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