THE DOCTOR IS IN
________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Mount Dora Florida doctor Jack Cassell, M.D., a 56 year old urologist took politics and the right to health care to a whole new level by posting a note on his office door which read: ":If you voted for Obama - seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes in your health care begin right now, not in four years."
This doctor has been reported to be very active in Republican politics in Florida. It stands to reason that many of his patients are very upset.
Rep. Alan Grayson, an Orlando Democrat said the doctors move is "ridiculous" and "disgusting."
Dr. Cassell thinks he is expressing his "free speech" right. I totally disagree.
I say this is not a free speech matter. Dr. Cassell's professional obligation as a medical doctor is first:"Do no harm." I believe that the act of turning away ill, sick patients is doing harm.
This doctor believes he has a right to deny a person medical treatment just because that patient is a "Democrat".Wow!
I agree that doctor Cassell has an absolute right to state his feeling "vocally" about any legislation that is passed in this country and taking a side either "pro" or "con." He also has the absolute right to demonstrate and may choose to walk and carry signs in protest but to tell patients to seek medical care elsewhere because of that persons affiliation is wrong, very wrong.
I submit that if you take doctor Cassell's misguided act to extremes he can commit acts of refusing medical care to patients because he doesn't like their obesity; or refuse medical treatment just because a person may believe in the right to choose when it comes to abortion; or refuse medical treatment because he doesn't like the color of their skin, whether it be brown, black, yellow or red.
If doctor Cassell doesn't like the Obama health care bill he should protest by taking steps to legislate new laws through legal channels. Dr. Casssell is not the first person to dislike some type of legislation and he won't be the last. However, there are many legitimate ways to"verbally" express ones dissent and not harm others while still showing your disapproval.
My concern is why does the lawmakers allow such malicious acts as Dr. Cassell fall under the guise of "free speech." I would say that free speech clearly ends where the doctors oath begins.
Another concern of mine is, if Dr. Cassell is so upset and angry at Democrats and/or anyone who voted for a Democratic president, what does that say about the type of medical treatment Dr. Cassell or other physicians with the same views may provide a Democrat as a whole? Would that physician show less concern for a Democrats well being? Would the physician refuse any needed tests for the Democrat (or for whomever that physician felt didn't hold the same views as theirs)? Yet, because the person is a Republican and shared the same political and/or personal views of his or her physician would they in fact be treated differently and given better medical health care? It appears this may be true.
Who could trust and have full confidence in any physician once they make such ludicrous statements like the one Dr. Cassell wrote and posted in his office saying they will not treat a particular type of patient? How could any person return to any doctor for treatment knowing that the doctor has resentful, angry feeling against the person? I would think the patient could not be comfortable and assured that they would be administered the best medical care possible by that doctor for their ailment.
I would wonder that when any professional working in the health care field is so adamant about their feelings, especially about politics, and they take those feeling and project them to such lengths as Dr. Cassell did I would further suspect that there may be deep internal conflicts going on within those professionals - And, that's my opinion.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Florida and its Farmers are Bad News
THE DOCTOR IS IN
___________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Just a few days ago, farmers in the state of Florida actually plowed under acres and acres of strawberry fields. Why? They say the price of strawberries is not enough for them to survive on. I disagree. In January when the Florida strawberry crop was threatened by cold weather people that lived near the farmers fields gave up water to protect the farmers crops.In fact,the farmers took so much water from the residents to protect their strawberries that it left sink holes in and around the residents homes. Guess what? It worked, the strawberry crops turned out be be very, very, bountiful. Florida farmers said there were so many strawberries that the market would be flooded with strawberries.
So, what did they do? They destroyed their perfectly good crops. Their disgusting act caused millions of people in Florida to become very angry, and I don't blame the residents of Florida for their anger. Some Floridians said they would not ever buy a Florida strawberry again. Hooray!
These farmers had perfectly good strawberries,instead of picking them and taking them to market they instead destroyed the crops and spit in the eyes of all of the Floridians that helped them bring in a good harvest.
Rather than destroy this great harvest they could have taken the strawberries to market, even if this year, they only broke even. What would have been the downside? None really. These greedy farmers could have picked all of their crops and gave them to food banks, hospitals, nursing homes, charities, schools, and many other outlets that really could have used the food. but "NO", they chose to plow the crop under because they were angry they had such a good harvest this year.
Can you imagine? The Florida farmers credo is: If you have a good crop, plow it under so you can raise prices on the produce, and if you have a bad year, hey, we have a shortage so we have to raise the cost of that tomato or potato because we didn't have a good crop. The consumer can't win. People, talk about a losing hand, WOW! Big agriculture, the farmer and government all working against us.
It's a bad enough that our government subsidizes farmers with big,fat checks every year so the farmer will not grow certain crops. Now the state and Feds allow the farmer to plow under a good harvest year.
These farmers were whining and complaining on television that they would not make any money this year because they had such a good harvest and that is why they plowed under the strawberry fields. Hell, these people are farmers, they, above all people know that Mother Nature acts in strange ways. You can't control Mother Nature.
A farmer is supposed to take what Mother Nature throws at you. One year the farmer may have a great, full harvest and then, at a drop of a coin, the next year may bring drought, locust,bugs,, bad weather, etc., but that's part of being a farmer. The farmer may make hundreds of thousands of dollars one year and the next year only tens of thousands, -- that's life. But, a farmer shouldn't destroy perfectly good crops in the name of "GREED", (that's not only my choice word but the word used by many Floridians when they saw what these wanna-be farmers did too the harvest).
I know this is not the first time something like this happened. I can remember a time when our Federal government flushed millions of gallons of milk down the drain so the dairy industry could fix their prices. The government also dumped tons of butter in the ocean.The same thing also happened with coffee harvests. Rather than sell the product for less they destroy it. As disgusting as these acts appear I though we were above that sort of thing anymore. Christ, in this time of recession, and/or depression( depending on how you're surviving out there and see the world)and in our current economic climate the state of Florida and these idiot farmers should be brought to task.
Shame on all of these greedy, dollar chasing Florida farmers and shame on the state of Florida for allowing these ingrates to destroy perfectly good harvests.
I suggest that Congress pass a law preventing farmers from destroying perfectly good food for the sake of chasing the "all mighty dollar." Farmers should not be allowed to destroy any food crops without very strict oversight from the government.
I know that big Ag has an enormous lobby in Washington and a large money hold on our lawmakers but these politicians have to wake up, get off of their butt and act in the countries best interest.
These Congressman allow food prices to climb more and more each and every day. The middle class worker can't afford some foods and produce to feed their families and yet these same politicians still have their hands in the pocket of big agriculture and continue giving the farmer anything they ask for and paying them big bucks not to grow crops. Acts such as this has got to come to a halt.- And, that's my opinion.
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 few days ago, farmers in the state of Florida actually plowed under acres and acres of strawberry fields. Why? They say the price of strawberries is not enough for them to survive on. I disagree. In January when the Florida strawberry crop was threatened by cold weather people that lived near the farmers fields gave up water to protect the farmers crops.In fact,the farmers took so much water from the residents to protect their strawberries that it left sink holes in and around the residents homes. Guess what? It worked, the strawberry crops turned out be be very, very, bountiful. Florida farmers said there were so many strawberries that the market would be flooded with strawberries.
So, what did they do? They destroyed their perfectly good crops. Their disgusting act caused millions of people in Florida to become very angry, and I don't blame the residents of Florida for their anger. Some Floridians said they would not ever buy a Florida strawberry again. Hooray!
These farmers had perfectly good strawberries,instead of picking them and taking them to market they instead destroyed the crops and spit in the eyes of all of the Floridians that helped them bring in a good harvest.
Rather than destroy this great harvest they could have taken the strawberries to market, even if this year, they only broke even. What would have been the downside? None really. These greedy farmers could have picked all of their crops and gave them to food banks, hospitals, nursing homes, charities, schools, and many other outlets that really could have used the food. but "NO", they chose to plow the crop under because they were angry they had such a good harvest this year.
Can you imagine? The Florida farmers credo is: If you have a good crop, plow it under so you can raise prices on the produce, and if you have a bad year, hey, we have a shortage so we have to raise the cost of that tomato or potato because we didn't have a good crop. The consumer can't win. People, talk about a losing hand, WOW! Big agriculture, the farmer and government all working against us.
It's a bad enough that our government subsidizes farmers with big,fat checks every year so the farmer will not grow certain crops. Now the state and Feds allow the farmer to plow under a good harvest year.
These farmers were whining and complaining on television that they would not make any money this year because they had such a good harvest and that is why they plowed under the strawberry fields. Hell, these people are farmers, they, above all people know that Mother Nature acts in strange ways. You can't control Mother Nature.
A farmer is supposed to take what Mother Nature throws at you. One year the farmer may have a great, full harvest and then, at a drop of a coin, the next year may bring drought, locust,bugs,, bad weather, etc., but that's part of being a farmer. The farmer may make hundreds of thousands of dollars one year and the next year only tens of thousands, -- that's life. But, a farmer shouldn't destroy perfectly good crops in the name of "GREED", (that's not only my choice word but the word used by many Floridians when they saw what these wanna-be farmers did too the harvest).
I know this is not the first time something like this happened. I can remember a time when our Federal government flushed millions of gallons of milk down the drain so the dairy industry could fix their prices. The government also dumped tons of butter in the ocean.The same thing also happened with coffee harvests. Rather than sell the product for less they destroy it. As disgusting as these acts appear I though we were above that sort of thing anymore. Christ, in this time of recession, and/or depression( depending on how you're surviving out there and see the world)and in our current economic climate the state of Florida and these idiot farmers should be brought to task.
Shame on all of these greedy, dollar chasing Florida farmers and shame on the state of Florida for allowing these ingrates to destroy perfectly good harvests.
I suggest that Congress pass a law preventing farmers from destroying perfectly good food for the sake of chasing the "all mighty dollar." Farmers should not be allowed to destroy any food crops without very strict oversight from the government.
I know that big Ag has an enormous lobby in Washington and a large money hold on our lawmakers but these politicians have to wake up, get off of their butt and act in the countries best interest.
These Congressman allow food prices to climb more and more each and every day. The middle class worker can't afford some foods and produce to feed their families and yet these same politicians still have their hands in the pocket of big agriculture and continue giving the farmer anything they ask for and paying them big bucks not to grow crops. Acts such as this has got to come to a halt.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Monday, March 29, 2010
California-Picking On The Smoking Public Again
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The nanny-state operatives are at work again. California is attempting to pass legislation against the smoking public once again using the lamest excuses they can muster. The state wants to eliminate smoking on all California beaches.
Their excuse this time is that cigarettes butts are such a pollutant on the beaches they are trying to claim that cigarette butts are the biggest offender of debris littering the beaches which in turn kill all the birds and wildlife that gather at the beach areas. Further these groups try to insinuate that cigarette butts kill more wildlife than any other product out there. Boy! That's reaching. How wrong can they be? True, a bird may accidentally swallow a cigarette butt occasionally but believe me when I say that birds and wildlife know the difference between actual food and a cigarette butt. And I can assure you that birds and wildlife do not fly and prowl around looking at cigarette butts for nourishment.
There have been numerous reports over the years that the debris left lying on the beach that is killing birds and wildlife in not cigarette butts but instead, soda can "pop-tops". Why? Because those pop-tops exude the aroma and taste of the sugary blend from the drink and that does attract the birds and wildlife.
So, is California going to ban people from enjoying sodas and soft drinks on the beach? Keep in mind it's not only soda pop-tops but now most can foods like chili, stew, soups, tuna cans, and many others have the pop-top on their lid and these foods are carried onto the beaches every day by families while they enjoy a day at the beach. So much for pop-tops.
.
Lets talk about debris left on the beaches that birds and wildlife may try to pick up and/or eat. Some gigantic problems: Plastic diapers, plastic bags, plastic bottles (there have been a number of videos and news segments where birds, squirrels, cats, raccoons and other wild life have had their head caught in those items and couldn't get free). They were attracted by the aromas left in the containers. These items mentioned are just a small part of the debris scattered on beaches all around the country.
Lets not forget about all of the debris that washes up on all of our beaches around the country from the ocean each and every day. Medical waste is a very large contributor. In addition to the birds and wildlife many people are stuck every year by needles and syringes that have washed ashore? To many to count. So, cigarette butts? Get out of here. Worth mentioning also is the debris from all of the cruise ships and other ships that sail the world. They use the ocean like a dumpster and there is actually one part of the ocean that the scientists call the worlds garbage bin. The ocean currents in this one particular spot suck tons and tons of garbage and debris into its area and it piles up year after year. Where's the outcry there? God! Quit picking on the smoking public and using them as a whipping boy. Get real!
It's no secret that these nanny states and their groups always have an agenda to promote their own view as the only one. The biggest nanny states that continually try to alter and control a person behavior, freedoms and rights are: California, New York and New Jersey.
New York is such a whiny, nanny state that just recently New York City officials banned people from wearing perfume or any type of cologne in some of its buildings because "one person" said they couldn't stand the smell of perfume and filed a disability claim. Also the nanny mayor of New York City (nonsmoker) years ago took his personal prejudice against smoking out on the entire city and banned smoking most everywhere in the city. This nanny mayor also passed controls on trans fats and wants all restaurants to list contents and calories on all food menus.His reasoning is that these bans are a health issue and he is looking out for your well being.Are you kidding me?
First, most everything in life is a health issue. From the time a person starts their day breathing polluted air, drinking city and county water that may contain polluted contaminates, eating food that by the way is approved and certified by the government cause health problems, medications that doctors prescribe every day for people that actually have detrimental and fatal side effects. Yes Virginia, the states and government know what is best for you. They will take care of you. Do you think?
New Jersey followed in New York City's footsteps.They wanted to be your nanny also. Again, their Governor (nonsmoker) pushed his personal beliefs on the state. His attitude was "I don't smoke so I don't want anyone to smoke." He and groups with an agenda for themselves forced casinos in Atlantic City to stop cigarette smoking in the majority of the casino facilities. The disastrous result was that the casinos lost close to fifty percent of their gaming income. When Nevada followed suit and initiated smoking bans in bars and taverns and restricted smoking in casinos thousands of food service people were fired or lost their jobs because the business had to close their kitchens and worse, close their doors.I guess you can say "with power comes privilege."
My thought is that if these nanny do-goodies would let the individual business owners make their own decisions as to who they want to serve and what they want to serve and let the individual person make their own decision as to whom they want to spend their money with, the world would be a better place.
If these states mentioned herein would let one restaurant, casino hotel, business, etc., offer food, service, drinks and smoking, and/or gaming and then a few blocks away have another business like the first offer the same thing with the exception of smoking they would find that the business offering all the same items plus smoking would do more business. But people, that's what the states are afraid of. They know that if there were choices for the customer/consumer one establishment would do much more business than the other. My money is on the business that offers more choices. Rather than let the "free market" operate the nanny-state people say it knows what is best for you and the result is a broad, vague ban. Prohibition never works. The logical way to go is to allow the individual to choose: a totally smoking or nonsmoking establishment; a trans fat restaurant or not; a gaming or non gaming establishment, etc.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Day by day special groups with agendas and political connections chip away another freedom of choice.
Imagine, if a place had a sign reading: " A totally smoking establishment", a nonsmoker would know not to patronize that spot. The same applies for a smoker who saw a sign that read: "A totally nonsmoking establishment." The same could apply to fast food places, trans fat establishments, etc.
If the people had a choice where to eat, drink, and gamble without being told by the state or city I predict that everything would work out very well, for everyone. It seems though that even though some people know there is, for example, a place offering a smoking and a nonsmoking area the non smoker still insists on going into the smoking area and then they complain that the smoke bothers them. I do know that most smokers refuse to go into nonsmoking areas just because they want to smoke while eating, drinking, gambling, etc.---
Now, back to the beginning: I'm sure that if there are smokers on the California beaches they can use ash trays to dispose of their cigarette butts. I'm sure there are ash trays in and around the areas of the beach. Rather than another blanket ban why not enforce any and all existing California litter laws and fine the offender(s). I have no doubt that litter laws can cost upwards of a few hundred dollars. Those fines would help the city, county and state coffers and that's really what these lawmakers want - Money!
Our country was founded on freedom of choice so lets not stomp our freedoms in the dust.- And, that's my opinion.
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?
The nanny-state operatives are at work again. California is attempting to pass legislation against the smoking public once again using the lamest excuses they can muster. The state wants to eliminate smoking on all California beaches.
Their excuse this time is that cigarettes butts are such a pollutant on the beaches they are trying to claim that cigarette butts are the biggest offender of debris littering the beaches which in turn kill all the birds and wildlife that gather at the beach areas. Further these groups try to insinuate that cigarette butts kill more wildlife than any other product out there. Boy! That's reaching. How wrong can they be? True, a bird may accidentally swallow a cigarette butt occasionally but believe me when I say that birds and wildlife know the difference between actual food and a cigarette butt. And I can assure you that birds and wildlife do not fly and prowl around looking at cigarette butts for nourishment.
There have been numerous reports over the years that the debris left lying on the beach that is killing birds and wildlife in not cigarette butts but instead, soda can "pop-tops". Why? Because those pop-tops exude the aroma and taste of the sugary blend from the drink and that does attract the birds and wildlife.
So, is California going to ban people from enjoying sodas and soft drinks on the beach? Keep in mind it's not only soda pop-tops but now most can foods like chili, stew, soups, tuna cans, and many others have the pop-top on their lid and these foods are carried onto the beaches every day by families while they enjoy a day at the beach. So much for pop-tops.
.
Lets talk about debris left on the beaches that birds and wildlife may try to pick up and/or eat. Some gigantic problems: Plastic diapers, plastic bags, plastic bottles (there have been a number of videos and news segments where birds, squirrels, cats, raccoons and other wild life have had their head caught in those items and couldn't get free). They were attracted by the aromas left in the containers. These items mentioned are just a small part of the debris scattered on beaches all around the country.
Lets not forget about all of the debris that washes up on all of our beaches around the country from the ocean each and every day. Medical waste is a very large contributor. In addition to the birds and wildlife many people are stuck every year by needles and syringes that have washed ashore? To many to count. So, cigarette butts? Get out of here. Worth mentioning also is the debris from all of the cruise ships and other ships that sail the world. They use the ocean like a dumpster and there is actually one part of the ocean that the scientists call the worlds garbage bin. The ocean currents in this one particular spot suck tons and tons of garbage and debris into its area and it piles up year after year. Where's the outcry there? God! Quit picking on the smoking public and using them as a whipping boy. Get real!
It's no secret that these nanny states and their groups always have an agenda to promote their own view as the only one. The biggest nanny states that continually try to alter and control a person behavior, freedoms and rights are: California, New York and New Jersey.
New York is such a whiny, nanny state that just recently New York City officials banned people from wearing perfume or any type of cologne in some of its buildings because "one person" said they couldn't stand the smell of perfume and filed a disability claim. Also the nanny mayor of New York City (nonsmoker) years ago took his personal prejudice against smoking out on the entire city and banned smoking most everywhere in the city. This nanny mayor also passed controls on trans fats and wants all restaurants to list contents and calories on all food menus.His reasoning is that these bans are a health issue and he is looking out for your well being.Are you kidding me?
First, most everything in life is a health issue. From the time a person starts their day breathing polluted air, drinking city and county water that may contain polluted contaminates, eating food that by the way is approved and certified by the government cause health problems, medications that doctors prescribe every day for people that actually have detrimental and fatal side effects. Yes Virginia, the states and government know what is best for you. They will take care of you. Do you think?
New Jersey followed in New York City's footsteps.They wanted to be your nanny also. Again, their Governor (nonsmoker) pushed his personal beliefs on the state. His attitude was "I don't smoke so I don't want anyone to smoke." He and groups with an agenda for themselves forced casinos in Atlantic City to stop cigarette smoking in the majority of the casino facilities. The disastrous result was that the casinos lost close to fifty percent of their gaming income. When Nevada followed suit and initiated smoking bans in bars and taverns and restricted smoking in casinos thousands of food service people were fired or lost their jobs because the business had to close their kitchens and worse, close their doors.I guess you can say "with power comes privilege."
My thought is that if these nanny do-goodies would let the individual business owners make their own decisions as to who they want to serve and what they want to serve and let the individual person make their own decision as to whom they want to spend their money with, the world would be a better place.
If these states mentioned herein would let one restaurant, casino hotel, business, etc., offer food, service, drinks and smoking, and/or gaming and then a few blocks away have another business like the first offer the same thing with the exception of smoking they would find that the business offering all the same items plus smoking would do more business. But people, that's what the states are afraid of. They know that if there were choices for the customer/consumer one establishment would do much more business than the other. My money is on the business that offers more choices. Rather than let the "free market" operate the nanny-state people say it knows what is best for you and the result is a broad, vague ban. Prohibition never works. The logical way to go is to allow the individual to choose: a totally smoking or nonsmoking establishment; a trans fat restaurant or not; a gaming or non gaming establishment, etc.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Day by day special groups with agendas and political connections chip away another freedom of choice.
Imagine, if a place had a sign reading: " A totally smoking establishment", a nonsmoker would know not to patronize that spot. The same applies for a smoker who saw a sign that read: "A totally nonsmoking establishment." The same could apply to fast food places, trans fat establishments, etc.
If the people had a choice where to eat, drink, and gamble without being told by the state or city I predict that everything would work out very well, for everyone. It seems though that even though some people know there is, for example, a place offering a smoking and a nonsmoking area the non smoker still insists on going into the smoking area and then they complain that the smoke bothers them. I do know that most smokers refuse to go into nonsmoking areas just because they want to smoke while eating, drinking, gambling, etc.---
Now, back to the beginning: I'm sure that if there are smokers on the California beaches they can use ash trays to dispose of their cigarette butts. I'm sure there are ash trays in and around the areas of the beach. Rather than another blanket ban why not enforce any and all existing California litter laws and fine the offender(s). I have no doubt that litter laws can cost upwards of a few hundred dollars. Those fines would help the city, county and state coffers and that's really what these lawmakers want - Money!
Our country was founded on freedom of choice so lets not stomp our freedoms in the dust.- And, that's my opinion.
Bradley W. Kuhns,Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Mexico Is A Drag On the United States
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Our lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, refuse to secure our southern border but they have no qualms about securing the borders of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea.
There have been quite a number of armed Mexican military excursions into the United States over the past few years. Now we have drug warlords from the Mexican drug cartel dispatching drug soldiers onto United States soil and assassinating United States citizens. The irony is that our politicians have been keeping the many firefights on American soil between the Mexican military and our border patrol agents a big secret.Why? Politics and illegal alien immigration. There was an incident last week involving the death of United States embassy employees by suspected Mexican drug cartel members and now a couple of days ago illegal aliens shot and killed an Arizona farmer that had a ranch in the Douglas, Arizona area.
The drug violence and destruction of land and property of our citizens that live on the border should not be allowed to occur. Deaths by these illegals is continually spilling over into our border cities in the United States. These Mexican drug mobsters carry automatic and military weapons, (i.e, AK-47's) and have no compunction whatsoever about slaughtering United States citizens.
What does the administration do? Nothing substantial. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton says, "we have to talk to Mexico." The United States has been talking to Mexico for at least the last fifty years but refuse to get tough with the country because they are afraid to hurt Mexico's feelings and are afraid to insult the large illegal alien population already established here within our borders. The lawmakers want to pander and cater to the Hispanic vote.
Just recently the administration acknowledged that the billions of dollars that has been spent on the so-called "virtual fence" along the southern border does not work and hasn't worked properly since its inception. The only ones who did benefit from the virtual fence was the contractors that received the billions of dollars to build it and the politicians who stuffed their pockets with a large part of the monies being expended on the fence. I guess some good comes out of bad because from recent media reports it appears that the administration is shutting down the virtual fence project. Again we the taxpayer are on the hook for those billions already spent and spread around.
What we do need is a "real" fence. It should be a double fence separating the two countries. The actual "real" fence should run the full length of the southern border. Between the fence it should have a swath of space so that our military and/or Border Patrol can actually run patrols. Along the fence should be specific entry points for ICE and Homeland Security to actually check each and every person and their documents as they enter the United States. An actual "real" fence rather than a pretend fence will clearly provide security and prevent illegal immigration, reduce illegal drugs and help stop drug cartels bringing death and destruction into our country.Beside the fence we should have our military protecting our borders in conjunction with the Border Patrol. If it is good enough for Iraq and other foreign countries it is certainly good enough for us here at home.
These continued illegal acts by Mexico have been escalating more and more each and every day and there has to be a stop to it. How many United States citizens have to be killed before our borders are secure with permanent barriers and our military.
I submit that these illegal crossings into the United States by Mexico's military personnel and drug cartels who are causing fatalities is a clear and present danger to this country and as such, is a clear act of terrorism. We supposedly fight terrorism around the globe but why don't we fight it when it occurs on our southern borders?
For decades we have been supporting Mexico by giving them tons of foreign aid and allowing their government to send most of their poor into the United States, most of them illegal.
We give Mexico billions of dollars in military aid to supposedly fight the drug wars in their country.. We train their corrupt military and law enforcement to allegedly fight drugs.Does it change things? No it doesn't.All of the money, aid, and military assistance we provide to Mexico is nothing more than a money-pit. We are pouring a never ending stream of money down a dark, bottomless hole.
The Mexican government is so infested with corruption, drugs and death that our state department advises our citizens to stay away from the country. In reality we really do not gain very much from our relationship with Mexico yet our politicians continually attempt to rationalize their illegal behavior all in the name of votes. - And, that's my opinion.
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?
Our lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, refuse to secure our southern border but they have no qualms about securing the borders of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea.
There have been quite a number of armed Mexican military excursions into the United States over the past few years. Now we have drug warlords from the Mexican drug cartel dispatching drug soldiers onto United States soil and assassinating United States citizens. The irony is that our politicians have been keeping the many firefights on American soil between the Mexican military and our border patrol agents a big secret.Why? Politics and illegal alien immigration. There was an incident last week involving the death of United States embassy employees by suspected Mexican drug cartel members and now a couple of days ago illegal aliens shot and killed an Arizona farmer that had a ranch in the Douglas, Arizona area.
The drug violence and destruction of land and property of our citizens that live on the border should not be allowed to occur. Deaths by these illegals is continually spilling over into our border cities in the United States. These Mexican drug mobsters carry automatic and military weapons, (i.e, AK-47's) and have no compunction whatsoever about slaughtering United States citizens.
What does the administration do? Nothing substantial. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton says, "we have to talk to Mexico." The United States has been talking to Mexico for at least the last fifty years but refuse to get tough with the country because they are afraid to hurt Mexico's feelings and are afraid to insult the large illegal alien population already established here within our borders. The lawmakers want to pander and cater to the Hispanic vote.
Just recently the administration acknowledged that the billions of dollars that has been spent on the so-called "virtual fence" along the southern border does not work and hasn't worked properly since its inception. The only ones who did benefit from the virtual fence was the contractors that received the billions of dollars to build it and the politicians who stuffed their pockets with a large part of the monies being expended on the fence. I guess some good comes out of bad because from recent media reports it appears that the administration is shutting down the virtual fence project. Again we the taxpayer are on the hook for those billions already spent and spread around.
What we do need is a "real" fence. It should be a double fence separating the two countries. The actual "real" fence should run the full length of the southern border. Between the fence it should have a swath of space so that our military and/or Border Patrol can actually run patrols. Along the fence should be specific entry points for ICE and Homeland Security to actually check each and every person and their documents as they enter the United States. An actual "real" fence rather than a pretend fence will clearly provide security and prevent illegal immigration, reduce illegal drugs and help stop drug cartels bringing death and destruction into our country.Beside the fence we should have our military protecting our borders in conjunction with the Border Patrol. If it is good enough for Iraq and other foreign countries it is certainly good enough for us here at home.
These continued illegal acts by Mexico have been escalating more and more each and every day and there has to be a stop to it. How many United States citizens have to be killed before our borders are secure with permanent barriers and our military.
I submit that these illegal crossings into the United States by Mexico's military personnel and drug cartels who are causing fatalities is a clear and present danger to this country and as such, is a clear act of terrorism. We supposedly fight terrorism around the globe but why don't we fight it when it occurs on our southern borders?
For decades we have been supporting Mexico by giving them tons of foreign aid and allowing their government to send most of their poor into the United States, most of them illegal.
We give Mexico billions of dollars in military aid to supposedly fight the drug wars in their country.. We train their corrupt military and law enforcement to allegedly fight drugs.Does it change things? No it doesn't.All of the money, aid, and military assistance we provide to Mexico is nothing more than a money-pit. We are pouring a never ending stream of money down a dark, bottomless hole.
The Mexican government is so infested with corruption, drugs and death that our state department advises our citizens to stay away from the country. In reality we really do not gain very much from our relationship with Mexico yet our politicians continually attempt to rationalize their illegal behavior all in the name of votes. - And, that's my opinion.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@#gmail.com
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Continued Job Benefits Have To Stop. 10 Billion Dollars A Month? Rediculous.
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Once again job benefits is an issue in Congress.Republican Senator Tom Coburn,R-Okla is insisting that the measure be "paid for" so as not to add to the nations $12.7 trillion dollar debt. In this instance I agree.
A stopgap law enacted early this month extends through April 5 unemployment insurance benefits for people who have been out of work for more than six months. A short term extension at a cost of $10 billion dollars for a thirty day period is the price tag.After that the Democrats want to work on a long-term measure that will provide these unemployment benefits to a person through the end of next year. Wow!
These lawmakers should be anxious about these continued extended unemployment benefits,especially when it costs us taxpayers a whopping $10 billion dollars a month.
I can recall years ago when I was growing up that when a person went on unemployment they received the benefit for a period of 13 weeks and then if the person was still unemployed and could prove they were actively seeking work they received an extension of another 13 weeks. But after that 13 week extension the benefits stopped.
I do not begrudge any person drawing unemployment but it should only be for a specific time period(with a termination date) for that individual. Now, the benefits go on and on, at a cost of $10 billion dollars a month. That is unacceptable and is a very large burden on the middle class and all taxpayers.
Right now there have been some people receiving unemployment benefits for two years and still collecting.
It is apparent that some of these people currently receiving the unemployment benefits are clearly abusing the system and all taxpayers.
The incentive of going out and actually looking and/or finding a job is nil. Some of these individuals on unemployment have the attitude that why should they look for or find work when they can go into a state office once or twice a month and receive a free check to survive on.
Many of these same people do not want to take a position that they feel is beneath them. They refuse to consider jobs that pay them less that they were earning in their previous job. I have had some people that are collecting unemployment benefits tell me that they will not consider taking a job that pays a salary that is close to what they are making on unemployment because it's not worth the effort.
I believe that anyone can find some type of job that pays an equivalent amount that unemployment pays within months. Yet, as stated earlier many of these people have been collecting unemployment benefits for over TWO YEARS.
I submit that there has to be a point when the state unemployment office tells the person, "no more benefits", "your benefits have expired", "they have come to and end".
13 weeks, 26, weeks? I can see that, that is a helping hand. But people, two years and over? Come on! I would suggest that once a person is on unemployment for these extended long periods of time they are so accustomed to receiving the benefits with no effort on their part that they actually give up looking for a job.
There are jobs out there. It may not be in the same field that the person worked in previously and it may not pay what the person expects, but it is a job.
A steady stream of guaranteed income from the government every month being paid to millions of people for not working is actually generating a separate class in society adding to a welfare group.
There isn't anyone that would like to receive a check from Uncle Sam each and every month just for showing up at a government office and signing their name. In this case of extension after extension of job benefits, without accountability and responsibility the taxpayer is being hit very hard with the price tag of $10 billion dollars each month.
The Congress has to stop doling out billions of dollars a month for unemployment benefits without holding each individual receiving those benefits accountable and they should actually set a specific number of weeks any person can collect benefits and then shut that person down. Terminate the benefits. Enough is enough.
The old rule of 13 weeks of unemployment benefits and an extension of an additional 13 weeks is more than reasonable and the person collecting those benefits will actually know they have to find a job within six months. That is incentive. That person will know that after six months, no more handouts. If a person cannot find any kind of work in six months I suggest there is something the matter going on with that person.
Where is the old work ethic that was adhered to by our ancestors over the past few decades? Their battle cry was "I'll take any type of job, even if it's washing dishes". Any job that the person takes will in turn dump money back into our treasury. No matter how distant from their old occupation that persons employment will contribute to our economy and give the individual something to be proud of. On the other hand, those billions of dollars a month being handed out from the treasury does nothing but enable the unemployed while the employed people continue to support them.
Congress has to stop bleeding our treasury dry and one of the first baby steps would be to immediately stop spending 10 billion dollars a month on a merry-go-round of unemployment benefits.- And, that's my opinion
Dr.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?
Once again job benefits is an issue in Congress.Republican Senator Tom Coburn,R-Okla is insisting that the measure be "paid for" so as not to add to the nations $12.7 trillion dollar debt. In this instance I agree.
A stopgap law enacted early this month extends through April 5 unemployment insurance benefits for people who have been out of work for more than six months. A short term extension at a cost of $10 billion dollars for a thirty day period is the price tag.After that the Democrats want to work on a long-term measure that will provide these unemployment benefits to a person through the end of next year. Wow!
These lawmakers should be anxious about these continued extended unemployment benefits,especially when it costs us taxpayers a whopping $10 billion dollars a month.
I can recall years ago when I was growing up that when a person went on unemployment they received the benefit for a period of 13 weeks and then if the person was still unemployed and could prove they were actively seeking work they received an extension of another 13 weeks. But after that 13 week extension the benefits stopped.
I do not begrudge any person drawing unemployment but it should only be for a specific time period(with a termination date) for that individual. Now, the benefits go on and on, at a cost of $10 billion dollars a month. That is unacceptable and is a very large burden on the middle class and all taxpayers.
Right now there have been some people receiving unemployment benefits for two years and still collecting.
It is apparent that some of these people currently receiving the unemployment benefits are clearly abusing the system and all taxpayers.
The incentive of going out and actually looking and/or finding a job is nil. Some of these individuals on unemployment have the attitude that why should they look for or find work when they can go into a state office once or twice a month and receive a free check to survive on.
Many of these same people do not want to take a position that they feel is beneath them. They refuse to consider jobs that pay them less that they were earning in their previous job. I have had some people that are collecting unemployment benefits tell me that they will not consider taking a job that pays a salary that is close to what they are making on unemployment because it's not worth the effort.
I believe that anyone can find some type of job that pays an equivalent amount that unemployment pays within months. Yet, as stated earlier many of these people have been collecting unemployment benefits for over TWO YEARS.
I submit that there has to be a point when the state unemployment office tells the person, "no more benefits", "your benefits have expired", "they have come to and end".
13 weeks, 26, weeks? I can see that, that is a helping hand. But people, two years and over? Come on! I would suggest that once a person is on unemployment for these extended long periods of time they are so accustomed to receiving the benefits with no effort on their part that they actually give up looking for a job.
There are jobs out there. It may not be in the same field that the person worked in previously and it may not pay what the person expects, but it is a job.
A steady stream of guaranteed income from the government every month being paid to millions of people for not working is actually generating a separate class in society adding to a welfare group.
There isn't anyone that would like to receive a check from Uncle Sam each and every month just for showing up at a government office and signing their name. In this case of extension after extension of job benefits, without accountability and responsibility the taxpayer is being hit very hard with the price tag of $10 billion dollars each month.
The Congress has to stop doling out billions of dollars a month for unemployment benefits without holding each individual receiving those benefits accountable and they should actually set a specific number of weeks any person can collect benefits and then shut that person down. Terminate the benefits. Enough is enough.
The old rule of 13 weeks of unemployment benefits and an extension of an additional 13 weeks is more than reasonable and the person collecting those benefits will actually know they have to find a job within six months. That is incentive. That person will know that after six months, no more handouts. If a person cannot find any kind of work in six months I suggest there is something the matter going on with that person.
Where is the old work ethic that was adhered to by our ancestors over the past few decades? Their battle cry was "I'll take any type of job, even if it's washing dishes". Any job that the person takes will in turn dump money back into our treasury. No matter how distant from their old occupation that persons employment will contribute to our economy and give the individual something to be proud of. On the other hand, those billions of dollars a month being handed out from the treasury does nothing but enable the unemployed while the employed people continue to support them.
Congress has to stop bleeding our treasury dry and one of the first baby steps would be to immediately stop spending 10 billion dollars a month on a merry-go-round of unemployment benefits.- And, that's my opinion
Dr.Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
___________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Flint, Michigan Did The Right Thing-Other Cities Should Follow Suit
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
A few days ago I wrote an op-ed piece for the Las Vegas Review Journal. In it I said that Public Employee Unions are actually bankrupting this country with their near impossible demands for higher and higher salaries, excessive pay such as annual cost of living, merit pay,bonuses and unrealistic obscene retirement and pension plans. In the article I said that Flint, Michigan will be laying off Public Employees and some Safety workers.
Today Flint, Michigan laid off about one quarter of its Firemen. Good! As I stated in that article I think no one should be exempt from losing their job. Policemen, firemen and teachers should experience the same pain that employees in the private sector have to suffer through.
However, since the firemen were let go there has been a rash of fires and the city fathers and the fire chief says that the fires are not an accident. Well, "do ya think"? In the past few decades when firemen has been laid off or fired they began setting fires in their cities. Some were little fires in trash cans,in vacant lots with debris set ablaze and yes, even some buildings. When caught some of the culprits were only disciplined and most were let off with a slap on the wrist with the rationalization that the employees were angry about losing their jobs. What a joke!
This act of fires being set really drives a point home that when public employees in safety positions lose their job they strike out with vengeance and anger and are banking that their city will hire them back because of the increase in fires. If in fact, firemen are shown to be some of the arsonists they should never be rehired. Termination and jail time is appropriate.
I predict that if the city of Flint, Michigan actually investigates the fires being set in and about the city they will find that possibly some fireman are involved and the fires were an act of intimidation.
These acts of arson, no matter how small should not occur but I should mention that in addition to fireman being caught committing these acts, police officers and EMT's have come down with"blue flu" in past incidents and they also slowed down their response time to a crime scene. We shouldn't forget the health care community either.Union nurses and doctors have used sick outs and slow response to patients as a hammer to attempt to gain better union contracts. It's sad.
The inequity and parity between powerful union members and public employees wages compared to people working in the private sector is totally unrealistic but the lawmakers close their eyes and ears and like the three little monkeys they fail to see, hear and speak up against these abuses against the middle class taxpayer.
Flint, Michigan did the right thing when dealing with the Fire Department. They should also do the same with the Police Department. The state should take steps to repeal and revoke all contracts with public employees and start over again with sane and reasonable salaries and when it come to retirement and pensions they should put all public employees into a 401(k) retirement plan like most private sector people have to accept. Annual cost of living? No! Bonuses? No! Free medical and health care for life? No! Up to 90% of ones pay as a pension? No!
I say, if the city of Flint, Michigan has to file for bankruptcy in order to cancel all of the current public employees outrageous contracts, they should do it. Would the cancellation of the public employees contracts and starting from scratch prevent the city from hiring new people for the positions? No way? There would be people standing in line for the jobs and these current public employees know that. Usually for a position for a policeman or fireman there is an excess in applicants. When the call goes out to hire 20 or 30 police officers or firemen there is generally thousands of applicants showing up for the job.
So, when and if the city of Flint, Michigan investigates the arson(s) being set around the city and if/and when they determine some of the arsonists were indeed firemen they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and not receive a wrist slap. As as added note: Other cities and counties across the country should take the same steps that Flint, Michigan did. Don't be afraid to fire these public employees.-And, that's my opinion.
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?
A few days ago I wrote an op-ed piece for the Las Vegas Review Journal. In it I said that Public Employee Unions are actually bankrupting this country with their near impossible demands for higher and higher salaries, excessive pay such as annual cost of living, merit pay,bonuses and unrealistic obscene retirement and pension plans. In the article I said that Flint, Michigan will be laying off Public Employees and some Safety workers.
Today Flint, Michigan laid off about one quarter of its Firemen. Good! As I stated in that article I think no one should be exempt from losing their job. Policemen, firemen and teachers should experience the same pain that employees in the private sector have to suffer through.
However, since the firemen were let go there has been a rash of fires and the city fathers and the fire chief says that the fires are not an accident. Well, "do ya think"? In the past few decades when firemen has been laid off or fired they began setting fires in their cities. Some were little fires in trash cans,in vacant lots with debris set ablaze and yes, even some buildings. When caught some of the culprits were only disciplined and most were let off with a slap on the wrist with the rationalization that the employees were angry about losing their jobs. What a joke!
This act of fires being set really drives a point home that when public employees in safety positions lose their job they strike out with vengeance and anger and are banking that their city will hire them back because of the increase in fires. If in fact, firemen are shown to be some of the arsonists they should never be rehired. Termination and jail time is appropriate.
I predict that if the city of Flint, Michigan actually investigates the fires being set in and about the city they will find that possibly some fireman are involved and the fires were an act of intimidation.
These acts of arson, no matter how small should not occur but I should mention that in addition to fireman being caught committing these acts, police officers and EMT's have come down with"blue flu" in past incidents and they also slowed down their response time to a crime scene. We shouldn't forget the health care community either.Union nurses and doctors have used sick outs and slow response to patients as a hammer to attempt to gain better union contracts. It's sad.
The inequity and parity between powerful union members and public employees wages compared to people working in the private sector is totally unrealistic but the lawmakers close their eyes and ears and like the three little monkeys they fail to see, hear and speak up against these abuses against the middle class taxpayer.
Flint, Michigan did the right thing when dealing with the Fire Department. They should also do the same with the Police Department. The state should take steps to repeal and revoke all contracts with public employees and start over again with sane and reasonable salaries and when it come to retirement and pensions they should put all public employees into a 401(k) retirement plan like most private sector people have to accept. Annual cost of living? No! Bonuses? No! Free medical and health care for life? No! Up to 90% of ones pay as a pension? No!
I say, if the city of Flint, Michigan has to file for bankruptcy in order to cancel all of the current public employees outrageous contracts, they should do it. Would the cancellation of the public employees contracts and starting from scratch prevent the city from hiring new people for the positions? No way? There would be people standing in line for the jobs and these current public employees know that. Usually for a position for a policeman or fireman there is an excess in applicants. When the call goes out to hire 20 or 30 police officers or firemen there is generally thousands of applicants showing up for the job.
So, when and if the city of Flint, Michigan investigates the arson(s) being set around the city and if/and when they determine some of the arsonists were indeed firemen they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and not receive a wrist slap. As as added note: Other cities and counties across the country should take the same steps that Flint, Michigan did. Don't be afraid to fire these public employees.-And, that's my opinion.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Gasoline Prices Up- Congress Is Bought By Big Oil
THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Well, again the price of gasoline is creeping up. It's going to hit $3.00 a gallon very quickly since spring is here and summer travel is on the horizon.
Our politicians are ignoring the gas increases, again! They have promised in the past that they are going to take substantial action against this large oil industry but it never happens. In the past these lawmakers put on a dog and pony show in front of television cameras by holding hearing but the idiotic hearing are nothing more than a photo-op for these greedy politicians. They pretend to listen to the people but accept the lame excuses of the big oil executives and behind the scenes they stuff their pockets and war chests with big oil money.
The price of oil is clearly manipulated by the oil cartels with the possible assist of many of these lawmakers. The oil industry wanted gasoline to go up to at least $2.00 a gallon years ago. What these slick manipulators did was raise the cost of a gallon of gas over $2.00 and then when people complained the oil industry lowered the price per gallon, - - but, only by a penny or two. Now, the oil industry had a new low base per gallon of two dollars. They did the same thing again raising the price to over $2.50, and when complaints were raised they lowered the price per gallon by a penny or two making the new low base price of a gallon of gas now $2.50. The manipulators continued this practice until gasoline cost $4.00 per gallon or more.
These lawmakers and oil execs now had the taxpayer believing that a $3.00 a gallon price was great. Following another Congressional hearing while pretending to blast the oil companies the price of gasoline fell once again. Gasoline fell below $2.00 a gallon but that didn't last long. Once the Presidential elections were over the price of gasoline began to inch up once again. While Obama's political agenda and policy was being debated the oil cartel began to raise the cost of a gallon of gas again. Now gasoline is on the verge of going over $3.00 a gallon and the politicians and big oil are hoping we don't notice the increases and continue to believe that $3.00 a gallon is a bargain. Once again, now the low base will be $3.00 per gallon. People, these overpaid, under worked lawmakers who sit in Congress (with a 16 % approval rating)is only interested in their own well being, not the middle class worker who pays their salaries.
We are spending a billion dollars a month on two wars, - three, if you include Pakistan and the Pakistan war will add even more to the current billion dollar figure. Yet, after squandering those billions of dollars and thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of civilian lives in those countries in the name of securing the world oil market our government overseers fail to fill the needs of our own citizens. We in the United States need our own roads, bridges, and electrical grids repaired. We need our own schools refurbished and rebuilt. We need construction flourishing again. We need our own borders secure (currently we have Mexico invading our cities) on the Southern border of the U.S. with their military personnel and drug cartel members and having fatal fire fights with our law enforcement.
There is a lot that we in this country really need and we need our Congress to stand up and stop the partisanship politics and do what's right for the USA as a whole. They should address these domestic problems immediately.
With that said, we in the United States should not be paying over $2.00 for a gallon of gasoline. Our lawmakers should take these oil companies to task.They should insist that the price of gasoline should be $2.00 a gallon or less. If Congress really wanted to do something to protect us consumers from gouging and market manipulation, they could, but won't. Because these greedy elites refuse to act to control gasoline prices they should be tossed out of office whether they be an incumbent or a freshman. They have had a number of opportunities to regulate excessive gasoline prices and I believe they should be held accountable. - And, that's my opinion.
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?
Well, again the price of gasoline is creeping up. It's going to hit $3.00 a gallon very quickly since spring is here and summer travel is on the horizon.
Our politicians are ignoring the gas increases, again! They have promised in the past that they are going to take substantial action against this large oil industry but it never happens. In the past these lawmakers put on a dog and pony show in front of television cameras by holding hearing but the idiotic hearing are nothing more than a photo-op for these greedy politicians. They pretend to listen to the people but accept the lame excuses of the big oil executives and behind the scenes they stuff their pockets and war chests with big oil money.
The price of oil is clearly manipulated by the oil cartels with the possible assist of many of these lawmakers. The oil industry wanted gasoline to go up to at least $2.00 a gallon years ago. What these slick manipulators did was raise the cost of a gallon of gas over $2.00 and then when people complained the oil industry lowered the price per gallon, - - but, only by a penny or two. Now, the oil industry had a new low base per gallon of two dollars. They did the same thing again raising the price to over $2.50, and when complaints were raised they lowered the price per gallon by a penny or two making the new low base price of a gallon of gas now $2.50. The manipulators continued this practice until gasoline cost $4.00 per gallon or more.
These lawmakers and oil execs now had the taxpayer believing that a $3.00 a gallon price was great. Following another Congressional hearing while pretending to blast the oil companies the price of gasoline fell once again. Gasoline fell below $2.00 a gallon but that didn't last long. Once the Presidential elections were over the price of gasoline began to inch up once again. While Obama's political agenda and policy was being debated the oil cartel began to raise the cost of a gallon of gas again. Now gasoline is on the verge of going over $3.00 a gallon and the politicians and big oil are hoping we don't notice the increases and continue to believe that $3.00 a gallon is a bargain. Once again, now the low base will be $3.00 per gallon. People, these overpaid, under worked lawmakers who sit in Congress (with a 16 % approval rating)is only interested in their own well being, not the middle class worker who pays their salaries.
We are spending a billion dollars a month on two wars, - three, if you include Pakistan and the Pakistan war will add even more to the current billion dollar figure. Yet, after squandering those billions of dollars and thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of civilian lives in those countries in the name of securing the world oil market our government overseers fail to fill the needs of our own citizens. We in the United States need our own roads, bridges, and electrical grids repaired. We need our own schools refurbished and rebuilt. We need construction flourishing again. We need our own borders secure (currently we have Mexico invading our cities) on the Southern border of the U.S. with their military personnel and drug cartel members and having fatal fire fights with our law enforcement.
There is a lot that we in this country really need and we need our Congress to stand up and stop the partisanship politics and do what's right for the USA as a whole. They should address these domestic problems immediately.
With that said, we in the United States should not be paying over $2.00 for a gallon of gasoline. Our lawmakers should take these oil companies to task.They should insist that the price of gasoline should be $2.00 a gallon or less. If Congress really wanted to do something to protect us consumers from gouging and market manipulation, they could, but won't. Because these greedy elites refuse to act to control gasoline prices they should be tossed out of office whether they be an incumbent or a freshman. They have had a number of opportunities to regulate excessive gasoline prices and I believe they should be held accountable. - And, that's my opinion.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)