Saturday, October 31, 2015
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
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
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
Monday, October 26, 2015
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
Monday, October 19, 2015
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.
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.
Friday, October 16, 2015
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
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
Monday, October 12, 2015
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
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
Friday, October 9, 2015
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
Thursday, October 8, 2015
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 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
Monday, October 5, 2015
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
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
Saturday, October 3, 2015
ANDERSON COOPER 360 AND THE "CIRCUS NEWS NETWORK."
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The CIRCUS NEWS NETWORK(CNN) is still at it. On September 9, 2015, on ANDERSON COOPER, 360, this circus clown insults his guests and doesn't give a hoot. I'm embarrassed for the network and I'm sure many viewers felt the same way as they observed Cooper's behavior toward a guest. Talk about biased network coverage this circus network takes the blue ribbon.
During the broadcast Cooper was moderating. One of the guests was apparently a Trump supporter. During the interview Cooper took every chance he could to downplay, ridicule or take a dig at Trump.Then when the subject of Muslims came up Anderson got into it with the guest insisting that he knew much more than his guest and inferred the guest knew nothing about Muslims because he apparently hadn't been to Muslim countries AS OFTEN as Cooper.WHOOPEE DO for Cooper!
Cooper at one point told the the guest something to the effect:
" YOUR LITTLE LIFE." "I've been to more Muslim countries than you." They proceeded to get into a peeing contest about whose passport show more Muslim countries than the other. What a joke! Since when does any person have to travel to a specific number of Muslim countries before they can comment on the subject matter? The correct answer is "YOU DON'T", Any person alive can have and/or form an opinion on any subject and/or issue. But poor little Cooper got his feelings hurt. This kind of treatment to a guest only tells the viewer what CIRCUS NEWS NETWORK (CNN) and their moderators really think about the guests they pretend to interview.
During the commercial I guess the powers to be at CIRCUS NETWORK NEWS -(CNN), talked to Cooper though his earpiece and told him he insulted the guest because after the commercial Cooper said: in effect: I apologize to you. Apparently I was rude to you, insulted you. The guest accepted the apology. I clearly would have responded to his apology with some thing like:" Yes, you were rude,. You did insult me. I don't appreciate your attitude." But, the guest let it slide. Can you imagine?
This attitude and demeanor of Cooper on the television show just brings out what he really thinks of his guests and, that's not much. I guess Cooper thinks "Me God." " I know ALL." " I have this show and I'm in charge."
Personally, to me, Cooper comes across as an arrogant wanna be news person. I would think he's in the same category as Brian Williams. His ego is so big he can't see over it. I would tend to suspect that Cooper will be in the same hot water as newsman Brian Williams, one day. I think it's only a matter of time before viewers and media people catch on.
When it comes down to what Cooper actually does boils down to this: He is a person that reads from a television teleprompter where everything is written out and scripted for him to read. His show as most others on CIRCUS NEWS NETWORK has advanced queuing for him to refer to. He's like a five year old student reading "See John Run." I would ponder if Cooper cold carry on a stimulating, honest debate with any of his guests without cards, advanced set-ups, a teleprompter and an ear piece in his ear receiving direction from his superiors leading him along.
Cooper seems to be an angry, vindictive person when he is challenged and apparently gets his feelings hurt. Some moderators/hosts display total disregard for their guests who appear on this networks various shows. Again, CIRCUS NEWS NETWORK -(CNN) lets their clowns perform as they please on air. - 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
Friday, October 2, 2015
PUTIN'S RIGHT. LET SYRIA'S GOVERNMENT AND CITIZEN'S SETTLE THEIR OWN DISPUTES.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Today President Obama went to the media and said: " Russia's giving Syria money and aid was not enough but now he, Putin, is having the Russian military support Assad. Wow! What a hypocrite Obama is. He has been having the CIA train different factions of rebels to fight and depose Assad, the leader of Syria while providing weapons and supplies to these different rebel groups.
Obama keeps singing the same old song: "ASSAD must go". He's obsessed with toppling Assad from power. This guy still hasn't learned from past mistakes. He keeps repeating the same ol', same ol'. His position is to invade another country and get rid of the leader of that country. Hasn't he learned anything from the invasion of Iraq, the fights in Libya and Afghanistan, to mention a few?
Putin makes a lot of sense. He went before the U.N. and " 60 minutes" television to explain his position on Syria. After those interviews he had Russian planes attack various rebel groups in Syria. He said that any rebel groups fighting the Assad regime was terrorists. He didn't differentiate like President Obama who gives, money, weapons, military intelligence and CIA support to rebels who they don't even know . The U.S. doesn't even know what the true agenda of these new found rebels are.
Putin believes that ALL rebel groups who are fighting the Assad government has to go. and further, the Syrian military under Assad's watch should be ridding their country of these rebel groups and ISIS. How can anyone not agree with that position? I submit that once the Assad government and his military put down the attack on their country against rebels and ISIS the Syrian people can make up their own minds as to who leads them. If the Syrian people do not want Assad, they can vote him out. On the flip side, If they choose to continue with Assad as leader of Syria they can VOTE to keep him in office.
I suggest that if Obama keeps harping on toppling Assad and does get him out of power there will be a large sucking sound and a very large VACUUM will occur. That in turn will allow ISIS and other terrorist organizations unfettered access to Syria.and like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc, the result will be another Obama's fiasco. Hell, Obama's also admitted to the media that he has made mistakes in Libya. I would ask: "How many more of these Obama foreign policy mistakes can the WORLD take.
Like Russia's Putin referenced. Let Assad stay in power. Let his military put down these rebels and ISIS in Syria. Let Syria fight it's own attackers with the Syrian military. Once the winner is established as to who is actually in charge of Syria then that is the person we, the United States, deals with.
I would say STOP this nonsense of the U.S. supporting unknown rebels just because Obama says: "Assad has to go."STOP all of the money and equipment the U.S. is squandering on these rebels. Why?" Because, like other groups the United States has backed and supported with millions and millions of dollars and had provided these groups with weapons and military equipment the result turned out to be: These groups refused to fight their enemies. They threw down their arms and ran like a bunch of scared rabbits. Many members of these groups that we supported went AWOL and joined the other side, the enemy. And, guess what? These cowardly deserters used the weapons and equipment we gave them against us and out military. I would say this is no way to run a war.
The first rule of the game that Obama chose to play should be: Keep America's nose out of other foreign countries internal problems and fights. Let each side fight it out, in their own country, on their own, and then we deal with the winner of the battle, whoever that might be.
Before we stuck our nose into Syria's business, that country was doing just fine The same goes for Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan..Any disagreements between the people and government of any country should be resolved between the two of them. Message to Obama and lawmakers - -these countries DO NOT need American democracy. Yet we try to force our way of life down the throats of people where the majority of them cannot read, can't write, and they don't know what a job is. These people have their own culture and customs and want to keep those customs and culture that they have been living by for centuries.
Like Russia's Putin says -- Obama, let the Syrian people fight it out among themselves.Let the Syrian government and its military and its citizens settle their own differences. STOP supporting rebel groups to overthrow a countries leaders. The world will be much better off. So, keep Assad in power. - 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 KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Today President Obama went to the media and said: " Russia's giving Syria money and aid was not enough but now he, Putin, is having the Russian military support Assad. Wow! What a hypocrite Obama is. He has been having the CIA train different factions of rebels to fight and depose Assad, the leader of Syria while providing weapons and supplies to these different rebel groups.
Obama keeps singing the same old song: "ASSAD must go". He's obsessed with toppling Assad from power. This guy still hasn't learned from past mistakes. He keeps repeating the same ol', same ol'. His position is to invade another country and get rid of the leader of that country. Hasn't he learned anything from the invasion of Iraq, the fights in Libya and Afghanistan, to mention a few?
Putin makes a lot of sense. He went before the U.N. and " 60 minutes" television to explain his position on Syria. After those interviews he had Russian planes attack various rebel groups in Syria. He said that any rebel groups fighting the Assad regime was terrorists. He didn't differentiate like President Obama who gives, money, weapons, military intelligence and CIA support to rebels who they don't even know . The U.S. doesn't even know what the true agenda of these new found rebels are.
Putin believes that ALL rebel groups who are fighting the Assad government has to go. and further, the Syrian military under Assad's watch should be ridding their country of these rebel groups and ISIS. How can anyone not agree with that position? I submit that once the Assad government and his military put down the attack on their country against rebels and ISIS the Syrian people can make up their own minds as to who leads them. If the Syrian people do not want Assad, they can vote him out. On the flip side, If they choose to continue with Assad as leader of Syria they can VOTE to keep him in office.
I suggest that if Obama keeps harping on toppling Assad and does get him out of power there will be a large sucking sound and a very large VACUUM will occur. That in turn will allow ISIS and other terrorist organizations unfettered access to Syria.and like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc, the result will be another Obama's fiasco. Hell, Obama's also admitted to the media that he has made mistakes in Libya. I would ask: "How many more of these Obama foreign policy mistakes can the WORLD take.
Like Russia's Putin referenced. Let Assad stay in power. Let his military put down these rebels and ISIS in Syria. Let Syria fight it's own attackers with the Syrian military. Once the winner is established as to who is actually in charge of Syria then that is the person we, the United States, deals with.
I would say STOP this nonsense of the U.S. supporting unknown rebels just because Obama says: "Assad has to go."STOP all of the money and equipment the U.S. is squandering on these rebels. Why?" Because, like other groups the United States has backed and supported with millions and millions of dollars and had provided these groups with weapons and military equipment the result turned out to be: These groups refused to fight their enemies. They threw down their arms and ran like a bunch of scared rabbits. Many members of these groups that we supported went AWOL and joined the other side, the enemy. And, guess what? These cowardly deserters used the weapons and equipment we gave them against us and out military. I would say this is no way to run a war.
The first rule of the game that Obama chose to play should be: Keep America's nose out of other foreign countries internal problems and fights. Let each side fight it out, in their own country, on their own, and then we deal with the winner of the battle, whoever that might be.
Before we stuck our nose into Syria's business, that country was doing just fine The same goes for Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan..Any disagreements between the people and government of any country should be resolved between the two of them. Message to Obama and lawmakers - -these countries DO NOT need American democracy. Yet we try to force our way of life down the throats of people where the majority of them cannot read, can't write, and they don't know what a job is. These people have their own culture and customs and want to keep those customs and culture that they have been living by for centuries.
Like Russia's Putin says -- Obama, let the Syrian people fight it out among themselves.Let the Syrian government and its military and its citizens settle their own differences. STOP supporting rebel groups to overthrow a countries leaders. The world will be much better off. So, keep Assad in power. - 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)