to push for new legislation had their
chance when  they took control of Congress in 2009 but did nothing. No legislation was
offered to once again ban 'assault weapons', legislation that expired in 2004.

Only now  are Democrats railing for new laws, after failing when they had the chance!

And what about law enforcement that already has lethal fire power. In some minority
communities there is an outcry police have too much, with comparisons to the military.

This picture was taken in 1999 when the Federal govt. went into a home in the middle
of the night and removed Elian Gonzales so he could be returned to his father in Cuba. 

Maybe, minority communities have a point!




Perhaps, we consider some fire arms be banned totally, including law enforcement.

I can understand looking to the 'visual', the picture of any rapid firing gun and what it
can do. But, behind every firearm is a person.  And, unless we raise the standard to
purchase a firearm we will always remain susceptible to the behavior of a few, not
the rights of all.



Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

What good is being a 'global city' if you can't keep the people safe?

 Can you be a global city when you can't keep your most vulnerable people safe?

This heading caught my attention.  It told a 'tale of two cities', New York and Chicago. One was able to grasp a hold on the safety of its citizens two decades ago, one still 
has not.

Neither is unaware what it takes to reduce the murders, both have the resources to address the problem, but only one took the required steps to reduce the murder rate.
 
When Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel welcomed international visitors to a forum on
 'Global Cities', he did not mention the dangers of living in some sections of the city, 
and the well understood warning, "if you are young, poor, Black and male, you're in constant mortal peril."

It has long been said all local politicians have to do is "fix pot holes and pick up the 
trash" to get reelected. There was never  a quote about keeping citizens safe, it was 
a given!

But why is Chicago unable to reduce the murder rate while most other cities have?

It can't be resources, Chicago has an eight billion dollar budget, but within the annual budget report I may have stumbled on the answer.

I found the Chicago budget report to be the equivalent of a new car brochure, full of  "feel good" initiatives such as 'bike ways', 'corporate investments', funding 'museums'  
and other amenities. 

Its a 173 page online document which does not allow readers to "look under the hood" 
to see how poorly the engine of public safety is running, which you can read for yourselves.  http://bit.ly/1V7o9xQ

As I perused the document I was trying to find references to policing. I did a search  
and found more than a dozen, but in these instances "police" was in references to  
their pensions!  

I did find on page 36 that 300 police will shift from administrative positions back 
into neighborhood, hopefully the most violent! That was the extent.  You would think 
the most pressing problem facing Chicago would warrant more than a single reference.

Its disturbing to imagine that, in Chicago, Black lives don't matter at all.

The story on this 'tale of two cities' can be found at New York Slant, bit.ly/1UgV7wa


Unless residents rise up and demand the mayor and city council direct more of its resources to the citizen's safety don't expect to see the weekly carnage end!


Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

The "Zero Sum Game" of charitable contributions

The "Zero Sum Game", meaning a finite amount, of charitable contributions came
to mind when I thought of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) and its success in
getting corporations and even countries to readily contribute to its foundation.

With the tens of millions contributed to the CGI I wondered what it offered that
 is not already being done and secondly, have voluntary contributions to other
charities fallen as many major corporate contributors now donate to the CGI?

I was curious to learn what CGI is actually doing and made my first stop to its
website. www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative .

First, I learned the CGI is a branch of the Clinton Foundation (CF) which appears
to have a larger mission, and got me even more curious.

I learned from the CF website,  www.clintonfoundation.org/  how it worked,
and grew especially curious reading its opening statement, its an  'operating'
foundation" which does not provide grants to other charitable organizations.

I found this odd. Shouldn't the established and successful charitable organizations
be the most deserving of funding, especially from a major foundation? I read on.

CF states it prefers to work with its own staff and "partners", without mentioning who
these partners are. It does mention supporting other philanthropic endeavors, only its
vague in exactly how, other than 'convening' these partners to develop programs.

The CF does provide statistics, such as providing US schools with "healthy food choices"
and thousands of farmers in Africa receiving 'climate-smart' agronomic training! Other
initiatives listed include gas house gases are being reduced, all which have been done
for decades before the CF was even created!

Now to the CGI.

Since its inception in 2005 the website states the CGI 'community' has made thousands
of 'Commitments to Action', helping millions of people, but with no mention of what
commitments were or how they help people.

I won't belabor this, but I view both the CF and CGI are "gate keepers", created for
access to the billions that will be spent. Both are "middle men" to connect their donors,
for a contribution, to federal agencies and countries around the world needing aid in
a variety of forms.

I would venture to guess if the "dots are connected" we will learn the contributors to
both the CF and CGI are the same ones that receive govt. contracts to provide aid.

What CF and CGI appears to be is an organization, with Bill and Hillary at the helm.
They may have turned ransacking of much needed funding into an art form! Billions
has poured into the CF and CGI coffers,  all in the name of philanthropic efforts, while
at the same time provided the Clinton family princely incomes and a standard of living
the people they profess to help can only dream about.

Lastly, the looming question remains, which charitable organizations have seen their
contributions go down....with the rise of CF and CGI?

Learn more for yourselves by reading what CF and CGI websites offer.

Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Is it really time we finally "banned assault weapons"?

Most people would not think to bring a firearm into a night club, which is good.
Our country has come as far as any to make its citizens feel safe and not feel
personal protection is needed.

But, these are unusual times, clouded with fear. Fear of what our govt. refuses
to do and anger for what it seems incapable to do, both putting the people at
great risk.

While this is the reality that needs our attention we continue be told about matters
baring little relevance, which are only brought up to advance political desires.

Misstatements, 'confirmed' by fear, is what we have to deal with. And how we
respond determines if our security will be equal to the threat our nation faces.

Firearms are again under attack by those who actually believe if 'good' people
who obey the law do not have guns than 'bad' people who don't will not have
guns either.

After the attack on a night club in Orlando, the expected resuscitated rallying
cry heard was to "ban assault weapons". On the surface this seems reasonable
until you consider the fact, they are already banned!

Most people may not be aware as the media now call any firearm an "assault
weapon" to continue to drive the message of fear, not the one of individual
vigilance!

If you want to know when assault weapons were banned, here is the date
line, what occurred since they were banned.

They were banned before the 2008 financial crisis, the 2004 creation of
Facebook, the 2002 removal of Saddam Hussein, the 2001 9/11 attack
on the World  Trade Center, the 2000 dot.com bubble, 1996  Hillary Clinton
lie blaming a 'Vast Right  Wing Conspiracy' for President Clinton using the
office as a romper room.

The year was 1994 and the legislation passed was the Federal Assault 
Weapons Ban (AWB), officially, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms
Use Protection Act.  Story on link:   http://bit.ly/1tpEx6f

So the obvious question, knowing that assault weapons are banned, what
should be banned next?  Perhaps pressure cookers, the weapon of choice
by the Boston bombers used in 2013!

Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Don't expect to see this reported in the news....

Chick-Fil-A ​ came under fire for the remarks by its CEO that he believes in traditional
marriage.  Protests and boycotts were planned.

But, Chick-Fil-A loyal customers responded by lining up at its restaurants across
the country to show support, and whatever hope the protesters had to "hurt" the
restaurant chain went no where. But, to demonstrate how 'intolerant' Chick-Fil-A
actually is read how  the company responded to the attack in Orlando.

The franchise, which is known for being closed on Sundays to allow its workers to
spend time with their families and attend church, was supposed to be shuttered on
the day of the tragedy.

But hours after the attack that killed 50 people and injured at least 53 more,
Chick-Fil-A employees went to work on their day off to provide free food for
those waiting in line to donate blood for the victims of the attack.

Full story:

http://bit.ly/21kc6BZ

Try to find this story aired on the news.​

Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

One death is a tragedy, multiple deaths, a statistic.

"A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic" 

This is reputed to be said by Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin.

This quote comes to mind when I think of two events, the multitude killed in Orlando
last weekend and a man killed nearly two decades ago in Texas, Matthew Shepard.

When Mr. Shepard, age 21, was killed, it was considered tragic, a hate crime, as he
was gay. There was national media attention, with political overtones, reported that
he was killed by 'White, anti-gay' murderer.

However, the Orlando attack which occurred in a gay night club received a different
'flavor' in reporting.

There is no mention of this being a hate crime for targeting a particular group or even
radical Islamic terrorism by a person who was Muslim, and had a history of  spewing
anti-gay sentiments.

Could Stalin have been right, one death, tragic, fifty, merely a number? Or, could the
difference be more troubling and dangerous placing Americans at greater risk.

In fact, when you listen to the post-attack replies from the gay community you hear we
must fight hate with love. Really?  I don't recall a similar sentiment after Mr. Shepard
was murdered!

Should only 'statistics' warrant a response of love, and a 'tragedy' undeserving?

The most horrific attack on our shores since 9/11 needs to be understood, our nation
is at war, a declared war by a dangerous foe no matter what you call them.

This war cannot be won by limiting a citizen's right to own a firearm.  It can't be won by
"word-smiting' what actually occurred, nor won using innocuous names such as 'lone wolf'
or 'home grown'.

The war can only be won with the might of our military, not the folly of politicians who
for reasons which remain inescapable keep every community vulnerable.

Maybe the wake up call will occur when there are more 'tragedies' and less 'statistics'.

Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Could this election be the beginning of the "Trump Revolution"?

 The election before us.....

Although it is a worthwhile to speak of founding principles, unfortunately our younger generation have little  appreciation of the importance of  liberty and freedom, stolen over the decades.

For this reason, I offer a different  view,  the next president must be able to solve problems politicians only speak about, and return what we cherished that was taken away.

I  agree with those who say keeping “Democrats out of the White House” would be a good start, but it goes much deeper than which party rules the Executive Branch, it goes the performance of governance beyond the party which rules.

As stated, it is essential the “grassroots” become the power, one that is respected, and feared, not pacified with fraudulent legislation, as the Republican Party attempted to do after the emergence of the Tea Party!

As for the “ruling class”, they will remain intact, elected by us. And, when it fails it is up to us to replace them,  even as difficult as it will be in a system ‘rigged’ to ensure they remain in power.

So, its up to us to ‘unrig’ the system, with the creation of a "bill of performance" for both the Congress and  federal agencies.  Only then can we be confident the most fit-for-office will remain. This can be done by a non-political commission, devoid of government intrusion. Hard as it may seem, it can be done!

In November the American people will have to decide between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, one is well known, the other is an unknown.

We know one games the system, uses it for her advantage, benefiting her donors, offering little in the way of “solutions”  the people are demanding, not nodding when hearing  political rhetoric first hatched in the 70s!

We also know the other is not obligated to do anything BUT solve our nation’s problems as donors will play no role in governance if he is our next president.

Any objective individual would see the obvious choice, it has to be Donald Trump!

There is no need for me to mention Trump’s ‘unusual’  campaign style. It only matters to those who want to destroy his candidacy, not the desires of the electorate which have an unbroken bond with him.  

Nor, is speaking of Trump's reality show. Its a non-starter in any conversation unless recognition of his successful forty year career in real estate development begins the discussion. Not doing so shows the prejudice some have towards him.

His past success demonstrates he has strong executive experience, not seen since George W. Bush was  the president. This alone says Trump is the best fit for the most important Chief Executive position in the nation.

There is no need to review Hillary Clinton’s history, which began by riding her husband’s coattails, before being elected to the Senate. Her  “resume” for the presidency is not impressive.  In the Senate she was a backbencher, a first term senator allowed to appear as a person with a wealth of experience. She was not.

In Clinton’s second position, Secy. of State, the only one she could be independently be measured on she was chosen over at least thirty more qualified and experienced Democrats.

 Its not a stretch to say the first mistake President Obama made was selecting a candidate who was not qualified, confirmed by her performance with the many failures in the Middle East.

The “free fall” our nation is going through must stop. But, it cannot be done until the American people are convinced better governance will lead to a better nation.

The team Trump already has in place will receive little notice, but the promise of better governance is what matters, not how the media reports who is on the team.

Politicians do business in a former swamp with lobbyists and donors, with little downside as political spin will be used to bale them out. This is Hillary’s world!

Trump has no such luxury. His career has been spent  in corporate  suites working with power brokers who know inferior performance spells disaster, something none want to occur.

Let's hope the Republican leadership understands that Trump can be the right man for the times. As Reagan showed how the cancer of Soviet govt. could be defeated  Trump may show how the cancer within our own govt. can finally be killed.

There are no coincidences in politics, only calculations!

President Obama had one busy day.

It began with a meeting with Sen. Sanders to discuss his campaign which appears
to be at the end.

We were told the president did not ask Sanders to withdraw, but I wonder if the
Mr. Obama told him he would endorse Hillary Clinton soon after Sanders left the
White House.

It is curious President Obama would risk endorsing Clinton while she is still under
investigation by the FBI. Perhaps "risk" is the wrong word since Mr. Obama met
with his Attorney General, Loretta Lynch.

As the subject stated, There are no coincidences in politics, only calculations!

What purpose does a meeting with AG Lynch have at this time? Was it to cement
the 'acquittal' of Hillary by the FBI?  Will Sanders' supporters see a connection,

the "rigging" of an investigation to totally end his campaign.

The calculation of endorsing Hillary and meeting with Lynch on the same day may
be to energize her campaign as the Democrat convention is one month away.

But, 'calculations' only have implied value and can quickly become meaningless when the public has its say. 

In time we will know if the risk of endorsing Hillary before the convention will splinter off enough Sanders' supporters, many who have already said, "never Hillary".  

They may be ripe for the picking by Trump!

Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

The "R-word" rears its ugly head once again!

From his announcement last June 16th that he was seeking the Republican nomination Donald Trump's candidacy was scoffed at.

His critics, in the GOP and media, were quick to condemn Trump for labeling his opponents,

such as "low energy Jeb". but his opponents launched the first salvos when referring to him as an "entertainer" and "reality show star",  an obvious insult of the first order. 

Anyone knowledgeable knows Trump is one of the most successful real estate developers in the world, more accomplished than most of the politicians running for the presidency.

What really got under the skin of establishment politicians and their donors was when Trump stated  "all politicians do is talk" and "anyone who gives a politician $5 million expects something in return".  While no one challenged these statements, millions watching the first debate at home knew exactly what he meant.

The year long battle had begun and no need going over the countless attempts from within the Republican Party to destroy Trump's candidacy.

All we need to do is review the latest matter, Trump's criticism of a federal judge. 

The judge is Gonzalo P. Curiel’s who is adjudicating a lawsuit against Trump University. Trump is displeased with his rulings and cited the judge was "Mexican". Immediately, leaders of both political parties went after Trump, naturally saying it was "racist".
                               
The media, as expected, pounced on Trump with glee, believing THIS is what will bring him down and seal the long anticipated coronation of Hillary Clinton.

But, was Trump really hurling the 'go to' "R-word", or was he inferring something else?  I found it to be an inference.

In the real world if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its most likely a duck.  And, unlike politicians and the media, Donald Trump lives in the real world, the world where any affront should be responded to, which he did.

What I saw was not a racist criticism, I saw the same 'duck' Trump saw.

Consider the ruling Curiel made. Even though the plaintiff decided not to go forward with her suit, the judge said the trial must continue

​
Curiel also happens to be a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association that represented the plaintiff, and that also paid thousands to the Clintons for speeches. Yet, the judge saw no reason to recuse himself.

The conclusion Trump reached  seems reasonable, a judge with Mexican heritage, member of a group that wants illegals to remain, supports Democrats  and decides to continue a trial without a plaintiff is so far out of the norm, there appeared to be bias on the part of Curiel,   NOT racism!

And, speaking of race. the name, 'San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association' should trouble those who shiver when the "R-word" is used. "La Raza” translations to "THE RACE.", a name which should be of concern to the media, but apparently is not.

It wasn't too long ago a member of Congress called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom".  It was reported but there was no demand he apologize! The "R-word"  in this instance remained on the shelf waiting for the appropriate moment!

​ ​

Enter Donald Trump!

THAT is ideological bigotry, and perfectly fine!

What the media refuses to acknowledge about "gender identity"

Since February when the NC General Assembly passed legislation limiting access to facilities to individuals of the same gender, there has been a political firestorm about the "discrimination" against transgenders who want to access the facility of THEIR choosing.

In April the News and Observer published a letter by Beverly Gray, Assistant professor at  Duke Obstetrics and Gynecology​ ​offered her view on the HB2 issue being discussed.

I submitted a response which was never published, so offer it here.

Prof. Gray gave a compelling argument support ​ing the demand by transgenders, the primary LGBT group the HB2 law affects be allowed to choose the restroom and similar gender specific accommodations. But she curiously neglected to provide any clinical support given her position.

Let me explain why HB2 is not the monster the LGBT community and the paper's editorial board wants the public to believe it is. First, Prof. Gray said the HB2 legislation was a "blatant act of malice and ignorance", ​which I found is ​not a good starting point to win over an opposition. Gray went on the claim it was discriminatory,  the convenient  'go to' and loosest description of the word.

Rather, what is being denied is an accommodation, plain and simple. Transgenders can do as they have done before the Charlotte City council took a second  "bite" at this issue which failed two years earlier without the "sky is falling" pronouncements heard now.

I was not surprised, even with Gray's credentials, she did not want to venture into the medical arena.
​ ​
And, perhaps for good reason, ​it would have entered a mine field which destroys the view transgenders are merely another sub group of the LGBT community.

She knows they are not but would have difficulty publicly saying so. In the Liberal world labels are vital, created so ​'select' ​groups gain a legitimacy​, no matter the opposition​.

This is what "gender identity" is all about, a ​created description without clinical foundation, used for political aims without regards for what is 'traditional', a word disparaged as though it has no value.

The show the power of the LGBT lobby, even OSHA has given legitimacy to
"gender identity" by including it in transgender restroom guidelines.

But, there is no "gender identity". What transgenders have is "gender dysphoria", the diagnosis used by  physicians and psychologists that conclude it is a mental disorder requiring treatment.

This was the conclusion from Johns Hopkins, something in all the stories the News and Observer published, was never included.

​Story on this link: ​h​ttp://bit.ly/1TRFGu4

​To see the blatant disregard for clinical evidence by the News and Observer consider this fact. In the five months the editorial board has been on the attack against the HB2 legislation, not once did it offer the Johns Hopkins' findings so its readers can understand  its beyond a simple matter of discrimination, it is a mental disorder that requires treatment!​ 
 
By​ treating transgenders without​ ​​supporting clinical evidence would in a normal world be  considered malpractice. But, no more.​Our country has 
taken a left turn, moving further away​ from normalcy.

Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Donald Trump driving Black & Latino leaders out of the RNC

"Donald Trump is running Black and Latino leaders out of the RNC"
This is what Republican leaders warned us about for three decades in their attempt
to convince its members unless the party 'reaches out' to minorities it is doomed.

Well, Trump can't be blamed for he has only entered the political arena a year ago.

Perhaps its the folly of believing this in the first place!

Has the Republican Party born in 1854 so slavery in America would die succumbed
to the false belief not all Americans have enough in common to be treated as equals!

How did the party of Lincoln get to a place where groups must be catered to?

Are Blacks and Hispanics so different than Whites?
Do Blacks want less police protection than Whites?
Do Hispanics want worse performing schools than Whites?
Do Whites want better jobs than Blacks or Hispanics?
The answer to these and countless similar questions is "NO"!

All Americans want the best our country can offer something the leaders of the
party do not believe and feel whatever appeals to White Americans will not appeal
to minorities.

Yet, due to Donald Trump ascension to become the Republican Party nominee,
this false premise has risen once again.

Those who warned us the party must have 'outreach' are pleased with Trump
being cast as divisive, knowing it provides credence to this lie.


Group constituencies is the natural degradation of the warning from George
Washington of "factions", the original definition of political parties. 


Its interesting these same people never said we needed the same outreach to
organized labor or teachers' unions.  Why not them?

The reason may not be obvious and falls in the category of speculation.

With no disrespect, forget the majority of the Black constituency. They will
always vote Democrat as long as race hustlers lead them.

Hispanics, the fastest growing minority are savored for more than their loyalty
to a party, its the thirst of more low skilled labor by the business community
who could care less which party they join, as long as they join the low income
workforce.

There is no need for a political party to treat Americans as different colored
beans, segregated by group that politicians pander too. But, fear keep them
locked in this false premise.

Its no wonder why corruption is rampant in our nation's capitol. Pander to
groups donors tell you to.

Today's Republican leadership is saying, the party of Lincoln is not  good
enough for anyone other than White, mostly male and Christians! 

How did we get to this place where a party must morph itself into whatever
the perceived belief happens to be?

Both political parties do a disservice to the American public by pandering,
for with pandering comes toxic governance!





Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

April 29, 1967.....a date we need to remember..

This was the date Muhammad Ali refused to take the oath to be inducted in the
US military.

Ali, who recently passed away, resisted on religious grounds and after losing his
 livelihood for three years he was exonerated.

At the time I was on the anti-Ali side, believing in supporting my country. I thought
it was opportunistic on his part to leave his Christian faith and embrace Islam at a
time he was called to serve in the military.

But, with age comes awareness if you are open to what is occurring. And what was
occurring in the 1960s was a replay to what occurred in the late 1940s when President
Truman sent Americans into an undeclared war costing 36,000 lives.

And, twenty five years later and another president, Lyndon Johnson, did the same,
not going to Congress for a declaration of war, sending more than one million to
Vietnam, costing even more lives, 58,000 in a second undeclared war.

In retrospect, Muhhammad Ali was right, as I remember him saying,“I Ain't Got No Quarrel 
With The VietCong...No VietCong Ever Called Me Nigger.” 

But, if Ali had no quarrel, why did the United States in either of these undeclared wars, 
Korea or Vietnam?

I know we are in a different time and saw how partisan politics went relentlessly on the
attack towards President George W. Bush for going into Iraq, while young men were
in battle. But at least Bush addressed Congress to make the case.

Back to April 29th.  Imagine if Muhammad Ali was not a fighter, imagine if he was a
lawyer who took President Johnson and the government to court, not on religious grounds
but on the legality of sending more than one million men into battle.

We know such a charge would probably wind up before the Supreme Court, but can only
guess the outcome.

Maybe this would be a time for a serious discussion of how much power a president should
have without the support of the American people, through the Congress.

No one wants to see politicians send our military into battle as Truman, Johnson, and
even Bush to a small extent did without a formal declaration.

Muhammad Ali when asked what his legacy would be, he said his children. Perhaps given
deeper thought he might have added never sending Americans into battle in undeclared wars.

The story:
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/apr/29/muhammad-ali-refuses-to-fight-in-vietnam-war-1967



Please add feedback in comments section below, or email ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/