DURHAM- THE POLICE FAILED AGAIN. THE STATUES SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Again, law enforcement fails to act, in a timely manner. After a Confederate statue that was dedicated in 1924, in front of the old courthouse in Durham , an unruly and civil disobedient crowd of demonstrators toppled the statue with a rope, and erupted in cheers as the historic statue fell to the ground. After the statue was brought down, law enforcement officials went on television and stated --(paraphrased) "Don't blame our inaction by not acting." Then Durham County Sheriff Mike Andrews said county leaders and officials "discussed safety measures and decided restraint and public safety was the priority." What? That's a joke. I would think arresting people that were destroying public property and causing significant property damage would be the priority.
And, get this--the Durham police said they didn't arrest anyone because the statue was on county property. Talking about passing the buck and playing the blame game, this bunch of keystone cops take the cake.
I would think before it got to the point of individuals roping and pulling the statue off it's foundation the local Durham police officers and/or the sheriff's officers would have intervened and told the crowd to disburse --I would assume that the people climbing on and off the statute and tying and pulling on a rope were at least trespassing. Don't you think! And when the statue was pulled to the ground and kicked and beaten with clubs, those acts would constitute. maybe,--destroying public property. I believe any five year old could see that. But it's getting to be a habit where we see it happening again and again, Law enforcement officers stand around like a bunch of dumb bunnies with their thumb in the mouth.
Any reasonable prudent person, besides a law enforcement officer could see that a crime was being committed. But like in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Charlottesville, and Berkeley, law enforcement chooses to stand down, which I see as a blatant act of political correct policy.
Folks, police departments, sheriff departments and other law enforcement agencies are there to "protect and serve." But if they cannot protect even a cold piece of metal or marble from being torn apart and decide to serve the residents by arresting the criminals committing the a crime--what is really their mission in life?
I believe that orders to stand down actually causes more disobedience than it stops. I say that if local Durham police saw a crime being committed they should have arrested the perpetrators, then and there. However, it seems they chose to use the excuse that the crime was being committed on county property --and it wasn't there problem. Wow! Then why not immediately contact the sheriff department and have sheriff deputies respond and make. arrests? I suggest that if officers and/or deputies arrested the bad guys at the time the crime was being committed and haul them off, ad ordered the crowd to disperse and go home--the rest of the losers in the mob would have probably complied and left the area.
Clearly, the police or sheriff departments across the country should not only respond "after the fact." But recent developments regarding groups and crowds seem to bear that policy out. In many cases the officers stand by and "observe" and watch people commit acts of violence, assaults, arson, and a host of other crimes, but refuse to act. It makes a person wonder why? And, it's not a comforting feeling when you hear some of the officers say, "I don't want to get hurt." Personally, in many situations I do not think law enforcement is enforcing the law -- they're condoning it, as they stand around and let it happen. I suggest the officers take the criminals into custody as they are breaking the law. Law enforcement should not wait to view video of the mob of people and say: "We will look at the video and see if we can identify the people that did the crime. I think the cops are coming up a day late, and a dollar short, by ignoring what is playing out right before their eyes.
It's a sad day for Durham, just like in all the other cities and campuses that allow crimes to occur in plain sight and ignore it.
After the Charlottesville incident the city of Baltimore, under the cloak of darkness, took down at least four statues. That act was like a secret police mission by a third world country. Instead of allowing residents to interject their input or debate the issue in the cleansing light of sunshine--the city fathers chose to take it on themselves, and like thieves in the night, they removed the statues. That to me, is a dangerous precedent to set.
I see the removal of these statues and monuments as a road a civilized country doesn't want to travel. For those that want to judge history through a binocular lens turned backward can prove to be a dangerous move. Even though there are those individuals and groups who's quest is to erase history, by destroying statues will not eliminate what happened.
I see history as a persons actions and deeds performed at any particular time. That's what makes history. For example . one can't compare what actions and deeds were done way back in 1864, and those actions and deeds done in 1964. I submit that we, as a nation, cannot abolish our past (that's history.) I propose we "honor" the past. Come on! The past is not the present. And for these groups, individuals, and lawmakers that think they can alter and change the past, they should remember that what they are doing now "in the present", will be the past, in the blink of an eye, and their acts and deeds will be part of history for future generations. In 10,20,50 years from now their present conduct, actions and deeds will be remnants of the past. Folks, the past is the past--it's history; the present will be the pas; and our future is what we retain of the past as we move on.
So, I ask you? What are these Holier than Thou, I know what's best for you, (history erasers), going to do then? Where does it stop?
One of my biggest fears is that: Erasing the past has happened before. It happened in Russia, Iraq, Germany and Syria, just to name a few places. Theses countries governments, and different groups in the countries tore down statues and destroyed sacred and historical monuments from their past. The statutes and monuments were reduced to rubble. I suggest we in America are better than that. Even some countries disagreed with what their people were reading in books. So they gathered up various book titles and held large book burning fires in the streets. And now, a few days after the Charlottesville incident, we have the reported professional agitator, the controversial Al Sharpton, who went on television, screaming for the removal of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial. Others want George Washington's name removed from buildings. These times are becoming insane.
I would like to suggest that we Americans hold onto and keep our past. It's history. What happened, happened. Why not leave the statues where they are? Fact is, it would not be difficult to add some sort of context and explanation to these statues.
If it is the Confederate statues that are offending some people in our society at this point in time I believe proper context would explain the statues existence. I would also like to offer a reasonable solution and suggest that lawmakers erect new statutes and monuments that would signify specific and well known sites of slavery and lynching areas that occurred during the civil war and/or to those black military men and officers that served so that both sides of the Confederate conflict could be understood. -- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Friday, August 18, 2017
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
TRUMP BASHING NEVER LET UP, EVEN FOR A MINUTE. THAT'S SAD.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Can you believe the backlash over president Trump's remarks regarding the Charlottesville, VA rally?
Yesterday, president Trump held a press conference at Trump Tower and explained his initial remarks he made shortly following the riots and carnage in Charlottesville. But still, that wasn't good enough for the press.
It appears that whatever the president says, the press twists and manipulate his words and statements to be put in a negative light. And the media wonders why the president is frustrated with their coverage. Really?
I would estimate that ninety percent of any articles published in many newspapers or stories of president Trump on major news and cable networks is negative. I have yet to see major news organizations report on the accomplishments that the president has made during his first eight months in office. That's sad. It only show the total bias of the media and where they are at today.
I would bet that if president Trump announced tomorrow that he had come up with a cure for cancer --the major news networks and newspapers, and his detractors. many in his own party would snub their nose and say, " That's not good enough. You should have come up with the cure five months earlier." They continue to take the president's words and statements out of context. These people will never be satisfied with anything president Trump says. Even those in his own party like Senator Cory Garner, from Colorado, when asked, said: "The president was wrong." Or McConnell and Senator Dean Heller from Nevada, and senators Jeff Flake and John McCain from Arizona, along with McCain's attached at the hip colleague, Lindsey Graham , all turned away and distanced themselves form the president and ran as fast as they could like a bunch of scared rabbits.
In addition to the intentional, unfair and bad media coverage toward the president it's obvious that the opposing political party, the Democrats and numerous Democrat hold overs that are currently employed in the federal government will take every opportunity to resist the president. There are also the RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) in his own party that have the long knives out for him. These RINO's want to keep everything as it was before Trump was elected president. They do not want change in Washington. These RINO's do not want Trump to turn Washington upside
down. They are in the camp of wanting to destroy the president.
Finally, we have the "deep state"thwarting the president. This deep state are those in government service who are employed in the Justice Department, the State Department and the various Intelligence agencies that personally disagree with president Trumps polices and agendas. These bad players take it on themselves to leak sensitive, classified and sometimes top secret information in an attempt to hurt the president.
Folks, the Democratic party, the news media, who is in bed with the Democratic party, the RINO's and the deep state criminals just cannot stand the fact that president Trump won the election and sits in the oval office. Face it, the Democrats and these misfits cannot get over it. "Trump is president."
These groups have pushed the Russia, Russia, Russia idea for months. That fizzled out. Then is was the "Lets impeach Trump," sniveling from the Democratic party. That didn't go anyplace. Now it is "Lets get Trump, no Matter What." There is a constant daily barrage of trivial, petty, scathing attacks against the president from these groups mentioned previously that want to bring him down. They actually want to drive him from office. They will say and do anything to tarnish president Trump's image, reputation, and credibility on the world stage. These groups are intent on conducting a massive disinformation campaign the president.
I hope the president continues on his path of "Making America Great" I would suggest that he continues to do all of those good things he is currently doing for country (that the media never covers). I suggest he does the infrastructure; build the wall; get the tax plan up and running, and yes, do heath care again.
I predict that in the upcoming mid-elections there will be more Republicans put into congress. With that , I would like to think those newly elected Republicans will totally support the presidents agenda and pass the bills that the president wants to sign. I would like to see the newly elected Republicans out number those incompetent, lazy, RINO's whose agenda is to bring down the president. At the same time I would like to suggest to the Republican party voters across America to deep six and vote the RINOs out of office when they stand for reelection. Who needs them --they do nothing but hurt the party and hurt the American people as a whole by constantly stopping all of the promised legislation that was intended to help every working man and woman and teen across the country.
My final analysis: If the Democratic party, the news media, the deep state, and RINO's thought they went crazy and off the deep end when president Trump was elected this time around, imagine what's going to happen when president Trump is REELECTED for his second term. Wow! These groups will, really have a meltdown. I predict president Trump will be reelected and I can't wait to hear the sobs, crying, and sniveling coming from these same people trying to explain and rationalize how president Trump could do the same thing again. -- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions., You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, :Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Monday, August 14, 2017
ABUSE, AND NEGLECT OF THE ELDERLY, DISABLED, AND THE VULNERABLE. A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
There is a call for a federal investigation into caregivers and nursing homes and health care providers that care for the elderly and disabled. The probe is long over due. Last Thursday, the AP published a story laying out the need for the federal investigation. The AP wrote that it is often much easier to find health and safety information for local restaurants than it is to learn about conditions at facilities serving at least 1 million of New York states vulnerable residents. And, that 1 million people the AP wrote about are just in New York. If you multiply that figure by millions, and millions more people in all fifty states being forgotten, you have the tip of an iceberg.
The AP cited the case of just one individual, 41-year-old. Steven Wenger who was twice found to have maggots crawling around his breathing tube in a state-owned and operated small group home in Rome, New York. Mr. Wenger cannot walk, , talk, or even feed himself, a result of severe brain trauma in a horrific 1991 car crash.
One would wonder where the state of New York's Health Department was in Wenger's case. It's sad that the Health Department and state health services people allow the most vulnerable (the elderly, the disabled, and children) be treated like they don't exist and are less than worthless. And New York is not alone in dishing out this poor treatment. I would suggest that the feds look at all of the states across the country.. I call on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service to investigate each and every group home; nursing home; assisted living facility and skilled nursing home throughout the nation. This poor, inhumane treatment, this abuse has got to stop.
It's frightening that the sick, the disabled, the frail, vulnerable adults and children that have to depend on others for care are hidden and locked away, out of sight as a forgotten segment of society. What is the old saying? "Out of sight, out of mind."
I'm tired of hearing the same old excuses given by the health care community and other departments as Welfare, Social Services and Child Services. They always fall back on the same excuses and rationalizations for their incompetent, inept treatment of the individuals they are charged to care for. Those excuses heard over and over again: "We are understaffed," "We don't have the funds or money," and "We have large caseloads, the case load is too big for each worker." Truth is, many are just lazy workers, they look for shortcuts to get through to the end if the day. Many do not have compassion,or empathy for the elderly, the disabled, and the children's plight or circumstance. Many of the worker's assigned to look out for the well-being of these frail, needy people choose to ignore them. -- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, August 13, 2017
OHIO CREMATORY TREATS THE DEAD WITH OBSCENE DISGUST.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Can you believe this? It's about time the state of Ohio did something.
Situation: A crematory had rotting bodies laying around. Several unrefrigerated bodies were found decomposing. There was at least one body completely covered in mold. Another body had begun to mummify, and still another was being eaten by maggots.
Finally, the Ohio State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors voted to suspend the license of Premium Mortuary Services in Carlisle.
Mt question is: Why just suspend the mortuary license? I would think these type of actions by a mortuary would demand that the license be revoked. Some people might think that the owners and operators of a mortuary service treating the dead in this manner should be prevented from being involved in any funeral service endeavor now, or in the future, in the state of Ohio, or any other state. -- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decision. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
DON'T BLAME PRESIDENT TRUMP. THERE'S PLENTY OF BLAME TO GO AROUND ON THE CHARLOTTESVILLE SITUATION.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
This is a dark Saturday. A rally in Charlottesville. VA, turned violent. At the time of this writing , one woman is dead, run over by a car, driven by a hateful driver, from Ohio, who apparently was a participant in the violent confrontation in the streets of Charlottesville. There are also approximately 20 people injured, six in critical condition, and two law enforcement officers killed. A tragic day indeed.
President, Donald Trump came out with a strong statement condemning the violence in the city. He said such things as: (paraprhrased)- "Hate and division must stop right now." He condemned the violence in the strongest terms. President Trump said: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides."
Note: Republicans snipe and criticize the president:
The president made mention that the violence which occurred in Charlottesville was caused by many sides,-- Note: (which is a true and factual statement). But following the presidents statements, a number of talking heads from CNN and the left started to dump on, and take swipes, at the president saying the presidents statements were "not" strong enough. Then, some of the presidents own Republican party, like Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Marco Rubio (R-Florida), decided to pile on and snipe and take swipes at president Trump.
Senators Hatch and Rubio, were two Republicans that wanted to be president but couldn't cut it, and never made the grade . I am a great believer in speech and acknowledge that in America everyone has a right to speak out and say what they want. So I say to all of these people that are criticizing the president and telling others what the president "should have said," these individuals should just say what they themselves think about the situation,without taking shots at what the president "should have, or should not have said." And then move on. It's easy to "Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda,, when you're looking for face time on the news.
The president made his statement which he though was appropriate, which was based on the facts that he had at the time. He doesn't need petty back-biting from sore losers in his own party. If these Republicans wanted to give their own statements which they think should be more presidential, they should have had the strength and stamina to win the White House through the election process .Then they could have offered their statement as POTUS.
It's frustrating to see senators in president Trumps own party take unwarranted swipes at their commander-in-chief. It's expected from the Democrats and news media like CNN,and MSNBC, but fellow Republicans? Shame on them.
It seems president Trump is up against the Democrats, the fake news media, a deep entrenched group within the current government -"the deep state," and those in his own party, "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only),who are constantly bombarding president Trump with roadblocks, insults, lack of cooperation, etc.--
It's to the point where president Trump is "damned if he does, and damned he he don't." Nobody wants to give the president a break.
Folks, it is a fact, just as president Trump made mention -- fault can be laid at "many sides." You had the protesters "Unite the Right" who filed for the permits for the rally, on one side. And then you had the "counter-protesters" on the other side, who showed up without obtaining a permit . And it was clear to anyone watching the television news throughout the day that both sides were combative, violent and in riot mode. Punches, fist and kicks were being tossed around by both sides. So, as disgusting as a "white nationalist" group may seem, it was not only that group of individuals who were committing violence. The "counter-protesters"instigated and took offensive action against the protesters. People, this rally can be compared to the "gangs of New York", and/or the "union busting gangs" back in the early part of the century, One group carrying clubs, baseball bats, torches, tire irons, and rocks, and bottles. They would line the street and the other side, (the other gang, or union busters) would line up facing them. They would being shouting at each other and scream, "let's rumble", then clash, maiming, wounding, and even killing one another.
This rally was no different. Each side lined up, shouting at each other and wound up causing injury, mayhem, and murder.
Note: Governor Terry McAuliffee:
What perplexes me is governor Terry McAuliffe. He said he was prepared for this confrontation . He said the city and state police practiced for such an event. Are you kidding me? If he was prepared the city would not have allowed the situation get out of control to the point of assaults and murder. The governor also went before the cameras and blamed only the protesters. But he failed to fault the "counter-protesters."
McAuliffe, like me, and many other Americans in this country do not agree with the vile, hateful views of the "Unite for Right" group. But he stood there and said: "Get out of my state." What? The governor ordering American citizens out of the sate of Virginia? Wow! My point: This showboat governor cannot order American citizens out of his state --"just because he doesn't like what they say, or doesn't like their views." Remember the constitution governor. It's there for a reason. You shouldn't act like one of the radical counter-protester groups.
Governor, what you and your fellow lawmakers should have done was allow the group to spout off, say their piece, march down the street and leave. But you should not get down in the gutter, taking sides -- that would be no better than one of the counter protesters trying to shut the other side down. If you believe in free speech, let it flow.
McAuliffe and the city lawmakers were aware that a confrontation between different factions were eminent. A week or two before the rally took place the threat of possible violence and confrontation was voiced over and over again, both on the air and the world wide web.
I submit that the governor had more than sufficient time to "activate and deploy" the National Guard , under orders to act as a protector of both side (protesters and counter-protesters). It's a dumb move to activate the guard and then not deploy them. Without the deployment of the guard, it's like the guard not being activated at all. That's an exercise in futility. I further submit that if, in fact, the guard had "deployed, it's a reasonable possibility that the fatalities may not have occurred.
Let's review: The white nationalists, "Unite the Right" filed for a permit to demonstrate. The city, county, and state knew what this organization represented. Both the city an state had ample opportunity to "deny" the permit, but they did not. The lawmakers in the city, along with at least one judge gave the known hate group their blessing, and invited them to protest.The same state and city officials knew for certain that "counter-protesters" would show up to the rally. What did they really expect?
If the city and state wanted to have control over the protest: First, before issuing the permit to protest, the lawmakers could have met with the leaders of the protest group, where at that time, could have clearly set up parameters as to where and how the protesters could air their grievances. The city could have set up boundaries and protocols which the protesters were expected to adhere to, with the understanding and stipulation that if any of the boundaries, rules and regulation were violated in any way, the protest would "immediately" be shut down, and canceled."
Second: Prior to the start of the rally the city should have advised the "counter-protesters," many belonging to "Black Lives Matter" and "leftist fascist" groups which included the violent "antifa" mob who was armed and intent on violence, that violence against the protesters is forbidden. The city should have set up specific lines for the counter-protesters to stand behind. There could have been areas indicated where the counter-protesters would be prohibited from crossing. They should have been told that if they crossed the line they would "immediately" be arrested. Free speech is great. It should be exercised. And, I believe that if the National guard and the law enforcement had been "deployed" and stationed accordingly prior to the start of the march, both the protesters and counter-protesters would have adhered to the rules. It is very obvious that there was no substantial pre-planning for this rally.
Note: My Personal Views
Personally, I do not agree with the views of any White Power group, the KKK or Nazi organization. I do not agree with the views of Leftist fascist groups or the Black Lives Matter group either, even though this group was invited to the White House and praised by both president Obama and Hillary Clinton. I consider myself something of an American patriot. I served my country in the Marine Corps. I strongly believe in the flag, the American way, God and country, and the constitution.
That said,
1. I again remind everyone that the "Unite for Right" White Nationalist group, who matched on Saturday, obtained a legal permit to march, courtesy of the lawmakers in the city and state of Virginia.
2. The group exercised their right to Free Speech, by obtaining all the legal permits required. And folks, you and I, may not like the content of their speech or views they hold. But they have an absolute and constitutional right to voice them.
3. As American's we have the obligation to defend and show respect for the constitutional right to free speech toward all of those with whom we disagree. I submit that if we don't do that we cannot expect those groups or individuals to respect our constitutional right to free speech.
If the city would have taken the proper steps to make sure both the protesters and the counter-protesters were on the same page and both groups understood the rules before commencing the rally, the chance of violence would probably be small. Once both sides understood the rules, and the rally started, protesters and the counter-protesters could scream, shout, yell, use profanity, shake their fists, display their signs and flags against one another until the cows came home. That's free speech. Then disperse and go home.
BUT, it appears like in the cities of Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore and the protests at Berkeley campus, where law enforcement did not intercede at the start of violence, there were fires set, property damage done, and physical assaults were committed. Things like that shouldn't have happened but the politically correct lawmakers and city administrators advised their police to hold back, stand down. At what point does the police intervene. When the police see either a protester or a counter -protester throw a punch, a fist, or assault someone, that person should be taken into custody and arrested on the spot. I don't care if it's one person, two people, or a group. If they begin to assault one another, they should be arrested, -- no if's, and, or buts about it. But handcuffing good law enforcement people and not allowing them to do their police duties is a slap in the face for the hard working officers around the country. How many people (protesters and counter-protesters) have to be be pushed, punched, and assaulted before the police officer can step in and arrest someone?
The sad part of this tragedy is that the police,who was fully geared up with protective gear, face masks, and shields, lined up and stood by (without intervening), like a bunch of tin soldiers as the protesters and counter-protesters began to escalate the dangerous situation. Even as the officers observed the two combative groups using make shift weapons and physical violence against each other, they still stood by, "doing nothing." And, as a reporter stated, when the protesters began throwing tear gas at each other, the police officers retreated and left the area. When the reporter asked a few of the officers why they were leaving, their response was, "We don't want to get hurt."
Can you believe it? The police retreating from a situation where they could have stopped the violence from the get-go. If the city political correct administrators told the police to stand down, that's unacceptable, and a sad day in the history of law enforcement. On the other hand, if the officers were not ordered to stand down but made the decision to retreat of their own volition to a safe place, that is a serious problem. I can understand why the National Guard had to be called in on on a state of emergency stance. The locals could not or would not control the situation.
In a few instances over the last few decades I have observed the failure of police failing to act in a timely manner. The Columbine High School tragedy comes to mind. In that case the police was on the scene for hours but they waited outside the high school, refusing to go inside, even while at least one teacher was pleading and begging for help. Apparently some officers told the media that they didn't know what to expect inside the school and they didn't want to risk their lives. It's reported that the teacher eventually bled to death. Basically, the same situation occurred during the recent Berkeley campus riots. Protester's were throwing metal barricades and chairs through glass windows, and setting fires, but the police stood down. They just stood by watching the scene unfold. When some of them were asked why they did not intervene to quell the riot. Some said, they did not want to be hurt. Sometimes I think the police should take a page from their firefighting brothers playbook. The fireman always run toward and into the fire. Not away.
In Charlottesville, it appears some of the protesters and counter-protesters showed up at the rally with shields, clubs, the size of baseball bats, spears, etc., --why did the city allow that? It's obvious that if there was to be a peaceful protest rally, it could be done without clubs and protective shields. The city could, and should have banned such things prior to the start of the rally. The participants on both sides could have been ordered to surrender their make shift weapons to law enforcement prior to commencement of the rally. If they refused,those individual(s) could have been ordered to leave the rally area. Keep in mind the city had at least one month to organize and set the rally policy, but chose not to.
Proper barricades between protesters and counter-protesters should have been strictly defined . If the city of Charlottesville knew they did not have enough city police to have strict control of the crowd, they could have arranged to have an additional law enforcement presence from the county and/or state prior to the protest commencing. The city didn't do that. They lost control and then had to call a state of emergency, calling up the National Guard. It appears quite a few things were done, BUT only after the fact in this situation.
My question: Why did the city of Charlottesville issue a permit for this rally in the first pace? There is no doubt that the lawmakers in the city and the judge(s) knew counter-protesters would show up at a rally such as this. The lawmakers had sufficient time to consider the ramifications that might occur in allowing such a rally to take place in their city. The template had already been set, with the cities of Ferguson, Baltimore, and the Berkeley campus riots. So what would make Charlottesville politicos think they could handle a rally like this without setting strict and enforceable ground rules (with both sides, "Unite for Right" and counter-protesters) prior to the rally; having sufficient law enforcement presence on hand prior to the rally; and allowing the local and state police to enforce those rules and laws at the first inkling of trouble --arresting each and every violator.
Finally, there's enough blame to go around in this Charlottesville fiasco. The Governor of Virginia should not point fingers at just one group, nor should he and other lawmakers imply or insinuate in any way, shape, or form, that president Trump's elevation to the oval office allowed this rally to happen. For those that forgot, I remind you that this rally was asked for by this White Nationalist group to protest the removal of the Confederate statute of Robert E. Lee. I see many people responsible here. We have the hate group, "Unite For Right,"; the battling counter-demonstrators -"Black Lives Matter and leftist fascists"; the city council, the mayor and city fathers, and the judge in Charlottesville who reviewed and had a say in issuing the rally permit. All of these people have to share in the chaos, the death and destruction that occurred on this fatal Saturday, in August. And I suggest that the Mayor, the City Council and the Police Chief have a lot to answer for.-- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions, You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
This is a dark Saturday. A rally in Charlottesville. VA, turned violent. At the time of this writing , one woman is dead, run over by a car, driven by a hateful driver, from Ohio, who apparently was a participant in the violent confrontation in the streets of Charlottesville. There are also approximately 20 people injured, six in critical condition, and two law enforcement officers killed. A tragic day indeed.
President, Donald Trump came out with a strong statement condemning the violence in the city. He said such things as: (paraprhrased)- "Hate and division must stop right now." He condemned the violence in the strongest terms. President Trump said: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides."
Note: Republicans snipe and criticize the president:
The president made mention that the violence which occurred in Charlottesville was caused by many sides,-- Note: (which is a true and factual statement). But following the presidents statements, a number of talking heads from CNN and the left started to dump on, and take swipes, at the president saying the presidents statements were "not" strong enough. Then, some of the presidents own Republican party, like Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Marco Rubio (R-Florida), decided to pile on and snipe and take swipes at president Trump.
Senators Hatch and Rubio, were two Republicans that wanted to be president but couldn't cut it, and never made the grade . I am a great believer in speech and acknowledge that in America everyone has a right to speak out and say what they want. So I say to all of these people that are criticizing the president and telling others what the president "should have said," these individuals should just say what they themselves think about the situation,without taking shots at what the president "should have, or should not have said." And then move on. It's easy to "Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda,, when you're looking for face time on the news.
The president made his statement which he though was appropriate, which was based on the facts that he had at the time. He doesn't need petty back-biting from sore losers in his own party. If these Republicans wanted to give their own statements which they think should be more presidential, they should have had the strength and stamina to win the White House through the election process .Then they could have offered their statement as POTUS.
It's frustrating to see senators in president Trumps own party take unwarranted swipes at their commander-in-chief. It's expected from the Democrats and news media like CNN,and MSNBC, but fellow Republicans? Shame on them.
It seems president Trump is up against the Democrats, the fake news media, a deep entrenched group within the current government -"the deep state," and those in his own party, "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only),who are constantly bombarding president Trump with roadblocks, insults, lack of cooperation, etc.--
It's to the point where president Trump is "damned if he does, and damned he he don't." Nobody wants to give the president a break.
Folks, it is a fact, just as president Trump made mention -- fault can be laid at "many sides." You had the protesters "Unite the Right" who filed for the permits for the rally, on one side. And then you had the "counter-protesters" on the other side, who showed up without obtaining a permit . And it was clear to anyone watching the television news throughout the day that both sides were combative, violent and in riot mode. Punches, fist and kicks were being tossed around by both sides. So, as disgusting as a "white nationalist" group may seem, it was not only that group of individuals who were committing violence. The "counter-protesters"instigated and took offensive action against the protesters. People, this rally can be compared to the "gangs of New York", and/or the "union busting gangs" back in the early part of the century, One group carrying clubs, baseball bats, torches, tire irons, and rocks, and bottles. They would line the street and the other side, (the other gang, or union busters) would line up facing them. They would being shouting at each other and scream, "let's rumble", then clash, maiming, wounding, and even killing one another.
This rally was no different. Each side lined up, shouting at each other and wound up causing injury, mayhem, and murder.
Note: Governor Terry McAuliffee:
What perplexes me is governor Terry McAuliffe. He said he was prepared for this confrontation . He said the city and state police practiced for such an event. Are you kidding me? If he was prepared the city would not have allowed the situation get out of control to the point of assaults and murder. The governor also went before the cameras and blamed only the protesters. But he failed to fault the "counter-protesters."
McAuliffe, like me, and many other Americans in this country do not agree with the vile, hateful views of the "Unite for Right" group. But he stood there and said: "Get out of my state." What? The governor ordering American citizens out of the sate of Virginia? Wow! My point: This showboat governor cannot order American citizens out of his state --"just because he doesn't like what they say, or doesn't like their views." Remember the constitution governor. It's there for a reason. You shouldn't act like one of the radical counter-protester groups.
Governor, what you and your fellow lawmakers should have done was allow the group to spout off, say their piece, march down the street and leave. But you should not get down in the gutter, taking sides -- that would be no better than one of the counter protesters trying to shut the other side down. If you believe in free speech, let it flow.
McAuliffe and the city lawmakers were aware that a confrontation between different factions were eminent. A week or two before the rally took place the threat of possible violence and confrontation was voiced over and over again, both on the air and the world wide web.
I submit that the governor had more than sufficient time to "activate and deploy" the National Guard , under orders to act as a protector of both side (protesters and counter-protesters). It's a dumb move to activate the guard and then not deploy them. Without the deployment of the guard, it's like the guard not being activated at all. That's an exercise in futility. I further submit that if, in fact, the guard had "deployed, it's a reasonable possibility that the fatalities may not have occurred.
Let's review: The white nationalists, "Unite the Right" filed for a permit to demonstrate. The city, county, and state knew what this organization represented. Both the city an state had ample opportunity to "deny" the permit, but they did not. The lawmakers in the city, along with at least one judge gave the known hate group their blessing, and invited them to protest.The same state and city officials knew for certain that "counter-protesters" would show up to the rally. What did they really expect?
If the city and state wanted to have control over the protest: First, before issuing the permit to protest, the lawmakers could have met with the leaders of the protest group, where at that time, could have clearly set up parameters as to where and how the protesters could air their grievances. The city could have set up boundaries and protocols which the protesters were expected to adhere to, with the understanding and stipulation that if any of the boundaries, rules and regulation were violated in any way, the protest would "immediately" be shut down, and canceled."
Second: Prior to the start of the rally the city should have advised the "counter-protesters," many belonging to "Black Lives Matter" and "leftist fascist" groups which included the violent "antifa" mob who was armed and intent on violence, that violence against the protesters is forbidden. The city should have set up specific lines for the counter-protesters to stand behind. There could have been areas indicated where the counter-protesters would be prohibited from crossing. They should have been told that if they crossed the line they would "immediately" be arrested. Free speech is great. It should be exercised. And, I believe that if the National guard and the law enforcement had been "deployed" and stationed accordingly prior to the start of the march, both the protesters and counter-protesters would have adhered to the rules. It is very obvious that there was no substantial pre-planning for this rally.
Note: My Personal Views
Personally, I do not agree with the views of any White Power group, the KKK or Nazi organization. I do not agree with the views of Leftist fascist groups or the Black Lives Matter group either, even though this group was invited to the White House and praised by both president Obama and Hillary Clinton. I consider myself something of an American patriot. I served my country in the Marine Corps. I strongly believe in the flag, the American way, God and country, and the constitution.
That said,
1. I again remind everyone that the "Unite for Right" White Nationalist group, who matched on Saturday, obtained a legal permit to march, courtesy of the lawmakers in the city and state of Virginia.
2. The group exercised their right to Free Speech, by obtaining all the legal permits required. And folks, you and I, may not like the content of their speech or views they hold. But they have an absolute and constitutional right to voice them.
3. As American's we have the obligation to defend and show respect for the constitutional right to free speech toward all of those with whom we disagree. I submit that if we don't do that we cannot expect those groups or individuals to respect our constitutional right to free speech.
If the city would have taken the proper steps to make sure both the protesters and the counter-protesters were on the same page and both groups understood the rules before commencing the rally, the chance of violence would probably be small. Once both sides understood the rules, and the rally started, protesters and the counter-protesters could scream, shout, yell, use profanity, shake their fists, display their signs and flags against one another until the cows came home. That's free speech. Then disperse and go home.
BUT, it appears like in the cities of Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore and the protests at Berkeley campus, where law enforcement did not intercede at the start of violence, there were fires set, property damage done, and physical assaults were committed. Things like that shouldn't have happened but the politically correct lawmakers and city administrators advised their police to hold back, stand down. At what point does the police intervene. When the police see either a protester or a counter -protester throw a punch, a fist, or assault someone, that person should be taken into custody and arrested on the spot. I don't care if it's one person, two people, or a group. If they begin to assault one another, they should be arrested, -- no if's, and, or buts about it. But handcuffing good law enforcement people and not allowing them to do their police duties is a slap in the face for the hard working officers around the country. How many people (protesters and counter-protesters) have to be be pushed, punched, and assaulted before the police officer can step in and arrest someone?
The sad part of this tragedy is that the police,who was fully geared up with protective gear, face masks, and shields, lined up and stood by (without intervening), like a bunch of tin soldiers as the protesters and counter-protesters began to escalate the dangerous situation. Even as the officers observed the two combative groups using make shift weapons and physical violence against each other, they still stood by, "doing nothing." And, as a reporter stated, when the protesters began throwing tear gas at each other, the police officers retreated and left the area. When the reporter asked a few of the officers why they were leaving, their response was, "We don't want to get hurt."
Can you believe it? The police retreating from a situation where they could have stopped the violence from the get-go. If the city political correct administrators told the police to stand down, that's unacceptable, and a sad day in the history of law enforcement. On the other hand, if the officers were not ordered to stand down but made the decision to retreat of their own volition to a safe place, that is a serious problem. I can understand why the National Guard had to be called in on on a state of emergency stance. The locals could not or would not control the situation.
In a few instances over the last few decades I have observed the failure of police failing to act in a timely manner. The Columbine High School tragedy comes to mind. In that case the police was on the scene for hours but they waited outside the high school, refusing to go inside, even while at least one teacher was pleading and begging for help. Apparently some officers told the media that they didn't know what to expect inside the school and they didn't want to risk their lives. It's reported that the teacher eventually bled to death. Basically, the same situation occurred during the recent Berkeley campus riots. Protester's were throwing metal barricades and chairs through glass windows, and setting fires, but the police stood down. They just stood by watching the scene unfold. When some of them were asked why they did not intervene to quell the riot. Some said, they did not want to be hurt. Sometimes I think the police should take a page from their firefighting brothers playbook. The fireman always run toward and into the fire. Not away.
In Charlottesville, it appears some of the protesters and counter-protesters showed up at the rally with shields, clubs, the size of baseball bats, spears, etc., --why did the city allow that? It's obvious that if there was to be a peaceful protest rally, it could be done without clubs and protective shields. The city could, and should have banned such things prior to the start of the rally. The participants on both sides could have been ordered to surrender their make shift weapons to law enforcement prior to commencement of the rally. If they refused,those individual(s) could have been ordered to leave the rally area. Keep in mind the city had at least one month to organize and set the rally policy, but chose not to.
Proper barricades between protesters and counter-protesters should have been strictly defined . If the city of Charlottesville knew they did not have enough city police to have strict control of the crowd, they could have arranged to have an additional law enforcement presence from the county and/or state prior to the protest commencing. The city didn't do that. They lost control and then had to call a state of emergency, calling up the National Guard. It appears quite a few things were done, BUT only after the fact in this situation.
My question: Why did the city of Charlottesville issue a permit for this rally in the first pace? There is no doubt that the lawmakers in the city and the judge(s) knew counter-protesters would show up at a rally such as this. The lawmakers had sufficient time to consider the ramifications that might occur in allowing such a rally to take place in their city. The template had already been set, with the cities of Ferguson, Baltimore, and the Berkeley campus riots. So what would make Charlottesville politicos think they could handle a rally like this without setting strict and enforceable ground rules (with both sides, "Unite for Right" and counter-protesters) prior to the rally; having sufficient law enforcement presence on hand prior to the rally; and allowing the local and state police to enforce those rules and laws at the first inkling of trouble --arresting each and every violator.
Finally, there's enough blame to go around in this Charlottesville fiasco. The Governor of Virginia should not point fingers at just one group, nor should he and other lawmakers imply or insinuate in any way, shape, or form, that president Trump's elevation to the oval office allowed this rally to happen. For those that forgot, I remind you that this rally was asked for by this White Nationalist group to protest the removal of the Confederate statute of Robert E. Lee. I see many people responsible here. We have the hate group, "Unite For Right,"; the battling counter-demonstrators -"Black Lives Matter and leftist fascists"; the city council, the mayor and city fathers, and the judge in Charlottesville who reviewed and had a say in issuing the rally permit. All of these people have to share in the chaos, the death and destruction that occurred on this fatal Saturday, in August. And I suggest that the Mayor, the City Council and the Police Chief have a lot to answer for.-- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions, You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Saturday, August 12, 2017
McCONNELL and MCCAIN SHOULD GET WITH THE PROGRAM, OR RETIRE. WHO NEEDS THEM.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
It's time for a number of Republicans holding office in Washington to retire, spend time with their families, go lay on a beach, or go fishing. Come on! These senators and lawmakers work maybe three or four days out of the month and take off three months out of the entire year. You and I couldn't get away with that out here in the real world.
Two Republicans that should leave, who stand out like a sore thumb are: First, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He's been a 33-year Senate hanger-on, and I guess wants to be carried out of the senate, in a box. Folks, the founders of our nation didn't mean for anyone to go to Washington and plant themselves there for 33 years, or more. This man should have been out of congress years ago.
He, like others in the Republican party, don't want change in Washington and continue to disrupt and throw roadblocks up to prevent president Trump from carrying out his agenda , the agenda the people put president Trump in office to perform.
McConnell had the gall to go home to Kentucky and tell his audience that the president had " not been in this line of work before, and I think had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the democratic process." Are you kidding me? This politician, who has been playing in the "swamp" for 33 years, couldn't get members of his party to agree and work behind the president. The Republican party made promises for seven-and-a half years that they, (the Republican party ) had a plan ready to go to repeal and replace Obamacare. The president told McConnell and the party that once he was elected to office, he would sign the bill as quickly as they put it on his desk. LIE! LIE! LIE! McConnell and his colleagues had no plan - - no bill whatsoever to put on the president's desk.
I believe McConnell, is one of the main obstructionists in Washington. He has show a disdain for president Trump and has made the decision to drag his feet and delay president Trumps promises to the American people.
My advice to president Trump --if McConnell cannot deliver on a tax plan; the infrastructure that president Trump ran on; health care; and things like the wall (which McConnell has fought against), for reasons only known to him and a few colleagues, he should be ousted.
The second obstructionist, fighting against the president is Senator John McCain. He takes every opportunity to find fault with president Trump's ideas, polices, and agenda. Like McConnell, he feels he is an entitled person, just due to the fact that he has been in Washington so long. He too, is a swamp monster, who has been in Washington, too long. I would wonder how many terms in office he expects to have? Maybe like McConnell, he wants to sit in Washington for a lifetime entitlement.
McCain was elected to office years, and years ago, basically because he was a young man, and a war hero. And, that's fine. We should honor our heroes. But I do not think our lawmakers in Congress should hold on to a job for a life time. McCain was the man who single-handed, with his single vote brought down the health care bill a fee weeks ago. Now again, he's challenging president Trump's foreign policy in Afghanistan.
McCain's rebuke of president Trump is what I believe to be sour grapes. McCain ran for president and lost. He can't stand to see a person like president Trump, a former successful businessman sitting in the oval office. I tend to think that McCain, like McConnell, feels that president Trump is not one of "them," a Washington, entrenched politician. And they openly flaunt the attitude that they are better than president Trump, a man they believe should not be president.
Through the years McCain worked his way into the position of chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and as such now thinks he knows how to run the wars around the world. What a joke. This guy, was never a General. He has no experience of commanding military bases, never had hundreds of thousands of men under his command, nor ever commanded an entire military theater of operations. Yet, he thinks he can tell our commander-in-chief, who has numerous generals at his beckoned call, that he knows more than them.
McCain's military mindset is decades old. He is still living in the past, generations behind the times. His military strategies are obsolete. For years, and years, he, like Senator Lindsey Graham were "war mongers." McCain's answer to most any military crisis has been "let's go to war." Remember when he was running for president, "YEARS AGO?" He said, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,-- Bomb, Bomb Iran." He couldn't wait to go to war. This guy is still stuck in World War II era thinking.
McCain's ideas and way of thinking are very outdated. McCain and McConnell are tired, over the hill,old men, dreaming of what they had, and don't want to give up. They feel comfortable in their old ways and still want to be relevant. Their way to do that is to disagree with the president of the United States at every juncture. They want to be seen and heard but are frustrated that they are being left behind. Neither man has the smarts to catch up to the 21st century way of approaching problems and situations. They don't like that, so they strike out by bringing down the Republican party. These two Washington beltway colleagues choose to use obstruction, delaying tactics, slow-walk legislative goals, use verbal barbs against the administration, and find fault with president Trump's attitude, personality and his way of doing things. They refuse to cooperate and embrace unity. They relish in the fact that they are not team players Voters, if there is a poster child for term limits, these two party misfits qualify, above and beyond.
My view, if these two lawmakers do not get on board with the administrations goals in a short period of time ( a few weeks), I would suggest that president Trump take away McCain's chairmanship, and dump McConnell as Majority Leader. -- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, P:h.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
It's time for a number of Republicans holding office in Washington to retire, spend time with their families, go lay on a beach, or go fishing. Come on! These senators and lawmakers work maybe three or four days out of the month and take off three months out of the entire year. You and I couldn't get away with that out here in the real world.
Two Republicans that should leave, who stand out like a sore thumb are: First, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He's been a 33-year Senate hanger-on, and I guess wants to be carried out of the senate, in a box. Folks, the founders of our nation didn't mean for anyone to go to Washington and plant themselves there for 33 years, or more. This man should have been out of congress years ago.
He, like others in the Republican party, don't want change in Washington and continue to disrupt and throw roadblocks up to prevent president Trump from carrying out his agenda , the agenda the people put president Trump in office to perform.
McConnell had the gall to go home to Kentucky and tell his audience that the president had " not been in this line of work before, and I think had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the democratic process." Are you kidding me? This politician, who has been playing in the "swamp" for 33 years, couldn't get members of his party to agree and work behind the president. The Republican party made promises for seven-and-a half years that they, (the Republican party ) had a plan ready to go to repeal and replace Obamacare. The president told McConnell and the party that once he was elected to office, he would sign the bill as quickly as they put it on his desk. LIE! LIE! LIE! McConnell and his colleagues had no plan - - no bill whatsoever to put on the president's desk.
I believe McConnell, is one of the main obstructionists in Washington. He has show a disdain for president Trump and has made the decision to drag his feet and delay president Trumps promises to the American people.
My advice to president Trump --if McConnell cannot deliver on a tax plan; the infrastructure that president Trump ran on; health care; and things like the wall (which McConnell has fought against), for reasons only known to him and a few colleagues, he should be ousted.
The second obstructionist, fighting against the president is Senator John McCain. He takes every opportunity to find fault with president Trump's ideas, polices, and agenda. Like McConnell, he feels he is an entitled person, just due to the fact that he has been in Washington so long. He too, is a swamp monster, who has been in Washington, too long. I would wonder how many terms in office he expects to have? Maybe like McConnell, he wants to sit in Washington for a lifetime entitlement.
McCain was elected to office years, and years ago, basically because he was a young man, and a war hero. And, that's fine. We should honor our heroes. But I do not think our lawmakers in Congress should hold on to a job for a life time. McCain was the man who single-handed, with his single vote brought down the health care bill a fee weeks ago. Now again, he's challenging president Trump's foreign policy in Afghanistan.
McCain's rebuke of president Trump is what I believe to be sour grapes. McCain ran for president and lost. He can't stand to see a person like president Trump, a former successful businessman sitting in the oval office. I tend to think that McCain, like McConnell, feels that president Trump is not one of "them," a Washington, entrenched politician. And they openly flaunt the attitude that they are better than president Trump, a man they believe should not be president.
Through the years McCain worked his way into the position of chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and as such now thinks he knows how to run the wars around the world. What a joke. This guy, was never a General. He has no experience of commanding military bases, never had hundreds of thousands of men under his command, nor ever commanded an entire military theater of operations. Yet, he thinks he can tell our commander-in-chief, who has numerous generals at his beckoned call, that he knows more than them.
McCain's military mindset is decades old. He is still living in the past, generations behind the times. His military strategies are obsolete. For years, and years, he, like Senator Lindsey Graham were "war mongers." McCain's answer to most any military crisis has been "let's go to war." Remember when he was running for president, "YEARS AGO?" He said, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,-- Bomb, Bomb Iran." He couldn't wait to go to war. This guy is still stuck in World War II era thinking.
McCain's ideas and way of thinking are very outdated. McCain and McConnell are tired, over the hill,old men, dreaming of what they had, and don't want to give up. They feel comfortable in their old ways and still want to be relevant. Their way to do that is to disagree with the president of the United States at every juncture. They want to be seen and heard but are frustrated that they are being left behind. Neither man has the smarts to catch up to the 21st century way of approaching problems and situations. They don't like that, so they strike out by bringing down the Republican party. These two Washington beltway colleagues choose to use obstruction, delaying tactics, slow-walk legislative goals, use verbal barbs against the administration, and find fault with president Trump's attitude, personality and his way of doing things. They refuse to cooperate and embrace unity. They relish in the fact that they are not team players Voters, if there is a poster child for term limits, these two party misfits qualify, above and beyond.
My view, if these two lawmakers do not get on board with the administrations goals in a short period of time ( a few weeks), I would suggest that president Trump take away McCain's chairmanship, and dump McConnell as Majority Leader. -- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, P:h.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Friday, August 11, 2017
PRESIDENT TRUMP, SUPPORT A CHALLENGER TO SENATOR HELLER, THE PARTY NEEDS TO DUMP OBSTRUCTIONISTS.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Senator Dean Heller, (R-NV ) has to go. I would ask all Republicans in Nevada to give this guy the boot. He has never supported president Trump. He wouldn't even endorsed Trump when Trump indicated he was going to run for president.
Personally, I am going to vote for the new guy challenging Heller for his seat. I wouldn't care if Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck were challenging dopey, lying Heller. I would give them my vote. I would trust them more that I do Heller.
Right now, Heller has competition for his seat. Another Nevada Republican, Danny Tarkanian, threw his hat in the ring to run against Heller. Hooray! Tarkanian said that he will support all of president Trump's policies and agenda. And, yes, I take him at his word. I believe he really means it. Tarkanian was a Trump supporter, even when other Republicans were joking an laughing about Trump wanting to be president. This man jumped on the Trump train early on.
When Heller and Joe Heck, who are NV RINOS, (Republicans In Name Only), refused to support president Trump when the damaging conversation, (locker-room) talk was released, Tarkanian stood by Trump. Heller and Heck tried to kick Trump to the curb. They ran from Trump like their pants were on fire.
Heller, like Senator John McCain, took a sharp knife to Trump's back on the Obamacare repeal issue. Heller lied, and betrayed the Nevada Republicans, the entire Republican party, every Republican voter, and America's middle-class, when he took the Democrats position and insisted on large Obamacare tax increases and the expansion of Medicaid.
Senator Heller, a closet Democrat, who pretends to be a Republican, gutted and tore apart the repeal legislation. By the time Heller and his six colleagues carved up the repeal, it was a skeleton .Everything was picked off the bones. So, I wouldn't even refer to the final work as a "skinny bill."
I submit, that Dean Heller, lied when he promised to support the Republicans policies and agenda just to get elected. With that, I would strongly urge President Trump to support Danny Tarkanian to fill Heller's senate seat. I believe it is time for a president to actually campaign for a Republican challenger, to fill the seat (s) of those incumbents who turned their back on their own party, after they were elected. I suggest that president Trump let the American public know that he will support those politicians that have a track record of supporting him, and his agenda. It may be against political norm for a president to support a challenger, but if anyone can do it, I have full confidence that president Trump can do it, and succeed.
Folks, we elected president Trump to get his policies carried out in Washington, and we need senators in those seats in Washington that believe in the president, his policies, and show that they will produce as advertised. -- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)