The Catholic Church, just another Washington lobby!

I doubt many Catholics know the full extent its church is attempting

to influence and in doing so, weakening the most generous immigration

policies of any nation so the flow of people can continue without limits.

This story has not been reported on the news but the message is heard 

most Sundays, in most cities, from the pulpit, written in church bulletins

and on websites and even from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, 

http://www.usccb.org/ . 

On the issue of immigration, the Catholic Church is equal to any well-oiled

Washington lobbyist, using the plight of people in other countries to destroy 

our fair and reasonable immigration laws. It uses its political influence and 

even the tens of millions in federal money it receives to resettle immigrants

to lobby so the flow of people that have already over burdened our social 

network continues.  

If only the church, from Pope Francis on down would have worked as hard 

for these people in their home countries that have failed them, they might

not have wanted to flee.

Below is a recent letter published in church bulletins across our state from 

the dioceses of Charlotte and Raleigh in support of the hundreds of people

recently arriving at our border from Honduras seeking asylum.

I found the letter to be prejudiced against our rule of law, a sympathetic

bias on behalf of law breakers, an indifference to the plight of American 

workers and societal demands on our institutions, and even the security
of our country!

The dioceses urges congregations to support illegal migrants already here 

and also those that desire, even demand to come to the United States. 

The Catholic Church has willfully or naively accepted a fraudulent notion,

that children "brought here" was an organic exercise, not orchestrated and

designed to push an agenda that benefits political aims, well hidden from 

view, not the American workforce and societal demands this invasion that

has already overburden our nation.

There is no acknowledgement of the failures that led to a four decade 

Exodus, nor criticism of the dozens of nations that should be accountable.

The letter focuses on the "children", a politically engineered exercise to

hide the objective behind the "unaccompanied minors" seeking a better 

life, leaving their parents in their home country. 

While stating the 1.8 million "Dreamers" need to be protected, it also

speak of the "Sanctity of  Families" which means 'family unification',

the parents and extended family should follow, raising the number to

over four million. 

Nor, does this letter share a concern for the minimal, if any, vetting of 

people that illegally enter our country; no matter their backgrounds, 

criminal records, or desire to assimilate.

This letter could have easily been written by a student in a Catholic grade 

school that has little understanding of the problem and naively writes as

instructed by his teacher. 

The supposed "fear" has not dissuaded the tens of thousands more that 

continue to come here annually. Even calling Jesus a "refugee" is more

an insult than the joke it is.

This is the letter..... feedback welcome

Every stranger who knocks at our door is an opportunity for an encounter with Jesus Christ, who identifies with the welcomed and rejected strangers of every age (Matthew 25:35-43). The Lord entrusts to the Church's motherly love every person forced to leave their homeland in search of a better future. This solidarity must be concretely expressed at every stage of the migratory experience – from departure through journey to arrival and return. This is a great responsibility, which the Church intends to share with all believers and men and women of good will. - Pope Francis, Message for the 104th World Day of Migrants and Refugees, 2018

 April 27, 2018 Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, 

While it is clear that the immigration process is in dire need of reform, the issue of immigration policy and enforcement is both complicated and emotional. While we agree that there is room for disagreement and discussion with respect to immigration policy, we wish to remind our more than 1 million Catholic faithful in North Carolina of the stated positions of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) formed by Catholic social teaching and encourage personal reflection and formation on these issues. 

The issue of immigration is not merely about policy, it is a moral concern impacting the human dignity and human rights of every person. While we must certainly respect our borders and our laws, we are particularly supportive of immigration policy reforms. Every day we see firsthand the consequences of a system that creates fear and anxiety amongst individuals who have become a vital part of our parishes and make substantial contributions to the economic and social fabric of our communities. 

As Catholics, we advocate for the recognition that immigrants, as members of God’s human family, are deserving of and must be granted the appropriate dignity as our brothers and sisters in the Lord. Jesus himself was a refugee and taught us to welcome the stranger and to realize that in welcoming the stranger, we are welcoming Christ Himself. 

Our Catholic Charities offices stand ready to help with food and other household necessities for all families that find themselves in distress at this time. Through those offices we will continue to provide Legal Immigration Services via staff who have been accredited to complete legal documentation by the Board of Immigration Appeals in the Department of Justice. These DOJ Accredited Representatives assist families and individuals in achieving an immigration status that enables them to work, reunite with family members, or take steps toward becoming citizens who could contribute to the well-being of their family and society. We will not counsel anyone to thwart or resist proper law enforcement but will continue to provide education about individuals’ legal rights. 

On a broader level, we, the Bishops of North Carolina, and the Bishops of the United States1 will continue working to: 

§ Find a Bipartisan Solution to Protect Dreamers. The approximately 1.8 million Dreamers living in our country were brought to the United States as young people. They worship with us in our churches and synagogues, serve in our military, contribute to our economy, and add their many talents to American society. 

§ Provide a Path to Citizenship. Dreamers know America as their only home and should not be denied the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship and participate fully in civic life. 

§ Recognize the Sanctity of Families. Family immigration is the foundation of our country and of our Church. Pope Francis states, "The family is the foundation of co-existence and a remedy against social fragmentation." We steadfastly know that families are what hold America together. We ask you to reject legislation that threatens family-based immigration. 

§ Recognize the Right of Nations to Control Their Borders. While Catholic social teaching on migration recognizes and respects the sovereignty of each nation to regulate its borders, this right must be balanced with the right of vulnerable migrants, such as asylum seekers and victims of human trafficking, to access protection. Border security should be proportional and justly implemented. 

§ Maintain Protections for Unaccompanied Children. A solution for Dreamers cannot be at the expense of other immigrant children. Such a tradeoff would be heartless and untenable. We ask that you maintain existing protections for unaccompanied children that help prevent trafficking and abuse and ensure their access to adequate care. 

As members of the human family, each individual deserves and must be granted, the dignity that not only supports and fosters the common good of our society but also reflects the reality that we are all fundamentally brothers and sisters in the Lord. Mary, Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, Patroness of the United States of America, watch over and pray for us now and always.

Most Reverend Peter J. Jugis Most Reverend Luis Rafael Zarama Bishop of Charlotte Bishop of Raleigh

Feel free to enter in comments section below, or email, ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Presidential public conversation on race

Earlier this year I gave thought and hoped President Trump should
allow a voice for Black conservatives which has been muted each 
time they seek to address issues affecting Black communities.  As 
of today, this has not occurred.

But, today the least likely person to carry this message forward, 
Kanye  West, could be the catalyst to make this happen.

Its not so much Black conservatives get a voice without being insults,
its that every minority should be encouraged to speech freely as Mr. 
West points out.

I was encouraged to hear President Trump is inviting West and
other prominent Blacks, including Colin Kaepernick to address 
the problems in race relations.

I would presume this event will be viewed live from the White House
as was the event addressing school after the Florida shooting which
allowed differing viewpoint to address the issue.

I encourage West and others welcome the opportunity to address
race directly with President Trump so a constructive conversation,
long missing, can advance to the point all citizens can see the
promise of  America has been fulfilled.

In Faith,

Anthony Bruno

Cary, NC

Feel free to enter in comments section below, or email, ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

If Hillary Clinton had been elected....

Victor Davis Hanson offer what could have been.....

There are lots of possible counterfactuals to think about had Hillary Clinton won the presidency as all the experts had predicted.

The U.S. embassy would have stayed in Tel Aviv. “Strategic patience” would likely still govern the North Korea dilemma. Fracking would be curtailed. The — rather than “our” — miners really would be put out of work. Coal certainly would not have been “beautiful.” The economy probably would be slogging along at below 2 percent GDP growth.

China would be delighted, as would Iran. But most important, there would be no collusion narrative — neither one concerning a defeated Donald Trump nor another implicating a victorious Hillary Clinton. In triumph, progressives couldn’t have cared less whether Russians supposedly had tried to help a now irrelevant Trump; and they certainly would have prevented any investigation of the winning Clinton 2016 campaign.

In sum, Hillary’s supposedly sure victory, not fear of breaking the law, prompted most of the current 2016 scandals, and her embittering defeat means they are not being addressed as scandals.

For example, why would FBI director James Comey have been so foolish as to ask for a FISA warrant request without fully informing the judge of the compromising details of the Steele–Fusion GPS dossier? Or why would Attorney General Loretta Lynch have been so reckless as to meet with Bill Clinton in a stealthy jet rendezvous on an Arizona tarmac when her department was concurrently investigating his spouse?

But those are precisely the wrong questions, given the Washington careerist mind. The right one is “Why not?” — in the context of the overwhelming likelihood that Hillary Clinton would not only be elected president but also would follow the well-known Clintonian habit of punishing both enemies and neutrals while rewarding friends, the more obsequious, the better.

Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin thought they were taking zero risks in lying to FBI investigators when they claimed that they had no idea about Clinton’s unlawful private server, even though they had, in fact, discussed the server in emails and used it themselves when sending emails. But why should they have cared, given Trump’s certain looming defeat and the fact that Andrew McCabe was somehow involved or would be involved in running, or rather massaging, the investigation? Their only real danger might have been telling the truth to FBI investigators: that both they and Hillary had known precisely what she was doing. For telling the truth, both Mills and Abedin would soon have faced career-ending payback from a President Clinton.

A President Hillary Clinton would have appreciated Loretta Lynch’s quasi-legal efforts to ossify the email investigations of Clinton’s unlawful server. Indeed, in the swampiest sense, Lynch took a good gamble that the odds would pay off handsomely for her obeisance, with either a continuance of her tenure as attorney general, or perhaps soon a future Supreme Court nomination.

Why would CIA Director John Brennan leak information about the Steele dossier to the likes of old blabbermouth and conniver Senator Harry Reid, or be involved in unmasking surveilled Americans? Again, why not? He would still be CIA Director Brennan, or so he imagined, and rewarded for his yeoman work in eroding the chances, however small, of a Trump presidency. Both Brennan and James Clapper would have been seen as useful team-player holdovers, given their eagerness to lie under oath and to spread the dirt of the Steele dossier to the intelligence communities and media.

What about Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, the Ohr couple, and all the other FBI and DOJ officials who have now resigned, been reassigned or fired, or are currently in legal jeopardy or under suspicion? At the time of their transgressions, they certainly did not believe they had done anything wrong in lying, conniving, or obstructing. Rather, they were wisely investing their deep-state careers in the sure Clinton victory. Had Clinton been elected, what now seems illegal would have been appreciated as bullet points on a résumé making the case for promotion. Such apparatchiks would have been reminded that Team Clinton players were always rewarded for past — and future — administrative-state service.

Indeed, Page and Strzok texted basically that between March and July 2016, signaling both their certainty that Hillary Clinton would win and their need to make even more certain that the couple was integral in ensuring the inevitable. Illicit love apparently carries with it a bit of melodrama, but nonetheless here is a brief potpourri:

Strzok: God, Hillary should win 100,000,000-0.

Page: This man cannot be president.’

Page: I cannot believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual, serious candidate for president.

Page: Wow, Donald Trump is an enormous d*uche.

Page: She just has to win now. I’m not going to lie, I got a flash of nervousness yesterday about Trump.

In other words, Clinton would win. But, just in case, she needed a little help from these government fixtures who were more than willing to do what they could: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.” Or, as Strzok summed up on August 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” Dying before 40 was apparently more likely than Trump’s getting elected.

Poor James Comey proved the careerist par excellence, always shape-shifting, usually a day late and a dollar short in calibrating his reinventions to meet the needs of perceived electoral politics. His disastrous 2016 series of press conferences exonerating Clinton, then sort of not exonerating her, then finally re-exonerating her reflected his self-created predicament of wanting soon to preen to President Clinton that he had stopped the email investigation and cleared her — but had adroitly paid lip service to legal niceties so as to enhance even more her viability as one who’d been fully investigated and exonerated. And Comey might well have pulled that contortion off, pointing out to a dubious President Clinton that she was, after all, President Clinton and her emails ancient history.

The hapless Comey recently confessed in his self-incriminating book:

Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the justice department or her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of an FBI investigation?

What would happen in other words to FBI Director James Comey if he was independent and autonomous and had a higher loyalty to the law? Or what actually did happen to President Donald J. Trump when he was assured by Comey he was not the subject of an FBI investigation when, in fact, he was subject of that and a lot more?

Comey elaborated:

It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls. But I don’t know.

Here, Comey reminds us that not only was his warping of the law likely to help ensure a Clinton presidency, but it also would have been properly appreciated. Since when do FBI investigators factor in polls when they investigate evidence?

Under a President Clinton, we the American people (as opposed to Vladimir Putin) would have had no idea in 2018 of a Christopher Steele dossier, other than the mysterious residual leaks from it that would have hounded a defeated Donald Trump into ignominious retirement. Indeed, Steele would probably have gone back into deep retirement until the 2020 Clinton reelection campaign and another call from Fusion GPS to reproduce something like its 2016 winning blueprint.

As for the crew at Fusion GPS, they would probably be a presidentially authorized A-team, winking and nodding to the press about how their opposition research had sunk the loser Trump — the same way that the 2012 Obama reelection team publicly bragged about how they’d successfully mined Facebook data.

Under a President Clinton, we would still believe that FISA courts are unimpeachable bulwarks of democracy. No one would now know anything about past requests for unmasking and leaking to the press the names of surveilled American citizens. Rod Rosenstein or Sally Yates would remind Clinton aides of their key roles in ensuring that FISA court surveillance of Donald Trump accounted for the damaging leaks that had ensured his defeat. Samantha Power would have had no need to request over 250 unmaskings as she played secret agent from her perch as UN ambassador.

The Podesta brothers would still be A-list Washington operators. During a Clinton administration, Devin Nunes, who would likely still be seeking the truth behind the illegality in the 2016 campaign, might have been under FISA-ordered surveillance himself, or would have shared the deep-state fate of the jailed videomaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, or might have become one of the victims of Lois Lerner’s residual henchmen at the IRS. 

The coffers of the Clinton Foundation certainly would be expanding exponentially. Robert Mueller might have been brought back in now and then for his sober and judicious work in finding no wrongdoing in the Uranium One deal.

And Donald Trump? He would be mocked and ridiculed as he barked at the moon that his wires had been tapped in Trump Tower — as the truth became insanity, and insanity the truth.

Feel free to enter in comments section below, or email, ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/