THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The state of MA just said that they will allow smoking inside their casinos. The nanny, special interest groups are in an uproar saying that the move does not conform with their state law which prohibits smoking in restaurants. These groups will try anything to promote their agenda.
I say Hooray for the state of Mass.---If the state does not let people make their own decisions as to where they want to eat, drink and gamble the state will lose millions of dollars to the the casinos that allow smoking for their customers.
There should be smoking and nonsmoking sections in all food and drinking establishments throughout the nation. In fact, there should be a smoking and nonsmoking restaurant choice for everyone nationwide.
The only reason for the all inclusive smoking bans throughout the country is because the lawmakers and the nanny muckrakers know that if there were a choice to where a person could chose smoking or nonsmoking the business establishments who offer a smoking facility would generate more business. So, instead of letting the market forces take over and let the person decide where to eat and drink, the political correct thing to do is to mandate a law prohibiting choice for everyone.
The local, state and federal government should keep it's nose out of the business of a persons personal and social choice as to what business, restaurant, bar and tavern one chooses to socialize in. Let the business owner decide whether they want to cater to the smoker or nonsmoker. As long as there are signs properly displayed indicating the choice of smoking or nonsmoking each and every individual can then make their own decision as to whether they want to patronize the business.
That old argument of secondhand smoke is just a way of blowing smoke. There are large, gaping holes in the Surgeon Generals report that was published years ago. Secondhand smoke is still a very controversial issue.
If there were both smoking and nonsmoking areas so as to accommodate all of society instead of just penalizing the smoking public the nonsmokers could avail themselves of all food and bar services that advertise as a nonsmoking establishment and the smoker can use the establishments that advertise a smoker friendly establishment. What is fair for one group is fair for another.
I submit that if a restaurant and/or bar or tavern on one corner of a city offered a totally nonsmoking place and on the corner across the street another business offered the same food and drink menu and the same prices but also offered smoking I would predict that the restaurant that offered smoking would draw more patrons. That's what really frightens these do-goodie nanny groups. They know that I am correct. They do not want the public to actually know that freedom of choice would trash their views.
If this administration was on the right track and really wanted to look out for all of the citizens in the country instead of just one group, the nonsmoker, it would repeal all smoking bans, in every state and allow the business owner to make an either or decision as to what they want to offer each and every customer.
These special interest groups and lawmakers scream smoking bans are a health issue and say that they are looking out for our best interests. Really? Drinking alcohol is a health issue, eating a piece of pie or hamburger or fried food is a health issue,taking many prescribed medications that are proven to cause cancers, physical ailments and even death is a health issue, breathing polluted air and environmental pesticides and chemicals are a health issue yet these officials single out the smoking public.
People, bans and prohibition doesn't work. They tried it with alcohol in the 1920's and found they had to repeal the prohibition law.
We, the people do not need the government to tell us what foods and drinks to put into our bodies. All they need to do is tell us what's in the foods and drinks and tobacco and let us decide whether we want to use the product. Warning labels should be sufficient for any person to make up their own mind. The country has been doing just fine for centuries allowing its citizens to make personal and social decisions for themselves.
People are living longer than at anytime in history but eventually we die. The government cannot stop death from happening. But it appears the government wants to regulate a person behavior with the idea that it's for our own good. Do you really think the government can keep any one person healthy so that they can live forever? Get real.
Who's to say with "medical certainty" if a persons death was actually caused solely by smoking, drinking alcohol, eating all of those rich, fat foods, ingesting all of that bad environmental and chemical pollution, ingesting those medication that have severe side-effects and can be fatal, etc.---They CAN'T. Anyone of those things may have "contributed" to a persons death, but the actual cause cannot be specific to smoking or alcohol or the persons diet or environmental pollution factors. It could be a combination of all or none.
I could go on and on about what causes a person to fall ill or acquire a disease and die but it's certainly foolish to say that a persons smoking is the sole culprit.
In the past the government has already declared coffee bad for you,they said butter is bad for you,and they said eggs were bad for you and then a few years later they said OOPS, we were wrong. They then said coffee actually helps prevent heart attacks. The government also said that butter was better than the manufactured margarine for a persons body, etc.
There will always be heart attacks, heart failure, cancers, diabetes, obesity and a myriad of other life threatening disease. That is just the process of life. We live, we die. One of my statements in one of my books said: My view is that we begin to die from the day we are born.
It's ironic that all of these elderly politicians and leaders from all around the world who grew up when smoking was prevalent in restaurants, bars, taverns, offices, government building and most every home now lets special interest groups tell them that their mental and cognitive faculties are insufficient and they may have retardation or that they may have a birth defect and/or physical problems and that just because they were exposed to first or "secondhand smoke" while growing up and maturing they cannot perform their vocational or occupational choice. That's garbage.
Keep in mind these elderly leaders are still here and living a happy, comfortable life, the same leaders who were exposed to first and secondhand smoke throughout their entire life.
When these same intelligent, competent lawmakers, attorneys, doctors, accountants and blue collar workers were growing up they were exposed to smoking in hospitals and doctors offices and most all public places and they turned out well and their mental and/or physical faculties were not diminished. In fact, these same people went on to become our leaders in fields of science and art and they and their spouses raised their children in that same smoking atmosphere and their children went on to college and universities without any detriment that could be attributed to causing mental or physical problems solely based on people smoking around them.
Keep in mind that our great-great grand parents smoked and raised their families and built this country in an open smoking atmosphere,our grand parents smoked and raised smart intelligent families in a world of the smoking public and our parents smoked and raised competent, intelligent healthy children while contributing their skills and talents building this country. Yet, all of a sudden, according to the government, special interests and nanny states all of those people that built this country are all a bunch of sick puppies only because of the devils plaything "smoking."
These special interest groups and reformed smokers attempt to blame every ailment out there on a person smoking or because they ingested secondhand smoke.There is nothing worse than a reformed drunk, religious zealot or a nonsmoker.
I suggest that nonsmokers do not have to congregate with smokers and the same goes for the smoker. Each can have their own places to socialize in and each should have. What's the problem with a "totally nonsmoking restaurant," or a "totally smoker friendly" restaurant. The same should apply to bars, taverns, casinos, etc., and each group would have their places to patronize.
The problem in the past has been that when there were smoking and nonsmoking areas in restaurants, bars and taverns the nonsmoker would always go into the smoking section and then they would complain about the smoke. In the past when there were smoking and nonsmoking sections at a restaurant I have heard the hostess ask the customer "smoking or nonsmoking" and the customer would reply: "either." What a joke! If the customer was really that adverse to smoking they should have said "nonsmoking" but instead they chose to sit with the smoking public. Why the nonsmoker did that was beyond me. Smokers always requested the smoking section.
It always seemed to me that the nonsmokers felt like they were missing out on something in the smoking section and that is why they insisted on sitting in the smoking section and then began to complain about people smoking.
The Cancer Society, the Lung Association and some doctors are most always going to take a political correct stand on the smoking issue so that they can continue to receive those research grants and the millions of dollars from groups, clinics, and organizations from around the world so they can keep their jobs. These organizations have a clear agenda cut out for themselves. As long as there is no cure for any disease these special interest groups bring in millions of dollars a year.
We all know that smoking is not good for you. The public is not dumb. We also know that overeating is not good for you and that fried chicken or a hamburger is not good for you, "if you eat a dozen hamburgers at one sitting, or eat an entire pie at one sitting or eat a dozen candy bars, or eat an entire chicken at one sitting."
My though- "Everything in moderation" I have always promoted that concept to my friends, my family, my relatives and patients.
There certainly should be warning labels on all products available to the public. The person can then read the warning label and they can read what is in the food or drink and then decide if they want to partake and the same should apply for smoking and drinking alcohol. If the warning labels are there the person can make an informed decision and the person cannot say that they did not know the dangers of the product.
Example: What gave Mr. Jones that heart attack? Was it the fried chicken he ate, was it the bottles of whiskey he had been drinking? Was it those soft drinks, potato chips or those sweets he has been chomping down on? Or, was it that pack of cigarettes he had been smoking? I submit that any one of those things could have "CONTRIBUTED" to Mr. Jone's heart attack but to say it was solely because Mr. Jones smoked is ridiculous.
My point: I have never seen a death certificate that read: Cause of death, cigarette smoke.
Folks, there are those people that will experience cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc., who have never smoked a day in their life. And then there are those that have and will live to ripe old ages into their 80's 90's and yes, some over 100 years old without contracting any of those diseases even though they have smoked two packs or more of cigarettes a day since they were 12 years and in addition to their smoking they ate all of those pork chops, bacon, mashed potatoes and gravy and ate that cake or pie as a regular part of their diet and also drank alcohol like a fish. Anyone with common sense can see examples like this happening every day.
A person has to understand that every persons lifestyle is different and there is no "one size" fits all. What is good for one person may not be good or work the same way for another person. A persons longevity may depend on many factors and genetic make up is a large part of a persons being.
So, for the government and big brother to say they are going to prohibit kids from drinking sodas, eating chips or eating a candy bar or telling adults that they cannot cook with a certain vegetable oil or a person will have to pay extra for a piece of pie or for that hamburger because "THE GOVERNMENT" thinks it is too fattening is totally out of bounds. Everyday freedom of choice is being usurped by Uncle Sam. People, an occasional candy bar or soda or hamburger or pizza is alright for anyone, believe me. Just don't take it to the excess.
This is where the parents come into play. They know best what is good for their children and can regulate how much of a thing their child eats. The governments job should be to offer more physical education in schools for the kids.The government should make physical education a mandatory class. Having the kids exercise and participate in sports and outside activities would be more efficient for the governments attention rather than saying: "I'm going to tell you what you can or cannot eat.
As to adult choice, the government should require clear and concise labels on all products (they are on cigarettes) so that they can be read by the consumer. The adult then can make the decision whether they want to eat something that was cooked in peanut oil, or vegetable oil or some other chemical oil or smoke something that warns them against disease. The adult does not need to have the government telling them that they cannot eat something just because it was not prepared according Big Brothers recipe.
However, if the government chooses to ban tobacco smoking then the government should also ban alcohol, ban fast food, ban all sweet desserts, etc.--Why? Because all of those items are a definite health issue too. If big government is going to look out for all of us and keep us healthy then they should not be selective. They should extend the bans to include all items that certainly will contribute to be detrimental to ones health.
However, you can bet the lawmakers will never even consider banning alcohol since they themselves love the stuff and there would be riots around the country. Even though alcohol kills tens of thousands of people a year and the lawmakers know that minors begin drinking alcohol between the ages of 8 and 12 years old and continue through high school and go into college with the attitude of enjoying drunken parties as a regular social right to passage these lawmakers close their eyes to the dangers of alcohol consumption. They actually condone it and these same people want to regulate the behavior of people that want to enjoy a cigarette or cigar.
The government should allow us to have and enjoy freedom of choice. These continued bans and assaults on our foods and social choices are unwarranted. If we, the people, continue to allow the government to mandate food and social changes under the guise of (we know what's best for you)it won't be long until our democracy and free republic will be trampled into the dust. And,- that's my opinion. Make your own decisions, you decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Immigration, Custom Enforcement and Administration Refuse To Deport An Illegal Alien
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Harvard student, Eric Balderas is in the country illegally and will not face deportation to Mexico. Why? The 19 Yr. old was detained June 7, 2010 after he tried to use a university ID card to board a plane from San Antonio to Boston. He came to the U.S. illegally at four years old. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said that they would not pursue Balderas deportation.
Harvard officals threw support behind Balderas just because he is studying molecular and cellular biology.
The action by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement in refusing to deport an illegal alien because a major university supports him is outlandish. It appears Balderas is clearly receiving special treatment by the government only because a major university and its officials with political pull and contacts in the government want the illegal to stay in the USA.
What makes him different from any other illegal alien? Nothing! Illegal is illegal. Our U.S. laws have been broken by this man. Balderas should be deported to Mexico and if he wants to continue his education in the United States and become a citizen of the United States he should stand in line like all other immigrants that are in line to enter the United States legally. Giving this guy a pass will only set a precedent for other illegal aliens to enter the USA illegally, enter school, and then say they have a right to stay also.
Our politicians,legal scholars and the legal profession are always spouting off that the United States is a nation of laws. Many of these same politicians and lawmakers have said that preferential treatment should not and does not apply when it comes to administering the law.They often say that "no one is above the law" but it appears that there are many people above the law and the law is meant to be broken when certain people are involved.
There has always been a two tiered justice system working in the United States. One law for the rich and powerful and the other for the middle class and poor people.
In this case even thought Balderas has been breaking the law for over a decade, this illegal alien is treated differently and favorably by powerful interests.
How can any citizen really trust our politicians or lawmaker when they administer the law in such an inconsistent manner. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. These incompetent lawmakers only apply the law to suit their agenda and for reasons that only serve their best interests. That old adage, "the law is the law" smells to high heaven.
If this illegal alien who has been living in the country illegally for over a decade wants to do the right thing and be a good citizen he should be returned to Mexico and then take the legal steps to re-enter the United States in a correct manner so as to become a citizen, the right way,"period."
I have no problem with "legal" immigrants and "legal" immigration. It is the "ILLEGAL ALIEN" I, and 85% of the country have a problem with. But is appears our government officials and administration buckle under to special interests and close their eyes to the "rule of law" when it suits their own interests. The beat goes on---and, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com/
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Harvard student, Eric Balderas is in the country illegally and will not face deportation to Mexico. Why? The 19 Yr. old was detained June 7, 2010 after he tried to use a university ID card to board a plane from San Antonio to Boston. He came to the U.S. illegally at four years old. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said that they would not pursue Balderas deportation.
Harvard officals threw support behind Balderas just because he is studying molecular and cellular biology.
The action by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement in refusing to deport an illegal alien because a major university supports him is outlandish. It appears Balderas is clearly receiving special treatment by the government only because a major university and its officials with political pull and contacts in the government want the illegal to stay in the USA.
What makes him different from any other illegal alien? Nothing! Illegal is illegal. Our U.S. laws have been broken by this man. Balderas should be deported to Mexico and if he wants to continue his education in the United States and become a citizen of the United States he should stand in line like all other immigrants that are in line to enter the United States legally. Giving this guy a pass will only set a precedent for other illegal aliens to enter the USA illegally, enter school, and then say they have a right to stay also.
Our politicians,legal scholars and the legal profession are always spouting off that the United States is a nation of laws. Many of these same politicians and lawmakers have said that preferential treatment should not and does not apply when it comes to administering the law.They often say that "no one is above the law" but it appears that there are many people above the law and the law is meant to be broken when certain people are involved.
There has always been a two tiered justice system working in the United States. One law for the rich and powerful and the other for the middle class and poor people.
In this case even thought Balderas has been breaking the law for over a decade, this illegal alien is treated differently and favorably by powerful interests.
How can any citizen really trust our politicians or lawmaker when they administer the law in such an inconsistent manner. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. These incompetent lawmakers only apply the law to suit their agenda and for reasons that only serve their best interests. That old adage, "the law is the law" smells to high heaven.
If this illegal alien who has been living in the country illegally for over a decade wants to do the right thing and be a good citizen he should be returned to Mexico and then take the legal steps to re-enter the United States in a correct manner so as to become a citizen, the right way,"period."
I have no problem with "legal" immigrants and "legal" immigration. It is the "ILLEGAL ALIEN" I, and 85% of the country have a problem with. But is appears our government officials and administration buckle under to special interests and close their eyes to the "rule of law" when it suits their own interests. The beat goes on---and, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com/
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Israel Refuses To Look For Peace:Always Instigating Trouble In The Middle East
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Israel did it again. It seems Israel is always looking to provoke a warring conflict and keep the Middle East unstable. Now Israel uses a preemptive strike on others who were not bothering Israel in any way. On 05/31/2010 Israel attacked a flotilla of small boats which were delivering humanitarian supplies to refugees. The boats were miles out into international waters.
This Jewish raid on a group of peaceful activists was uncalled for. After the raid and after killing a number of unarmed activists Israel tried to rationalize the attack by saying these unarmed people attacked the Jewish armed Special Forces. What? Hey, the Special Forces repelled from helicopters down onto the unarmed small boats brandishing machine guns and pistols. My view, the peaceful activists were just trying to defend themselves from a vicious attack by armed and masked storm troopers.
The activists tried to beat the armed soldiers off with sticks and fists and folding chairs that were on the deck, but to no avail. One report of the actual attack was described by a United States Ambassador who was a passenger on one of the smaller boats. He said that on his small craft everything was quiet and suddenly a number of armed Jewish hooded Special Forces members appeared and took control of his ship without incident. The passengers and crew had no weapons and could not resist.
Can you imagine, a group of small boats (many looked like small yachts) traveling in "international waters" attacked by a country using armed Special Forces and forcing the small flotilla of boats to change course and sail into Israeli territorial waters. Where is the world outrage? This is no different that the acts of piracy that have been occurring around the world recently.
Israel's Netanyahu defends this war like action and tries to say Israel is the victim. He must be insane. Case : A Flotilla of small yacht like boats sailing in international waters, not bothering anyone, when suddenly the boats are attacked by armed Special Forces from Israel. Israel knowingly attacked these boats without any provocation whatsoever. Israel planned the attack in advance and now Netanyahu has the audacity to say his armed forces who were the aggressors are victims. Talk about passing the buck. Wow!
These types of actions by Israel is becoming commonplace and as each aggressive move by Israel toward some other territory and /or persons under the guise of "protecting Israel" becomes more aggressive and without merit, their play is constantly being sanctioned and backed by the United States government. Personally, I think that these tactics by both Israel and the USA are becoming old and stale.
This sleazy move and sneak attack by Israeli armed forces upon an unarmed flotilla of small boats is like your neighbor saying: "I think John Doe, our neighbor, has a gun in his house and someday Joe Doe may use that gun against me so before that ever happens I'm going to get my entire family and all of my friends to arm themselves and we are going to attack John Doe's house and remove that gun."
The United States should stick up for Israel when they are doing things according to the laws of the world but we should not willy-nilly accept and justify every move they make.
Netanyahu and Israel have for decades provoked and instigated situations so as to delay any peace process and peace talks to allow a separate state solution in the Middle East. Netanyahu and his predecessors continually stir the pot in the entire region.
It is very clear that Israel is a warring country and wants to always have Middle East tensions in the forefront and it does its best to draw the United States into a quagmire and expects the United States to protect their country at the expense of the rest of the region and the world.
In this instance, Israel took a page from President Bush's play book and decided to conduct a preemptive strike while at the same time relying on the acts of Bush as he attacked the sovereign country of Iraq. Israel's thinking, If Bush could do it to Iraq, Israel can do the same thing to anyone they want too.
I say that Israels use of armed military force on the open seas, in international waters, with total disregard for human life and their wanton killing of innocent people who were unarmed is still another aggressive provocation and a slap in the face to the entire international community and I submit that their misguided, insane, incompetent actions violates the worlds humanitarian scruples, purpose and values as well as violating international law.
The overpowering might of trained Israeli Special Forces against a few boats of unarmed activists was totally unjustified and the United States should get off its high horse and continued practice of a nod and a wink to Israel and stop defending Israel for every act that country deems necessary. Instead the USA should be a fair and honest broker in the Middle East and look out for everyone in that area rather than always siding with Israel.
I wonder how some of these money grabbing lawmakers would feel if a military force invaded their state, set up blockades and told them what streets they could travel down, when they could travel those streets to buy food and supplies, where they could live and was obliged to show the occupiers papers and ID cards to get about. How would these same lawmakers feel if the occupying force had control over the electricity they require and the water they drink and both could be rationed at the whim of the occupation or, if the occupiers thought that one or more
lawmakers were plotting against them for whatever reason those occupiers could bulldoze down their business and/or their house as punishment.
My question to the USA politicians: Would you like to be treated like that? Would you fight back? I say to those politicians," yes you would." You would fight back in any way you could. Well lawmakers, that is exactly what has been and is happening in the Middle East.
Israel has been occupying lands and restricting peoples movements and disrupting other peoples lifestyle for decades but the USA Congress and administrations both past and present have a jaundice eye and mind set toward Israel. I maintain that this one-sided negotiating is wrong. As long as the USA continues to side with only Israel and fails to broker peace talks and peace plans in an honest, open and transparent manner, there will never be peace in the Middle East.- And, that's my opinion. Draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS-Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Israel did it again. It seems Israel is always looking to provoke a warring conflict and keep the Middle East unstable. Now Israel uses a preemptive strike on others who were not bothering Israel in any way. On 05/31/2010 Israel attacked a flotilla of small boats which were delivering humanitarian supplies to refugees. The boats were miles out into international waters.
This Jewish raid on a group of peaceful activists was uncalled for. After the raid and after killing a number of unarmed activists Israel tried to rationalize the attack by saying these unarmed people attacked the Jewish armed Special Forces. What? Hey, the Special Forces repelled from helicopters down onto the unarmed small boats brandishing machine guns and pistols. My view, the peaceful activists were just trying to defend themselves from a vicious attack by armed and masked storm troopers.
The activists tried to beat the armed soldiers off with sticks and fists and folding chairs that were on the deck, but to no avail. One report of the actual attack was described by a United States Ambassador who was a passenger on one of the smaller boats. He said that on his small craft everything was quiet and suddenly a number of armed Jewish hooded Special Forces members appeared and took control of his ship without incident. The passengers and crew had no weapons and could not resist.
Can you imagine, a group of small boats (many looked like small yachts) traveling in "international waters" attacked by a country using armed Special Forces and forcing the small flotilla of boats to change course and sail into Israeli territorial waters. Where is the world outrage? This is no different that the acts of piracy that have been occurring around the world recently.
Israel's Netanyahu defends this war like action and tries to say Israel is the victim. He must be insane. Case : A Flotilla of small yacht like boats sailing in international waters, not bothering anyone, when suddenly the boats are attacked by armed Special Forces from Israel. Israel knowingly attacked these boats without any provocation whatsoever. Israel planned the attack in advance and now Netanyahu has the audacity to say his armed forces who were the aggressors are victims. Talk about passing the buck. Wow!
These types of actions by Israel is becoming commonplace and as each aggressive move by Israel toward some other territory and /or persons under the guise of "protecting Israel" becomes more aggressive and without merit, their play is constantly being sanctioned and backed by the United States government. Personally, I think that these tactics by both Israel and the USA are becoming old and stale.
This sleazy move and sneak attack by Israeli armed forces upon an unarmed flotilla of small boats is like your neighbor saying: "I think John Doe, our neighbor, has a gun in his house and someday Joe Doe may use that gun against me so before that ever happens I'm going to get my entire family and all of my friends to arm themselves and we are going to attack John Doe's house and remove that gun."
The United States should stick up for Israel when they are doing things according to the laws of the world but we should not willy-nilly accept and justify every move they make.
Netanyahu and Israel have for decades provoked and instigated situations so as to delay any peace process and peace talks to allow a separate state solution in the Middle East. Netanyahu and his predecessors continually stir the pot in the entire region.
It is very clear that Israel is a warring country and wants to always have Middle East tensions in the forefront and it does its best to draw the United States into a quagmire and expects the United States to protect their country at the expense of the rest of the region and the world.
In this instance, Israel took a page from President Bush's play book and decided to conduct a preemptive strike while at the same time relying on the acts of Bush as he attacked the sovereign country of Iraq. Israel's thinking, If Bush could do it to Iraq, Israel can do the same thing to anyone they want too.
I say that Israels use of armed military force on the open seas, in international waters, with total disregard for human life and their wanton killing of innocent people who were unarmed is still another aggressive provocation and a slap in the face to the entire international community and I submit that their misguided, insane, incompetent actions violates the worlds humanitarian scruples, purpose and values as well as violating international law.
The overpowering might of trained Israeli Special Forces against a few boats of unarmed activists was totally unjustified and the United States should get off its high horse and continued practice of a nod and a wink to Israel and stop defending Israel for every act that country deems necessary. Instead the USA should be a fair and honest broker in the Middle East and look out for everyone in that area rather than always siding with Israel.
I wonder how some of these money grabbing lawmakers would feel if a military force invaded their state, set up blockades and told them what streets they could travel down, when they could travel those streets to buy food and supplies, where they could live and was obliged to show the occupiers papers and ID cards to get about. How would these same lawmakers feel if the occupying force had control over the electricity they require and the water they drink and both could be rationed at the whim of the occupation or, if the occupiers thought that one or more
lawmakers were plotting against them for whatever reason those occupiers could bulldoze down their business and/or their house as punishment.
My question to the USA politicians: Would you like to be treated like that? Would you fight back? I say to those politicians," yes you would." You would fight back in any way you could. Well lawmakers, that is exactly what has been and is happening in the Middle East.
Israel has been occupying lands and restricting peoples movements and disrupting other peoples lifestyle for decades but the USA Congress and administrations both past and present have a jaundice eye and mind set toward Israel. I maintain that this one-sided negotiating is wrong. As long as the USA continues to side with only Israel and fails to broker peace talks and peace plans in an honest, open and transparent manner, there will never be peace in the Middle East.- And, that's my opinion. Draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Obama & Attorney General Holder Ignore The American Peoples Wishes
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Police Chiefs from around the country met with Attorney General Eric Holder to blast the merits of the Arizona Immigration Law SB1070. The meeting was really one sided because most of the Chief's meeting with Holder already oppose the Arizona law.
Many of the cities that were represented in this meeting are sanctuary cities which allow and condone illegal immigration. The Chief's from Arizona cities Phoenix and Tucson clearly have an ax to grind. Even though there are approximately 450,000 illegal aliens living in Arizona illegally and fifty (50) percent of all illegal aliens living in the United States actually enter the country through Arizona these police chiefs still want to pander to politics and the Hispanic community for votes. That's really sad! It looks like these two Arizona Chief's of Police who live at "immigration ground zero" want to shirk their duties and maintain a status qo situation allowing thousands of illegal aliens to slink into the state every day, instead of wanting to enforce laws that are already on the Federal books and now will be Arizona law.
Like the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, IT MUST BE A DUCK." And,to me, it looks like the misguided actions by these Chief's of Police along with their implied threats of not enforcing Arizona law in the state and cities where they serve as law enforcement officers is completely unwarranted. These lawmen swore to uphold the laws of the land. I would remind them that they receive their pay checks from American citizens. These lawmen who are crying the blues about the Arizona immigration law are quacking louder than the Aflac duck.
These Chief's of Police offer very lame reasons for not wanting to enforce immigration laws: Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said, the law will likely discourage witnesses and victims of crimes from cooperating with police. "This bill bill breaks the trust with our communities." What a crock! The only trust being broken is by the Los Angeles Police Department not enforcing laws already on the books and breaking the trust of all the "LEGAL" citizens residing in the city of Los Angeles.
That old beaten up phrase that the illegal alien will not cooperate with police is a sham. I submit that if an illegal alien or their spouse and/or children become a victim of a crime that" illegal alien" like any other person in the city will want justice and the perpetrator apprehended and punished. So, yes that illegal alien will cooperate with the police. They have been cooperating with law enforcement for decades while living in this country illegally. The only difference in Los Angeles is that the Chief wants to continue a sanctuary city status and doesn't want to upset the apple cart for political reasons. Chief Beck doesn't want to take the extra step to verify proper identification.To me, that's laziness. It appears Chief Charlie Beck wants to continue to run a lax police department. This chief should be more worried about earning trust with the legal citizens of the City of Los Angeles,the state of California and the nation.
Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris: He said, "It doesn't fix the immigration problem. It only diverts our scarce resources." What a joke. I would say to Chief Harris, "Yes" it does fix the immigration problem, especially in Arizona. Chief,if you allow your police officers to do their job, rather than you bemoaning that it may cause a little more work for you and implement and enforce the new Arizona law it will allow illegal aliens to be detained and deported or leave the state. I don't agree with that old tired argument that it will divert scarce resources. Each and every police department in the country is "always" short on resources and it's not only police departments but all kinds of departments, but they continue to do their job and make due. They do not make excuses or snivel. They make do with what they have to work with. Divert? Chief, when you have a probable cause stop or are investigating a crime and asking the person to identify themselves , how long does it take to ask "any" individual, "where were you born?" or "do you have any document that states you are in the United States legally?" What? 30 seconds, one minute? Bad argument chief. Just do your job and stop blaming it on short resources.
Kudos to Sheriff Paul Babeu, from Pinal County, Arizona. His statements is what law enforcement is all about: He said that his law enforcement colleagues should be "preparing to implement the law," rather than meeting with Eric Holder." I totally agree with Sheriff Babeu and his perspective on the immigration issue.
Remember, the biased Attorney General, Eric Holder, who admitted nationwide that he DID NOT read the Arizona law before he began to bad mouth it is just trying to justify a way to repeal the Arizona law before other states introduce a similar bill, which by the way is happening as we speak. There are at least five (5)other states attempting to pass an immigration bill like Arizona's and the list is growing. Hooray! I hope it happens because the Feds have consistently failed to do the job of securing the Southern border.
In response to the immigration problem President Obama reluctantly said he will send a token number of National Guard troops to the border. The number he is going to send is 1200 troops, which would not even begin to quell the illegal flow of illegal aliens that illegally cross into the state of Arizona each and every day.
Like Senators McCain and Kyle I say we need 50000, to 6000 National Guard troops at a minimum. I think that those numbers are required just to begin to stem the illegal alien flow until the entire Southern Border is SECURE.
It should be noted that all of the recent polls across the country indicate the majority of citizens agree with the current Arizona law and when asked, those same citizens said they want such a law in their own state. The majority of people across this country have no problem with any race, color, national origin or creed when it come to those people entering the United States legally. It's the "illegal alien" I, and the majority of people have a problem with.
Anyone wanting to immigrate to the United States should stand in line, do the proper paper work, receive the proper and legal papers and /or cards or certificates, take the proper and required examinations and then, and only then, I and probably all the rest of the Americans will welcome them with open arms. There are tens of thousands of people from around the world that take the proper legal steps to immigrate to this country and they eventually succeed.
As I said in previous articles: build the "physical" fence barrier the full length of the Southern border with only narrowed and guarded check points to identify who is entering and exiting the United States. Use the Military to assist Customs (ICE)in the act of securing the border.
A message to president Obama and Attorney General Holder: All recent polls across the nation reflect that 69% of all Americans agree with the new Arizona law. And, the number is growing every day. I find this administrations position and president Obama's actions on the excellent crafted Arizona law very discouraging and disappointing. I'm disappointed and ashamed when our president allows the president of Mexico to criticize Arizona and the whole of the United States only because the people of Arizona and the rest of America want to enforce the laws that already exist. I'm even more ashamed and disappointed when I observe president Obama , a symbol of the United States, agreeing with Mexico's president while embracing his radical ideas while heaping additional criticism of his own on America.
Our elected representatives, especially those currently in office, have chose to forget who they actually represent. The administration and other government officials choose to wear blinders when it comes to actual representation for all Americans.
These politicians who were sent to Washington by the American people only look to rake in contribution dollars from special interests so that they can hold on to their political seat while ignoring the will of the people and let all legal citizens pick up the bill with the financial, social services and political burden that is caused by allowing illegal aliens to remain in the USA.
Why should we citizens have to put up with the illegal alien that commits a crime to enter this country? We should not have to accept anyone that slaps us in the face by ignoring our laws and tramples on our legal system and expect us citizens of the USA to condone their criminal act. My advice to those who want to immigrate to the USA- - Do it legally and I predict that there will never be a problem. -And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how's the world treating you?
Police Chiefs from around the country met with Attorney General Eric Holder to blast the merits of the Arizona Immigration Law SB1070. The meeting was really one sided because most of the Chief's meeting with Holder already oppose the Arizona law.
Many of the cities that were represented in this meeting are sanctuary cities which allow and condone illegal immigration. The Chief's from Arizona cities Phoenix and Tucson clearly have an ax to grind. Even though there are approximately 450,000 illegal aliens living in Arizona illegally and fifty (50) percent of all illegal aliens living in the United States actually enter the country through Arizona these police chiefs still want to pander to politics and the Hispanic community for votes. That's really sad! It looks like these two Arizona Chief's of Police who live at "immigration ground zero" want to shirk their duties and maintain a status qo situation allowing thousands of illegal aliens to slink into the state every day, instead of wanting to enforce laws that are already on the Federal books and now will be Arizona law.
Like the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, IT MUST BE A DUCK." And,to me, it looks like the misguided actions by these Chief's of Police along with their implied threats of not enforcing Arizona law in the state and cities where they serve as law enforcement officers is completely unwarranted. These lawmen swore to uphold the laws of the land. I would remind them that they receive their pay checks from American citizens. These lawmen who are crying the blues about the Arizona immigration law are quacking louder than the Aflac duck.
These Chief's of Police offer very lame reasons for not wanting to enforce immigration laws: Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said, the law will likely discourage witnesses and victims of crimes from cooperating with police. "This bill bill breaks the trust with our communities." What a crock! The only trust being broken is by the Los Angeles Police Department not enforcing laws already on the books and breaking the trust of all the "LEGAL" citizens residing in the city of Los Angeles.
That old beaten up phrase that the illegal alien will not cooperate with police is a sham. I submit that if an illegal alien or their spouse and/or children become a victim of a crime that" illegal alien" like any other person in the city will want justice and the perpetrator apprehended and punished. So, yes that illegal alien will cooperate with the police. They have been cooperating with law enforcement for decades while living in this country illegally. The only difference in Los Angeles is that the Chief wants to continue a sanctuary city status and doesn't want to upset the apple cart for political reasons. Chief Beck doesn't want to take the extra step to verify proper identification.To me, that's laziness. It appears Chief Charlie Beck wants to continue to run a lax police department. This chief should be more worried about earning trust with the legal citizens of the City of Los Angeles,the state of California and the nation.
Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris: He said, "It doesn't fix the immigration problem. It only diverts our scarce resources." What a joke. I would say to Chief Harris, "Yes" it does fix the immigration problem, especially in Arizona. Chief,if you allow your police officers to do their job, rather than you bemoaning that it may cause a little more work for you and implement and enforce the new Arizona law it will allow illegal aliens to be detained and deported or leave the state. I don't agree with that old tired argument that it will divert scarce resources. Each and every police department in the country is "always" short on resources and it's not only police departments but all kinds of departments, but they continue to do their job and make due. They do not make excuses or snivel. They make do with what they have to work with. Divert? Chief, when you have a probable cause stop or are investigating a crime and asking the person to identify themselves , how long does it take to ask "any" individual, "where were you born?" or "do you have any document that states you are in the United States legally?" What? 30 seconds, one minute? Bad argument chief. Just do your job and stop blaming it on short resources.
Kudos to Sheriff Paul Babeu, from Pinal County, Arizona. His statements is what law enforcement is all about: He said that his law enforcement colleagues should be "preparing to implement the law," rather than meeting with Eric Holder." I totally agree with Sheriff Babeu and his perspective on the immigration issue.
Remember, the biased Attorney General, Eric Holder, who admitted nationwide that he DID NOT read the Arizona law before he began to bad mouth it is just trying to justify a way to repeal the Arizona law before other states introduce a similar bill, which by the way is happening as we speak. There are at least five (5)other states attempting to pass an immigration bill like Arizona's and the list is growing. Hooray! I hope it happens because the Feds have consistently failed to do the job of securing the Southern border.
In response to the immigration problem President Obama reluctantly said he will send a token number of National Guard troops to the border. The number he is going to send is 1200 troops, which would not even begin to quell the illegal flow of illegal aliens that illegally cross into the state of Arizona each and every day.
Like Senators McCain and Kyle I say we need 50000, to 6000 National Guard troops at a minimum. I think that those numbers are required just to begin to stem the illegal alien flow until the entire Southern Border is SECURE.
It should be noted that all of the recent polls across the country indicate the majority of citizens agree with the current Arizona law and when asked, those same citizens said they want such a law in their own state. The majority of people across this country have no problem with any race, color, national origin or creed when it come to those people entering the United States legally. It's the "illegal alien" I, and the majority of people have a problem with.
Anyone wanting to immigrate to the United States should stand in line, do the proper paper work, receive the proper and legal papers and /or cards or certificates, take the proper and required examinations and then, and only then, I and probably all the rest of the Americans will welcome them with open arms. There are tens of thousands of people from around the world that take the proper legal steps to immigrate to this country and they eventually succeed.
As I said in previous articles: build the "physical" fence barrier the full length of the Southern border with only narrowed and guarded check points to identify who is entering and exiting the United States. Use the Military to assist Customs (ICE)in the act of securing the border.
A message to president Obama and Attorney General Holder: All recent polls across the nation reflect that 69% of all Americans agree with the new Arizona law. And, the number is growing every day. I find this administrations position and president Obama's actions on the excellent crafted Arizona law very discouraging and disappointing. I'm disappointed and ashamed when our president allows the president of Mexico to criticize Arizona and the whole of the United States only because the people of Arizona and the rest of America want to enforce the laws that already exist. I'm even more ashamed and disappointed when I observe president Obama , a symbol of the United States, agreeing with Mexico's president while embracing his radical ideas while heaping additional criticism of his own on America.
Our elected representatives, especially those currently in office, have chose to forget who they actually represent. The administration and other government officials choose to wear blinders when it comes to actual representation for all Americans.
These politicians who were sent to Washington by the American people only look to rake in contribution dollars from special interests so that they can hold on to their political seat while ignoring the will of the people and let all legal citizens pick up the bill with the financial, social services and political burden that is caused by allowing illegal aliens to remain in the USA.
Why should we citizens have to put up with the illegal alien that commits a crime to enter this country? We should not have to accept anyone that slaps us in the face by ignoring our laws and tramples on our legal system and expect us citizens of the USA to condone their criminal act. My advice to those who want to immigrate to the USA- - Do it legally and I predict that there will never be a problem. -And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
The Oil Disaster Is Really 11 Counts of Homicide-Where's The Arrests?
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Just a follow up on my articles on the Gulf oil disaster.In my early articles on this matter I referred to the BP fiasco as an oil spill most of the time, but I have to clearly upgrade this situation as a disaster and a catastrophe. This environmental disaster no way resembles an oil spill.
Right now we have the Obama administration still relying on British Petroleum for the solution. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar states that BP is cooperating with the administration and says "If we find that they are not doing what they are supposed to do, we'll push them out of the way appropriately ." Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also took a milk toast, soft, mushy approach to the disaster and said: "We continue to hold British Petroleum responsible...but we are on them, watching them ." Wow! BP is being watched. Big deal. Still, the Coast Guards Admiral said that their organization cannot handle the task of stopping the leak, The head honcho of that service said the Coast Guard is not equipped for a catastrophe like this nor do they have the knowledge or expertise to handle it and he wants BP to continue to be in charge saying they have the people and experience to stop the oil gusher. Once again, BP is the fox in the hen house while the administration is running around like a chicken with its head cut off. Like I stated previously,- Cut BP loose. Do not depend on them. Give the government the task of solving this disaster using our Navy and NASA and private sources and institutions that are adept dealing with oceanographic situations.
Big oil suggests that they want to use more cement to close the massive oil discharge beneath the sea but it is a proven and recorded fact that Halliburton (Dick Cheney's baby) who is doing most all of these cement jobs has failed miserably in servicing and/or protecting oil wells around the world. They do not have the where with all to cement the wells and still politicians, groups and supporters of big oil let them continue to do the cement work.
Folks, this disaster should never be referred to as a spill. Call it what it is. It is a HOMICIDE resulting in a devastating environmental disaster.
I have worked in law enforcement for years and dealt with most every type of crime you can imagine and I think that this obscene corporate negligence and the homicides should have been addressed from day one of the explosion by our administration and the justice department.
If this disaster was investigated as a crime (homicide) from the start it would be shown in a different light by know. If the investigators were turned loose, just the act of following and gathering information as to the homicides would have shown who did what and when, and who knew what and when. The interviews that should have been conducted by homicide investigators would have brought to light the facts as they may have occurred. The criminal homicide investigation would clarify any responsibility as the investigation progressed.
I have said before, where are the subpoenas? The justice department and the administration want to look at this matter as an "accident" when they should have initiated a homicide investigation to begin with.
This inaction on the part of the administration only reinforces the view that they are not really interested in resolving these homicides. If they fail to address this situation as a homicide it will be much more difficult to get to the true and clear facts of responsibility. It may takes years before all of the facts come out but if the deaths were investigated as a homicide the big picture would become much clearer, much faster.
Many of these oil companies, their CEO's and employees will cover and duck. They will have sufficient time to possibly shred and dispose of valuable documents and muddy the oil slick legal waters with a cover up so as to avoid any possibility of prosecution.
If I were in charge you can bet that there would have been subpoenas issued for the CEO's, oil executives, supervisors and employees as soon as those eleven oil workers were killed. There would not have been any political theater being played out as is being done now.
I say that Obama and his administration is a a day late and a dollar short. As I wrote in previous articles, the government should have been in charge of this disaster from the get go. I wonder how long Obama and his White House will allow British Petroleum to be in charge. Obama allowing BP to continue to call the shots is like a snake eating it's own tail.
British Petroleum is still taking meager measures to stop the oil. These are the bad guys that with the blessing of our lawmakers got us into this mess. They are destroying our environment and ecosystem each and every second of the day.
Everyone knows the old saying: "Don't fool with Mother Nature." However, our money grabbing politicians lusting for contributions closed their eyes, held their nose and gave a blank check to Mega oil to do whatever the oil companies wanted to do to our nature and environment. My view is that "if we destroy mother nature, we destroy ourselves. With that said, it is happening and happening now.
I would suggest that the administration and its justice department get off their duff, issue the proper subpoenas to all involved in these homicides and turn the homicide investigators loose so they can document the facts and actions of all the individuals responsible. The justice department should arrest and jail the perpetrators even while the oil disaster is being addressed. I would say that a two track solution could be accomplished at the same time. That being, seal the well and arrest the suspects for homicide.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Just a follow up on my articles on the Gulf oil disaster.In my early articles on this matter I referred to the BP fiasco as an oil spill most of the time, but I have to clearly upgrade this situation as a disaster and a catastrophe. This environmental disaster no way resembles an oil spill.
Right now we have the Obama administration still relying on British Petroleum for the solution. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar states that BP is cooperating with the administration and says "If we find that they are not doing what they are supposed to do, we'll push them out of the way appropriately ." Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also took a milk toast, soft, mushy approach to the disaster and said: "We continue to hold British Petroleum responsible...but we are on them, watching them ." Wow! BP is being watched. Big deal. Still, the Coast Guards Admiral said that their organization cannot handle the task of stopping the leak, The head honcho of that service said the Coast Guard is not equipped for a catastrophe like this nor do they have the knowledge or expertise to handle it and he wants BP to continue to be in charge saying they have the people and experience to stop the oil gusher. Once again, BP is the fox in the hen house while the administration is running around like a chicken with its head cut off. Like I stated previously,- Cut BP loose. Do not depend on them. Give the government the task of solving this disaster using our Navy and NASA and private sources and institutions that are adept dealing with oceanographic situations.
Big oil suggests that they want to use more cement to close the massive oil discharge beneath the sea but it is a proven and recorded fact that Halliburton (Dick Cheney's baby) who is doing most all of these cement jobs has failed miserably in servicing and/or protecting oil wells around the world. They do not have the where with all to cement the wells and still politicians, groups and supporters of big oil let them continue to do the cement work.
Folks, this disaster should never be referred to as a spill. Call it what it is. It is a HOMICIDE resulting in a devastating environmental disaster.
I have worked in law enforcement for years and dealt with most every type of crime you can imagine and I think that this obscene corporate negligence and the homicides should have been addressed from day one of the explosion by our administration and the justice department.
If this disaster was investigated as a crime (homicide) from the start it would be shown in a different light by know. If the investigators were turned loose, just the act of following and gathering information as to the homicides would have shown who did what and when, and who knew what and when. The interviews that should have been conducted by homicide investigators would have brought to light the facts as they may have occurred. The criminal homicide investigation would clarify any responsibility as the investigation progressed.
I have said before, where are the subpoenas? The justice department and the administration want to look at this matter as an "accident" when they should have initiated a homicide investigation to begin with.
This inaction on the part of the administration only reinforces the view that they are not really interested in resolving these homicides. If they fail to address this situation as a homicide it will be much more difficult to get to the true and clear facts of responsibility. It may takes years before all of the facts come out but if the deaths were investigated as a homicide the big picture would become much clearer, much faster.
Many of these oil companies, their CEO's and employees will cover and duck. They will have sufficient time to possibly shred and dispose of valuable documents and muddy the oil slick legal waters with a cover up so as to avoid any possibility of prosecution.
If I were in charge you can bet that there would have been subpoenas issued for the CEO's, oil executives, supervisors and employees as soon as those eleven oil workers were killed. There would not have been any political theater being played out as is being done now.
I say that Obama and his administration is a a day late and a dollar short. As I wrote in previous articles, the government should have been in charge of this disaster from the get go. I wonder how long Obama and his White House will allow British Petroleum to be in charge. Obama allowing BP to continue to call the shots is like a snake eating it's own tail.
British Petroleum is still taking meager measures to stop the oil. These are the bad guys that with the blessing of our lawmakers got us into this mess. They are destroying our environment and ecosystem each and every second of the day.
Everyone knows the old saying: "Don't fool with Mother Nature." However, our money grabbing politicians lusting for contributions closed their eyes, held their nose and gave a blank check to Mega oil to do whatever the oil companies wanted to do to our nature and environment. My view is that "if we destroy mother nature, we destroy ourselves. With that said, it is happening and happening now.
I would suggest that the administration and its justice department get off their duff, issue the proper subpoenas to all involved in these homicides and turn the homicide investigators loose so they can document the facts and actions of all the individuals responsible. The justice department should arrest and jail the perpetrators even while the oil disaster is being addressed. I would say that a two track solution could be accomplished at the same time. That being, seal the well and arrest the suspects for homicide.- And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Monday, May 24, 2010
Soda Pop and Food Tax :Govertment Say We're Sinning Again
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how the the world treating you?
Here we go again. The Washington lawmakers are salivating at the idea of taxing soft drinks, juices, teas and other sweet tasting beverages. They also are considering expanding the tax to candies and other sweet products.
I hate to say I told you so but I did, years ago. When the nannies in California and New York began raising taxes on cigarettes I told my readers and patients and anyone who wanted to listen that" what goes around comes around." So for all of you who thought it was okay to punitively tax and ban the cigarette smoker from the social scene it looks like it is your turn now.
The first move by government will be to raise taxes on your bottle sodas, teas, juices, etc., then the second phase will be to ban the products from schools, parks, sport facilities and their game areas and the ban may even encroach on your favorite eating places. This is the format that all of the nannies used to control a persons smoking behavior and now it will eventually happen to the people that thought it okay to restrict and ban products that people CHOSE to ingest in their own bodies. Like the saying says, -"be careful what you wish for."
These nanny states and the wanna be goodie two shoes tell you that they are looking out after your health and that they are going to take care of you. They tell you that they know what is best for you and that you should not doubt them.
New York, New Jersey and a host of other states now see another tax jackpot gleaming in their eyes . And yes,once again, the excuse and reason they say they are taxing your colas, juices,teas, sweet flavored waters and all of those other sweet tasting products is because they want to prevent you from acquiring diabetes, heart problems and other health issues. These wanna be doctors, who are nothing but tax collecting politicians arrogantly argue that since they raised prices and taxed cigarettes to new heights, people stopped smoking, and if it worked for smoking it will work for candy, juices,teas, soft drinks and other tasty items.
Now for all those people that said it was okay for the government to tax cigarettes: I would wonder how you feel now when the government steps into"your" household and tell you that if you and your family drink soft drinks, bottled teas and fruit juice and enjoy other sweet items it is going to cost you, big time.
The government is going to tax you under the guise of "it's for your own good." Do you really believe that? How far can these nanny groups and government beat that dead horse?
I submit that drinking coffee can cause you health problems? Eating bacon, ham and sausage can cause health problems? Eating any type of processed foods can cause health problems? Eating butter can cause you health problems? Fast food, ice cream or puddings (whoops, those are sweet ones) , sorry,the tax will cover those too.
I could go on and on about what can cause a health problem in an individual but I am telling you that just about anything you ingest into your body can cause a health problem. So, where will it stop. The government saddled us taxpayers with an income tax, then state and county taxes, cigarette taxes and now they want to initiate a body tax on all of us saying what we choose to put into our body should be taxed.
But hey! The government is going to tell you what's good for you. Right? Example, the feds and a number of activist groups have already pressured many schools and soft drink companies across the nation to remove soft drinks, candy and chips from the schools.I don't agree with those actions but it appears the people refuse to fight these moves.
Do you really believe that one soda or one candy bar or a small single bag of chips is the reason a person puts on weight? Sure, if the child or adult eats a dozen candy bars or drinks a dozen cans of soda at one sitting they are going to "get fat." But an occasional snack like a candy bar,chips , or soda is not the root cause.
I would suggest the schools revise their lunch programs to include the proper nutritious food combination rather than blame the child's weight increase on the occasional candy bar, chips, or soda that may be eaten during a break at school. Further,the schools should provide a proper "physical education" plan at each school and make it mandatory that each student take part in the physical education class. There is nothing like a small amount of exercise, fresh air, sunshine, and walking and/or swimming to maintain a healthy, physically fit body. I would guess it is easier for these activist groups and the Feds to point the finger and play a blame game and say that the can of soda is the problem while at the same time they are cutting out physical eduction from their curriculum saying they do not have the money to support the program.
What would be more important to you for your child? Would you rather have the child be required to get exercise and play time and have their physical fitness improved or have the school save money by cutting out such a program? It is easier for the legislators to blame soft drink manufacturers and blame the student for drinking an occasional soda or eating an occasional candy bar instead of addressing the real problem.
Not every child, college student or adult drinks dozens of cans of soda a day nor do they eat dozens of candy bars or bags of chips a day. For that child in school who is gaining weight I would say that it is the parents job to oversee their diet, exercise and health care. Why place penalties on the soft drink manufacturer and all of the other students in the school who does eat and exercise in moderation and does in fact enjoy an occasional soft drink, chips or candy bar?
Using the governments logic: Why not tell each politician in Washington that all alcoholic beverages will be removed from all restaurants and bars in and about the Capitol where they congregate because a small percentage of the lawmakers are abusing alcohol and acting unbecoming, and/or receiving DUI's, and most of all, it is bad for their health and they should be looked out after. Do you think they would go for that? They would be the first group of people to squeal to high heaven, "you can't do that." But in reality, that is what they are actually doing to the rest of us when they regulate what people put in their bodies.
I suggest that each and every person's health care should be looked at individually. What foods and drinks one puts into their body may affect one person differently than it does another. No two people are the same.
Each person's metabolism is different and handles food and drink intake differently "but" these government bureaucrats will take punitive action against you for no other reason that dinging more taxes out of you and using the excuse that 'IT'S GOOD FOR YOU."
The government says that they want to stop you from getting diabetes, heart disease, strokes, obesity, cancer,and a list of other ailments etc., but the scientific and medical community cannot say with a "medical certainty" what specific product and/or item actually may have caused the disease to rear its ugly head.
Was it the high cholesterol that cause a person to have a heart attack? Was it stress on the job that was the sole cause of that heart attack? Was it anxiety that the person felt because of financial problems in the marriage that was the sole cause of that heart attack? Or,was it the poor air quality in the city,the town or state where the person lives or was it the pollution from the automobile exhaust being spewed into the air each day? No doctor can say with medical certainty which of those separate things actually caused the person to suffer heart disease.
Another example, the doctor cannot say with" medical certainty" that smoking cigarettes and/or second hand smoke was the sole cause of anyone acquiring cancer or any other disease for that matter.
Just the few examples mentioned here in this article could be a combination of things that may include but not limited to: a person being obese, suffering diabetes, heart problems, cancer, and most any other disease.
Besides any environmental pollution, a persons food and diet and their nutritional habits and their lifestyle choices along with pesticides, chemical additives in such things as plastic water bottles and containers, cosmetics, their intake of alcohol and their ingestion of medications will all contribute to any one persons health and well being.
The list could go on, and on. There are literally thousands of products like foods, chemicals and environmental factors being used around the world that can contribute any and all illnesses a person can imagine.
What will be next and taxed? Is the government going to raise taxes on all cosmetics, soaps and other hygiene products used by everyone? They'll tell you it's for your own good. Are they going to tax everyone for driving a motor vehicle, a boat, a recreational vehicle? Are these tax hungry nannies going to raise taxes on bottled water or anything in a plastic container? They will tell you its for health reasons. Raise taxes on household products used everyday in your kitchen or bathroom? Are they going to raise taxes on your air conditioning units in your house or business because of the chemical pollution caused by the unit?
Believe it or not some lawmakers and legislators across the country have already tried to put a tax on some of the items just mentioned in the paragraph above and you can bet they will continue their misguided attempts.
People, the lawmakers can use any excuse to raise taxes on us taxpayers but their rationalization for the taxes stink. The lame argument they continually make for the tax doesn't track. This argument "it's for your own good." or, another favorite argument is "It's for the kids," are worn out phrases. They are old and tired.
Every time lawmakers, groups, and organizations who usually have an agenda for their own benefit pass an initiative or a law they usually tell the public it's only a suggestion or it's only voluntary or it will only be a temporary fix.
When the lawmakers offer those reasons I would be suspect. Why? Those taxes, laws,rules and regulations that were said to be voluntary or temporary always wind up to be a mandate.
The government clearly ignores and selectively forgets the constitution and they trample on Americans "freedom of choice."
For example:(Smoking), if there were restaurants, bars and taverns across the country that clearly posted signs indicating that they were or were not a "friendly smoking" establishment any prudent person could make an informed choice as to which place they wanted to patronize. Nonsmokers could and would go to nonsmoking establishments and smokers would go into the smoking establishments. Result: {CHOICE), the person made their own decision. Everyone would be happy and satisfied. They would have their own place to go to.
For example: (Alcohol) Each person and/or group can make up their own mind whether they want to go into an establishment such as a restaurant that serves alcohol.Result: {CHOICE), the person makes their own decision. Nonalcoholics can use restaurant that do not serve alcohol.
For example: (Fast Food) Each and every person can make the decision whether they want to drive into the drive-in for that hamburger, fried chicken, taco, etc. Result: (CHOICE), the person chooses to either go into or walk away from the establishment.
The same goes for a person eating a piece of pie, cake, ice cream, candy bar, chips, etc.,-- Result: (CHOICE). It is that persons right and clearly their "freedom of choice" to either eat that piece of pie, and whether the pie should be regular, fat free, or ala mode and making a choice without being told they have to drink a diet soda, or they can't have a milkshake unless they choose the non-fat shake which will be offered at a cheaper price.
Side Note: These tax crazy lawmakers always claim that they can raise "sin taxes" which are defined by them as tobacco, (cigarettes and cigars)and alcohol, but if you notice, these lawmakers keep alcohol off limits and have chosen to only pick on the smoking public.
Lawmakers refuse to raise taxes on beer, wine and hard booze. Why? That's easy. Many of our politicians really love their alcohol. Many may be closet alcoholics while still others are treated in rehab for their alcohol abuse. Another reason is that people across the country would raise hell.
Raising taxes on any type of alcohol is like social security's third rail in politics for the lawmaker. So, what do they do? They are going to include soft drinks, juices, teas bottled waters and sweets into the web of "sin taxes." They want to deprive every man, woman and child of the right and "free choice" to drink and eat what they want.
I would say that what a family eats either at home or out in public, is a decision that should be made by the parents of the family. It is their choice. The parents can educate their children on what should be eaten and what foods should be restricted or avoided. From my point of view, it's a family matter. The government should stay out of the business of dictating what I and my family choose to put in our body and without adding additional taxes or punitive penalties if we chose to eat or drink something the government said was "bad" for us.
There are people around the world that will always acquire diabetes, heart problems, strokes,obesity, etc., and many of those people will suffer those diseases for reasons that cannot explained.
People will live and they will all die. I have always told my patients and friends, relatives and associates that: "I believe and have always believed that a person begins to die from the moment of birth." Folks, we all are on deaths path from the moment we are born. We can't get around that fact.
I would suggest that these lawmakers who pretend that they want to "look out for our best interests" leave the train at the next station. We, the people can look out for ourselves as long as we have choices.
If a person becomes obese because they eat a full whole 12 inch pie at one sitting instead of one slice of that pie that person can make the choice and decision to stop the bad behavior and/or seek help to assist them in doing so. If a woman wants to get an abortion for reasons only known to her, that's her choice and she should be able to seek advice and assistance to help her come to her own decision. Again,"freedom of choice."
I would like to say that under the shallow and lame benign rationale of " it's best for you," or "I know best" or "protecting us" our government know-it-alls that say they represent us are very quickly usurping all rights we have as it applies to our own bodies. It's insanity. These looney tunes are the one's running our country? As the saying goes, I think it's time for the inmates to take back the asylum. Stand up folks, and say enough is enough. - And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how the the world treating you?
Here we go again. The Washington lawmakers are salivating at the idea of taxing soft drinks, juices, teas and other sweet tasting beverages. They also are considering expanding the tax to candies and other sweet products.
I hate to say I told you so but I did, years ago. When the nannies in California and New York began raising taxes on cigarettes I told my readers and patients and anyone who wanted to listen that" what goes around comes around." So for all of you who thought it was okay to punitively tax and ban the cigarette smoker from the social scene it looks like it is your turn now.
The first move by government will be to raise taxes on your bottle sodas, teas, juices, etc., then the second phase will be to ban the products from schools, parks, sport facilities and their game areas and the ban may even encroach on your favorite eating places. This is the format that all of the nannies used to control a persons smoking behavior and now it will eventually happen to the people that thought it okay to restrict and ban products that people CHOSE to ingest in their own bodies. Like the saying says, -"be careful what you wish for."
These nanny states and the wanna be goodie two shoes tell you that they are looking out after your health and that they are going to take care of you. They tell you that they know what is best for you and that you should not doubt them.
New York, New Jersey and a host of other states now see another tax jackpot gleaming in their eyes . And yes,once again, the excuse and reason they say they are taxing your colas, juices,teas, sweet flavored waters and all of those other sweet tasting products is because they want to prevent you from acquiring diabetes, heart problems and other health issues. These wanna be doctors, who are nothing but tax collecting politicians arrogantly argue that since they raised prices and taxed cigarettes to new heights, people stopped smoking, and if it worked for smoking it will work for candy, juices,teas, soft drinks and other tasty items.
Now for all those people that said it was okay for the government to tax cigarettes: I would wonder how you feel now when the government steps into"your" household and tell you that if you and your family drink soft drinks, bottled teas and fruit juice and enjoy other sweet items it is going to cost you, big time.
The government is going to tax you under the guise of "it's for your own good." Do you really believe that? How far can these nanny groups and government beat that dead horse?
I submit that drinking coffee can cause you health problems? Eating bacon, ham and sausage can cause health problems? Eating any type of processed foods can cause health problems? Eating butter can cause you health problems? Fast food, ice cream or puddings (whoops, those are sweet ones) , sorry,the tax will cover those too.
I could go on and on about what can cause a health problem in an individual but I am telling you that just about anything you ingest into your body can cause a health problem. So, where will it stop. The government saddled us taxpayers with an income tax, then state and county taxes, cigarette taxes and now they want to initiate a body tax on all of us saying what we choose to put into our body should be taxed.
But hey! The government is going to tell you what's good for you. Right? Example, the feds and a number of activist groups have already pressured many schools and soft drink companies across the nation to remove soft drinks, candy and chips from the schools.I don't agree with those actions but it appears the people refuse to fight these moves.
Do you really believe that one soda or one candy bar or a small single bag of chips is the reason a person puts on weight? Sure, if the child or adult eats a dozen candy bars or drinks a dozen cans of soda at one sitting they are going to "get fat." But an occasional snack like a candy bar,chips , or soda is not the root cause.
I would suggest the schools revise their lunch programs to include the proper nutritious food combination rather than blame the child's weight increase on the occasional candy bar, chips, or soda that may be eaten during a break at school. Further,the schools should provide a proper "physical education" plan at each school and make it mandatory that each student take part in the physical education class. There is nothing like a small amount of exercise, fresh air, sunshine, and walking and/or swimming to maintain a healthy, physically fit body. I would guess it is easier for these activist groups and the Feds to point the finger and play a blame game and say that the can of soda is the problem while at the same time they are cutting out physical eduction from their curriculum saying they do not have the money to support the program.
What would be more important to you for your child? Would you rather have the child be required to get exercise and play time and have their physical fitness improved or have the school save money by cutting out such a program? It is easier for the legislators to blame soft drink manufacturers and blame the student for drinking an occasional soda or eating an occasional candy bar instead of addressing the real problem.
Not every child, college student or adult drinks dozens of cans of soda a day nor do they eat dozens of candy bars or bags of chips a day. For that child in school who is gaining weight I would say that it is the parents job to oversee their diet, exercise and health care. Why place penalties on the soft drink manufacturer and all of the other students in the school who does eat and exercise in moderation and does in fact enjoy an occasional soft drink, chips or candy bar?
Using the governments logic: Why not tell each politician in Washington that all alcoholic beverages will be removed from all restaurants and bars in and about the Capitol where they congregate because a small percentage of the lawmakers are abusing alcohol and acting unbecoming, and/or receiving DUI's, and most of all, it is bad for their health and they should be looked out after. Do you think they would go for that? They would be the first group of people to squeal to high heaven, "you can't do that." But in reality, that is what they are actually doing to the rest of us when they regulate what people put in their bodies.
I suggest that each and every person's health care should be looked at individually. What foods and drinks one puts into their body may affect one person differently than it does another. No two people are the same.
Each person's metabolism is different and handles food and drink intake differently "but" these government bureaucrats will take punitive action against you for no other reason that dinging more taxes out of you and using the excuse that 'IT'S GOOD FOR YOU."
The government says that they want to stop you from getting diabetes, heart disease, strokes, obesity, cancer,and a list of other ailments etc., but the scientific and medical community cannot say with a "medical certainty" what specific product and/or item actually may have caused the disease to rear its ugly head.
Was it the high cholesterol that cause a person to have a heart attack? Was it stress on the job that was the sole cause of that heart attack? Was it anxiety that the person felt because of financial problems in the marriage that was the sole cause of that heart attack? Or,was it the poor air quality in the city,the town or state where the person lives or was it the pollution from the automobile exhaust being spewed into the air each day? No doctor can say with medical certainty which of those separate things actually caused the person to suffer heart disease.
Another example, the doctor cannot say with" medical certainty" that smoking cigarettes and/or second hand smoke was the sole cause of anyone acquiring cancer or any other disease for that matter.
Just the few examples mentioned here in this article could be a combination of things that may include but not limited to: a person being obese, suffering diabetes, heart problems, cancer, and most any other disease.
Besides any environmental pollution, a persons food and diet and their nutritional habits and their lifestyle choices along with pesticides, chemical additives in such things as plastic water bottles and containers, cosmetics, their intake of alcohol and their ingestion of medications will all contribute to any one persons health and well being.
The list could go on, and on. There are literally thousands of products like foods, chemicals and environmental factors being used around the world that can contribute any and all illnesses a person can imagine.
What will be next and taxed? Is the government going to raise taxes on all cosmetics, soaps and other hygiene products used by everyone? They'll tell you it's for your own good. Are they going to tax everyone for driving a motor vehicle, a boat, a recreational vehicle? Are these tax hungry nannies going to raise taxes on bottled water or anything in a plastic container? They will tell you its for health reasons. Raise taxes on household products used everyday in your kitchen or bathroom? Are they going to raise taxes on your air conditioning units in your house or business because of the chemical pollution caused by the unit?
Believe it or not some lawmakers and legislators across the country have already tried to put a tax on some of the items just mentioned in the paragraph above and you can bet they will continue their misguided attempts.
People, the lawmakers can use any excuse to raise taxes on us taxpayers but their rationalization for the taxes stink. The lame argument they continually make for the tax doesn't track. This argument "it's for your own good." or, another favorite argument is "It's for the kids," are worn out phrases. They are old and tired.
Every time lawmakers, groups, and organizations who usually have an agenda for their own benefit pass an initiative or a law they usually tell the public it's only a suggestion or it's only voluntary or it will only be a temporary fix.
When the lawmakers offer those reasons I would be suspect. Why? Those taxes, laws,rules and regulations that were said to be voluntary or temporary always wind up to be a mandate.
The government clearly ignores and selectively forgets the constitution and they trample on Americans "freedom of choice."
For example:(Smoking), if there were restaurants, bars and taverns across the country that clearly posted signs indicating that they were or were not a "friendly smoking" establishment any prudent person could make an informed choice as to which place they wanted to patronize. Nonsmokers could and would go to nonsmoking establishments and smokers would go into the smoking establishments. Result: {CHOICE), the person made their own decision. Everyone would be happy and satisfied. They would have their own place to go to.
For example: (Alcohol) Each person and/or group can make up their own mind whether they want to go into an establishment such as a restaurant that serves alcohol.Result: {CHOICE), the person makes their own decision. Nonalcoholics can use restaurant that do not serve alcohol.
For example: (Fast Food) Each and every person can make the decision whether they want to drive into the drive-in for that hamburger, fried chicken, taco, etc. Result: (CHOICE), the person chooses to either go into or walk away from the establishment.
The same goes for a person eating a piece of pie, cake, ice cream, candy bar, chips, etc.,-- Result: (CHOICE). It is that persons right and clearly their "freedom of choice" to either eat that piece of pie, and whether the pie should be regular, fat free, or ala mode and making a choice without being told they have to drink a diet soda, or they can't have a milkshake unless they choose the non-fat shake which will be offered at a cheaper price.
Side Note: These tax crazy lawmakers always claim that they can raise "sin taxes" which are defined by them as tobacco, (cigarettes and cigars)and alcohol, but if you notice, these lawmakers keep alcohol off limits and have chosen to only pick on the smoking public.
Lawmakers refuse to raise taxes on beer, wine and hard booze. Why? That's easy. Many of our politicians really love their alcohol. Many may be closet alcoholics while still others are treated in rehab for their alcohol abuse. Another reason is that people across the country would raise hell.
Raising taxes on any type of alcohol is like social security's third rail in politics for the lawmaker. So, what do they do? They are going to include soft drinks, juices, teas bottled waters and sweets into the web of "sin taxes." They want to deprive every man, woman and child of the right and "free choice" to drink and eat what they want.
I would say that what a family eats either at home or out in public, is a decision that should be made by the parents of the family. It is their choice. The parents can educate their children on what should be eaten and what foods should be restricted or avoided. From my point of view, it's a family matter. The government should stay out of the business of dictating what I and my family choose to put in our body and without adding additional taxes or punitive penalties if we chose to eat or drink something the government said was "bad" for us.
There are people around the world that will always acquire diabetes, heart problems, strokes,obesity, etc., and many of those people will suffer those diseases for reasons that cannot explained.
People will live and they will all die. I have always told my patients and friends, relatives and associates that: "I believe and have always believed that a person begins to die from the moment of birth." Folks, we all are on deaths path from the moment we are born. We can't get around that fact.
I would suggest that these lawmakers who pretend that they want to "look out for our best interests" leave the train at the next station. We, the people can look out for ourselves as long as we have choices.
If a person becomes obese because they eat a full whole 12 inch pie at one sitting instead of one slice of that pie that person can make the choice and decision to stop the bad behavior and/or seek help to assist them in doing so. If a woman wants to get an abortion for reasons only known to her, that's her choice and she should be able to seek advice and assistance to help her come to her own decision. Again,"freedom of choice."
I would like to say that under the shallow and lame benign rationale of " it's best for you," or "I know best" or "protecting us" our government know-it-alls that say they represent us are very quickly usurping all rights we have as it applies to our own bodies. It's insanity. These looney tunes are the one's running our country? As the saying goes, I think it's time for the inmates to take back the asylum. Stand up folks, and say enough is enough. - And, that's my opinion. People, draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Get Rid Of Long Term Politicians And Their COLA's And Set Term Limits.
THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Recently we had Democratic Senator Dodd jump to the defense of Blumenthal, the man that lied about his military record and the guy who claimed he served in Vietnam when he "did not."
Blumenthal is running in Connecticut for the office of Senator. Now, I see his character, credibility and veracity seriously in question.
Senator Dodd is retiring after holding the Senatorial seat since 1975. Folks, that's a long, long time to hold on to a position. Some of these politicians have been in Congress for 35 and 45 years. I think that is too long for any one person to hold a political seat. Another man comes to mind. The recently defeated Arlen Specter, from Pennsylvania tried everything to hold on to his seat. Hey, the guys 80 years old and has been serving Pennsylvania for 30 years. If he had held his seat this time he would be 86 years old when his new term would expire.
I don't know about you but I think that we Americans deserve more that this kind of good ol' boy politics. As it stands today the incumbent, with their large contribution war chests beat down any newcomer that wants to serve the nation.
These well connected political incumbents have their political connections, their large contributions and self serving groups use slash and burn politics to devastate their opponent.
I believe that there are many good people out there across this country that want to serve and hate the current system of partisanship,gridlock and "got ya" politics. This situation has been festering in both parties for decades but is becomes worse every year.
Standing on the sidelines looking in I can see that there is no give and no collaboration by either of the two warring parties. Neither the Republican or the Democratic party can say they work together. I say that it is time for a change, a big change.
First, I would suggest that the people in this nation stand united and vote out all of the incumbents. They have been there too long. I suspect that these incumbents that have been holding down their political seat for 35, 40, and 45 years is more of the problem that the solution. Those old incumbents tend to blackmail, intimidate and pressure the new members to go along or lose their seat at the next election. I would suggest that actions like that are not politics but instead borders on the criminal.
I submit that we, the people ,deserve much better governing that we are receiving from these fat cats, who feel they are privileged to do anything they wish and ignore the wishes of the majority of the people in the country. As it stands now, most of these Democrats and Republicans only interest is that of building up their contributions and getting what is best for themselves and their families. These lack-luster politicians "chase the money". They go to the trough of big oil, big banks, big corporations and other deep pocket avenues while always promising access and favors in return for the large contributions. The race and chase for the money by our political leaders never end.
Many of these lawmakers in Washington have committed a myriad of crimes over the years and many have been convicted and sent to prison. Others have their hands slapped and are protected by their party bosses for the sake of holding on to a seat.
Besides getting rid of all incumbents the people of this nation should insist on term limits. There is a good argument for it but as it stands now these entrenched politicians refuse to even consider such a move. They use their large money machines to fight off all efforts but I say the time is right and it can be done if we citizens stand together.
I would submit that if all of the Congress people had a term limit of only two terms there would be no time for them to be sucked into the abyss of easy money and power and the sleazy ways of being corrupted as is happening now.
With new intelligent, motivated people, who want to serve and make a difference hoping to improve this nation and actually knowing they cannot hold on to that seat for 35,or 45 years but for only two terms would give that man or woman incentive to work for the good of the people and country and display to the people the accomplishments they made during their two terms of service.
With only a two term representative there would be no chances of the sleaze and corruption that is now politics as usual rubbing off in that short amount of time and there would be no fat, lazy, incompetent six or seven term politician using threats and intimidation to get their way.
Granted, there will be some lawmakers sent to Washington for the two years and they may bend the rules or try to get all they can get for themselves and their families but the public can have some comfort knowing that the "wanna be" bad guy or gal will be out of Washington after serving their two term stretch.
Side note: These lawmakers should not receive a "lifetime" pension for only serving two terms. It could be adjusted accordingly. This idea of Congress people giving themselves all of these fat, obscene benefits like an automatic pay raise each and every year "unless they themselves vote it down " is unwarranted. Currently their pay is $174,000.00 a year. That's a lot. To their credit they did vote down their automatic pay raise for 2010. If they did not, they would have received an increase of and additional $1600.00 a year.
These old long term politicians slyly slid that annual benefit perk into law under the cloak of darkness back in 1989 when it decided to provide itself with annual raises called: "cost-of-living adjustments." This slick, sneaky maneuver guaranteed the politicians a salary increase every year, whether they actually deserved it or not. Nice perk, huh?
I would say that allowing any employee to vote on their own pay raise would really cause any employer to scream out in agony but as it stands now these lawmakers are doing just that, as does the public employee unions across this country.
However, if this obscene law cannot be repealed and removed from the books it should be drastically revised. It would be the lesser of the many evils that these lawmakers have perpetrated on us taxpayers to enrich themselves. It could be revised so as to require that each lawmaker publicly vote on their own pay raise and that in turn would at least hold them accountable to us taxpayers and voters.
Nobody outside the Washington beltway, except the greedy public employees and their powerful union members get an automatic raise each and every year. Middle class Mr. and Mrs. America working on Main street doesn't have such a benefit, so why should our millionaire and billionaire lawmakers deserve this perk. My answer, they "shouldn't."
So, to summarize: We do not need lawmakers in Washington serving 35, 40, or 45 years and playing politics for the sole purpose of getting what they can for themselves and their family. We really need term limits in Washington. -And, that's my opinion.People,draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Recently we had Democratic Senator Dodd jump to the defense of Blumenthal, the man that lied about his military record and the guy who claimed he served in Vietnam when he "did not."
Blumenthal is running in Connecticut for the office of Senator. Now, I see his character, credibility and veracity seriously in question.
Senator Dodd is retiring after holding the Senatorial seat since 1975. Folks, that's a long, long time to hold on to a position. Some of these politicians have been in Congress for 35 and 45 years. I think that is too long for any one person to hold a political seat. Another man comes to mind. The recently defeated Arlen Specter, from Pennsylvania tried everything to hold on to his seat. Hey, the guys 80 years old and has been serving Pennsylvania for 30 years. If he had held his seat this time he would be 86 years old when his new term would expire.
I don't know about you but I think that we Americans deserve more that this kind of good ol' boy politics. As it stands today the incumbent, with their large contribution war chests beat down any newcomer that wants to serve the nation.
These well connected political incumbents have their political connections, their large contributions and self serving groups use slash and burn politics to devastate their opponent.
I believe that there are many good people out there across this country that want to serve and hate the current system of partisanship,gridlock and "got ya" politics. This situation has been festering in both parties for decades but is becomes worse every year.
Standing on the sidelines looking in I can see that there is no give and no collaboration by either of the two warring parties. Neither the Republican or the Democratic party can say they work together. I say that it is time for a change, a big change.
First, I would suggest that the people in this nation stand united and vote out all of the incumbents. They have been there too long. I suspect that these incumbents that have been holding down their political seat for 35, 40, and 45 years is more of the problem that the solution. Those old incumbents tend to blackmail, intimidate and pressure the new members to go along or lose their seat at the next election. I would suggest that actions like that are not politics but instead borders on the criminal.
I submit that we, the people ,deserve much better governing that we are receiving from these fat cats, who feel they are privileged to do anything they wish and ignore the wishes of the majority of the people in the country. As it stands now, most of these Democrats and Republicans only interest is that of building up their contributions and getting what is best for themselves and their families. These lack-luster politicians "chase the money". They go to the trough of big oil, big banks, big corporations and other deep pocket avenues while always promising access and favors in return for the large contributions. The race and chase for the money by our political leaders never end.
Many of these lawmakers in Washington have committed a myriad of crimes over the years and many have been convicted and sent to prison. Others have their hands slapped and are protected by their party bosses for the sake of holding on to a seat.
Besides getting rid of all incumbents the people of this nation should insist on term limits. There is a good argument for it but as it stands now these entrenched politicians refuse to even consider such a move. They use their large money machines to fight off all efforts but I say the time is right and it can be done if we citizens stand together.
I would submit that if all of the Congress people had a term limit of only two terms there would be no time for them to be sucked into the abyss of easy money and power and the sleazy ways of being corrupted as is happening now.
With new intelligent, motivated people, who want to serve and make a difference hoping to improve this nation and actually knowing they cannot hold on to that seat for 35,or 45 years but for only two terms would give that man or woman incentive to work for the good of the people and country and display to the people the accomplishments they made during their two terms of service.
With only a two term representative there would be no chances of the sleaze and corruption that is now politics as usual rubbing off in that short amount of time and there would be no fat, lazy, incompetent six or seven term politician using threats and intimidation to get their way.
Granted, there will be some lawmakers sent to Washington for the two years and they may bend the rules or try to get all they can get for themselves and their families but the public can have some comfort knowing that the "wanna be" bad guy or gal will be out of Washington after serving their two term stretch.
Side note: These lawmakers should not receive a "lifetime" pension for only serving two terms. It could be adjusted accordingly. This idea of Congress people giving themselves all of these fat, obscene benefits like an automatic pay raise each and every year "unless they themselves vote it down " is unwarranted. Currently their pay is $174,000.00 a year. That's a lot. To their credit they did vote down their automatic pay raise for 2010. If they did not, they would have received an increase of and additional $1600.00 a year.
These old long term politicians slyly slid that annual benefit perk into law under the cloak of darkness back in 1989 when it decided to provide itself with annual raises called: "cost-of-living adjustments." This slick, sneaky maneuver guaranteed the politicians a salary increase every year, whether they actually deserved it or not. Nice perk, huh?
I would say that allowing any employee to vote on their own pay raise would really cause any employer to scream out in agony but as it stands now these lawmakers are doing just that, as does the public employee unions across this country.
However, if this obscene law cannot be repealed and removed from the books it should be drastically revised. It would be the lesser of the many evils that these lawmakers have perpetrated on us taxpayers to enrich themselves. It could be revised so as to require that each lawmaker publicly vote on their own pay raise and that in turn would at least hold them accountable to us taxpayers and voters.
Nobody outside the Washington beltway, except the greedy public employees and their powerful union members get an automatic raise each and every year. Middle class Mr. and Mrs. America working on Main street doesn't have such a benefit, so why should our millionaire and billionaire lawmakers deserve this perk. My answer, they "shouldn't."
So, to summarize: We do not need lawmakers in Washington serving 35, 40, or 45 years and playing politics for the sole purpose of getting what they can for themselves and their family. We really need term limits in Washington. -And, that's my opinion.People,draw your own conclusions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)