"JUMP FOR TRUMP"- HE'S  WORTH YOUR CONSIDERATION

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?


When Donald Trump first entered the race for president I predicted he would quickly jump to the head of the pack of Republican candidates. And, WOW! He did just that. My prediction was not based on him having a reality show and being a well known TV personality but instead, based on the type of man he appeared to be.

The man is very intelligent, a business mogul that clearly knows how to run and administer a business empire second to none-WORLD WIDE. Trump employs millions of people of diverse ethnicity from around the globe. He has contacts with numerous leaders of other nations. Other countries have no problem dealing with the Trump organization and continue to build Trumps projects in their countries. You can bet none of the other Republican candidates can claim the same bragging rights.

It appears when Trump sets his sights on a project he  takes it on and follows it through to completion and from all of the information I can garner, he is a man of his word. So when he tells Americans that he will build a wall on the Southern border to manage our immigration problem I take him at his word. When her tells us Americans that he will surround himself with some of the best minds in  the country as advisers to manage the economy and  infrastructure of the United States, I take hi at his word. I truly believe Trump" says what he means and means what he says.

Some of the talking heads in the media on cable and television  networks along with the  Democratic party continually try to make Trump look foolish. They joke and laugh about his comments and actions. They play "gotcha" with much of what Trump says. Fact is, much of the media today are not reporting  news, instead they tend to inject themselves and their opinions into a story segment and tend to take sides when reporting political news.

Example: Trump originally was leading the polls in Iowa and some news outlets began to question Trump's religious values and pit them against other Republican candidates religious values. Some of the other Republican candidates went into Iowa and implied that Trump was not as "religious" a person as they were. The candidates wanted to capture the Evangelical vote and degrade Trumps momentum in Iowa.What a joke.

I'm sure many people in Iowa believe in clean living, family values, virtue and success and I believe Trump is the epitome of  that. Lets compare him to some of the politicians and entertainers that have been found to be corrupt, who have been caught doing illegal acts and who did prison time for their wrongdoing. On the other hand, Trump is a well respected business titan. As a family man he raised his children under a doctrine of clean living to be honest intelligent exceptional people in their own right who now enjoy their own careers. To my knowledge there has never been even a hint of scandal surrounding Trump. That to me, speaks volumes as to  the character and integrity of a person and how that person approaches life and faces challenges that may confront them.

Some plus points for Trump, in my view: He's financing his own campaign for the presidency. He is beholden to no one for money. I think at one time he said that if he becomes president  he will not take a salary. He has good family values and a fine family unit. To me it appears that Trump (an outsider, non-politician) actually wants to try to clean up the mess in this country that was dumped on we Americans by both  the Democratic and Republican politicians who continue to  fight among themselves for their own vested interests and agendas.

Folks, it's time for a change in Washington. Enough of the old school politicians that waste away in their power seats in Washington for 5,6, 7 and  8 terms or more. I would suggest that America give an outsider, an upstanding business man who has some good ideas to bring America back form the brink a shot at fixing the problem(s). Hey, if he doesn't produce as advertised - - VOTE him out after only four.years. Any new blood in Washington will be better than what is there now. Any new blood and ideas in Washington CAN'T be any worse than what has been occurring in the past seven years.

As I've been telling people here in Nevada and where ever I travel: "JUMP FOR TRUMP." Would that make a great slogan? You Bet.  Also, if you're on the fence about what candidate might actually do what they say they will do: "JUMP TO TRUMP."- 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

OBAMA'S WANTS  SYRIAN REFUGEES IN USA-I SAY NO!

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

Obama wants to allow tens of thousands of Syrian refugees come to America. I believe it's a very bad idea. Why?  One reason is because the Paris terrorists entered France by mingling with other refugees pretending to be one of the displaced people. France let the terorists in. Another reason is because the Iraq intelligence service had credible information that there was going to be a  terrorist attack in France, specifically the city of Paris. Did officials in France heed the warning? No. Did they take any preventive actions against attack? No.

What's scary about Obama's take on the refugees resettlement to the USA is:  Just hours, on Friday morning  before the news of the horrific attack splashed across the world that terrorists killed over 100 people and injured many, many more in multiple blood soaked attacks in Paris, President Obama told us Americans this - -"we have contained" the advance of the Islamic State. Obama's judgement clearly needs questioned. A few days ago Obama mockingly said some in Congress are afraid to let grandmothers and three-year-olds into America. Today Democratic Pelosi said the same thing parroting Obama's rhetoric.

Where the hell has Obama, Pelosi and the other refugee lovers been over the past decades. Didn't they read history and/or keep up with what occurred during  past wars. Fact, in World War II, the Germans and Japanese were using women and children  strapped with bombs and grenades to "blow" up our soldiers. The women and children were used JUST BECAUSE they were women, grandmothers and children. The same thing happened in the Korea conflict and it was usually an every day occurrence in Vietnam. I urge Obama , Pelosi and  their ilk to check with some of the disabled Nam vets and/or the dead vets families that were either maimed or killed by small children and grandmothers. Christ, the enemy used the women and children knowing that some of out soldiers wouldn't check them out.

As to current day events, present day:  - as of a few days ago  a terrorist organization group used a 13-year-old girl and an 18-year-old girl to be suicide bombers in the Nigerian city of a Kano at a marketplace

Just yesterday it was confirmed that the most wanted man in the world (the Islamic terrorist-Abdelhamid Abaroud, 27) who masterminded the Paris attacks was killed and his female cousin (the first European female suicide bomber) Hasna Aitboulahce, blew herself up in an act of suicide bombing. Has ISIS used both women and children to act as suicide bombers? The answer is "YES."So yes, we Americans should be concerned that grandmothers, women and small children can and probably will be used as suicide bombers at one time or another here in the United States. The customs, culture an ideology  of  the terrorists preach this practice, condone this practice and carries out this practice (using women and children) as suicide bombers.

Obama and his people say that the thousands of refugees will be vetted and that  he has security measures in place to assure the American people there will not be any terrorists among the massive influx of the refugees being brought to America. Question: How can our government people run background checks on these refugees when they don't even know anything about them, who the person actually is, where they specifically came from, etc.--my answer is: They CAN'T. Fact is, the vetting plan the Obama administration has in place now can take up to TWO YEARS to complete. That's stupid! A lot of damage can be done in TWO YEARS.

My take on Obama's refugee stance is that we, in America, should question this dysfunctional administration who wants to welcome tens and hundreds of thousands of people from the Middle East without actually knowing who each of them are.

Folks, currently Obama and his administration CANNOT even locate people from other countries that have come to America and OVERSTAYED their visa's. Fact is, that's how some of the 9/11 terrorists got into and stayed in the United States prior to them committing the tragic, devastating terrorist attack on 9/11. It's no secret that our nation has been battling an "illegal immigration" problem for decades. There is an estimated ELEVEN MILLION illegal aliens already living  in the United States and as Donald Trump rightly pointed out, MANY (not all)  are  dangerous criminals who clearly commit rapes, murder,robbery, etc.

The Obama administration and past administrations have  failed miserably in securing our borders. The people entering America "illegally" grows each and every day but apparently for the sake of votes lawmakers choose to refuse to deport or control the  illegal alien and immigrant problem.

Hell, even Homeland Security refuses to abide by the laws and deport "illegal aliens" they have files on, courtesy of this administration. Our TSA people at ports of entry and the airports fail to recognize illegal entrants. The TSA officers at ports of entry into the United States fail over and over again to detect weapons, explosives, chemicals and other dangerous items that could cause extreme damage to facilities and the people in America. So, I ask you? How can you expect these same government employees to protect you from a sleeper or covert terrorist intent on harming America?

It's these same government officials and lawmakers that refuse to SECURE our borders that want to allow the mass immigration of possible terrorists into the USA. Remember, terrorists have no respect for International borders. Look at the European Union now - - Europe wanted a ONE WORLD ORDER, using ONE CURRENCY,with no borders, no frontiers.. They wanted people to come and go throughout Europe freely. Well, now you see how that is working out. Terrorist are coming and going all over Europe and immigrants are overwhelming a number of countries wanting to be taken care of.

 I would suggest that BEFORE any refugees from these war torn countries, particularly Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa  are allowed on our soil the American people insist that our borders be COMPLETELY secured with fences/walls;  E-Verify identification methods be utilized on every entrant coming into the U.S.;  each individual (man, woman and/or child ) will have to provide complete documentation as to date of birth, place of birth, prior residences, employment records, military service completed, prior travel records throughout the world, history of all relatives and where the relatives are living at the time that person applies for entry into the United States. That is just some ( not all) of the information I would require a person to provide before entry into our country. If any of the information is found to be fabricated, forged or the person made misrepresentations or LIED on any of the documents they will immediately sent back to their country of origin.

Readers, there are a number of Governor's of states in our country who oppose Obama's plan and refuse to accept any of the  refugees Obama and his posse want resettled in America. Personally I can't blame the Governor's for not wanting possible terrorists in their state. However, there are a lot of nanny-kissing people that say it's okay to allow these refugees into America because it's the right thing to do. Really? I say it is not the right thing to do.  I predict that in the event of any massive resettlement of the refugees there will be a number of them that, like in France,will con, lie and fake their way into America. Further, I will say that it's not a question of IF a terrorist attack will take down a mall, theater, school or university or other soft targets like concerts, stadiums, sports arenas, parades, conventions and department stores here in America but WHEN. Mark my words folks. it will happen and  I also predict it will be discovered that the  terrorist(s)  did in fact enter our country under the guise of a crying, suffering refugee. - And, that's mu opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.

BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

MY TAKE ON THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC DEBATES, SO FAR.

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

I watched the Democratic debate last night,November 14, 2015. First, It was another Democratic love fest. The audience was again packed with Hillary Clinton supporters. As far as a debate - -it really wasn't.  On a whole all three candidates agreed on most everything.  Clinton was allowed to shine by the other two candidates. Again, Sanders often said he agreed with Clinton and even mentioned the email scandal against Clinton again as a nothing subject which brought a laugh from Clinton and applause from the audience.

I'm disappointed in Bernie Sanders. I like a lot of what he says but he continually agrees with Clinton and refuses to take a challenging approach toward her. He's often said they were friends and he constantly sticks up for her. Friends are nice but I think that when one is running for the same office the challenger should  actually show some backbone and seriously debate the issues. Sander's fails in this respect.

It looks to me like Sanders is running only to support Hillary Clinton. If he was serious about wanting to be president for the United States he should take her on, head to head.  Bring up the issues like Benghazi , the email scandal, the many falsehoods she had told in the past, her support for the Iraq war, her failures as Secretary of State and the host of other weaknesses she has.

Does Sanders really want to be president? So far, to me, it sure doesn't look like it. Is he hoping for a Vice-President consideration with his good friend Hillary? Possibly. But I don't think she would ever consider him for the V-P spot. Right now he appears to be only a lap dog to Clinton. He should change his tactics.

If Sanders wants to be president and get the Democratic nomination he clearly has to take the gloves off, stop saying he agrees with her on most every issue that is discussed and fight her tooth and nail. Remember the old saying - - "nice guys finish last."


Now, lets talk about the Republicans debate: The moderators were more professional  during this last debate. There was substance in the questions. It allowed the candidates to try to prove what they had. As to Kasich, he seemed an angry, irritated person. He came across like he was the only one  who deserved  to be president and acted as though all the rest of the candidates on the stage were little people beneath him. He is a self-righteous wanna-be.

Marco Rubio's presentation on defense spending won him a lot of points. However, if his poll numbers remain low I see him having a tough time in this race. Also, because he used a government credit card for his own personal use doesn't help him. If someone knowingly breaks the rules as Rubio did while in office it says a lot as to their credibility, honesty and trust. No matter what excuse the person comes up with it doesn't rationalize the wrongdoing.

Rand Paul had his best night so far in the debates. He is a principled man--standing by his convictions - - no matter what.

Carly Fiorina, keeps repeating her same ol', same ol'  song. She sounds like a "one trick" pony. She tries to come  across strong using the same blather-- saying basically,-"they would, I wouldn't, "they won't, I will." It's a great sound bite but I don't know how far that tack will get her.Plus, I think her stump campaign presentation is fading fast. She doesn't appear to do as good on the campaign trail as she does on the debate stage. Is she still on the main stage because of her gender? Some people think so.

Jeb Bush, didn't falter. He held his own  this time around. But he is a person that just seems  blah, milk toasty and someone who still thinks politics of the past,  I believe he fails to impress voters and this chance at the presidency may be his last. if he stays in the single digits I don't see him gaining any traction so that  he can keep himself in the race. However, with the Bush name it's possible that  he will be allowed to remain on the  main stage. Is that fair? Who knows?

Cruz, holds his own. He is articulate, polished and comes across with knowledge of the facts - - a sincere man. I see him as having a very strong chance of grabbing the nomination.

Trump is a steamroller even though he lost points on foreign policy during the debate.Trump holds his own even though he is vague on issues and policy.  His appeal to the voters is that he says what he wants and is pressing the right buttons that Americans are very concerned about. Here's a man that did well all his life, He knows how to run business around the world and when he said he would do things, he actually did them. I get the feeling voters trust him and  trust that he will do what he says he will do. Trump clearly has no large amounts of baggage like many other candidates  in the race, either Democrat or Republican. He's a good family man. A family that appears never to have been in trouble. His kids are super intelligent who apparently stayed out of trouble and put their nose to the grindstone to pursue their own career goals. Trump also is spending his own money in the race for the White House. This man has a lot going for him when compared to many of the other candidates on both sides of the aisle.

Ben Carson has a credibility and trust problem to overcome - - a big one. With this guy you don't know when he's telling the truth or fabricating and making things up. That seems a big hurdle to overcome. Like Rubio, I think Carson has a credibility, honesty and trust problem.

Chris Christie really came out on top in the under card debate. He should have been included in the tier one candidates on the main stage.

I think some of these candidates will fall by the wayside soon. That may occur  possibly after the next debate of either party and/or after the Iowa primaries. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.

BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

DR. BEN CARSON-LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE.

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

As I predicted, the hits just keep coming and coming with Ben Carson, candidate for president of the United States. News media continued to find false and admitted untruthful statements regarding Carson's life.

The Wall Street Journal looked into statements Carson made in his 1990 autobiography, "Gifted Hands." Dr. Carson wrote that while a Junior at Yale he was in a psychology class called Perceptions 301 and the professor told the class that their final exam had been burned up and the entire class of 150 students had to retake the exam.In  his book Carson said the new exam was even much tougher than the first. He went on to say that all of the students but himself walked out of if the class. He also related that the female professor and a photographer from the Yale Daily News "walked up to me, paused and snapped a picture of me." He also said that the teacher told him the incident was a  "hoax." Supposedly the teacher said "We wanted to see who was the most honest student in the class." Carson wrote; "The professor handed me a $10.00 bill." BUT FOLKS --according to the Wall Street Journal: No photos of Carson ever ran in the Yale Daily News. They even went back and checked the newspapers  archives.  During the time Carson said this incident happened there was no such class as "Perceptions 301." In addition, Yale Librarian, Claryn Spies said there was "NO" psychology course by that name OR class number during any of the time Mr. Carson spent at Yale.

The Wall Street Journal also shined a light on another Ben Carson falsehood which he posted on Facebook where he claimed that "Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience." The newspaper interviewed Benjamin Carp, associate professor of history at Brooklyn College, who is also author of books on the American Revolution. "  Mr. Carp  stated that Thomas Jefferson;  Samuel Adams; John Hancock and many other signers of the document had been "elected members" of their colonial assemblies before signing the Declaration of Independence,"

Looking at the success of  Carson's Scholarship Fund to other non-profits, Carson continues to claim that 9 out of 10 non-profits fail. But the Washington Post Fact Checker rated his statements as false and the paper calls  Carson's assertions regarding the matter "WHOPPER'S." It should be noted in an article by Charles Blow, noted  columnist, that out of 19 claims made by Ben Carson, so far, the fact-checking site PolitiFact said none had been ruled "true."

Also when Carson claims he DID NOT have an involvement with the nutritional supplement company Mannatech (who committed many alleged illegal and unlawful acts) have also been proved false.He was involved with this thieving company.

Side Note: The other day a newspaper article  reported on the people in Iowa supporting Dr.Carson for president . Some interviewed said they DO NOT care if he lied and they will vote for him in their upcoming election, anyway. What?   Here's a man that has been caught in NUMEROUS falsehoods and being dishonest on many, many subjects during his run for president. Some people have even said Carson was a "serial, dishonest storyteller." If that be the case, does the people of Iowa really want someone  like that as our Commander-In -Chief", the president of the United States? Why would someone want to vote for a person that has no compunction about weaving known falsehoods?

I suggest that if the people in Iowa cast a vote for Dr. Carson in their upcoming elections they will be voting for someone similar to Hillary Clinton who apparently loves to tell falsehoods - -which some call LIES. Remember the Benghazi whopper? Hillary Clinton told the  American public that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a "video." while telling her relatives, family and leaders around the world that the Benghazi attack was done by terrorists. If individuals like that lied to the the American people then, what makes you think they will not lie when it suits their purpose and their agenda?

Finally, I saw a campaign ad by Ben Carson last night.  In essence, the ad shows him telling the American people that they need someone they can trust and someone who is honest.Really?  That seems to be a contradiction on his part, doesn't 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

DR, BEN CARSON'S STORIES AND ACTIONS LEAVE A LOT TO BE DESIRED. WOULD YOU VOTE FOR THIS MAN?

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

What the devil is the matter with Dr. Ben Carson, a candidate for the president of the United States? Many Americans question his veracity and  wonder if he can be trusted to be the leader of the free world. Let's look at just some of the claims this man has made. Many people believe they are a total fabrication.

First: In his biography he made the statement that he was offered a full blown scholarship to West Point by General William Westmoreland. West Point has no record of  such an offer. And to my recollection -West Point  DOES NOT offer scholarships." Dr. Carson also  told Charlie Rose, of the "Charlie Rose Television Show"  " I was offered a full scholarship to West Point." Now he and his handlers are trying to parse the  statements by offering up  such excuses as:  "It was a verbal offer."

Second: Dr.Carson also said that he tried to stab a number of people. He said he stabbed one person and the man's belt buckle stopped the blade from killing the guy. He also said he had anger issues while growing up.

Third: He also said he tried to hit his mother in the head with a hammer or a brick, depending on when the story is being told.. My question about that is: Why would anyone want to hit anyone else in the head with a hammer, let alone your own mother, unless there was some sort of intent to possibly maim and/or kill the other person.

Fourth: Dr. Carson tells the world that the pyramids of Egypt was built to "store grain" in them. Really? Come On! Most every expert in the study of the Egyptian culture and customs have long ago concluded that the pyramids were built for the sole purpose as a burial site and monument to their kings. Fact is, all evidence gathered by the experts over the centuries show that the kings themselves commissioned the building of their own pyramid. The pyramids have ample carving and hieroglyphics describing the burial site and what the pyramid is specifically meant for (burial of the king) and usually designated items stored in the pyramid  to be used to help the king cross into the next world.

Note: Here is a couple other little goodies that Carson claimed he did. According to the Wall Street Journal none of what he claims in these tidbits can be substantiated. He said while attending one of the most prestigious universities in the country he took a "psychology" course and further said his class was given an "honesty" test. He reported that out of all of his fellow students he was the "only" one that passed the honesty test. After checking their records the university said there was "no such" psychology course and there was no "honesty test" administered. Phew!! When is the other shoe going to drop? It looks like the hits keep coming when it comes to Ben Carson's truthfulness, integrity and character.

Folks, the above examples are just a sample of  the stories (some in the media branded as tall tales) that this presidential candidate has been espousing. It also has been mentioned that Carson himself said he had pathological problems. If that is true it should give Americans pause and consider what type of person they want to lead this country. Dr. Carson's action and statements give  me concern. His character certainly comes into question, doesn't it?

People, remember back in 1972, the late Thomas  F. Eagleton, former senator, was removed from  being a vice-presidential candidate because he had a mental illness and he was also treated with "electroschock" (ECT) therapy. He was disqualified from running the country.

At this particular time I suspect that Dr. Carson tends to fabricate. In fact, "confabulate."What's confabulate? Well, the  easy explanation can be described as: " It is the spontaneous product of false memories, either for memories and for events which never occurred." Confabulation can further be described as a product of fabricated, distorted and misinterpreted memories "about oneself or the world?

Here's and example: A therapist is interviewing an alcoholic and asks about something that never even happened: "Charlie, did you rob that gas station last night?" Alcoholic: "Yes, yes I did. I pulled a knife and stuck it in the clerks face and asked for money. Then I put the money in my pocket. I ran out the door and I grabbed my bicycle parked outside and rode away." Point being folks, a person that fabricates and confabulates can just keep embellishing on the simplest phase(s) and/or story and each time it can become a bigger more elaborate event. Even though  the event never, ever happened.

Also, I notice that when challenged on his remarks Dr.Carson displays a latent anger and lashes out at others and then he tries to back pedal his remarks such as: "What I really meant was ---;  Or, when he was asked something that  went like this: "Do you "agree"with the use of using the "rap song" we saw in your ads?" His  answer was a clear "yes" but in the next breath he took another stand and said something to the effect that he would do something different. He's looks to be very ambivalent. If one notices, Dr. Carson has a tendency to take this approach when asked specific questions about issues and policy. He tends to refuse to offer up a definitive  "yes" or "no" when he is asked if he agrees or disagrees with something. It appears he fails to hold a strong or solid opinion on an issue or policy "without" qualifying the response with a "but."

Dr. Carson is currently bashing the media, blaming them for looking into his personal life. Well, what the devil did he expect? When you are a person in the top tier of candidates for becoming president of the United States there is going to be scrutiny and tough questions about  your words, actions and writings - -you're a PUBLIC FIGURE. Any candidates life should be an open book so that Americans can make an intelligent decision as to who they would like to vote for. I will predict that there will be even more contradictions come up regarding Carson's, life, background, writings and actions. Stay tuned.

As everyone knows, I am an Independent voter, always have been. I have always prided myself on choosing the best person for the job whether they are Democrat, Republican  or Independent, or even a Democrat Socialist like Bernie Sanders claims he is. I want to hear from all of the candidates before making up my mind. I don't have a dog in this hunt. However, with that said, after hearing Dr. Ben Carson speak and present himself and considering all of his stories I believe I would have a problem giving him my vote. Carson, like Hillary Clinton, comes to the table with a lot of baggage, a lot of which I believe are made up stories and trust issues. At this point I can say I narrowed my choice for president down. - 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

A REVIEW OF TELEVISION SHOWS, AS REQUESTED.

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

Ron, from Santa Monica, California asked me to give my opinion on a few television shows. Okay.
First. lets tackle the idiot show on ABC called "Wicked City." I see this show as a rehash of the serial killer show "Aquarius" which aired on NBC, starring David Duchovny.  "Wicked City", era 1982, the place, Sunset Strip follows serial killer Kent Grainger played by Ed Westwick. Detective Jack Roth(Jeremy Sisto) and a wanna-be journalist Karen McClaren (Taissa Farmiga) who works for the news rag L.A. Notorious, is keeping tabs on this serial killer.

Killer Kent hangs at the famous Whiskey A Go Go where he chooses his victims. He then calls in a song dedication to a radio station. The song plays while the serial killer is doing his thing with the victim as he gets off. Then he proceeds to butcher the victim. The only decent thing about this serial killers routine and the entire show is the music played during his kills. Westwick fails to get a handle on his character. As to Sisto's detective performance - - BORING!  BORING! DULL! DULL!.

Other shows that I see on their last legs are:  "The Player". It resembles a kiddie show. It's filled with tech gadgets that are supposed to know all and assist the star in beating the clock in solving crimes. Again, BORING. A lackluster show. I would predict that this bomb will be nixed in  the very near future.  The show,"Blood and Oil" - - Come On. It's another dumb soap opera that struggles through and I would say it's bleeding to death. Stick a fork in this show - - mark my words,  IT's DONE.

NBC's "Blindspot" will probably go the entire season but I don't know how. It's a dopey show. The female lead runs around through each episode of the show with a very, very grim expression on her face. She looks like death warmed over.  And the interactions between the lead FBI guy and this tattooed wonder causes him to break supposed FBI protocol also. I don't know where the writers come up with this pablum.The context and idea of the show is stupid. She is supposedly a victim of some sort of "who knows what."and  covered with tattoos who is allowed to run willy-nilly with FBI agents shooting up the world. She ignore supposed FBI protocol and does things on her own and is usually away from the FBI team as she whips up on the bad guys. And as in one episode,this FBI team draws down on  a CIA team. "I'm better than you are" game. Yikes! This show is nothing more than a modern version of cowboy and Indians  with no substance. I will be really surprised if the show runs the entire season.

Ron, You asked me for my opinion on these shows. Take it for what it's worth. - 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES-NO MODERATORS-USE A TIME KEEPER ONLY.

THE  KUHNS REPORT

Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

This last Republican debate was a complete disaster . I was glad to see many of the Republican candidates turn the tables on those lousy NBC moderators. Who were they anyway? I would venture to say that most of the viewing audience didn't even know who they were, or ever heard of them before the debate. It looks like they wanted to be wanna-be moderators but their questions were so skewed, insulting and inappropriate these so-called moderators came off as big, big. losers. Shame on NBC.

Following the debate the candidates and the Republican big wigs got together and decided to   boycott any further debate sessions with NBC.

Here's my opinion on what a debate should be like:

First and foremost - - NO "gotcha" questions. The American people want to hear a debate on specific issues, not "What is your greatest weakness? as the first question out of the starting gate at the debate.

What I and probably most voters would like to see is relevant questions put to the candidates. This last Republican debate was to be on the subject matter of "Economics." But due to the  sleazy way the  question format was put together there was "NO" discussion or debate on economics.

If it were up to me to construct a debate format I would probably start with: NO moderators AT ALL. I would have one person acting as a timing referee/judge. That persons task would be to see that each candidate adhered to their allotted time.  If any candidates failed to keep within their time limit the referee/judge would have the ability to shut off  the candidates microphone.

Each candidate would have the SAME amount of speaking time, (i.e.)-  fifteen minutes, eighteen minutes, twenty minutes. No one would be short changed. Each debate date would set particular focus on one specific issue and/or subject matter. For example:

Debate #1: Economics; Debate #2: Foreign Policy; Debate #3: Domestic Policy; Debate #4: Immigration, etc. etc. until all debate dates are completed.

Each candidate would be allowed their specific amount of time to speak during each debate to present that particular subject/issue. However, the candidate could use his or her allotted time for anything they wanted to  talk about. If they wanted to bash another candidate, that's okay. If they wanted to use their time slot to conduct their opening or closing statements, that's okay too, It's their time. But when their time is up - -it's on to the next candidate. So I would think it would be most beneficial for each candidate to cover the topic of the night and express their views, policy and how they are going to tackle a particular situation. If in fact one of the candidates attacked a challenger in his/her allotted time frame the candidate that was bashed or attacked could use some of their time responding if they felt the need. But I would think most candidates would want to stay on the topic up for debate.  If the candidate wishes to squander their time foolishly, that's their choice. When their time is up, IT's up. Next speaker, please.

Personally, I think it would be nice if the candidates would tell the  audience and viewers what they're going to do for us voters. Stay away from phrases like: "We in America need ---"  Or, "I would like to see ---" ; "I hope we can---"; Or, such things like: "We should've -"-; "We could've --"; "We would've--". Also, stop: "I hope we  --"

Hell, every voter knows the government could've done something; should've done something; would've done something. But they never do. As far as the "hope and "change" catch phrase - -Come On! Every voter and citizen in America "hopes" for something  and wishes something will and/or can "change."So, I suggest the candidates lay off these babbling worn out phrase lines and  start to use straight talk.

Example: Immigration: Candidate:  If I am elected president "I will" build a wall along our Southern Border,  Or, I'm going to abolish the anchor baby policy. If that's what the candidate is going to do, then say it. Let the other candidates tell us what they will do on immigration. What's their plan? Is it different or the same?

Example: Smaller Government: Candidate; If I am elected president" I will" dissolve and eliminate these federal agencies (i.e., Dept. of Education, etc., (tell us each agency).

Example: Foreign Policy: Candidate: I "will" pull, all military troops out Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.--

The point being: Candidates should tell us voters what they're going to "DO", not what they "hope" to see. All of us "hope" for things. We voters want to hear "SPECIFICS" as to what the candidates  WILL DO if elected  president.

So, in summary: NO  moderators running the debates; only a timing judge/referee to move on to the next candidate; each candidate has the same amount of allotted time to speak and present his/her case; if any candidate refuses to stop speaking when their time has expired, the timing judge/referee  has the ability to shut off their microphone; each candidate can use their allotted time as they see fit -- they can use the time to present their case, rebut other challengers criticism or bash another challenger. Their choice. - 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

OBAMA AND CROWD USING BOOTS ON GROUND TO FIGHT A WAR IN SYRIA.

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

Obama lies to America, again. He's putting boots on the ground in Syria. He has said in the past that he would not put boots on the ground in Syria but he  cannot keep his word. Just like in Afghanistan, he said he would draw down troop levels but lo' and behold, he increased troop levels in that country also.

Obama says he is sending a small number of Special-Ops forces into Northern Syria to act as advisers. Really? Only last week our pretend U.S. advisers in Iraq  hit a compound and rescued about 70 individuals that our administration said was due to be executed. During the conflict one of our U.S. troops was killed. So far, it looks like  the Obama administration and war hawks like Senator John McCain continue to scream for  more troops in these warring countries.

There was nothing advisory about the raid in Iraq. It was our military soldiers that led the raid into the compound. If  our military was to only act as advisers the combat troops should have been only soldiers from Iraq and other foreign fighters. But "no", Americans were in charge.

Now this new bunch of American troops being sent to Syria are said to be advisers to Syrian Arabs and Kurds.

Folks, right now this Syrian war is costing us taxpayers NINE MILLION DOLLARS a Day, and there has been billions spent so far on this Syrian fiasco. And that is not even covering the BILLIONS of dollars that has been spent to train these Syrian rebels that we think are on our side. Hell, we spent billions training thousands of foreign fighters in this conflict and only FIVE of those soldiers showed up to fight. It looks me like the inmates are running the asylum in Washington.

I predict that this new move of sending troops into Syria is just the beginning. I predict that this move as well as all the other dumb moves by Congress and Washington is nothing more than "MISSION CREEP." I would suggest that in a very short time, Obama and his ilk will send even more troops into Syria  under the guise of "advisers." However, in reality these so-called advisers are the ones in charge when it come to combat and confrontation when engaging the ISIS and rebel groups , make no mistake. The U.S. is in charge. Fifty troops now, fifty more in a short time frame and still more after that. The United States troop build-up will increase dramatically.

I suspect this move by Obama of sending a small contingent of Special Operations forces into Syria is just a ploy to  pacify and please the war mongers in Congress. He's running out the clock until he's out of office and will dump the entire mess on the next president of the United States.

I also  suspect that the Obama administration is in a "pissing contest" with Russia. Now that Russia is a dominant presence in Syria, Obama and some in Congress can't stand the fact that the war in Syria is not going the way the U.S. thought  it would.

Folks, we, the United States, are the  power that actually turned the Middle East into an inferno. We initiated a preemptive attack on Iraq. We turned that country into the war zone it is today. We caused ISIS to rise in Iraq and we caused all of the various factions of rebel groups to take up arms. The administration should admit all of their blunders, starting with Iraq. I say that the only thing we are defending in Iraq is our embassy which is probably the largest embassy in the world. Further, I suggest that our Iraq embassy is the only SAFE place in the entire country. The rest of Iraq is a war zone and will stay a war zone for decades, if not forever, thanks to us, the United States.

Reader's, Iraq wasn't good enough for us to muck up. We moved into Afghanistan (America's longest war). What is it now? Fourteen (14) years? We turned that country into a pile of rubble and dumped BILLIONS of dollars into the conflict while allowing the opium trade to reignite while we paid off corrupt officials and war lords. And don't forget Libya? We are the ones that instigated and agitated the condition in that country that is Libya today. Even Obama and Hillary Clinton have admitted that they made major and numerous mistakes regarding Libya.

As it stands now our administration sends troops to these foreign countries (calling them advisers) but the troops actually take part in combat as shown about a week ago in Iraq where one of our finest warriors was killed. The American soldiers act as the tip of the spear leading foreign troops into these battles. Why American servicemen and women  have to spearhead all of these foreign conflicts around the globe is beyond me?

As a side note:There are rumors that some of the war hawks in Washington (both Democrat and Republican) are screaming for -- Get this -- A NO FLY ZONE in Syria. What a dumb move. Hell, Russia is already flying in Syria and bombing targets and these West Point wonders sitting in arm chairs at the pentagon who are running this war want to impose a NO FLY ZONE.  If that occurs, we are asking for trouble. The skies over Syria will be chock full of  both American and Russian aircraft and I foresee the chance of a serious, possibly, fatal incident happening.  The question is not if an incident will happen, BUT WHEN.

I would say that the best thing we, the United States can do is disconnect ourselves from Syria. Stop instigating and agitating the conflict by taking sides with certain rebel groups. Stop supplying arms, equipment and intelligence to these rebels we think are our friends. People, they are not our friends. These same rebel groups will use out arms and equipment against  our military.  It has been done over and over again in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I side with Putin on this point - - when he says all rebels have to be eliminated. All rebels must go. Why can't we let Russia rid Syria of all the rebel groups. Let Russia bomb the rabbit poop out of the entire rebel population if they want. Let Russia use ground troops to clean u Syria. Russia has the right idea.  Russia wants to destroy all rebels and not take sides with any one particular rebel group.

I can see Syria getting its act together once all of these various rebel groups are gone. Assad can then concentrate on putting his country back together and establishing a new government. Obama, John Kerry and like minded lawmakers may WANT Assad  out of power, but why? Just because they once said he's a bad guy? They made statements that Assad is a monster and HAS TO GO. I ask Obama and Kerry and their posse - - How did that work out in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya when the United States arrogance took it on themselves to remove those countries leaders? My answer - -IT DIDN'T. - 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

YOU ASKED ABOUT A  MISDIAGNOSIS - HERE'S YOUR REPLY.

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

This reply goes out to Beverly, from Laguna Beach, California.

Beverly, you  asked me about how to approach the situation when a doctor has misdiagnosed your condition/ailment. Believe it or not a misdiagnosis occurs quite often in the medical field. I myself had a misdiagnosis by doctors and staff in an HMO health program. Briefly, the doctors told me I had a muscle strain and the pain would go away in about a week to a month. Guess what? Even after x-rays and other scans on my original visit they misdiagnosed a broken hip and let me walk around on that broken hip for one month with bone grinding against bone. When I returned to the clinic a month later and told them I was still experiencing excruciating  pain they again scanned my lower limbs and then told  me they make a "mistake" and said instead of a muscle strain I had a "broken right hip."They immediately transported me to a hospital and the following day they performed surgery. So, I can relate and know how you feel. The clinic, technicians and doctors didn't even apologize. I later wrote a complaint to the HMO, C.E.O.,  but all I got was a phone call from a low level employee saying "they were sorry." In any event, To this day I still experience pain in my hip and legs because of the HMO's technicians, doctors and staffs incompetence. Well, enough about my bad experience with an HMO. Clearly if a person goes to a clinic or hospital complaining about pain in their legs and hips the first  order would be to x-ray and scan to determine if there are indeed any broken or fractured bones. And one would think that the technicians and doctors after reading and evaluating all the scans and x-rays they could "clearly" determine the extent of the broken limb. Right?

Beverly, here are some figures for you to consider when it comes to misdiagnosis, There have been numerous studies done and reported that on an average ten (10%) percent of exams on persons after death, on autopsy,showed that during  malpractice lawsuits filed by  various insurance companies nine (9%) percent of claims relating to "misdiagnosis"came from obstetrics; a whopping sixty-one (61%)came from pediatrics. It  was also said that each and every year, five (5%) percent of adult outpatients are diagnosed with a misdiagnosed error. Wow! I guess I was one of those adults. Shame on this particular HMO and it's incompetent providers, including the doctors, technicians and staff.

What's my advice? First, for starters -  after a diagnosis get a second opinion and question the original doctor as to how he or she came to their diagnosis. Is it something else than what he/she said it could be? Beverly, hope this rely helps. -And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.

BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns ca be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

THINK TWICE ABOUT MARCO RUBIO FOR PRESIDENT.

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

Marco Rubio, (R-Florida) is a United States Senator who is running for president of the United States. One of my questions is, Why? He's served less than  ONE TERM and tells people he is "fed up" with serving. It has been reported in the media that he has told friends and colleagues that he "hates" his current job in Washington and will not run for reelection. He indicated to  people that he wants to be president or it's "nothing." WOW!

Rubio, 40 something, has decided not to run for his seat again. He said as much during the last Republican debate. Could it be that he doesn't care to serve his constituents? That he doesn't know how to, or want to do his job as a senator?

Rubio has missed vote after vote in Washington. It appears he has no interest in serving the people he was elected to represent. Look at his voting record and you will find it an abysmal record. If things don't go his way, he quits. "He's a quitter." On Tuesday, he cast a vote, his first in 20 days or so.This guy  is frustrated and clearly displays a character flaw of impatience.

It has been said that even in his first elected office, as a young city commissioner in West Miami, he constantly became frustrated and impatient and complained as to how slow his colleagues were at work.

I believe that possibly Rubio is being forced out of the Senate because of his poor voting record. He is what one can describe as an "absentee federal employee." In fact, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, has proposed that senators who miss work should have their pay "docked."It was probably meant as a reference to Rubio, but the shoe fits because Rubio has missed vote after vote. Bush said: "We're paying you to do something, it ain't run for president." Rubio's hatred and frustration and rejection of the Senate does not make for a person that would be a good president of the United States. Does it?

My view is that the Washington lawmakers do not work enough as it is. And when we have a Senator that refuses to show up to vote on issues it's time for someone else to be put in that spot. Needless to say, I'm glad Rubio made up his mind not to run for reelection. We as a nation are better off. However, if this guy, a fresh face in Washington, a newbie, can not or will not work as a Senator, how the devil can he work as the president of the United States?  Do you really want someone with this man's alleged character flaws sitting in the White House? Think about 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATES COMES DOWN TO THE "TRUST FACTOR."

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

The first Democratic debate was nothing but a "love fest"between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. When the subject of emails was brought up against Clinton, Sanders gets emotional and says basically: " Enough with the emails, no one is interested in the emails". Clinton then turns to Sanders and with a big grin agrees with him. I disagree with Sanders on this point: I say the email fiasco is IMPORTANT to Americans. Sanders should have let the interviewer's continue with questions on the emails to see how Clinton would respond. Folks, he's running against Clinton for the presidency and should have let the email inquiry play out. Instead, he chose to shut down the subject of emails. After that exchange the entire group of Democratic candidates played nice, nice and danced around the Maypole together.

In the past Sanders has said he is a very good friend of Clinton so one of my concerns is why is he running for President against her if he doesn't present issues against Clinton that people care about. And they do care about what is happening with the email investigation. Hell, it's a DEBATE. It's not supposed to be a social. I really liked a lot of what Sanders is saying on the campaign trail but he lost a lot of credibility in my view during this debate just because he refrained taking on his challenger(s), or allow the interviewers to proceed with their inquires.

Sanders failed to mention that the email scandal was still under investigation, especially by the FBI. He could have said a lot of things to note the email investigation is not a dead issue. He could have said something like: "I'll wait until all the investigative agencies conclude their investigation and make their reports public before I comment." But he chose to play paddy cake with Clinton.

People, I believe it's a matter of trust. We Americans want someone we can actually trust in the White House and it has been said over and over again that when people are asked about Hillary Clinton, most say she is UNTRUSTWORTHY.

As I mentioned in previous blogs, Clinton did not have her security clearance removed, suspended and/or revoked. I think  that should have occurred. There have been previous people in high ranking positions that have faced serious consequences for far less computer-related breaches than what Clinton is allegedly said to have committed. Remember John Deutch, CIA Director? He was stripped of his security clearances in 1999 after mishandling classified information on his "home computers." Also, CIA Director, David Petraeus had to resign from the top job as CIA Director in 2012 after admitting to an extramarital affair which the FBI uncovered regarding his persona emails.

My point, why is Clinton getting a pass on her emails even when the FBI investigation is still ongoing. I want to know I can trust the person I vote to sit in the White House and currently my trust factor for Hillary Clinton, on a scale of  ONE to TEN is a whooping ONE. My trust factor for Sanders just fell to FIVE on the same scale. The only thing that may increase my trust in Sanders will be if he actually acts like a challenger in the presidential race and stops acting like he and Clinton are joined at the hip. He has to stop defending her and present his case as to why he wants to be president 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

HILLARY CLINTON DOESN'T GET MY VOTE.

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating  you?

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tells Americans her email fiasco was not or is not a National Security risk. Come on, folks! Her emails were hacked. Despite the hack of her emails two years ago, the State Department failed to take any action to protect and secure Clinton's private computer server.

The hacked emails, which included frequent correspondence with Sidney  Blumenthal while Clinton, was still in office in 2012, were sent by a  "Romanian":  hacker to numerous news outlets, which were later posted online by the news organizations. The State Department  failed to take"immediate" action by implementing security precautions such as updating software and securing passwords. So far, at least FIVE emails have been deemed classified and two were said to be "Top Secret." But Clinton and her posse along with the State Department is parsing the situation saying "the classifications were not marked "classified" at the time.

The State Department has  displayed a total disregard for National Security because they turned a blind eye to Clinton's private server from the get-go. I submit that once the Clinton/Blumenthal hack  was initiated the actual domain name for Clinton's host server was completely laid bare. Also keep in mind, after the email hack incident, in 2013 she went ahead and even  hired a  Colorado firm to manage her PRIVATE email sever.

People, here's a lady that is a top notch lawyer who has worked in government service for  a large portion of her adult life yet she tries to play the dumb  card. She certainly knew the rules of  the federal government when she went rogue with the emails. I believe as many others in America do that Clinton knew that if she used a State Department account, her 60,000-plus emails would clearly become part of the official record, as they should be. However, she didn't want any of that. I would suspect that Hillary Clinton is a "control freak obsessed with privacy and secrecy issues. It appears that someone who may display such tendencies does not want to be transparent in any way, shape or form.

The lack of transparency is  shown in the acts that she did. She obtained the  private server which to my knowledge none of the previous Secretaries went to the trouble and great expense to set up a private email server for themselves.

At this point in time I see Clinton in political and "legal" trouble. And all of her denials and excuses she spouts doesn't change the fact that she brought all of this trouble down on herself.

As to any transparency, I will say this. The only thing transparent about  Hillary Clinton is that she "flip-flops" on most all positions she chooses to take. Foe example, while campaigning  in one section of the country she is "for" an issue or policy but in another city, town or state she FLIPS and takes the other side, "against" it. It appear Clinton tries to cover all of her bases to pander to whatever group she's campaigning in front of, no matter which issue or policy comes up. She's for it today, against it tomorrow. Clinton strikes me a  a person that will do and say "anything", to be elected. She promises any group, such as unions, the Latino, etc., anything, as long as that group is useful to her for that particular moment in time. No matter what the problem or question by groups and individuals are her response seems to be: ""I'll solve it."

Clinton's shifts on issues and policies should be evident to any person in the country. Just listen to her claims and statements on any issue/policy.  In 2008, she was all for the "Defense of the Marriage Act", but now: She's for "Pro-Gay Marriage." In the late 1990's she was for more incarcerations of criminals, now she's against  incarcerations.Clinton was for the Pacific Trade deal. She said it was the "gold standard." Now, she's against it.  It's  laughable, people. Her middle name should be  "waffle,", better yet "Pinocchio", since  a majority of people polled in the U.S. believe she is "untrustworthy", a "liar."

What we really need serving in the office of President of the United States is a person with conviction, someone who is consistent on issues and policies, and clearly a person of principle. Does Hillary possess these qualities? Personally, I don't think she does. Her past actions speak for themselves. Things like past scandals (not counting the current email or the 2012 Benghazi scandal), questionable stock deals, contributions from foreign donors and her flip-flops on issues and policies are just the tip of the iceberg as to why I could not support Clinton's campaign.- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.

CORRUPT CHICAGO SCHOOL CHIEF ROBS KIDS AND GETS A SLAP ON WRIST

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?


Chicago Mayor, Rahm Emanuel hand picked a school chief. He also  basically  hand picked the board to work under the female school chief. He gave her and the board rave accolades. The lady made a whopping salary of $250.000 a year. It didn't take long for this school chief to tap into the corruption famous in Chicago. She rigged a contract worth 23 MILLION dollars. The contract was to (believe it or not) "TEACH TEACHERS. Isn't that what college is for folks. Hell, that's why the teacher's went to school in the first place - -TO STUDY and LEARN how to be a teacher. They did that. They were licensed teachers. But this yahoo school chief wanted to spend 23 million dollars to teach teachers how to teach. Where's the priorities in Chicago? I guess the only priority  in the city is "lets steal." "How much can we steal."

This sleaze school chief arranged to have the company KICK BACK ten (10%) percent of the 23 million dollars to her. She stole this money from the kids. The money she stole could have been used for the continued education of Chicago children but she had a total disregard for all of Chicago's children. Instead, she only though of herself --- AND-- I suspect her friends and possible lawmakers  in the city. The only concern of this Rahm Emanuel pick was how to enrich herself and friends.

When this school chief was caught and brought up on charges she said: "I'm sorry: Folks, the only thing she's sorry about is: "getting caught." I guess her large, lucrative salary of $250,000. wasn't enough for her to exist on.

Here's a kicker, people. Out of 20 charges/counts the authorities DROPPED 19 out of 20 counts. And instead of the TWENTY (20) YEAR sentence her time was cut to about, get this -- SEVEN (7) YEARS. God! What a deal. One would have to suspect if the fix was in in Chicago.

It's a known fact that Chicago has always had the reputation of being mucked in corruption. This sentence of this corrupt school chief certainly tends to enforce that perception, right?

Oh, by the way, The news media asked for most, if not all of the documents  involved in this case, According to the media they wanted to see documents regarding mayor Rahm Emanual's connection with this thief and the entire board. They requested documents but only got back heavily redacted, blacked out pages that the reporters said could not even give the slightest glimmer of what was on the pages. My question: What does Chicago lawmakers have to hide? Why should they redact  any information to the point that it cannot be decifered for proper reporting? It appears politics in Chicago never changes, does 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

.

NO SOCIAL SECURITY "COST OF LIVING" IN 2016. THERE IS NO REASON  NOT TO PAY.

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

Senior citizens lose out again.  "CBS Money Watch" just reported that social security recipients will not receive a cost of living (COLA) increase for 2016. The feds say it is because of the "low gas prices." WOW! If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. People, SEVENTY(70)   MILLION individuals who depend on the paltry annual increase to survive is again ripped off  and snookered by the government.

The federal employees and all public sector employee's across the nation will receive an annual COLA between two (2%) and eight(8%) percent in their paychecks in 2016. This because of their powerful  public employees and federal union representation. It should be noted the fed employees and many other public employees make an average $119,000 per year versus an average worker in the private sector who DOESN'T work for a government entity earning only $67,000.00 per year. It has been reported that public sector and federal employees make about seventy-eight (78%) percent more that  those working in the private sector for the same job.

Also remember that even Congress has an automatic built in "cost of living adjustment" (COLA) which they receive each and every year. Hell, Congress met and passed that law years ago, in the dead of night in a secret meeting, away from public scrutiny.  I suspect they did that to cover their butts so the American public would not know who voted themselves a raise. My gripe is these Washington lawmakers already make about $172,000 a year and the large salary and annual increases are paid to them even though they work only two to three months out of the entire year. They also set up for themselves a cushy, lucrative, obscene retirement and pension plan which they can tap for the rest of their lives after serving a few years in Washington (courtesy of us taxpayers) while all of the rest of us working outside the government have to toil, sweat and strain on a job for TWENTY years or more and then hope we saved enough to live out the rest of our years, in old age. These lawmakers also set themselves up with a health plan which no one in the private sector could even begin to touch. SIDE NOTE:  About the health care plan - -remember when Obama ran for president. He said he would give ALL  Americans the EXACT health care plan that HE and all lawmakers in Washington and Congress enjoy. That promise was a BIG! BIG! lie, wasn't it?

My point is that the Feds, including Congress and lawmakers on the hill look out for all public employees across the country but ignore the Americans that worked all their lives to build this country.

Folks, this is the  THIRD time in these many years that social security recipients were DENIED a "cost of living adjustment" (COLA) while  people working for the government in public employ continued to receive "cost of living" increases. Where is the equity? Where is the parity? There is none for us social security recipients, is there?

President Obama, congress people and even candidates running for president are always telling us "we are all in this together." Another lie, folks.  If in fact, we (all Americans)  "were in this together" the result would be : When socials security recipients are DENIED a cost of living" increase ALL public employees and federal and government workers across the nation would be DENIED a "cost  of living" increase also. I submit;  "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."Why is it they want senior citizens and disabled workers to FEEL the PAIN, while the feds and public employees feed at the trough filled with taxpayer money like a bunch of rabid hogs?

Personally, I have a few theories of why social security cost of living (COLA's) are being denied. Come on! Three times in the near past and the denials of the COLA's are becoming more frequent.
I suspect that it IS NOT because "GAS PRICES are so low, as reported in the media. Instead,one of my theories is that there may be a manipulation of the social security system possibly brought about by a group(s) and/or a few politicos in Washington who believe that not paying SEVENTY(70) MILLION people their social security increase will somehow begin to make the social security fund appear stable and in turn will help delay future failure of the entire social security system. Just imagine the BILLIONS of dollars the government is saving with just ONE instance of not paying out  the "cost of living? Folks, in the recent past they've already denied the "cost of living payout THREE times.

Final thought: I submit that if each  and every person in America had to pay into the social security system (that includes, federal employees, all city, county, and state public employees and Congress) everyone would be receiving a "cost of living" increase in 2016. Why should all of these government employees across the country be EXEMPT? If these people, who feel entitled, had to depend on social security as a retirement vehicle you can bet that the system would be protected. This "Us against them" mentality and the government public sector employees versus everybody else has got to STOP. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. Make up you own mind.

BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

MORE DOUBTS ABOUT CARLY FIORINA AS PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
I'm still not impressed with presidential candidate Carly Fiorina. Why? Because of  some concerning reports I have been reading about.

Lets look at some of the reports that are circulating around the country. First, she is continually trying to bad mouth or discredit anyone that brings up her bad performance at Hewlett-Packard and any mention of her bad business dealing with other companies. Then there is the way she treat facts. She's very loose with accuracy and sometimes it appears she's making things up. The Washington Post published an account of her reluctance to pay her bills  from her 2010 campaign. The Post said she stiffed the widow of pollster Joe Shumate. He dropped dead of a heart attack among numerous "polling data" information for Fiorina, near Election Day 2010. She then failed (for years)to reimburse at least $30,000.00 she owed him. According to the Post piece, Martin Wilson, who managed the campaign said he constantly implored her to pay up.  "She just wouldn't," he said.

Apparently, Fiorina leaves "no love" lost with people she deals with. Reuters interviewed 30 or more people who worked with  Fiorina in 2010. At least 12 of those people said; "Never again." One campaign aide said: "I'd rather go to Iraq,"

It appears she is very venomous about other peoples shortcomings, but very casual about her own shortcomings. For example, in 2010 she told a columnist for the New York Times "It was a mistake"that she failed to vote in elections in New Jersey, where she'd once lived for 10 years. She also failed to vote in at least more than half the 18  elections in California in which she  clearly could have participated. What? Here's a woman that wants to be president and fails to vote in elections. Wow! What does those actions tell a person?

Eve though Fiorina claims to be an outsider, she's NOT. Remember she acted a a surrogate for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election : (See my blog-Doubts about Carly Fiorina, 09/30/2015.) In fact, she was knocked to the side after she said: " Neither Senator McCain or running mate, Sarah Palin could run or operate a big corporation." Can you imagine, she was denying them the opportunity to do exactly what she has done even thought many in the corporate world thought she herself was VERY inept, incompetent and administrating her corporate tasks and duties POORLY, resulting in many corporate titans and players saying she ran the businesses she fronted into the ground.

In her mind and twisted way of thinking she believed the corporate world qualified her to run for government office and govern but the government experience McCain and Palin had did not qualify them to run in corporation circles.WOW! Is she patting herself om the back, or what?It appears she likes blowing her own horn because she has this huge ego tripping attitude.  Fiorina's way of thinking reflects the power of a thirst for building up her accomplishments (only IF in her own mind.) She is no rocket scientist even though she believes she is.  I see one of her major problems as she is turned on by the sound of her own voice.

Finally, it looks like Fiorina has found a friend, a billionaire to help her push her sketchy agenda. Former chairman and CEO of Univision, media mogul Jerrold Perenchio, has coughed up $1.6 million dollars to pump up Fiorina's chances in the presidential race. But personally, I believe this CEO is betting on the wrong pony in the race. Not unlike Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton, Fiorina has a lot of old baggage that she brings to the table and I don't think the voters will buy her package no matter how much money rich billionaire donors dump into the game. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. Make up your own mind.

BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

NO SOCIAL SECURITY COLA FOR 2016? MAKE THIS ISSUE PART OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FOLKS

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

Another short change for the Senior Citizens of America. On October 11, 2015 "CBS Money Watch" reported that there will be no Cost of Living (COLA) for social security recipients in 2016. Rip Off! You bet. Why? Because  all public employees across the country receive an annual Cost of Living (COLA) ranging between  two (2%) percent and eight (8%) percent annually, courtesy of  the U.S. private sector taxpayers, which includes  all the senior citizens out there.

Folks,  the public sector freebies and, retirement plans, and their retirement benefits have caused  many cities to go bankrupt yet these cities continue to pay the public employees these outrageous, lucrative, over the top benefits, the likes of which  any private sector employee will never ever see.

One of the biggest offenders is the Federal government employees. According to the Cato Institute, they report that federal employees on average earned SEVENTY-EIGHT (78%) more in total compensation than people in the private sector holding the same jobs. The data from the Bureau of  Economic Analysis shows the average federal worker receives roughly $119.000 in salary and benefits a year (versus)  $67,000 a year for those working in the private sector. Is there INEQUITY here? You bet. There clearly is no PARITY. And, remember these FEDERAL EMPLOYEES can commit crimes and still CANNOT BE FIRED from their cushy, cushy job. These federal people receive Cost of Living (COLA) each and every year and like  the other public employees around the country the COLA usually goes up each year.

The public employees across the country and  the federal people have their powerful unions work all of the freebies, COLA'S, health care and guarantees of job security into their union contracts. On the other hand the average John or Jane Doe taxpayer(i.e.,- waitresses, roofers, fast food employees, , construction workers, department and convenience store employee's) and everyone else (who is not on a government payroll)  does not receive a lavish retirement package, free or near free health care for their entire family, a pension and retirement that is usually much more that the employee was making  while working nor do they receive any Cost of Living (COLA increase each year. What's the matter with this picture, people?

Side note: Keep in mind that our Washington lawmakers set it up years ago, in the dead of night that they will  receive AUTOMATIC Cost of Living (COLA'S) and pay increases, UNLESS they vote "not to accept the increases." Yeah, sure. Lawmakers refuse COLA and pay increases. Don't bet on it. They have never seen a dollar they didn't like, especially when they can take other peoples money, (the taxpayer). They finagled this fiasco of automatic pay for themselves only because they did not want the public and America to know who and when they vote for their own pay increase.

So, bottom line:  All of the federal employees, all of the public sector government employees across the nation and even our elected lawmakers in Washington will receive and continue to receive an annual Cost of Living (COLA) increase but the senior citizens who worked generations to build this country and make it what it is will NOT receive any Cost of Living annual increase in 2016. And the irony of this is the government has been DECREASING the COLA's in social security more and more over the past few years but the government continues to raise the medicare cost for health care each year. The senior citizens can't win. Folks, where's the outrage? Where is the organization AARP?.Why aren't they putting their two cents in and pressuring the lawmakers in Washington to make certain  the senior citizens on Social Security receive a GUARANTEED (COLA) of at least THREE (3%) PERCENT each and every year. Remember "public employees, lawmakers and federal workers"have those COLA guarantees so why not the senior citizen.

I suggest Washington and the over paid Washington lawmakers rethink the Social Security COLA plan for 2016 and make sure one is paid to social security recipients. - 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

DOUBTS ABOUT DR. BEN CARSON FOR PRESIDENT. IS THE ROBBERY STORY TRUE?

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

Presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson is certainly controversial.This guy appears to stick his foot in his mouth most every day while on the campaign trail. He, like Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump are not  professional politicians and as such, should be cut some slack but Carson appears to  try to talk out of both sides of his mouth. He makes statements that are very clear as to what he actually said to the public but when challenged or called on his comments he immediately tries to back pedal, offer other scenarios and comes up with another answer which is usually starting with something like:  "what I really meant to say," or "they didn't hear me, right." And at times hr becomes testy when challenged or ask to explain. Come on! This guy tries to  parse everything he says both ways and tends to continually take a middle ground on the subject matter or issue at hand. In my view, Carson makes too many gaffes, seems to display poor judgement and possibly has a tendency to embellish and exaggerate for his own purpose. To me, that's not presidential.

In the last  couple of days Carson weighed in on the Roseburg, Oregon College massacre where he implied that the hostages should have rushed, swarmed and attacked the gunman. His logic was "He, (the gunman) can't kill us all. My view- that's dumb and illogical thinking. Wow! Folks, the parents and relatives of the deceased victims never even had a chance to grieve, even bury their loved ones at the time he's making his pronouncements.

Later he said on one occasion he was confronted by a gunman in a Popeye's Chicken fast food restaurant. Did he attack the gunman? NO! Did he ask any of the customers or patrons in the fast food restaurant to rush the gunman, in mass, as a group? NO! What did he do? He told the gunman" I think you want the guy behind the counter" REALLY? Instead of letting the gunman take his money or valuables he directs the  ARMED ROBBER  in his soft, slow voice (according to Carson)  to confront the  person behind the  counter. His spokespeople told Anderson Cooper on CNN that the gunman replied : Oh, alright. So the robber proceeded to the counter, confronted the employee, told the employee to hand over the money from the register after which the gunman left the establishment with his haul of money. That according to Carson as told by his spokesperson.

I see a lot wrong with Dr. Carson's  response to  being a victim in a robbery. Instead of responding by yelling, screaming or asking someone to call the police or 911 he  decided to put a fast food employee's life at great risk by telling the gunman to rob the employee.

Folks, who usually works behind the counter in a fast food restaurant?  I will go out on a limb and say nine times out of ten the fast food employee is a TEENAGER, sometimes a SENIOR CITIZEN just trying to make ends meet. And this idiot carries on a conversation with the gunman and tells him to go after the guy behind the counter. Can you believe that? Anther question I would have. Did this encounter REALLY happen or did Dr. Carson decide to confabulate and make up a story so as to promote his image while running for President? I would suspect that there are millions of people in the country doubting Carson's story. Who knows, right? I would also suggest that the police check past police reports in the city and zero in on the date and time of the Carson robbery as to when this alleged robbery went down .Either way, if in fact this robbery did occur he responded inappropriately showing a total disregard for the life of other individuals. The person behind the counter could have been killed, others in the store could have been killed.Then, what would Carson have said? Who knows? On the other side of the coin, if the incident did not occur - SHAME ON HIM for attempting to use stories to puff up his image.Do we have another Brain Williams in the making? Maybe.

Personally, I would have my doubts and trouble voting for anyone who "waffles" on  most of the issues that are under discussion at any given time. I see Carson as a professional man, a medical doctor, a neurosurgeon and from all accounts was an excellent surgeon. But really folks, I cannot see Carson as ready for prime time and in my view he is certainly not ready to be the leader of the free world. My belief is Dr. Carson should remain a doctor, do good things in the medical field and stand out in that arena. He should leave running the United States to someone 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

SAUDI'S ALSO COMMIT ATROCITIES

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?


The Middle East crisis rages on. On October 7 and 8th.,2015 the Saudi government flew their war planes to Yemen and instead of taking out ISIS or terrorists the Saudi's decided to attack and kill at least 70 civilians, or more in a WEDDING PARTY. Most of those killed were WOMEN and CHILDREN.

Reports from the area by the media say that this is not the first time a tragedy like this has  happened. The news person on CNN stated that there were at least  three or four other attacks on wedding parties within the last few weeks.

I say there is no excuse for the Saudi's, with their air power (supplied by the U.S.) to be attacking civilian wedding parties, slaughtering innocent women and children.

Atrocities like this are kept silent by the Saudi's and the United States.Why? If it wasn't for the news person reporting the incident in a small news segment the Saudi's actions would have gone unnoticed.

I'm wondering what the Saudi agenda is as they continue to kill innocent civilians in Yemen? Why does the U.S. administration remain silent about these horrific attacks? Could it be OIL? - 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

WHY HASN'T HILLARY CLINTON'S SECURITY CLEARANCE BEEN REVOKED?

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

A big question for Americans is this: "Why doesn't the administration REVOKE Hillary Clinton's "security clearance?"

Clinton's "Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmental Information" clearance was re-validated after she left office in 2013. She currently retains that security clearance even though an FBI investigation is being conducted regarding her handling of sensitive government information.

My concern is this: It is common practice to suspend  or revoke any clearance of a person while they are under investigation or if there is an internal inquiry proceeding. There have been members of the military, high-ranking  executive branch officials and others with "security clearance" who had that clearance removed  even at the mere allegation the individual mishandled governmental information. Case in point, General David Petraeus. I would venture to say he did not commit such bad acts as Hillary Clinton but suspect that his security clearance was trashed.

High level bureaucrats should NOT be shown preferential treatment as though they are above the law. I would pose this question regarding Clinton's actions:  Did Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner put national security in jeopardy by using her private, personal server system that CLEARLY lacked top-level security protocols  that is expected of a high-level government official? If I had to offer an opinion, I would say "Yes."

Clinton has been shown to be a person who used a personal email system which was routed through a PRIVATE server at her New York residence. The possible illegal acts of Clinton are being investigated by no less than the FBI, a pair of Inspectors General and Congress.

One would have to question Clinton's motives and POOR judgement because I submit her careless actions could  potentially result in a "National Security" risk. Everyone in government clearly knows  one uses secure governmental servers to received and send correspondence when you ARE working in government service. Any of Clinton's denials that she was unaware that she couldn't use a PRIVATE email server rings very hollow. Come on, folks, she has worked in government service a large portion of her life.She's an attorney. She knows the law. However she chose to skirt and/or break the law putting the United States at risk - -AND, for what? Her paranoid obsession for privacy. That's laughable. She is a public figure. No one in government employ should be able to co-mingle private and government information.Competent, honest, ethical government officials who have good judgement takes an oath to uphold the laws of the land and  defend the constitution. They do not find ways to deceive, cover-up, circumvent, mislead and be untruthful.

And folks,, worth mentioning is the fact that an "executive order" signed by President Obama in 2009 allows those individuals who have served and/ or occupied  senior policy-making positions appointed or designated by the president or vice-president to access classified information after they LEAVE. OFFICE. Can you believe that?

Personally, I believe that Hillary Clinton's"security clearance should be REVOKED, for LIFE. Can you imagine a person like Clinton, as president, trying to convince Americans that she will uphold the laws of the land and be transparent and open with them after this fiasco with the emails, the Benghazi incident and all of the other baggage from her past that she brings to the table. Fact is, in most polls, when asked, people say they DO NOT TRUST Clinton, that she is UNTRUTHFUL.

I would ask: When one's veracity is questioned to the extent of Hillary Clinton's,why hasn't her "security clearance" been revoked?  I, for one, certainly wouldn't want someone with Clinton's track record to  be privy to secret and top secret information IN or OUT of OFFICE. - 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com

THE U.S-. STILL KILLING IN AFGHANISTAN AND CAUSING TURMOIL WORLDWIDE.

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

All the BILLIONS of dollars the U.S. has dumped into Afghanistan to train an Afghan military was squandered and a waste to the American taxpayers.

The Taliban overran  Kunduz,a city of about 300,000 people. The Afghan military, as on previous occasions dropped their weapons and fled. Others decided to side with the Taliban and joined their ranks. Cowards? You bet. We have seen this occur over and over again. Afghan's that take our money to be trained and fight for their own country but deserts from the battlefield. Currently, the same this is happening in the Syrian conflict.

The officials Afghanistan then requested AGAIN, that the U.S. come to their rescue.They asked  for U.S. military airstrikes on Kunduz. And as before, the U.S.obliged and ordered airstrikes to try to retake the city because the Afghan soldiers are reluctant to fight..

Now, a few days after the initial U.S. airstrikes, the U.S. conducted more aerial strikes but this time  our warplanes hit a hospital.instead of Taliban fighters.The U.S. airstrike killed over 20 people - at least 12 medical staff members and seven intensive -  care patients,which included THREE children and 37 were injured. What a tragedy. The  facility was hit repeatedly over more than an hours time. You would wonder where the discipline is, especially when U.S. and Afghan military officials  were notified with  GPS coordinates of the medical facility, numerous times over the last month , including just four days earlier. Dozens of staff may still be unaccounted for, still missing. The response by the U.S. military was this; Col Brian  Tribus said "The air strike may have resulted in  collateral damage ." He went on to say: " This incident is under investigation.

Personally, I would submit that this air attack appears to be a direct violation of the international humanitarian law. War Crimes? I would say there is a strong possibility this may be the case.
But I suspect since the United States refuses to answer to international courts and tribunal's for possible war crimes violations or atrocities which they may have committed, any self investigation by the United States will be an exercise in futility.

Question to the world: "Why is the United States EXEMPT from any charges of war crimes and atrocities that are alleged by other nations while the U.S. sits high atop an ivory tower and does accuse other individuals and military personnel from other country's of committing some of the same acts as U.S personnel and military and  declare them  "war crimes?" It is not secret that other nations are not happy with this arrangement but through the decades the United States refuses to comply and abide by the  same rules and standards they impose on the rest of the world. That's WRONG! I would offer that the United States should be held accountable for their bad acts like any other nation around the world. Like the saying goes: "What's good for the goose is also good for the gander."

If the U.S. military refused to send and conduct airstrikes on the city of Kunduz this tragic incident would not have occurred.  If the U.S. would have insisted that the Afghan military and their foot soldiers on the ground use the weapons and equipment that was supplied them by the United States and stand up and fight for their city, this tragedy could have been avoided.

Folks, this is now Obama's FOURTEEN (14) YEAR mission of folly in Afghanistan. We're still there propping up and fighting the Afghan people's war for them.The Taliban's still there and we, the U.S.are still dumping billions of dollars into this quagmire. It's the same old story,we train other nations military to fight, we give them the money, weapons and equipment but the countries leaders continue to ask us to stay and fight their wars for them. When is enough, enough., people?

As a side note, if you think Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan was bad just watch what this administration and our lawmakers will do in Syria. Instead of allowing 25,000 Kurd fighters that stepped up and said they really want to fight the ISIS scourge to the end I predict the U.S. in all of their stupid wisdom will ignore the Kurd's request and stubbornly continue to giver billions of dollars, weapons and equipment to questionable rebel groups which will in turn trash Syria and fan the flames of havoc and destruction upon the Middle East, setting it ablaze.  My suggestion to our Washington lawmakers -DON'T BE STUPID,  give the weapons,military equipment and aid to the Kurd's and let them do the job they are chomping at the bit to do, Kill ISIS. They clearly want to do it and are ready to go - - at least 25,000 strong.

Another prediction - the U.S., as always, will continue to stick their nose into other countries business and internal affairs and then rationalize their military actions as bringing democracy to the region. What a joke.

I also offer the scenario that if we, the U.S. never preempted an attack on Iraq we would not have ISIS and other terror groups at our doorstep and  battling it out around the world today. If you think back before the invasion of Iraq, countries like Libya, and Afghanistan were doing just fine with their existing leaders. These countries had their own way of life, custom and culture.The world was humming along. The people in those country's were living their lives and we here in  America, living ours. If the people in places like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Panama, had differences with their regime leaders they fought it out among themselves. The disruption(s) only affected their country, their people, on their soil . That is the way people from these countries wanted it. They  DID NOT want our interference and intrusion into their country's, nor did they ask us to settle their differences.They fought among themselves UNTIL leaders in the West like Bush and Obama, playing God, decided who was and was not capable of running their.country's and with misinformation, false information , a political agenda  and outright LIES deemed and declared that these countries leader were not friends of the U.S. any longer and decided to use military force to overthrow the regimes. Thus, turning the world, especially the Middle East into an inferno.

I truly believe the world is much worse off than it was  before  the United States attacked Iraq. I believe that the entire Middle East region would be more stable and content if  Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were still in power, leading their people. Even after the Iraq attack the people in the Middle East told the United States and it's allies that they did not want us on their soil. They said they wanted to run their own countries without U.S. influence but our leaders wouldn't listen and kept throwing our tax money and our military into the corrupt cesspools  run by different factions. The result -now these countries want us to fight their wars for them, feed them, take care of them into perpetuity.- 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 email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com