THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Here we go again. Paris Hilton arrested for felony possession of cocaine.
Hilton has had drug problems in France and South Africa and now she continues her drug binging in Las Vegas. Here's a 29 year old that wants to be a teeny-bopper and chose that lifestyle as her chosen profession. Hilton told police that the handbag wasn't hers but she couldn't identify the person the bag belonged to. However, she said that the $1,300, zig zag rolling paper, credit cards and a prescription pill found in the purse was hers. She went on to tell the officers that she thought the cocaine was " chewing gum". It's one of her lame excuses once again.
Side Note: This gal is so dumb that when she told the Las Vegas police officers the bag wasn't hers she forgot that she bragged about the Chanel bag on the internet when she purchased it, complete with a photo of the bag. It appears Hilton tells bold-faced lies whenever she feels like it and when it fits the occasion.
In her other drug busts around the world she also claimed the purse and/or drugs were not hers. What a rap and patter she puts out. The same ol' same ol'. When it come to her taking any responsibility she falls back on the the old "SODDI" defense, that being: (Some Other Dude Did It). When are the authorities going to wise up and quit giving this has been party girl breaks.
Even when Hilton got pulled over on the Las Vegas strip she conned the Las Vegas police officers to cut her a break and take her inside the Wynn hotel rather than being detained on the street sidewalk like any other person would be. You and I would be handcuffed and held on the street, possibly being allowed to sit on the curb while the police officer runs the proper checks. Instead, Hilton gets her way again. The cops fell for her fake excuses and did her bidding.
This wanna be somebody has been dropping in credibility on the who's who list for years. She's getting older and has lost her teeny-bopper charm. According to sources and reports she is uncouth, discourteous, rude and a real bitch to people in general as well as playing the ugly diva role with her staff and those in her close circle of hang on friends.
Sources and reports say that Paris Hilton was in the club Tao here in Las Vegas and she didn't want to wait for a ladies room stall like all of the other "ladies." Thinking she is above waiting with the little people and because she was Paris Hilton she decided to do whatever she wanted to do, so--she went to a corner of the washroom, did a squat like a bitch puppy in heat and proceeded to piss all over the floor to the surprise of everyone in the washroom. Class? Does she have any? I think not. If she has any, I would say it's all fourth class. Paris Hilton, famous for trying to be famous actually believes she has a right to entitlement and thinks the world owes her but I predict that the public will catch on to who and what she really is.
Other things bringing her down is that she is famous for showing up late to parties, media events and appointments. She takes delight in letting people wait for hours just so she can make some grand entrance. I predict that all of these types of actions on Hilton's part will come back to bite her in the butt.
I think what we may have here is a rich, raunchy, lazy adolescent minded person who for some reason used to be paid a minimum of $100,000 by some big wig Las Vegas club owners just to show up and walk and prance around like she was really somebody while doing sleazy and crazy things. These club owners must have been as loco as Hilton. I'm glad to see them stop paying Hilton who, by the way, has more money than God. If anything, she should be paying people to put up with her lousy antics.
Hilton's demand value has been diminishing for many years now. Her photos sell for 50 to 70% less than they did years ago. I would really be surprised if any casino executive in town would extend free rooms to her and her idiotic posse anymore. This unclassy person is angry that she is being ignored for younger, more stable women on the celebrity and night club scene. She's losing it. Her popularity is waning.
Finally, her only claim to fame was making a porn sex video in her younger days that was splashed all over the internet. Because of that porn tape she thinks she deserves the admiration of the masses. What a joke!
People, don't cry for Paris Hilton. She wants everyone to feel sorry for her by saying she is getting bad breaks. In California she promised the court that she would change her ways and lay off of the drugs and parties but instead she has embraced the drug and party scene and literally told the court to "step off." Remember people, she makes her own breaks and she brings all of these problems on herself.
I predict that there will come a time when her excuses and so-called celebrity status will cease to happen and she will pay the consequences for her actions instead of blaming her problems on everyone else. And, - that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Greedy Banks Using Our Money While Paying Us Near Nothing In Interest
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Banks are still ripping off consumers. Why? Using our savings in their every day business transactions by failing to pay us account holders a reasonable, prudent interest percentage rate on our funds that we have on deposit in their banks.
I remember back in the 1960's the banks were paying account holders minimum of 3% interest on their savings pass book accounts. That was fair interest. In the 1970's and 1980's the banks and savings and loans were fighting each other to pay us deposit holders interest rates ranging from 4% to 11%.
Those 1970's and 1980 days are gone. I can understand that but I believe that in the current present day marketplace the banks should be mandated to pay us saving account holders a minimum of (3%) interest on funds that we deposit in their banks, savings and loans and credit unions.
Currently many banks are only paying "less" that 1% on our monies deposited in a saving account. With that meager amount of interest being paid to an account holder the person cannot build up their savings from year to year. Rip off? You bet. I think so. The only ones that benefit from the banks low interest payments on our savings is the bank itself and the high rollers and finance titans in the business and financial industry.
We the people should have a set guarantee of at least a minimum 3% per year interest payment on our monies in our savings accounts. These greedy bankers are using our money to make money for themselves and paying us zilch. Where is the government when we need them? Come on Congress, do the right thing and make it law that us savings account holders can realize a 3% rate of interest on our money that we deposit in these banks. And,-that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Banks are still ripping off consumers. Why? Using our savings in their every day business transactions by failing to pay us account holders a reasonable, prudent interest percentage rate on our funds that we have on deposit in their banks.
I remember back in the 1960's the banks were paying account holders minimum of 3% interest on their savings pass book accounts. That was fair interest. In the 1970's and 1980's the banks and savings and loans were fighting each other to pay us deposit holders interest rates ranging from 4% to 11%.
Those 1970's and 1980 days are gone. I can understand that but I believe that in the current present day marketplace the banks should be mandated to pay us saving account holders a minimum of (3%) interest on funds that we deposit in their banks, savings and loans and credit unions.
Currently many banks are only paying "less" that 1% on our monies deposited in a saving account. With that meager amount of interest being paid to an account holder the person cannot build up their savings from year to year. Rip off? You bet. I think so. The only ones that benefit from the banks low interest payments on our savings is the bank itself and the high rollers and finance titans in the business and financial industry.
We the people should have a set guarantee of at least a minimum 3% per year interest payment on our monies in our savings accounts. These greedy bankers are using our money to make money for themselves and paying us zilch. Where is the government when we need them? Come on Congress, do the right thing and make it law that us savings account holders can realize a 3% rate of interest on our money that we deposit in these banks. And,-that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wal-Mart Quietly Raising Prices-Saving Are No More
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Wal-Mart is very disappointing. Believe it or not they have increased their prices within the last six month and they have been doing it on the downlow. Just in the past six months they have increased prices by at least 6 percent and still are increasing them.
For example, just one of their house cleaning solutions was increased by $1.00. My question is: How can they justify a $1.00 jump on a household cleaning solution?
I can remember when Wal-Mart came on the scene.They promoted their store as selling only products "Made in the USA". Once they acquired a customer base that idea soon fell by the wayside. Now present day, you can be hard pressed to find products in Wal-Mart "made in the USA." Mose products are made in China and Taiwan.
The prices Wal-Mart is charging customers now are basically comprable to the average grocery store pricing and Wal-Mart continues to raise their prices. For example, just look at food staples like a can of chili or a can of beans or things like hot dogs, cheese, etc.--
Items that used to be fifty cents a can now are priced at $1.32. When is the last time you saw their promotional "cut or slash the prices?" Instead of lower prices Wal-Mart is quietly increasing the cost of all items. Personally, I will look for other stores to shop for savings. I'm very disappointed with Wal-Mart and their continual price increases. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Wal-Mart is very disappointing. Believe it or not they have increased their prices within the last six month and they have been doing it on the downlow. Just in the past six months they have increased prices by at least 6 percent and still are increasing them.
For example, just one of their house cleaning solutions was increased by $1.00. My question is: How can they justify a $1.00 jump on a household cleaning solution?
I can remember when Wal-Mart came on the scene.They promoted their store as selling only products "Made in the USA". Once they acquired a customer base that idea soon fell by the wayside. Now present day, you can be hard pressed to find products in Wal-Mart "made in the USA." Mose products are made in China and Taiwan.
The prices Wal-Mart is charging customers now are basically comprable to the average grocery store pricing and Wal-Mart continues to raise their prices. For example, just look at food staples like a can of chili or a can of beans or things like hot dogs, cheese, etc.--
Items that used to be fifty cents a can now are priced at $1.32. When is the last time you saw their promotional "cut or slash the prices?" Instead of lower prices Wal-Mart is quietly increasing the cost of all items. Personally, I will look for other stores to shop for savings. I'm very disappointed with Wal-Mart and their continual price increases. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Obama Sues Arizona
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Arizona's new immigration law is a very good thing. I would like to see the appeals court find in favor of Arizona. The Federal Judge that gutted the law should be ashamed.
President Obama suing Arizona? Why? This lawsuit brought by the justice department and Obama is wrong, in all aspects. States law enforcement officers have enforced Federal laws for decades. City, county and state officers have arrested people for federal crimes such as :counterfeiting and yes, even immigration and they enforced federal warrants. It was common practice for local, county and state law enforcement to have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
The sad part is when the Federal government used it's political machine and agenda to instruct cities and the lawmakers to create "sanctuary cities." The "sanctuary cities" tied the hands of law enforcement because the city fathers of these cities directed police departments to no longer enforce immigration law.
I think it should be every states mandate (under law) to have municipal, county and state law enforcement enforce federal immigration laws. Consequences: If any police department and/or officer refuses to enforce federal immigration law they should lose their badge and any police power and certification in the state.
If there was such a mandate in all of the states the "sanctuary cities" would be no more and as to the old stale argument by the present administration and Obama that only the federal government has jurisdiction to enforce federal law would be a thing of the past.- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Arizona's new immigration law is a very good thing. I would like to see the appeals court find in favor of Arizona. The Federal Judge that gutted the law should be ashamed.
President Obama suing Arizona? Why? This lawsuit brought by the justice department and Obama is wrong, in all aspects. States law enforcement officers have enforced Federal laws for decades. City, county and state officers have arrested people for federal crimes such as :counterfeiting and yes, even immigration and they enforced federal warrants. It was common practice for local, county and state law enforcement to have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce federal laws.
The sad part is when the Federal government used it's political machine and agenda to instruct cities and the lawmakers to create "sanctuary cities." The "sanctuary cities" tied the hands of law enforcement because the city fathers of these cities directed police departments to no longer enforce immigration law.
I think it should be every states mandate (under law) to have municipal, county and state law enforcement enforce federal immigration laws. Consequences: If any police department and/or officer refuses to enforce federal immigration law they should lose their badge and any police power and certification in the state.
If there was such a mandate in all of the states the "sanctuary cities" would be no more and as to the old stale argument by the present administration and Obama that only the federal government has jurisdiction to enforce federal law would be a thing of the past.- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
The Democrats Are Enabling The Unemployed With Continued Weekly Benefits
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Rep. Shelly Berkley, D-Nev submitted a bill to lawmakers relating to extended unemployment benefits. This bill would create a "fifth tier" of benefits offering 20 more weeks to those people who have exhausted the 99 weeks (approximately 2 years) of unemployment benefits.
Where does this government handout stop? I have voted for Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents. I generally vote for those politicians that I feel will do the best job for the country regardless of their political party but I have to say that since the last presidential election the Democrats have been spending our money like a bunch of drunken sailors.
This bill by Berkley just adds to the billions of dollars that are being squandered. These Democrats that continue to pass legislation to pay benefits for the unemployed who have not worked in or over two years is unwarranted. It wasn't too long ago that the Congress extended the unemployment benefits and Senator Reid said that he would also continue to pass legislation that extended unemployment benefits still further.
People, it costs at least 33 million dollars for each and every 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. We taxpayers who are working are picking up the freight for these unemployed people. It appears the Democrats like Reid and Berkley want to have a perpetual stream of income for unemployed people so that they do not have to work at any gainful employment.
The unemployed people are receiving close to $400 a week for not going out to a job site. This $1200 a month of "free" money well exceeds(I'll call him John Doe) social security check of $380.20 a month. Where's the justice? John Doe worked all of his life and now currently receives $380.20 a month in social security benefits but the unemployed people who have not worked in over TWO YEARS (and counting) receive approximately $1200.00 a month.
There has to be a stop to extending unemployment benefits for individuals over and over and over again. As I said in prior articles and blogs: Any unemployed person should be able to collect unemployment benefits for the original 13 weeks and then they should receive an extension of an additional 13 weeks. After that the benefits should cease. They should be stopped, period.
I suggest that a person can find some type of employment within (6 months). Six months is a long time to be out of work and it is apparent there is some employment out there for that unemployed person to take. The individual just has to accept the fact that they will possibly have to work for less money than they were making prior to being laid off or fired. They may also have to work in another field and/or occupation other than the one they held before losing their job. I would offer: There is no disgrace in that, it's work, it's a job.
There are many jobs available that pay exactly what that unemployed person is making on unemployment. I say to them, take the job and work for your money instead of saying, "why should I work on a job for the same money I can get on unemployment?" To those people I would respond: " your dignity, your pride, and the satisfaction that you are contributing to society."
These continual extensions of unemployment benefits year after year only enable the person to malinger and lose all incentive of going back on a job and earn their daily bread. Congress, use some tough love. After (6 months) of unemployment benefits cut the person off. When that unemployed person knows that there will be no more "free" money coming in I predict they will find some type of employment even though it may not meet their expectations. After six months of unemployment benefits that person can either find some type of job or look to family and relatives and "not the taxpayer."
An example of why extended unemployment benefits should be stopped is because in a majority of cases it is going to people that say they cannot work or survive but in reality, they can. This was clearly illustrated on a television segment news program a few weeks ago. The reporter interviewed a number of people in the state of Ohio that was saying they were out of work. Some said they haven't worked in over two years and one couple that was interviewed said they had no money coming in and also said that they were selling some of their items and personal property from around the house to buy food and claimed they had no other items to sell. Folks, the family had a roof over their head and the man of the family that said he couldn't work and didn't have anything else from around the house to sell was wearing a very heavy "gold" necklace, probably worth a couple thousand dollars with the current gold prices out there. If I were claiming poverty I clearly would have sold my gold necklace long ago to buy food. In fact, a couple of weeks after the program the reporter returned to the same town and the same people to see if there were any changes. Guess what, many of the families said that people from around the country contributed to their plight and believe it or not, the same guy that received help because of the television program and who said he was still out of work was still wearing the heavy gold necklace. My question to some of these unemployed people: Where are your priorities? Are you spending money on food and necessities or buying gold necklaces?
Stop these inappropriate extended unemployment benefits lawmakers! And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Rep. Shelly Berkley, D-Nev submitted a bill to lawmakers relating to extended unemployment benefits. This bill would create a "fifth tier" of benefits offering 20 more weeks to those people who have exhausted the 99 weeks (approximately 2 years) of unemployment benefits.
Where does this government handout stop? I have voted for Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents. I generally vote for those politicians that I feel will do the best job for the country regardless of their political party but I have to say that since the last presidential election the Democrats have been spending our money like a bunch of drunken sailors.
This bill by Berkley just adds to the billions of dollars that are being squandered. These Democrats that continue to pass legislation to pay benefits for the unemployed who have not worked in or over two years is unwarranted. It wasn't too long ago that the Congress extended the unemployment benefits and Senator Reid said that he would also continue to pass legislation that extended unemployment benefits still further.
People, it costs at least 33 million dollars for each and every 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits. We taxpayers who are working are picking up the freight for these unemployed people. It appears the Democrats like Reid and Berkley want to have a perpetual stream of income for unemployed people so that they do not have to work at any gainful employment.
The unemployed people are receiving close to $400 a week for not going out to a job site. This $1200 a month of "free" money well exceeds(I'll call him John Doe) social security check of $380.20 a month. Where's the justice? John Doe worked all of his life and now currently receives $380.20 a month in social security benefits but the unemployed people who have not worked in over TWO YEARS (and counting) receive approximately $1200.00 a month.
There has to be a stop to extending unemployment benefits for individuals over and over and over again. As I said in prior articles and blogs: Any unemployed person should be able to collect unemployment benefits for the original 13 weeks and then they should receive an extension of an additional 13 weeks. After that the benefits should cease. They should be stopped, period.
I suggest that a person can find some type of employment within (6 months). Six months is a long time to be out of work and it is apparent there is some employment out there for that unemployed person to take. The individual just has to accept the fact that they will possibly have to work for less money than they were making prior to being laid off or fired. They may also have to work in another field and/or occupation other than the one they held before losing their job. I would offer: There is no disgrace in that, it's work, it's a job.
There are many jobs available that pay exactly what that unemployed person is making on unemployment. I say to them, take the job and work for your money instead of saying, "why should I work on a job for the same money I can get on unemployment?" To those people I would respond: " your dignity, your pride, and the satisfaction that you are contributing to society."
These continual extensions of unemployment benefits year after year only enable the person to malinger and lose all incentive of going back on a job and earn their daily bread. Congress, use some tough love. After (6 months) of unemployment benefits cut the person off. When that unemployed person knows that there will be no more "free" money coming in I predict they will find some type of employment even though it may not meet their expectations. After six months of unemployment benefits that person can either find some type of job or look to family and relatives and "not the taxpayer."
An example of why extended unemployment benefits should be stopped is because in a majority of cases it is going to people that say they cannot work or survive but in reality, they can. This was clearly illustrated on a television segment news program a few weeks ago. The reporter interviewed a number of people in the state of Ohio that was saying they were out of work. Some said they haven't worked in over two years and one couple that was interviewed said they had no money coming in and also said that they were selling some of their items and personal property from around the house to buy food and claimed they had no other items to sell. Folks, the family had a roof over their head and the man of the family that said he couldn't work and didn't have anything else from around the house to sell was wearing a very heavy "gold" necklace, probably worth a couple thousand dollars with the current gold prices out there. If I were claiming poverty I clearly would have sold my gold necklace long ago to buy food. In fact, a couple of weeks after the program the reporter returned to the same town and the same people to see if there were any changes. Guess what, many of the families said that people from around the country contributed to their plight and believe it or not, the same guy that received help because of the television program and who said he was still out of work was still wearing the heavy gold necklace. My question to some of these unemployed people: Where are your priorities? Are you spending money on food and necessities or buying gold necklaces?
Stop these inappropriate extended unemployment benefits lawmakers! And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Government Squandered The Social Security Trust Fund
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The Federal government is considering tinkering with Social Security and even cutting back benefits. What a racket. The feds want to increase the age to 70 years old before a person can see their first social security check. The incompetent politicians have been robbing the social security funds for decades and spending the money on all sorts of projects of their own choosing.
When social security was initiated in the 1930's it was meant only for a supplemental for elderly workers, a safety net so to speak. However, over the years these lawmakers have been raiding the fund and changing the rules as to who can collect benefits from the social security fund and they brought the well-meaning program to its knees.
Over the past 25 years the Social Security trust funds have built up a $2.5 trillion surplus but because of the governments borrowing of that money and it's spending that money on other programs the fund is expected to be completely broke in the year 2037. Right now the Social Security trust fund is paying out more money than it is taking in. Who's fault is that? You guessed it. The Federal government and past and present administrations.
Remember when Vice-President Gore said that he would put a "lock box" on Social Security? It was an empty campaign promise. He, like all lawmakers, knew that they were raiding the fund over the years and he said he wanted to have the practice stopped but he knew that the borrowing of Social Security funds would continue.
Folks, the Social Security trust fund was just a piggy-bank for our politicians. They saw trillions of dollars accumulating and couldn't resist dipping their greedy hands into the fund with "promises" that they would pay back the fund. What a joke!
I say that if the Social Security trust fund is tinkered with the first thing that should happen is put it back on the same footing that it was originally intended. Pay the elderly worker and stop all of the other payouts that may be going to "illegal aliens", disabilities that are not disabilities, change the rules for children collecting social security, etc., --
All of these other irrelevant payments was not intended when Social Security began. It was simple. A person and employer paid a portion of their wages into the fund and when that person reached the age of 65 years old they could begin receiving monthly benefits. But through the years and decades that individuals payments were being used for many other people and for other things. That's wrong!
I submit that if each individuals payments over their working life was deposited into the Social Security trust fund (for them only), and not touched by the Federal government they would be able to collect their monthly payment for the remainder of their life. The money would be there, in their name, for them. There should be no other payments being made from that fund to anyone.
If a person doesn't pay into the Social Security trust fund that person should not be able to collect any monthly check, period. Christ, right now we have prisoners collecting large disability payments from social security just because they happen to be prisoners. Is that right? NO! Others that have never paid one red cent into social security are collecting a monthly check. Again, wrong!
Children are collecting social security for many varied reasons that are questionable and the child has never worked a day in their life and has never paid one cent into the fund. That's not right. I would suggest that the children live off of the parents social security, if the parent worked and paid into the fund.
I would propose that only the people that paid into the Social Security trust fund be allowed to receive any benefit check and that check should be based solely on their wages made over their lifetime.
The Federal government has to make this program right. The first thing the Feds have to do is stop borrowing any monies whatsoever from the Social Security trust fund. They should make a public commitment that they will not borrow from the fund with a date certain. Congress should mandate that the government has to cease and desist its borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.
Social Security benefits should be paid only to person(s) that actually paid into the system. There is nothing hard about that idea. The idea is basically like an individual having a saving account at the bank. The person pays into the fund and their personal account all their life and when it comes time to retire (at 65 years old) that person can see how much they paid in over the years and can see how much they will receive for the remainder of their life. Nothing hard about that, right? If a person has an account, they collect a monthly benefit. If they do not or never had an account that they paid into, they get no money, period. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The Federal government is considering tinkering with Social Security and even cutting back benefits. What a racket. The feds want to increase the age to 70 years old before a person can see their first social security check. The incompetent politicians have been robbing the social security funds for decades and spending the money on all sorts of projects of their own choosing.
When social security was initiated in the 1930's it was meant only for a supplemental for elderly workers, a safety net so to speak. However, over the years these lawmakers have been raiding the fund and changing the rules as to who can collect benefits from the social security fund and they brought the well-meaning program to its knees.
Over the past 25 years the Social Security trust funds have built up a $2.5 trillion surplus but because of the governments borrowing of that money and it's spending that money on other programs the fund is expected to be completely broke in the year 2037. Right now the Social Security trust fund is paying out more money than it is taking in. Who's fault is that? You guessed it. The Federal government and past and present administrations.
Remember when Vice-President Gore said that he would put a "lock box" on Social Security? It was an empty campaign promise. He, like all lawmakers, knew that they were raiding the fund over the years and he said he wanted to have the practice stopped but he knew that the borrowing of Social Security funds would continue.
Folks, the Social Security trust fund was just a piggy-bank for our politicians. They saw trillions of dollars accumulating and couldn't resist dipping their greedy hands into the fund with "promises" that they would pay back the fund. What a joke!
I say that if the Social Security trust fund is tinkered with the first thing that should happen is put it back on the same footing that it was originally intended. Pay the elderly worker and stop all of the other payouts that may be going to "illegal aliens", disabilities that are not disabilities, change the rules for children collecting social security, etc., --
All of these other irrelevant payments was not intended when Social Security began. It was simple. A person and employer paid a portion of their wages into the fund and when that person reached the age of 65 years old they could begin receiving monthly benefits. But through the years and decades that individuals payments were being used for many other people and for other things. That's wrong!
I submit that if each individuals payments over their working life was deposited into the Social Security trust fund (for them only), and not touched by the Federal government they would be able to collect their monthly payment for the remainder of their life. The money would be there, in their name, for them. There should be no other payments being made from that fund to anyone.
If a person doesn't pay into the Social Security trust fund that person should not be able to collect any monthly check, period. Christ, right now we have prisoners collecting large disability payments from social security just because they happen to be prisoners. Is that right? NO! Others that have never paid one red cent into social security are collecting a monthly check. Again, wrong!
Children are collecting social security for many varied reasons that are questionable and the child has never worked a day in their life and has never paid one cent into the fund. That's not right. I would suggest that the children live off of the parents social security, if the parent worked and paid into the fund.
I would propose that only the people that paid into the Social Security trust fund be allowed to receive any benefit check and that check should be based solely on their wages made over their lifetime.
The Federal government has to make this program right. The first thing the Feds have to do is stop borrowing any monies whatsoever from the Social Security trust fund. They should make a public commitment that they will not borrow from the fund with a date certain. Congress should mandate that the government has to cease and desist its borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.
Social Security benefits should be paid only to person(s) that actually paid into the system. There is nothing hard about that idea. The idea is basically like an individual having a saving account at the bank. The person pays into the fund and their personal account all their life and when it comes time to retire (at 65 years old) that person can see how much they paid in over the years and can see how much they will receive for the remainder of their life. Nothing hard about that, right? If a person has an account, they collect a monthly benefit. If they do not or never had an account that they paid into, they get no money, period. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Hospitals Need To Be Held Accountable For Deadly Infections
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Recently the Las Vegas Sun did a wonderful expose on hospital care here in Las Vegas. Needless to say, the results were dismal. Health care in Las Vegas and Nevada as a whole is very poor. The Las Vegas Sun found 2,010 instances in 2008 and 2009 wherein patients were infected in one of the 13 acute care area hospitals by the lethal bacterium MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and another called C Diff. (Clostridium difficile). Believe it or not 239 of the infected patients "died."
State Senator Shirley Breeden championed a bill last year to require stricter reporting of such infections but the doctors, health care workers, hospitals and their lobbyists opposed the bill and their monies from their large political war chests won out and the bill was watered down to the point where all the hospitals have to do is "voluntarily" report the infections and the hospitals made it clear that the public cannot see the results.
These sociocomial diseases (another word for hospital-acquired infections) kill patients and the hospitals do not want the public to know which hospitals have the worst infection rate. The hospitals do not want the public to read any data rating the infection rates that may pertain to any given hospital. The hospitals in Nevada have fought facility-specific reporting of infections since 2002 long and hard.
Following the Las Vegas Suns excellent reporting on hospital infections UMC and St. Rose hospitals said they would give permission to the state of Nevada to publish the information. Other hospitals in Las Vegas refused to give permission and it appears they do not want transparency of any kind. For those hospitals that do not want to make infection rates public information would make any patient wonder: "What are these hospitals hiding?" "What are they covering up?"
I would submit that public reporting of quality-of-care information and hospital infections by individual hospitals should be a mandate nationwide. It's no secret that the health care workers and the hospitals at any specific hospital actually know how many patients are infected within the walls of their facility but they want to keep this information from the public.
I would suggest that doctors and hospitals that don't want consumers/patients to know about the quality-of care borders on a criminal act. These doctors, health care workers and hospitals should be held legally responsible for their infection injuries and/or deaths as well as their failure to alert the consumer/patient of hospital infection rates.
Personally, speaking for myself, if I'm the one going into the hospital I am putting all of my trust and faith and my life in their hands. How can a patient make an intelligent and informed decision as to where they want their health care provided if they do not have the proper information? The patient/consumer cannot tell where they might be at risk for injury and/or death and the patient(s) are prevented from determining where outbreaks are occurring.
I would say it is time for the Federal and state governments to pass legislation that requires every individual hospital to make quality-of-care and infection rates public and they should put some teeth in the legislation that fines the hospitals that fail to be transparent. Giving these hospitals a slap on the wrist is an act of futility. All the hospital does is pay the small fine and look at it as part of doing business. These sentinel events of infections should not be occurring so the penalties should be severe. What price is a father, mother, grandparent, even a child worth?
I say that if the doctors, nurses, and all other health care workers wash their hands between patients and as often as they should (as they are taught in medical school), clean their equipment properly and properly clean rooms between patients and stop exposing uninfected patients to infected ones the rate of deadly infections would subside dramatically. However, it appears these professionals fail to do just that over and over again. It's a shame!
Because of the lax attention to personal and institutional hygiene and quality-of-care by these health care professionals the hospitals fight transparency. They do not want patients/consumers to see the results of hospital and staff errors and mistakes. That's wrong. Where are the lawmakers when we need them? And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Recently the Las Vegas Sun did a wonderful expose on hospital care here in Las Vegas. Needless to say, the results were dismal. Health care in Las Vegas and Nevada as a whole is very poor. The Las Vegas Sun found 2,010 instances in 2008 and 2009 wherein patients were infected in one of the 13 acute care area hospitals by the lethal bacterium MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and another called C Diff. (Clostridium difficile). Believe it or not 239 of the infected patients "died."
State Senator Shirley Breeden championed a bill last year to require stricter reporting of such infections but the doctors, health care workers, hospitals and their lobbyists opposed the bill and their monies from their large political war chests won out and the bill was watered down to the point where all the hospitals have to do is "voluntarily" report the infections and the hospitals made it clear that the public cannot see the results.
These sociocomial diseases (another word for hospital-acquired infections) kill patients and the hospitals do not want the public to know which hospitals have the worst infection rate. The hospitals do not want the public to read any data rating the infection rates that may pertain to any given hospital. The hospitals in Nevada have fought facility-specific reporting of infections since 2002 long and hard.
Following the Las Vegas Suns excellent reporting on hospital infections UMC and St. Rose hospitals said they would give permission to the state of Nevada to publish the information. Other hospitals in Las Vegas refused to give permission and it appears they do not want transparency of any kind. For those hospitals that do not want to make infection rates public information would make any patient wonder: "What are these hospitals hiding?" "What are they covering up?"
I would submit that public reporting of quality-of-care information and hospital infections by individual hospitals should be a mandate nationwide. It's no secret that the health care workers and the hospitals at any specific hospital actually know how many patients are infected within the walls of their facility but they want to keep this information from the public.
I would suggest that doctors and hospitals that don't want consumers/patients to know about the quality-of care borders on a criminal act. These doctors, health care workers and hospitals should be held legally responsible for their infection injuries and/or deaths as well as their failure to alert the consumer/patient of hospital infection rates.
Personally, speaking for myself, if I'm the one going into the hospital I am putting all of my trust and faith and my life in their hands. How can a patient make an intelligent and informed decision as to where they want their health care provided if they do not have the proper information? The patient/consumer cannot tell where they might be at risk for injury and/or death and the patient(s) are prevented from determining where outbreaks are occurring.
I would say it is time for the Federal and state governments to pass legislation that requires every individual hospital to make quality-of-care and infection rates public and they should put some teeth in the legislation that fines the hospitals that fail to be transparent. Giving these hospitals a slap on the wrist is an act of futility. All the hospital does is pay the small fine and look at it as part of doing business. These sentinel events of infections should not be occurring so the penalties should be severe. What price is a father, mother, grandparent, even a child worth?
I say that if the doctors, nurses, and all other health care workers wash their hands between patients and as often as they should (as they are taught in medical school), clean their equipment properly and properly clean rooms between patients and stop exposing uninfected patients to infected ones the rate of deadly infections would subside dramatically. However, it appears these professionals fail to do just that over and over again. It's a shame!
Because of the lax attention to personal and institutional hygiene and quality-of-care by these health care professionals the hospitals fight transparency. They do not want patients/consumers to see the results of hospital and staff errors and mistakes. That's wrong. Where are the lawmakers when we need them? And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Stop The Illegal Alien Invasion-We're Fighting A War On Our Southern Borders
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
I've written a number of pieces and op-eds regarding the immigration debate over the years but this issue is of such importance that I continue to comment on the matter.
I would like to again say that we, the citizens of the United States should demand our lawmakers stop all subsidies and freebies that are being given to the illegal alien. Lets stop the "baby drop" better referred to as, "anchor babies" and deny the baby automatic citizenship. Instead the new born baby should retain the same citizenship of the parents country of origin, unless the parents are legal citizens of the USA. Another great move would be for our politicians make it very, very difficult for the illegal alien to obtain employment.
I predict that if each and every employee (all of us who work) in any business had to be screened through the E-Verify program offered by the Federal government so as to verify our true identity and if the employer that hires an illegal alien is fined a substantial sum the job magnet would dry up and there would be a very fast exodus of the illegal alien from our soil.
Folks, currently we, the legal citizens and taxpayers are paying $338 billion+ a year to carry these 12 million (conservative figure) illegal aliens on our backs.
Personally I think the figure is closer to 20 million illegal aliens in the USA but lets use the figure of only 12 million. If we wanted to deport these 12 million illegals the cost would be about $200 billion over span of five years. People, that's not a big price to pay. We would be ahead of the game. We're already spending approximately $338 billion on the "illegal alien" and the cost to deport them will cost approximately $200 billion. We, the taxpayer would save billions.
Christ, we are already spending a billion dollars a month to fight the war in Afghanistan, which by the way, should not have been waged in the first place. Wouldn't it be more advantageous to spend some of those billions of dollars here in the United States to resolve an "illegal alien" invasion?
As a side note please read my blog relating to Israel stopping the illegals in their country. If Israel can take steps to stop illegal aliens, we here in the United States can be as aggressive. And, - that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
I've written a number of pieces and op-eds regarding the immigration debate over the years but this issue is of such importance that I continue to comment on the matter.
I would like to again say that we, the citizens of the United States should demand our lawmakers stop all subsidies and freebies that are being given to the illegal alien. Lets stop the "baby drop" better referred to as, "anchor babies" and deny the baby automatic citizenship. Instead the new born baby should retain the same citizenship of the parents country of origin, unless the parents are legal citizens of the USA. Another great move would be for our politicians make it very, very difficult for the illegal alien to obtain employment.
I predict that if each and every employee (all of us who work) in any business had to be screened through the E-Verify program offered by the Federal government so as to verify our true identity and if the employer that hires an illegal alien is fined a substantial sum the job magnet would dry up and there would be a very fast exodus of the illegal alien from our soil.
Folks, currently we, the legal citizens and taxpayers are paying $338 billion+ a year to carry these 12 million (conservative figure) illegal aliens on our backs.
Personally I think the figure is closer to 20 million illegal aliens in the USA but lets use the figure of only 12 million. If we wanted to deport these 12 million illegals the cost would be about $200 billion over span of five years. People, that's not a big price to pay. We would be ahead of the game. We're already spending approximately $338 billion on the "illegal alien" and the cost to deport them will cost approximately $200 billion. We, the taxpayer would save billions.
Christ, we are already spending a billion dollars a month to fight the war in Afghanistan, which by the way, should not have been waged in the first place. Wouldn't it be more advantageous to spend some of those billions of dollars here in the United States to resolve an "illegal alien" invasion?
As a side note please read my blog relating to Israel stopping the illegals in their country. If Israel can take steps to stop illegal aliens, we here in the United States can be as aggressive. And, - that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
The New Jobs Bill Is A Farce-Only Govt. Employees Benefit.
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The Congress just passed a 26 billion dollar jobs bill. This administration and Congress say they want to provide jobs to the country and protect peoples jobs. The bad part of this idea is that this President and Congress only protect the jobs of the government Public Employees across the country. They expound on the fact that they are saving jobs of the policeman, fireman and teachers across the country. These public employee groups are being paid bloated salaries and pension benefits that average Joe or Jane Doe working in the private sector will never see in their lifetime.
This jobs bill which is spending billions of dollars to protect the police, fire and teachers unions are only because the greedy politicians want the unions votes in the elections.
I say that a true jobs bill where billions of dollars are to be spent should be to provide jobs in the "PRIVATE SECTOR." The money should be spent on construction and infrastructure projects that will put working boots on the ground of the men and women working in jobs such as construction, those electricians and plumbers, the highway road workers, etc.
All of the people in the private sector that are being laid off and taking salary cuts and losing their health care should be the ones being helped by any billion dollars job bill. Instead of pumping monies into the pockets of the government and public employees already enjoying lucrative salaries and pension retirement benefits and guaranteeing these employees their excessive cost of living and step increases I would suggest that these police officers, firemen and teachers lose their jobs and benefits like the millions in the private sector. Why should these groups be exempt from the pain? Why shouldn't these select groups have to experience the same type of layoffs as anyone working in the private sector?
When President Obama, the Congress and this administration say they created (X) amount of jobs in a month or 3 months, 6 months or a year they fail to tell the public that the majority of those jobs they actually created was in the Government. They hire government and public employees and pass that off as creating jobs throughout the country.
People, the average working man or woman doesn't see those jobs. The government protects its own turf and makes sure that the "public employee" is protected and continues to receive $200,000 plus salary a year as well as their guaranteed pensions, cost of living and step raises. An example,Cite: Las Vegas Nevada, the average fireman makes more than the $200,000 a year. The Las Vegas Metro policeman is one of the highest paid in the United States. These high salaries and pensions are obscene but we, the lowly people that do not work for the government agencies have to pay these public employees large salaries and support them and their families for the rest of their lives while they collect large, large pensions and in many cases, free health care.
We private sector workers do not have anyone to pay us 3,4,5 and 6% cost of living increases every year nor do we have an automatic step increase in our salary and we can forget about having someone pick up our health premiums for life. However, President Obama, Congress, the powerful unions representing the Policeman, Fireman and Teachers enjoy all of that.
So, jobs bill? It's a farce. The idea of continuing to pay these special groups like policemen, fireman and teachers is outrageous. I predict these public employee workers and their salaries and benefits will bankrupt many cities, counties and states in the near future. I say, fire and/or layoff some of the public employees to save billions of dollars and at the same time rework the out of control pension plans for these people. And,-that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The Congress just passed a 26 billion dollar jobs bill. This administration and Congress say they want to provide jobs to the country and protect peoples jobs. The bad part of this idea is that this President and Congress only protect the jobs of the government Public Employees across the country. They expound on the fact that they are saving jobs of the policeman, fireman and teachers across the country. These public employee groups are being paid bloated salaries and pension benefits that average Joe or Jane Doe working in the private sector will never see in their lifetime.
This jobs bill which is spending billions of dollars to protect the police, fire and teachers unions are only because the greedy politicians want the unions votes in the elections.
I say that a true jobs bill where billions of dollars are to be spent should be to provide jobs in the "PRIVATE SECTOR." The money should be spent on construction and infrastructure projects that will put working boots on the ground of the men and women working in jobs such as construction, those electricians and plumbers, the highway road workers, etc.
All of the people in the private sector that are being laid off and taking salary cuts and losing their health care should be the ones being helped by any billion dollars job bill. Instead of pumping monies into the pockets of the government and public employees already enjoying lucrative salaries and pension retirement benefits and guaranteeing these employees their excessive cost of living and step increases I would suggest that these police officers, firemen and teachers lose their jobs and benefits like the millions in the private sector. Why should these groups be exempt from the pain? Why shouldn't these select groups have to experience the same type of layoffs as anyone working in the private sector?
When President Obama, the Congress and this administration say they created (X) amount of jobs in a month or 3 months, 6 months or a year they fail to tell the public that the majority of those jobs they actually created was in the Government. They hire government and public employees and pass that off as creating jobs throughout the country.
People, the average working man or woman doesn't see those jobs. The government protects its own turf and makes sure that the "public employee" is protected and continues to receive $200,000 plus salary a year as well as their guaranteed pensions, cost of living and step raises. An example,Cite: Las Vegas Nevada, the average fireman makes more than the $200,000 a year. The Las Vegas Metro policeman is one of the highest paid in the United States. These high salaries and pensions are obscene but we, the lowly people that do not work for the government agencies have to pay these public employees large salaries and support them and their families for the rest of their lives while they collect large, large pensions and in many cases, free health care.
We private sector workers do not have anyone to pay us 3,4,5 and 6% cost of living increases every year nor do we have an automatic step increase in our salary and we can forget about having someone pick up our health premiums for life. However, President Obama, Congress, the powerful unions representing the Policeman, Fireman and Teachers enjoy all of that.
So, jobs bill? It's a farce. The idea of continuing to pay these special groups like policemen, fireman and teachers is outrageous. I predict these public employee workers and their salaries and benefits will bankrupt many cities, counties and states in the near future. I say, fire and/or layoff some of the public employees to save billions of dollars and at the same time rework the out of control pension plans for these people. And,-that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Federal Judge Vaugh Walker Trashes 7 Million Voters Wishes
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
One federal judge cheats over 7 million voters out of their vote. Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in the same-sex marriage matter referenced as Proposition 8, in California is an outrage.
The millions of voters of California said they did not want same-sex marriages. That was the word and the will of the people of California but Judge Walker completely ignored the wishes of the voters and like someone throwing some item in the trash he tossed the millions of votes into the trash.
It should be noted that Judge Walker makes no secret that he himself is a gay man. How did you think he was going to rule when it come to protecting the gay and lesbian community? It would appear he is looking out for himself, his gay lifestyle and his self interests. According to the judge and his backers it is said that Judge Walker would not be biased when ruling on this matter but do you really believe that? It has been reported that in past cases relating to gay issues Judge Walker was a fierce advocate for the gay community and ruled in their favor the majority of the time.
This judge should have refused to hear the matter and admitted he had a conflict in dealing with gay issues.
I submit that if a car thief steals only "red corvettes" and he has already stole 25 of them, chances are the 26th.,car he steals will be a "red corvette." The thief is "predisposed" to stealing only red corvettes. In Judge Walker's case he is predisposed to advocating in favor of gay and lesbian issues and it is clear, at least to me, that he is "predisposed" to ruling favorably for the gay and lesbian while disregarding the voice of millions of California voters.
There should be a law in this country that prohibits only "one" person, a judge, from overturning the will of the millions of voters that vote on a proposition and/or initiative. As the law stands now which allow "one" biased, self-serving judge to tear apart the will of the people will only turn people off from voting.
I have heard from many voters in this matter as well as past matters in other elections and have listened to the complaints of the voter expressing anger that their vote is being annulled and stripped away and many posed the question: "Why should we vote only to have our vote trampled on and taken from us, by one judge who thinks they know better that the millions of people that went to the polls to vote on a particular issue?" In fact, many people told me: "Why should I vote when one lousy judge can undo the entire voting system." Personally, I can't argue with those views.
I would suggest that this same-sex marriage Proposition 8 issue be taken to higher courts in the land. I would suggest that this gay judge, who in the past advocated for gay and lesbian issues and found in favor of those that presented gay and lesbian issues be held accountable for his clear bias. If his peers in the judiciary cannot see that Judge Walker has an axe to grind when it comes to gay and lesbian matters I would like to sell them a bridge in Brooklyn. It's basic common sense people. The guy is gay and he has a clear vested interest in promoting advantages for gays and/or lesbians that can and would benefit him and his agenda.
The judiciary is a very close knit, elite group of individual's and they know each other and know the good and bad about one another and it was no secret about Judge Walker's alleged prejudices and bias when it comes to gay and lesbian matters and his colleagues should have told him to remove himself from hearing this important matter. Instead, his colleagues chose to wear the blindfold that lady justice wears so as to protect their own turf. Shame on them. And, -that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
One federal judge cheats over 7 million voters out of their vote. Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in the same-sex marriage matter referenced as Proposition 8, in California is an outrage.
The millions of voters of California said they did not want same-sex marriages. That was the word and the will of the people of California but Judge Walker completely ignored the wishes of the voters and like someone throwing some item in the trash he tossed the millions of votes into the trash.
It should be noted that Judge Walker makes no secret that he himself is a gay man. How did you think he was going to rule when it come to protecting the gay and lesbian community? It would appear he is looking out for himself, his gay lifestyle and his self interests. According to the judge and his backers it is said that Judge Walker would not be biased when ruling on this matter but do you really believe that? It has been reported that in past cases relating to gay issues Judge Walker was a fierce advocate for the gay community and ruled in their favor the majority of the time.
This judge should have refused to hear the matter and admitted he had a conflict in dealing with gay issues.
I submit that if a car thief steals only "red corvettes" and he has already stole 25 of them, chances are the 26th.,car he steals will be a "red corvette." The thief is "predisposed" to stealing only red corvettes. In Judge Walker's case he is predisposed to advocating in favor of gay and lesbian issues and it is clear, at least to me, that he is "predisposed" to ruling favorably for the gay and lesbian while disregarding the voice of millions of California voters.
There should be a law in this country that prohibits only "one" person, a judge, from overturning the will of the millions of voters that vote on a proposition and/or initiative. As the law stands now which allow "one" biased, self-serving judge to tear apart the will of the people will only turn people off from voting.
I have heard from many voters in this matter as well as past matters in other elections and have listened to the complaints of the voter expressing anger that their vote is being annulled and stripped away and many posed the question: "Why should we vote only to have our vote trampled on and taken from us, by one judge who thinks they know better that the millions of people that went to the polls to vote on a particular issue?" In fact, many people told me: "Why should I vote when one lousy judge can undo the entire voting system." Personally, I can't argue with those views.
I would suggest that this same-sex marriage Proposition 8 issue be taken to higher courts in the land. I would suggest that this gay judge, who in the past advocated for gay and lesbian issues and found in favor of those that presented gay and lesbian issues be held accountable for his clear bias. If his peers in the judiciary cannot see that Judge Walker has an axe to grind when it comes to gay and lesbian matters I would like to sell them a bridge in Brooklyn. It's basic common sense people. The guy is gay and he has a clear vested interest in promoting advantages for gays and/or lesbians that can and would benefit him and his agenda.
The judiciary is a very close knit, elite group of individual's and they know each other and know the good and bad about one another and it was no secret about Judge Walker's alleged prejudices and bias when it comes to gay and lesbian matters and his colleagues should have told him to remove himself from hearing this important matter. Instead, his colleagues chose to wear the blindfold that lady justice wears so as to protect their own turf. Shame on them. And, -that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Memo To Jay Leno: Stop Clapping At Your Own Material
THE DOCTOR IS IN:
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
I would like to offer a word to Jay Leno but before I do I would like to say that I am a fan of the Jay Leno Show and always will be and my previous blogs assert to that fact. In fact, I condemned NBC for letting Jay go and in those blogs I also mentioned that the other late night comedians couldn't match Leno's wit and style.
That said, here's my suggestion to Jay Leno: Jay, stop "clapping" for your own jokes. You don't have to prime your audience to clap. You're funny and the people will laugh and clap on their own. Your clapping at your own material looks embarrassing.
One of the first rules for stage presence for singers, comedians, speakers, etc., is that they should do something with their hands. Many put their hands in their pockets, others, like Johnny Carson and (pardon this one, Letterman) usually put their hands behind their back. Some people carry a pen or pencil. Women sometimes use scarves.
Jay, I notice that you sometimes put your hands in your pockets and sometimes you clasp your hands during the monologue, that works. But please, don't clap to get your audience to clap. That's sad. And,- that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You Decide.
Bradely W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
I would like to offer a word to Jay Leno but before I do I would like to say that I am a fan of the Jay Leno Show and always will be and my previous blogs assert to that fact. In fact, I condemned NBC for letting Jay go and in those blogs I also mentioned that the other late night comedians couldn't match Leno's wit and style.
That said, here's my suggestion to Jay Leno: Jay, stop "clapping" for your own jokes. You don't have to prime your audience to clap. You're funny and the people will laugh and clap on their own. Your clapping at your own material looks embarrassing.
One of the first rules for stage presence for singers, comedians, speakers, etc., is that they should do something with their hands. Many put their hands in their pockets, others, like Johnny Carson and (pardon this one, Letterman) usually put their hands behind their back. Some people carry a pen or pencil. Women sometimes use scarves.
Jay, I notice that you sometimes put your hands in your pockets and sometimes you clasp your hands during the monologue, that works. But please, don't clap to get your audience to clap. That's sad. And,- that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You Decide.
Bradely W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Israel Is Deporting Foreigners & Building a Fence To Protect Their Borders: Why Can't The USA
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Here in America we are having a dispute over our immigration policy. Some Congressmen, groups and individuals want to change the 14th. amendment so that "illegal alien" women cannot jump our borders and drop a baby just so that baby will be an American citizen.
There have been reports that many illegal aliens have said they want to have their baby delivered in the United States because that will allow them, as parents, to stay in the United States also. With an attitude like that it is nothing but a rip off scheme. The women illegally sneak across the border and run to one of our USA Emergency Rooms in the towns on the Arizona and Texas border and we the American taxpayer picks up the medical tab for them to deliver their baby. Actions like this have caused many United States border cities hospitals to fall into bankruptcy just from the excessive number of illegal alien women draining our financial system by giving birth to a child on the United States side of the border. The sad part of it is that our milk toast, welfare administration and government allows illegal aliens to receive free health care and benefits at the American taxpayers expense.
Many of our politicians and the President of the United States do not want to control illegal immigration due to the fact that they want to pander for the Hispanic vote. Many in the administration and many politicians also say that we should allow all illegal immigrants to reside in our country because it is against our beliefs to restrict illegal immigration.
At this point I would like to say that other countries clearly restrict illegal immigration and just recently, our friendly government in the Middle East, Israel, have no qualms about deporting hundreds if not thousands of children from Israel. They have the right idea about controlling their borders. Israel approved new residency requirements that could deport children of migrant workers.
The decision by the Israeli Cabinet represents a very good step to clear up the status of thousands of foreign workers in the nation of Israel. I think it would behoove the United States to follow suit and begin to get a handle on the millions of illegal aliens in the USA.
Under Israels decision, children whose parents entered Israel "legally" may remain if they are enrolled in school, speak Hebrew and have been in the country longer than five years.
Israel has about 200,000 migrant workers and over one half have overstayed their visas for many years. Sound familiar? We have between 12 and 20 million "illegal aliens" here in the United States and many have overstayed their visas for years.
Many Israelis say that "illegals" are taking jobs away from citizens. Again, sound familiar? The same thing is happening here in the USA. Others in Israel worry that the non-Jewish workers could upset the Jewish nature of the society. Again, the same applies to the United States. Many here have the same feeling regarding all of the illegals here.
American society as we know it has been changing drastically since the first amnesty by President Reagan in the 1980's, which, in my opinion, should not have happened. Once that amnesty was granted which allowed millions of illegal aliens to live here the following administrations closed their eyes to immigration control and protecting our Southern borders and the demographics in the United States has been tilted completely out of control.
Israels Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu totally agreed with the immigration policy saying: " This is a tangible threat to the Jewish and democratic character of the state of Israel." Personally, I agree with his comment. This illegal alien wave that is flooding our country applies to the United States also.
In another step to limit the influx of foreigners, Israel is building a fence along its borders with Egypt. Again, does this sound familiar? We, the United States citizen have been asking for a barrier fence running the border between the United States and Mexico for years but our political correct President and politicians refuse to build that fence. In fact, the Prime Minister said that the border fence separating the nation of Israel from Egypt will be completed by 2013. Christ, that's only three years. Israel means business. But our leaders haven't completed our border fence in decades. What's the matter with this picture? When a nation like Israel is determined to complete a project they do it but the USA congress people pussyfoot around and "promise" things, and refuse to act decisively.
People, I say we could do the exact same thing Israel is doing to control our "illegal alien" problem. There is no disgrace in wanting to control our borders from an illegal invasion and there is nothing wrong in protecting the democratic character of the United States of America just like Israel.
Yes, change the 14th. amendment and stop these anchor babies by the "illegal alien." The child should retain the citizenship of the parents country of origin unless that parent is currently a "LEGAL" citizen of the United States.
A second suggestion is to take back control of who is legally working on jobs in the United States. I would say every employer in the USA should be required, by mandate, to check each and every employee through the Real ID system. If every employee was checked, whether they be White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc., there would be no discrimination or profiling because everyone is subject to the check before they are employed.
The Real ID check only takes a very short amount of time so it is really no inconvenience. This mandated ID check would also prevent these lousy employers that knowingly hire "illegal aliens" just so they can save a buck.
It wasn't too many decades ago in most restaurants when most cooks, dishwashers and the waiting staff were White, and Black and the same occurred in the construction and landscaping fields. So, this old story by illegals that they are doing jobs Americans don't want to do is nothing but a fallacy. The only reason the food service, construction and landscaping fields are dominated by Hispanic workers is solely because the slick, unethical employers hire illegals to save payroll. Whites, Blacks and Asians would gladly work those jobs.
Jobs working the fruit and vegetable fields? It's hard work and many Americans don't want to do field work but migrants were allowed into the USA for that work and they did it well, season by season. But work Americans can do and want to do should not be filled by "illegal aliens."
I submit that if all of these bad employers were hit with stiff fines each and every time they hired "illegal aliens" they would soon only hire "LEGAL" employees or be run out of business because of the large fines. A big benefit of my suggestions would be that most of the "illegal aliens" failing to find work would return to their own country or they would apply to become a legal citizens, the right way.
Finally, if Israel can get a handle on their foreigner and illegal problem which is affecting their culture and democratic society we in the United States can do the same thing. Lets do it. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Here in America we are having a dispute over our immigration policy. Some Congressmen, groups and individuals want to change the 14th. amendment so that "illegal alien" women cannot jump our borders and drop a baby just so that baby will be an American citizen.
There have been reports that many illegal aliens have said they want to have their baby delivered in the United States because that will allow them, as parents, to stay in the United States also. With an attitude like that it is nothing but a rip off scheme. The women illegally sneak across the border and run to one of our USA Emergency Rooms in the towns on the Arizona and Texas border and we the American taxpayer picks up the medical tab for them to deliver their baby. Actions like this have caused many United States border cities hospitals to fall into bankruptcy just from the excessive number of illegal alien women draining our financial system by giving birth to a child on the United States side of the border. The sad part of it is that our milk toast, welfare administration and government allows illegal aliens to receive free health care and benefits at the American taxpayers expense.
Many of our politicians and the President of the United States do not want to control illegal immigration due to the fact that they want to pander for the Hispanic vote. Many in the administration and many politicians also say that we should allow all illegal immigrants to reside in our country because it is against our beliefs to restrict illegal immigration.
At this point I would like to say that other countries clearly restrict illegal immigration and just recently, our friendly government in the Middle East, Israel, have no qualms about deporting hundreds if not thousands of children from Israel. They have the right idea about controlling their borders. Israel approved new residency requirements that could deport children of migrant workers.
The decision by the Israeli Cabinet represents a very good step to clear up the status of thousands of foreign workers in the nation of Israel. I think it would behoove the United States to follow suit and begin to get a handle on the millions of illegal aliens in the USA.
Under Israels decision, children whose parents entered Israel "legally" may remain if they are enrolled in school, speak Hebrew and have been in the country longer than five years.
Israel has about 200,000 migrant workers and over one half have overstayed their visas for many years. Sound familiar? We have between 12 and 20 million "illegal aliens" here in the United States and many have overstayed their visas for years.
Many Israelis say that "illegals" are taking jobs away from citizens. Again, sound familiar? The same thing is happening here in the USA. Others in Israel worry that the non-Jewish workers could upset the Jewish nature of the society. Again, the same applies to the United States. Many here have the same feeling regarding all of the illegals here.
American society as we know it has been changing drastically since the first amnesty by President Reagan in the 1980's, which, in my opinion, should not have happened. Once that amnesty was granted which allowed millions of illegal aliens to live here the following administrations closed their eyes to immigration control and protecting our Southern borders and the demographics in the United States has been tilted completely out of control.
Israels Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu totally agreed with the immigration policy saying: " This is a tangible threat to the Jewish and democratic character of the state of Israel." Personally, I agree with his comment. This illegal alien wave that is flooding our country applies to the United States also.
In another step to limit the influx of foreigners, Israel is building a fence along its borders with Egypt. Again, does this sound familiar? We, the United States citizen have been asking for a barrier fence running the border between the United States and Mexico for years but our political correct President and politicians refuse to build that fence. In fact, the Prime Minister said that the border fence separating the nation of Israel from Egypt will be completed by 2013. Christ, that's only three years. Israel means business. But our leaders haven't completed our border fence in decades. What's the matter with this picture? When a nation like Israel is determined to complete a project they do it but the USA congress people pussyfoot around and "promise" things, and refuse to act decisively.
People, I say we could do the exact same thing Israel is doing to control our "illegal alien" problem. There is no disgrace in wanting to control our borders from an illegal invasion and there is nothing wrong in protecting the democratic character of the United States of America just like Israel.
Yes, change the 14th. amendment and stop these anchor babies by the "illegal alien." The child should retain the citizenship of the parents country of origin unless that parent is currently a "LEGAL" citizen of the United States.
A second suggestion is to take back control of who is legally working on jobs in the United States. I would say every employer in the USA should be required, by mandate, to check each and every employee through the Real ID system. If every employee was checked, whether they be White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc., there would be no discrimination or profiling because everyone is subject to the check before they are employed.
The Real ID check only takes a very short amount of time so it is really no inconvenience. This mandated ID check would also prevent these lousy employers that knowingly hire "illegal aliens" just so they can save a buck.
It wasn't too many decades ago in most restaurants when most cooks, dishwashers and the waiting staff were White, and Black and the same occurred in the construction and landscaping fields. So, this old story by illegals that they are doing jobs Americans don't want to do is nothing but a fallacy. The only reason the food service, construction and landscaping fields are dominated by Hispanic workers is solely because the slick, unethical employers hire illegals to save payroll. Whites, Blacks and Asians would gladly work those jobs.
Jobs working the fruit and vegetable fields? It's hard work and many Americans don't want to do field work but migrants were allowed into the USA for that work and they did it well, season by season. But work Americans can do and want to do should not be filled by "illegal aliens."
I submit that if all of these bad employers were hit with stiff fines each and every time they hired "illegal aliens" they would soon only hire "LEGAL" employees or be run out of business because of the large fines. A big benefit of my suggestions would be that most of the "illegal aliens" failing to find work would return to their own country or they would apply to become a legal citizens, the right way.
Finally, if Israel can get a handle on their foreigner and illegal problem which is affecting their culture and democratic society we in the United States can do the same thing. Lets do it. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Charles Rangel Should Resign: He's The Poster Boy For Term Limits
THE DOCTOR IS IN
__________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Rep. Charles Rangel of New York is trying to strike a deal with the House Ethics committee. Here is a guy that committed violation after violation over many years and avoided taxes and failed to claim ownership of condos offshore, just to name a few crimes.
Rangel is a twenty(20) term representative. Can you believe that? 40 years as a politician. Did other politicians know about this guys misdeeds? Probably, but the Congress is a good ol' boy network and they love covering up for each other in the event they themselves are caught committing wrongdoing. Example, just look back on the actions of the Ethics Committee over the past few decades. If and when the committee does punish any politician it is only a very limp slap on the wrist. These above the law Congress people refuse to take any serious action against one another. The committee is a bad joke. They hold a dog and pony show to pacify the media but when they have to make a decision as to punishment it appears that most of these fat cats accused of ethics or criminal acts skate into the sunset.
Rangel should resign, period. If he does not resign he should be banished from Congress. He's now 80 years old and has been milking and playing the system for 40 years. At this point in time of his life he clearly is more interested in promoting his well being instead of serving the people of the United States. I would also suggest that at his age his health and personal life is of more importance to him than providing useful and genuine services for the state of New York.
Rangel is a poster boy for why there should be term limits. There should be new blood in those political offices after two terms. If a two term limit were initiated the benefits for the people of the United States would be, but not limited to: less chance of the politicians committing these serious ethics violations like Rangel had been doing for years; committing criminal acts while in office; it would stop and slow political corruption because everyone would know any particular politician would be out of office after only two terms.
I submit that if these politicians were mandated to serve only two terms there would be no time for any Congressman to become entrenched in the tentacles of the lobbyists and big corporation payoffs. A two year term limit is a win, win for the citizens of the United States.
Christ, Rangel is in there for 40 years to date and is 80 years old.Then there was Senator Byrd. He also held office for decades and left Congress in his 90's and that was only because he died. Basically, the only way Byrd left the snobbish club was being carried out out in a box. I would suggest that when a person finally reaches the age of 80, 90 or 100, they should not be holding a seat in Congress saying they are serving the people of the nation.
The only reason many of these elderly, old aged people are still in office is because of the financial backing of other politicians, big oil and big corporations that want them to do their bidding on specific legislation and projects. In fact, this elite club called Congress actually wheel each other in to the government chambers in wheelchairs and on stretchers. That's not governing. That's protecting ones own turf for political and personal gain.
People, wake up! Fight for term limits. There should be a fresh turnover of new talented, young, people that want to serve this country. Two terms is sufficient for anyone to serve the nation. The voter should be intelligent enough to vote out any politicians that are extremely elderly.
If you think that these elderly politicians (Democrat,Republican or Independent) in their 80's and 90's can do a competent job serving the nation on a daily basis and if you truly believe that they are not more concerned about their health and their personal lives, I'll sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. At these late ages many of these elderly politicians are led around by the nose by their aides, colleagues and special interest groups. That is a disservice to the citizens of this country. I say that when these elderly politicians are continually worrying about their own health problems and are feeling their aches and pains resulting from health issues and family and personal matters they cannot devote their attention to matters that require them to serve the people of the United States. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
__________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Rep. Charles Rangel of New York is trying to strike a deal with the House Ethics committee. Here is a guy that committed violation after violation over many years and avoided taxes and failed to claim ownership of condos offshore, just to name a few crimes.
Rangel is a twenty(20) term representative. Can you believe that? 40 years as a politician. Did other politicians know about this guys misdeeds? Probably, but the Congress is a good ol' boy network and they love covering up for each other in the event they themselves are caught committing wrongdoing. Example, just look back on the actions of the Ethics Committee over the past few decades. If and when the committee does punish any politician it is only a very limp slap on the wrist. These above the law Congress people refuse to take any serious action against one another. The committee is a bad joke. They hold a dog and pony show to pacify the media but when they have to make a decision as to punishment it appears that most of these fat cats accused of ethics or criminal acts skate into the sunset.
Rangel should resign, period. If he does not resign he should be banished from Congress. He's now 80 years old and has been milking and playing the system for 40 years. At this point in time of his life he clearly is more interested in promoting his well being instead of serving the people of the United States. I would also suggest that at his age his health and personal life is of more importance to him than providing useful and genuine services for the state of New York.
Rangel is a poster boy for why there should be term limits. There should be new blood in those political offices after two terms. If a two term limit were initiated the benefits for the people of the United States would be, but not limited to: less chance of the politicians committing these serious ethics violations like Rangel had been doing for years; committing criminal acts while in office; it would stop and slow political corruption because everyone would know any particular politician would be out of office after only two terms.
I submit that if these politicians were mandated to serve only two terms there would be no time for any Congressman to become entrenched in the tentacles of the lobbyists and big corporation payoffs. A two year term limit is a win, win for the citizens of the United States.
Christ, Rangel is in there for 40 years to date and is 80 years old.Then there was Senator Byrd. He also held office for decades and left Congress in his 90's and that was only because he died. Basically, the only way Byrd left the snobbish club was being carried out out in a box. I would suggest that when a person finally reaches the age of 80, 90 or 100, they should not be holding a seat in Congress saying they are serving the people of the nation.
The only reason many of these elderly, old aged people are still in office is because of the financial backing of other politicians, big oil and big corporations that want them to do their bidding on specific legislation and projects. In fact, this elite club called Congress actually wheel each other in to the government chambers in wheelchairs and on stretchers. That's not governing. That's protecting ones own turf for political and personal gain.
People, wake up! Fight for term limits. There should be a fresh turnover of new talented, young, people that want to serve this country. Two terms is sufficient for anyone to serve the nation. The voter should be intelligent enough to vote out any politicians that are extremely elderly.
If you think that these elderly politicians (Democrat,Republican or Independent) in their 80's and 90's can do a competent job serving the nation on a daily basis and if you truly believe that they are not more concerned about their health and their personal lives, I'll sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. At these late ages many of these elderly politicians are led around by the nose by their aides, colleagues and special interest groups. That is a disservice to the citizens of this country. I say that when these elderly politicians are continually worrying about their own health problems and are feeling their aches and pains resulting from health issues and family and personal matters they cannot devote their attention to matters that require them to serve the people of the United States. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)