VOTER PHOTO ID SHOULD BE THE LAW OF THE LAND.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The courts allowed Texas voter ID law to go forward. Hooray!
A majority of the Supreme Court on Saturday rejected an emergency request from Obama's Justice Dept. and Civil Rights groups to prohibit the state of Texas from requiring voters to show certain forms of photo ID in order to cast a ballot.
We have all these nanny's and cry babies saying that requiring someone to show a photo ID at the polls before they vote is mean and discriminatory. What a bunch of manure that argument is. The groups that are against photo ID also say that it will affect Latinos and Blacks because the poor people can't afford an ID. WHAT? Are they kidding? I believe that most everybody in the nation has some form of ID with a photo attached.
Many of the people that these groups and whimpy lawmaker's talk about already have ID's. Let's remember everyone generally needs an ID to cash a check; open a bank account; drive a car; collect city, county , state and federal benefits, such as welfare and social security. Even to buy alcohol in a 7-11 or liquor store the person has to show ID. They also need a passport and proper ID to travel into and outside the United States so -- hey! Come on.
The problem is the lawmaker's opposed to photo ID and the special ethnic groups that oppose the Photo ID plan clearly want people to vote that should not be allowed to vote. Many of these lawmaker's and groups have an agenda to allow illegal aliens and minorities to vote, perhaps multiple times.
One of the main reasons they oppose photo ID at the polls is that people can't afford an ID. Boy, are they reaching for straws. People, in many states if a person doesn't drive and have a drivers license the state will issue a state photo ID which basically looks like a drivers license ID. It has a photo, age and other pertinent data to identify that person holding the identification. Plus Texas and other states that ask for voter ID give the prospective voter ample opportunity to present other forms of photo identification . It's not like a person cannot identify themselves.
When my mother stopped driving at the age of 85-years-old, she relinquished her drivers license but she needed a photo ID so the state of California issued her the PHOTO ID for identification purposes. As I recall the cost of the photo ID card at the time was only $2.00 or $3.00 dollars. So my question? If a person claims they currently do not have a photo ID how much trouble is it to pay the state a few dollars to acquire one? If the person is elderly and can't afford the cost of a state ID card (as the people that oppose voter ID) claim. Why can't the children of the elderly person spring for the few bucks to have their parent issued a state ID card?
Folks, the other argument from those that oppose voter photo ID is that: there is not voter fraud occurring at the polls. They say because of that fact a voter photo ID card is unnecessary. How wrong they are. There IS voter ID fraud occurring every election throughout the country. People vote more than once. Others who are illegal aliens and people who do not have citizenship in the U.S. have been caught casting ballots in an election. However, the groups and people that are opposed to showing a photo ID at the polls want to turn a blind eye to the fraud. Many of the groups and people have an agenda. I submit they actually want the illegal aliens, non-citizens and the fraudsters to cast a ballot. Some political parties feel it is to their advantage to have illegal votes cast in order to sway an election one way or the other.
I suggest that the only reason an individual would not want to show a photo ID to authentic their person is because they have something to hide, (i.e.) they're not a legal citizen; they are an illegal alien; they are using a fraudulent name (some other identity); they are afraid to show up at a state office and present proof and identification that they are in fact the person who wants to be issued a voter ID card.
But keep in mind many of these same people that have objections to presenting a proper ID card at a voting booth are the same people that have NO problems presenting identification to collect social security benefits, welfare and food stamps, cash a check, show identification when asked to identify themselves by a law enforcement officer, dealing with the school and educational system, etc.
So what is their big gripe about not wanting to show proper identification in order to cast a vote? They seem to be able to identify themselves for many other reasons -- why not when casting a ballot to vote. I submit the Supreme Court should make it the law of the land that any e person who wants to cast a ballot in an election should have to present a photo ID to verify that person and their vote in in fact, legal. Voting in America is one of the most cherished rights an American citizen has. It should not be mucked up by a political party, a special group and/or a fraudulent person. Finally, who would be afraid to show a photo identification at a voting booth if they are a legal citizen of the United States? It's clear that a state ID card is available to anyone in most states (at a very nominal fee, sometimes free), if they can prove who they are. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decision. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhnsd, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Monday, October 20, 2014
THE ELDERLY LOSES OUT ON SOCIAL SECURITY COST-OF-LIVING (COLA) AGAIN.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Preliminary figures suggest that the cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA will e less than two (2%) percent com e January 2015. The government says gasoline prices are down from a year ago and so is the cost of clothing. Prices of meat, fish and eggs are up nearly nine(9%) percent.
Folks, those of us who depend on social security are feeling the squeeze and the idiotic small, tiny increase year after year. We people on social security continually lose that increase not only in the short-term, but we lose the compounding over time.
For the middle-class, for people who DO NOT qualify for low-income programs, they have to dip into their savings (if they have any) or they are borrowing against their homes to get by.
Congress enacted automatic increases for Social Security beneficiaries back in 1975, when inflation was high and there was a lot of pressure to raise benefits. For the first 35 years, the COLA was less than two(2%) percent ONLY three times. In fact, if the COLA is less than two(2%) percent next year, (2015), it would be the FIFTH time in six years,
Folks, the elderly seniors are being dinged over and over again. They may get a small, pittance of and increase but generally the cost of their Medicare share goes up and in most cases the person doesn't see any increase to spend. It is eaten up in the government's automatic raise for health care. So the small, tiny increase which will probably be (1.7%) is "zeroed" out, leaving the person with no increase at all.
I want to remind all you elderly people out there on social security that Congress, Federal employees, and public sector workers have seen annual cost-of-living increases each year ranging from THREE (3%) percent, FOUR, FIVE and SIX percent. Some have even received up to a TEN (10%) percent cost-of-living increase. So, tell me that's fair? It isn't. The (lawmakers, federal employees, and public employees) have clearly look out for their own well- being and retirement but in essence tell the elderly senior citizen ( let them eat cake) while they gorge at the government pigs trough.
I would suggest the elderly people and all of those dependent on social security benefits take to the streets demanding at least a THREE (3%) percent guarantee annual cost-of-living increase. It can be done by Congress if they want to do . They just have to rewrite parts of a law. If it's good enough for the Congress, federal employees and public employees to receive 3,4,5,6 and even ten percent cost-of living increases each year, it should be good enough for the elderly seniors depending on the benefit.
Finally, I would submit that EVERY person in America, including (Congress people, federal employees, public sector employees) have to be enrolled in the social security program. Their employers and themselves should have pay into the social security system just like all of us PRIVATE sector people holding down jobs. Their retirement expectations should be no different than what we in the private sector expect to receive when we retire.
As it stands now the social security COLA's are chained into the Consumer Price Index (CPI) . Many Democrats and advocates of older Americans have put a thumbs down on the CPI indexing for a Social Security COLA. They want a more generous COLA, that they say would reflect price increases faced by older American who clearly spend more of their income on health care. I totally agree with those Democrats and advocates of the elderly who want to see the social security COLA increased. That said, Congress should get of it's duff and find a way to calculate the COLA for social security increases that deal with reality. We need Congress men and women to stop looking out for themselves and think about the older Americans in this country and do what is right-- increase the annual COLA's other than depending on the CPI calculation. I would suggest that congress make sure older Americans receiving social security benefit COLA's see at least a THREE (3%) increase each and every year, at a minimum. That is fair.
You can bet that if all of the Congress people, federal employees and public employees were paying into the social security system like the rest of us common folk the fund would be more than stable and secure. Further, you can bet that if those lawmakers, federal employees and public employees had to depend on the social security benefits on retirement, (like the rest of us), not on the public dole, the social security fund would never be in trouble because those government people would have some skin in the game and wouldn't let it go for broke - -no matter what. - 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?
Preliminary figures suggest that the cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA will e less than two (2%) percent com e January 2015. The government says gasoline prices are down from a year ago and so is the cost of clothing. Prices of meat, fish and eggs are up nearly nine(9%) percent.
Folks, those of us who depend on social security are feeling the squeeze and the idiotic small, tiny increase year after year. We people on social security continually lose that increase not only in the short-term, but we lose the compounding over time.
For the middle-class, for people who DO NOT qualify for low-income programs, they have to dip into their savings (if they have any) or they are borrowing against their homes to get by.
Congress enacted automatic increases for Social Security beneficiaries back in 1975, when inflation was high and there was a lot of pressure to raise benefits. For the first 35 years, the COLA was less than two(2%) percent ONLY three times. In fact, if the COLA is less than two(2%) percent next year, (2015), it would be the FIFTH time in six years,
Folks, the elderly seniors are being dinged over and over again. They may get a small, pittance of and increase but generally the cost of their Medicare share goes up and in most cases the person doesn't see any increase to spend. It is eaten up in the government's automatic raise for health care. So the small, tiny increase which will probably be (1.7%) is "zeroed" out, leaving the person with no increase at all.
I want to remind all you elderly people out there on social security that Congress, Federal employees, and public sector workers have seen annual cost-of-living increases each year ranging from THREE (3%) percent, FOUR, FIVE and SIX percent. Some have even received up to a TEN (10%) percent cost-of-living increase. So, tell me that's fair? It isn't. The (lawmakers, federal employees, and public employees) have clearly look out for their own well- being and retirement but in essence tell the elderly senior citizen ( let them eat cake) while they gorge at the government pigs trough.
I would suggest the elderly people and all of those dependent on social security benefits take to the streets demanding at least a THREE (3%) percent guarantee annual cost-of-living increase. It can be done by Congress if they want to do . They just have to rewrite parts of a law. If it's good enough for the Congress, federal employees and public employees to receive 3,4,5,6 and even ten percent cost-of living increases each year, it should be good enough for the elderly seniors depending on the benefit.
Finally, I would submit that EVERY person in America, including (Congress people, federal employees, public sector employees) have to be enrolled in the social security program. Their employers and themselves should have pay into the social security system just like all of us PRIVATE sector people holding down jobs. Their retirement expectations should be no different than what we in the private sector expect to receive when we retire.
As it stands now the social security COLA's are chained into the Consumer Price Index (CPI) . Many Democrats and advocates of older Americans have put a thumbs down on the CPI indexing for a Social Security COLA. They want a more generous COLA, that they say would reflect price increases faced by older American who clearly spend more of their income on health care. I totally agree with those Democrats and advocates of the elderly who want to see the social security COLA increased. That said, Congress should get of it's duff and find a way to calculate the COLA for social security increases that deal with reality. We need Congress men and women to stop looking out for themselves and think about the older Americans in this country and do what is right-- increase the annual COLA's other than depending on the CPI calculation. I would suggest that congress make sure older Americans receiving social security benefit COLA's see at least a THREE (3%) increase each and every year, at a minimum. That is fair.
You can bet that if all of the Congress people, federal employees and public employees were paying into the social security system like the rest of us common folk the fund would be more than stable and secure. Further, you can bet that if those lawmakers, federal employees and public employees had to depend on the social security benefits on retirement, (like the rest of us), not on the public dole, the social security fund would never be in trouble because those government people would have some skin in the game and wouldn't let it go for broke - -no matter what. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Saturday, October 18, 2014
TRAVEL BANS, ISOLATION & QUARANTINE IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP EBOLA.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
President Obama selected a Czar to take charge of the Ebola situation. Wow! A czar. Didn't we go through this czar routine over and over again, especially with the DRUG CZAR's. Where did that get America? We lost the drug war decades ago. The czars didn't do a bit of good. Did they? Now an "Ebola czar" named Ron Klain, is Obama's point man. But folk, this guy has no medical or public health experience and background. He is nothing but a political appointee representing the White House.Klain was Obama's first choice for the position when I would think if Obama was that concerned about the health and welfare of the citizens of the United States he would have selected a person a least with infectious disease experience.
I suspect that this political friend of the White House is nothing more than Obama's way of dodging the bullet of being accountable for the Ebola crisis. This is just part of a dog and pony show by the White House.
Obama talks a good game but lacks the ability to take positive, responsible action in a crisis. He listens to a close group around him and in all likelihood goes with a majority consensus of the group meeting. The president came out and and said: " I have no philosophical objection" to imposing a travel ban on West Africa but after talking wit his health officials and security advisers he came up with the excuse that it would be less effective that the measures already in place -- and would be counterproductive. Are you kidding? There are other countries around the world implementing travel and visa bans on those from the West Africa. Again, the president is behind the curve and out of sync with other nations which will, in my opinion be a costly mistake.
Federal officials that are currently advising the president, said during a recent meeting that they place a special emphasis on the importance of stopping the virus in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea to "protect" Americans and the rest of the world from its spread. So Obama goes on TV and radio and says "we have to stop the Ebola at its source."
I agree . The fact that we have to stop the Ebola at it's source is necessary BUT that doesn't mean allowing infected people from these countries to travel will-nilly on airplanes and cruise ships to enter the United States. STOP it at the source, in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. That means ISOLATING the virus to those countries and dealing with it there. Until we have a resolution and solve the Ebola problem, we should NOT allow any traveler's from those infected countries into the United States.
People, it appears the president and his federal health officials talk out of both sides of their mouth. The Federal policy and protocol is FIRST- ISOLATE the infected patient. However, they refuse to isolate the patients from our borders. I suggest isolation is no different than isolating ONE patient here in the USA in a hospital versus isolating any and all traveler's from the countries spawning the disease. I suggest health officials and the president do as they say - -ISOLATE the disease at it's source , keeping it contained in those West Africa countries, treating it there. NOT HERE in the USA.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the United States was already taking the necessary steps to protect the public. He also said: " the chances for a widespread outbreak in the United States remain "exceedingly low" despite the shortcomings in the governments initial response." That should give Americans confidence? The government officials has been screwing up continually and they screwed up right out of the gate by allowing the first patient to be brought back to the United States.
I say that if a disease is to be treated at the source like Obama and his misfits claim, then they should not allow even one more person into the United States that is infected with Ebola. The borders of the United States is every Americans house and should be protected from someone walking into our house with a deadly disease. ISOLATE the infected people to their own house, and treat them there, their own country. That's their house. Further, I suggest that if the president and his posse of talking heads want to treat the Ebola virus "at the source" then send our expertise and expert doctors in to those countries, the infected peoples house and treat them right there, on the spot, containing the disease "at the source."
Already we had infected patient Duncan, then infected nurse, Pham, then infected nurse, 29-year-old Amber Joy Vinson and don't forget the other doctors the administration allowed back into the U.S. before infected patient Duncan passed the disease on in America.
We are told that the second nurse (who was allowed to monitor herself) contracted a fever and went to the hospital. She was "isolated" within 90 minutes. Folks, that's an hour and a half and we are to feel confident that the health workers are doing a good job taking that long to isolate someone with the fatal Ebola virus. It shouldn't have taken that long to get anyone in an isolation unit. Talk about falling down on the job, Christ, they sure did. A lot of people could have been exposed and infected in 90 minutes.
It's very nice that these federal health officials go on television and show some workers wearing gowns, wearing rubber gloves and covering their sleeves and then taping the gloves but hey!!!! Does that make you feel confident? I don't. These show- and- tells are for a play on television and is supposed to impress the American public that we are safe and that health care workers are being particularly careful.
With all this show- and- tell and assurances from the White House and federal health officials I would offer that this circus is nothing but (PC) "political correctness." As I predicted in an earlier blog the infected people in the West Africa countries could quickly reach 10,000 or more a-week and as this administration would have it, it's okay. They keep harping, "let these people come to the U.S. but how many infected people do we have to have come into the U.S. before we are "the source?!"
Folks, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if we keep allowing infected people to travel freely to our country we will soon have an epidemic here too. Common sense, folks. Using visa bans and banning air and cruise ship travel to our country will certainly prevent more infected people invading our shores. So, this stupid argument from Obama and his know-it-all crew that air travel bans won't work is unwarranted.
I also believe that these laser temperature guns and questionnaires is a farce. People will :lie" on the questionnaire (infected patient Duncan did). Those tactics are just another way to placate the American public into believing everyone is safe.
We all need a passport or some type of travel papers to go from country to country. Is the USA to wishy-washy to ask other countries to flag those people that have visited and/or lived in the West Africa countries in question? It would be no big task to have that done. They should be flagged and prohibited from entering the United States. The people from those countries could be held in quarantine for the 21 day symptom appearance time period.
And, finally, as I suggested before - - the "Q" word. Lets quarantine the infected people. We are not dealing with the common cold, we are dealing with a "death" sentence. Like I mentioned in an earlier blog I had occasion to go to the Leper Colony in Hawaii in the early 1950's, I can attest that what we consider isolation, was not isolation at the colony. The infected people lived in great housing quarters, they had most all of the conveniences, even drove cars. Many drove the Henry J. Kaiser automobile, which was popular in the early 50's. The Leper Colony was a living, breathing community. All the residents were Lepers and they did not consider themselves isolated. My point, even isolation can be made to be enjoyable. Now, 60- years later the world has many conveniences that make life much better than it was in the 50's. The age of the computer, iPhones, Internet are just some of the things available. Large screen TV's, spas, movies, restaurants, High Def, super large screens for a a person to Skype a call around the world is available. So, in quarantine an infected Ebola person can have all the toys at their disposal to communicate world-wide, enjoy restaurants and social activities in ONE LOCATION without exposing their fatal disease to the general public.
Again, as I've suggested in prior correspondence -- ONE LOCATION, ONE FACILITY, manned and staffed by an expert team of health care workers to treat infected Ebola patients.. - 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?
President Obama selected a Czar to take charge of the Ebola situation. Wow! A czar. Didn't we go through this czar routine over and over again, especially with the DRUG CZAR's. Where did that get America? We lost the drug war decades ago. The czars didn't do a bit of good. Did they? Now an "Ebola czar" named Ron Klain, is Obama's point man. But folk, this guy has no medical or public health experience and background. He is nothing but a political appointee representing the White House.Klain was Obama's first choice for the position when I would think if Obama was that concerned about the health and welfare of the citizens of the United States he would have selected a person a least with infectious disease experience.
I suspect that this political friend of the White House is nothing more than Obama's way of dodging the bullet of being accountable for the Ebola crisis. This is just part of a dog and pony show by the White House.
Obama talks a good game but lacks the ability to take positive, responsible action in a crisis. He listens to a close group around him and in all likelihood goes with a majority consensus of the group meeting. The president came out and and said: " I have no philosophical objection" to imposing a travel ban on West Africa but after talking wit his health officials and security advisers he came up with the excuse that it would be less effective that the measures already in place -- and would be counterproductive. Are you kidding? There are other countries around the world implementing travel and visa bans on those from the West Africa. Again, the president is behind the curve and out of sync with other nations which will, in my opinion be a costly mistake.
Federal officials that are currently advising the president, said during a recent meeting that they place a special emphasis on the importance of stopping the virus in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea to "protect" Americans and the rest of the world from its spread. So Obama goes on TV and radio and says "we have to stop the Ebola at its source."
I agree . The fact that we have to stop the Ebola at it's source is necessary BUT that doesn't mean allowing infected people from these countries to travel will-nilly on airplanes and cruise ships to enter the United States. STOP it at the source, in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. That means ISOLATING the virus to those countries and dealing with it there. Until we have a resolution and solve the Ebola problem, we should NOT allow any traveler's from those infected countries into the United States.
People, it appears the president and his federal health officials talk out of both sides of their mouth. The Federal policy and protocol is FIRST- ISOLATE the infected patient. However, they refuse to isolate the patients from our borders. I suggest isolation is no different than isolating ONE patient here in the USA in a hospital versus isolating any and all traveler's from the countries spawning the disease. I suggest health officials and the president do as they say - -ISOLATE the disease at it's source , keeping it contained in those West Africa countries, treating it there. NOT HERE in the USA.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the United States was already taking the necessary steps to protect the public. He also said: " the chances for a widespread outbreak in the United States remain "exceedingly low" despite the shortcomings in the governments initial response." That should give Americans confidence? The government officials has been screwing up continually and they screwed up right out of the gate by allowing the first patient to be brought back to the United States.
I say that if a disease is to be treated at the source like Obama and his misfits claim, then they should not allow even one more person into the United States that is infected with Ebola. The borders of the United States is every Americans house and should be protected from someone walking into our house with a deadly disease. ISOLATE the infected people to their own house, and treat them there, their own country. That's their house. Further, I suggest that if the president and his posse of talking heads want to treat the Ebola virus "at the source" then send our expertise and expert doctors in to those countries, the infected peoples house and treat them right there, on the spot, containing the disease "at the source."
Already we had infected patient Duncan, then infected nurse, Pham, then infected nurse, 29-year-old Amber Joy Vinson and don't forget the other doctors the administration allowed back into the U.S. before infected patient Duncan passed the disease on in America.
We are told that the second nurse (who was allowed to monitor herself) contracted a fever and went to the hospital. She was "isolated" within 90 minutes. Folks, that's an hour and a half and we are to feel confident that the health workers are doing a good job taking that long to isolate someone with the fatal Ebola virus. It shouldn't have taken that long to get anyone in an isolation unit. Talk about falling down on the job, Christ, they sure did. A lot of people could have been exposed and infected in 90 minutes.
It's very nice that these federal health officials go on television and show some workers wearing gowns, wearing rubber gloves and covering their sleeves and then taping the gloves but hey!!!! Does that make you feel confident? I don't. These show- and- tells are for a play on television and is supposed to impress the American public that we are safe and that health care workers are being particularly careful.
With all this show- and- tell and assurances from the White House and federal health officials I would offer that this circus is nothing but (PC) "political correctness." As I predicted in an earlier blog the infected people in the West Africa countries could quickly reach 10,000 or more a-week and as this administration would have it, it's okay. They keep harping, "let these people come to the U.S. but how many infected people do we have to have come into the U.S. before we are "the source?!"
Folks, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if we keep allowing infected people to travel freely to our country we will soon have an epidemic here too. Common sense, folks. Using visa bans and banning air and cruise ship travel to our country will certainly prevent more infected people invading our shores. So, this stupid argument from Obama and his know-it-all crew that air travel bans won't work is unwarranted.
I also believe that these laser temperature guns and questionnaires is a farce. People will :lie" on the questionnaire (infected patient Duncan did). Those tactics are just another way to placate the American public into believing everyone is safe.
We all need a passport or some type of travel papers to go from country to country. Is the USA to wishy-washy to ask other countries to flag those people that have visited and/or lived in the West Africa countries in question? It would be no big task to have that done. They should be flagged and prohibited from entering the United States. The people from those countries could be held in quarantine for the 21 day symptom appearance time period.
And, finally, as I suggested before - - the "Q" word. Lets quarantine the infected people. We are not dealing with the common cold, we are dealing with a "death" sentence. Like I mentioned in an earlier blog I had occasion to go to the Leper Colony in Hawaii in the early 1950's, I can attest that what we consider isolation, was not isolation at the colony. The infected people lived in great housing quarters, they had most all of the conveniences, even drove cars. Many drove the Henry J. Kaiser automobile, which was popular in the early 50's. The Leper Colony was a living, breathing community. All the residents were Lepers and they did not consider themselves isolated. My point, even isolation can be made to be enjoyable. Now, 60- years later the world has many conveniences that make life much better than it was in the 50's. The age of the computer, iPhones, Internet are just some of the things available. Large screen TV's, spas, movies, restaurants, High Def, super large screens for a a person to Skype a call around the world is available. So, in quarantine an infected Ebola person can have all the toys at their disposal to communicate world-wide, enjoy restaurants and social activities in ONE LOCATION without exposing their fatal disease to the general public.
Again, as I've suggested in prior correspondence -- ONE LOCATION, ONE FACILITY, manned and staffed by an expert team of health care workers to treat infected Ebola patients.. - And , that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Friday, October 17, 2014
ANOTHER IRRESPONSIBLE INFECTED EBOLA PATIENT RUNS AMOK.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The Ebola virus still keeps rolling along here in the USA. As I predicted in earlier blogs there are those people that contract the Ebola disease and fail to report it to health officials UNTIL their symptoms are in the treatment stage. These people only think about themselves. Take infected nurse, Amber Vinson. She thought nothing about taking a flight from Ohio to Texas. This woman put 70 or more fellow passengers at risk. In fact, the CDC is attempting to track down all of the passengers that was on the same flight as Vinson. Vinson was isolated when the plane arrived in Texas but keep in mind some of those passengers were within THREE feet of this infected nurse. She also exposed relatives and friends once she spent time in Ohio. It is reported that the state of Ohio is now trying to monitor 100 people this woman came in contact with.
The CDC health officials flatly stated that Amber Vinson SHOULD not have flown on the plane saying she should have known better. But again, this is just another reason to quarantine and isolate ANY possible infected person for at least 21 days until the supposedly incubation period of the disease has passed. Until Dr. Thomas Frieden and his ilk stop allowing health care workers to voluntarily monitor themselves for the disease this merry-go-round will continue and the Ebola will spread. Health officials HAVE to mandate and make it an order that anyone working in and around the Ebola patient be monitored by a team set up to do just that one task - - monitor health care workers.
Because of this woman's total disregard for other people the relatives of Vinson who work at Kent State were asked to remain off campus. Lets see how that works out, right? They should not be asked - - I believe they should be ordered to stay off campus and quarantined for the 21 days in their own residence completely away from the general public. Hell, even Vinson's apartment had to be decontaminated by teams of workers and all the residents in the building had to be notified. All because of the actions one person, Amber Vinson. If Vinson was around children they may have been exposed, if so, they should not be allowed inside a school for at least 21 days - - and, I have my doubts regarding the 21 day monitor period. But that's another story all in itself.
Frieden, the director of the CDC, who acknowledged "LAPSES" in his and other health officials handling of the Ebola outbreak still is sugar coating the real dangers of Ebola virus. He says: " The risk to other passengers on the Frontier Airlines flight is "very low." To me that is displaying a lack of urgency and seriousness of the disease. And yet, Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins, the county's chief political officer, said authorities were "anticipating" additional Ebola cases. He went on to say: " We are preparing for contingencies for more, and that is a real possibility."
Folks, you can bet there will be more. I've said that all along but as some health officials tell America that there is nothing to worry about, other like Jenkins know there is something to worry about but still continue the "rosy glasses" routine.
Finally, I would suggest that the men and woman that have been infected with the Ebola virus and disregard the welfare and well-being of other Americans by going out among the masses should be held accountable and prosecuted. If exposing others to a deadly disease is not a crime, I don't know what is. And, I'll say it again and keep saying it until some of these dummy health officials and the administration listen up: That is, ONE LOCATION, ONE FACILITY. Isolation, containment and quarantine is the path to go down. Otherwise we will continue to have infected patients like DUNCAN, (who lied), and Amber Vinson , who knew better than to fly on an airplane in her condition but did so anyway. It is people like this that will perpetuate the disease, passing it on and on to others. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions, You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Monday, October 13, 2014
EBOLA VIRUS CONTINUES TO INFECT- WE NEED ACTION, NOT WORDS
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS
Hello America. and how is the world treating you?
The Ebola fiasco is still happening and as I stated in earlier blogs some of the people supposedly in charge still don't get it.
I also mentioned previously that there should be "ONLY" one center to accept and treat Ebola patients but because of political correctness the health officials turn a blind eye. For example, I mentioned in an earlier blog that I had occasion in the early 1950's to spend time at the Leper Colony in the Hawaiian Islands. The entire Island was dedicated to housing and treating Leper patients. The medical staff was trained, were constantly on site, and had specific protocols and policy set up to treat the Leprosy and none of the Lepers were in contact with the general population off the Island. I would have to say that the isolation and the treatment given the Leper community was well organized and controlled. The disease was well contained.
As I proposed, specialized treatment units and location are ideal. That should be the watch word.
With the resources the United States has it would be no problem to set up ONE location and ONE facility where all possible Ebola infected people are treated and cared for by a group of trained staff. From day one of the Ebola matter I have always maintained that the federal government and its health authorities should mandate and require any/and all Ebola patients be sent to a highly specialized "containment" center. Money spent for the protection of Americans should come first, rather than giving BILLIONS of dollars to foreign countries who take our money and spit in our face.
It has been reported that "new" data suggests that even "tiny droplets" of a patients body fluids can contain the fatal virus. And, I emphasize the word "new." So, believe me when I say that one careless nurse, doctor and/or health care worker can pick up some secretions and/or body fluids and spread the disease.
Again, I say that allowing each and every hospital in America to accept possible Ebola patients is a losing battle. Why? Because each and every hospital's emergency room is clearly NOT prepared to isolate , contain and take infection control precautions. Hell, at the present time there are hundreds of thousands of people that contract illness and disease while spending time in a hospital. In many cases a patient comes out of the hospital with a disease that is worse that the ailment they went to the hospital for originally. Infection control in hospitals in the United States at the present time is dismal. Many patients become gravely ill, some die. A hospital-acquired infection is called "nosocomial" and the biggest offender causing a nosocomial hospital-acquired infection is "lack of hand washing." It's hard to believe but the truth is the truth. Doctors, nurses, technicians and support staff frequently touch patients before washing their hands, thereby transferring a virus and/or disease on to an unsuspecting patient. And now, these health officials tell Americans that they have everything regarding Ebola under control? Hell ! If they cannot even wash their hands before treating a patient, what makes you think that they will not take short cuts and break policy and protocol with the fatal Ebola?
Case in point: One of the nurses, (26- year-old, Nina Pham) who treated infected patient Duncan at Texas Presbyterian contracted the Ebola virus and then she came in contact with others at the hospital. There were also at least 70 other hospital staffers who were involved in Thomas Eric Duncan's care. I would think these people warrant watching and monitored. Nurse Pham must have violated or ignored protocol in some way if she came down worth the virus. She contracted the virus and according to the talking heads that claim to know everything about Ebola say that policy and/or protocol HAD to be broken in order for Pham to contract Ebola. I believe it is "unacceptable" to have a health care worker contract the disease. You can't have it both ways, people. There is no such thing as being "only half pregnant." It's an "either -or" situation. Pham either broke protocol or she didn't. My view is that if she followed policy and protocol she would NOT have contracted Ebola. The conclusion being: She contracted Ebola so she MUST have broken protocol and/or policy. Lets face it - - If you go to bed at night and there's NO snow on the ground and you wake up the next morning and there IS snow on the ground , one can conclude that indeed, it did snow during the night. But the sad part of this case is Dr. Frieden initially indicated the nurse broke protocol in some way, shape or form BUT after a group of nurses complained about his statement saying he's blaming the nurse--Dr. Frieden., the head of the CDC back-peddled, and softened his remarks and apologized to the world and the nurse. Wow! What's that tell you folks. Here we are dealing with one of the most deadly diseases in the entire world but to be politically correct and to sooth over hard feeling of a specific group it appears Dr. Frieden bends with the wind and is willing to change views in a heartbeat. Does that give one confidence in the governments edicts? I think not.
I see one of the failures in policy/protocol as allowing these health care workers who work with isolated Ebola patients to"self-monitor" themselves. As it stands, it appears health officials have been relying on an "honor" system . They expect health care workers to report any potential exposure and watch themselves for symptoms. I see that clearly as a dangerous move. Any health care worker may be afraid to report any symptoms and/or knowingly fail to report symptoms. I would offer the following: Have any and all health care workers involved in Ebola treatment monitored by a team of experts. The government health officials should not leave these workers the option to monitor themselves.
Folks, small hospitals across the country are not equipped to handle Ebola patients. They never will be. I have no doubt that nurses and health care workers in every position is "frightened, afraid" because of the training they never received or the inadequate training they may have received.
I suggest that the people in charge like, Dr. Tom Frieden, head of the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention and state Health officials throughout the country are a "day late and a dollar short." Now, and only now, they are screaming and yelling that they "will" set up training, policy and protocols. They intend to ramp up training NOW? Where were they when Ebola reared it's ugly head years ago? Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? I say Ebola training protocols should have be set up and in place years ago. I think people have been sleeping at the switch.
Mark my words, these health officials who are now telling Americans there is nothing to worry about will argue against treating any and all Ebola infected patients at ONE location, ONE facility. I will further predict these same health officials will say it's dangerous and high-risk to "transfer" the patient because it has potential to expose more people to the virus. To me, that's a lame argument. The Ebola patient would have to be transported in any event, whether from a residence, business, off the street, etc., by health care workers wearing the protective gear that was used to transport the first doctor who was brought back to the United States for treatment. So transferring the patient directly to one specific Ebola facility at one specific location for isolation, containment and treatment would not be as dangerous as allowing an Ebola patient to "try" to be treated at some small hospital emergency room in some small town or city where the risks of an error would be enormous.
As I write this I understand that Dr. Tom Frieden, head of the CDC again went to the media and said something like: "We have to rethink how we handle Ebola." " Even a single case of Ebola is unacceptable." No kidding!
Here's a few suggestion(s) for the health officials that would rather talk, than act.
1. Look at the type of protective gear being used to handle an Ebola patient.
2. Minimize the number of heath care workers caring for an Ebola patient.
3. Have one specific team work with the Ebola patient.
4. Have members of that team trained with specific policy and protocol to be followed by the numbers, checked off a clip board, not unlike a (flight check for pilots) as they gear up and progress through each phase of treatment and carried out to removing the protective gear.
5. And, most of all, transfer any/and all Ebola infected patients to ONE LOCATION, ONE FACILITY where all data, medical records and treatment can be closely monitored and controlled, preventing possible exposure to the general population outside the facility.
Note: The one facility, one location for isolation and treatment might be: a particular military base that has been closed for years. It could be set up with the most sophisticated equipment and staffed with the trained medical personnel most able to treat and care for Ebola patients. I would think this would put the military base to good use. The patients. would be centralized, contained and would avoid exposure to the general population of Americans. There also would be no opportunity for the Ebola infected people to ignore quarantine rules and regulations. They could be housed on the base as thousands of military men and women have been before the base closure.
A secondary suggestion could be that Ebola patients be transferred to a ship for care and treatment. Keep in mind the United States has a number of medical ships already operating around the world and it would be easy enough to treat Ebola patients on a ship. Remember many of the ships in the United States fleet house 3,000, even 4000 or more individuals and since we already know how to equip a ship for medical treatments, one could be specific for Ebola patients. Again, One location, one facility.
6.Conduct frequent and periodic checks on any/and all health care workers and personnel working in the Ebola facility and around infected Ebola patients.
There clearly is many other suggestions that could and should be put in place to protect all Americans from the deadly Ebola but the ones mentioned herein is a start.
Finally, here's a scary though people. I predict that it will only be a matter of time, in the near future, before an illegal alien crosses our Southern Border carrying this deadly virus. And if I were a betting man I would put money down that the illegal will co-mingle with people in the community and pass the disease on to others before it is detected. By then -- the spread of this killer disease will be much more difficult to trace. That is what is happening right now in West Africa. People in those countries and their relatives are infected and they fail to report it. The result is now over 4000 deaths and climbing, as of this date. I would estimate that within 9 months to a year the death toll in West Africa will reach at least 10,000. per month You can bet that the same will occur here because of our porous borders if Congress does not address the problem.
I predict this scenario will happen because of our weak-headed lawmakers in Washington who are still playing games with securing our borders. Christ, they don't even want to suspend flights into the country or place visa bans on these West Africa countries (which would be a great first step). So wishing and hoping this lame Congress will get some back bone, step up and "secure" our borders to " prevent the spread of Ebola" is just that - -wishful thinking. It's been reported by West Africa officials and officials in the United States that the Ebola epidemic in West Africa is clearly "out of control." What does Congress not understand about "out of control?" You would think our lawmakers in Congress would learn by experience and from the past but they continue to ignore the warning signs and allow the lethal Ebola virus to gain a foothold in America. First, it was ONE patient, that ONE turned into TWO, TWO turned into THREE and so on, --- and it's going to get worse and the numbers are going to multiply if lawmakers continue on this irresponsible path.
I suggested that the first patient should not have been brought back to the USA, I said that he should have been treated in West Africa. Others like Donald Trump said the same thing. But the dumb bunnies in Washington put a rubber stamp on bringing the Ebola patients back to America. Look at the result. The stock market has crashed and burned. In fact it fell by hundreds of points three and four days in a row. Airline stocks fell. People are afraid to fly. And, I predict that when the Ebola numbers continue to rise the lawmakers and these same health officials that have been preaching the word will say they didn't see it coming and something unexpected caused the virus to "get out of control" in America. They will be playing the blame game and pointing fingers. - 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
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS
Hello America. and how is the world treating you?
The Ebola fiasco is still happening and as I stated in earlier blogs some of the people supposedly in charge still don't get it.
I also mentioned previously that there should be "ONLY" one center to accept and treat Ebola patients but because of political correctness the health officials turn a blind eye. For example, I mentioned in an earlier blog that I had occasion in the early 1950's to spend time at the Leper Colony in the Hawaiian Islands. The entire Island was dedicated to housing and treating Leper patients. The medical staff was trained, were constantly on site, and had specific protocols and policy set up to treat the Leprosy and none of the Lepers were in contact with the general population off the Island. I would have to say that the isolation and the treatment given the Leper community was well organized and controlled. The disease was well contained.
As I proposed, specialized treatment units and location are ideal. That should be the watch word.
With the resources the United States has it would be no problem to set up ONE location and ONE facility where all possible Ebola infected people are treated and cared for by a group of trained staff. From day one of the Ebola matter I have always maintained that the federal government and its health authorities should mandate and require any/and all Ebola patients be sent to a highly specialized "containment" center. Money spent for the protection of Americans should come first, rather than giving BILLIONS of dollars to foreign countries who take our money and spit in our face.
It has been reported that "new" data suggests that even "tiny droplets" of a patients body fluids can contain the fatal virus. And, I emphasize the word "new." So, believe me when I say that one careless nurse, doctor and/or health care worker can pick up some secretions and/or body fluids and spread the disease.
Again, I say that allowing each and every hospital in America to accept possible Ebola patients is a losing battle. Why? Because each and every hospital's emergency room is clearly NOT prepared to isolate , contain and take infection control precautions. Hell, at the present time there are hundreds of thousands of people that contract illness and disease while spending time in a hospital. In many cases a patient comes out of the hospital with a disease that is worse that the ailment they went to the hospital for originally. Infection control in hospitals in the United States at the present time is dismal. Many patients become gravely ill, some die. A hospital-acquired infection is called "nosocomial" and the biggest offender causing a nosocomial hospital-acquired infection is "lack of hand washing." It's hard to believe but the truth is the truth. Doctors, nurses, technicians and support staff frequently touch patients before washing their hands, thereby transferring a virus and/or disease on to an unsuspecting patient. And now, these health officials tell Americans that they have everything regarding Ebola under control? Hell ! If they cannot even wash their hands before treating a patient, what makes you think that they will not take short cuts and break policy and protocol with the fatal Ebola?
Case in point: One of the nurses, (26- year-old, Nina Pham) who treated infected patient Duncan at Texas Presbyterian contracted the Ebola virus and then she came in contact with others at the hospital. There were also at least 70 other hospital staffers who were involved in Thomas Eric Duncan's care. I would think these people warrant watching and monitored. Nurse Pham must have violated or ignored protocol in some way if she came down worth the virus. She contracted the virus and according to the talking heads that claim to know everything about Ebola say that policy and/or protocol HAD to be broken in order for Pham to contract Ebola. I believe it is "unacceptable" to have a health care worker contract the disease. You can't have it both ways, people. There is no such thing as being "only half pregnant." It's an "either -or" situation. Pham either broke protocol or she didn't. My view is that if she followed policy and protocol she would NOT have contracted Ebola. The conclusion being: She contracted Ebola so she MUST have broken protocol and/or policy. Lets face it - - If you go to bed at night and there's NO snow on the ground and you wake up the next morning and there IS snow on the ground , one can conclude that indeed, it did snow during the night. But the sad part of this case is Dr. Frieden initially indicated the nurse broke protocol in some way, shape or form BUT after a group of nurses complained about his statement saying he's blaming the nurse--Dr. Frieden., the head of the CDC back-peddled, and softened his remarks and apologized to the world and the nurse. Wow! What's that tell you folks. Here we are dealing with one of the most deadly diseases in the entire world but to be politically correct and to sooth over hard feeling of a specific group it appears Dr. Frieden bends with the wind and is willing to change views in a heartbeat. Does that give one confidence in the governments edicts? I think not.
I see one of the failures in policy/protocol as allowing these health care workers who work with isolated Ebola patients to"self-monitor" themselves. As it stands, it appears health officials have been relying on an "honor" system . They expect health care workers to report any potential exposure and watch themselves for symptoms. I see that clearly as a dangerous move. Any health care worker may be afraid to report any symptoms and/or knowingly fail to report symptoms. I would offer the following: Have any and all health care workers involved in Ebola treatment monitored by a team of experts. The government health officials should not leave these workers the option to monitor themselves.
Folks, small hospitals across the country are not equipped to handle Ebola patients. They never will be. I have no doubt that nurses and health care workers in every position is "frightened, afraid" because of the training they never received or the inadequate training they may have received.
I suggest that the people in charge like, Dr. Tom Frieden, head of the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention and state Health officials throughout the country are a "day late and a dollar short." Now, and only now, they are screaming and yelling that they "will" set up training, policy and protocols. They intend to ramp up training NOW? Where were they when Ebola reared it's ugly head years ago? Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? I say Ebola training protocols should have be set up and in place years ago. I think people have been sleeping at the switch.
Mark my words, these health officials who are now telling Americans there is nothing to worry about will argue against treating any and all Ebola infected patients at ONE location, ONE facility. I will further predict these same health officials will say it's dangerous and high-risk to "transfer" the patient because it has potential to expose more people to the virus. To me, that's a lame argument. The Ebola patient would have to be transported in any event, whether from a residence, business, off the street, etc., by health care workers wearing the protective gear that was used to transport the first doctor who was brought back to the United States for treatment. So transferring the patient directly to one specific Ebola facility at one specific location for isolation, containment and treatment would not be as dangerous as allowing an Ebola patient to "try" to be treated at some small hospital emergency room in some small town or city where the risks of an error would be enormous.
As I write this I understand that Dr. Tom Frieden, head of the CDC again went to the media and said something like: "We have to rethink how we handle Ebola." " Even a single case of Ebola is unacceptable." No kidding!
Here's a few suggestion(s) for the health officials that would rather talk, than act.
1. Look at the type of protective gear being used to handle an Ebola patient.
2. Minimize the number of heath care workers caring for an Ebola patient.
3. Have one specific team work with the Ebola patient.
4. Have members of that team trained with specific policy and protocol to be followed by the numbers, checked off a clip board, not unlike a (flight check for pilots) as they gear up and progress through each phase of treatment and carried out to removing the protective gear.
5. And, most of all, transfer any/and all Ebola infected patients to ONE LOCATION, ONE FACILITY where all data, medical records and treatment can be closely monitored and controlled, preventing possible exposure to the general population outside the facility.
Note: The one facility, one location for isolation and treatment might be: a particular military base that has been closed for years. It could be set up with the most sophisticated equipment and staffed with the trained medical personnel most able to treat and care for Ebola patients. I would think this would put the military base to good use. The patients. would be centralized, contained and would avoid exposure to the general population of Americans. There also would be no opportunity for the Ebola infected people to ignore quarantine rules and regulations. They could be housed on the base as thousands of military men and women have been before the base closure.
A secondary suggestion could be that Ebola patients be transferred to a ship for care and treatment. Keep in mind the United States has a number of medical ships already operating around the world and it would be easy enough to treat Ebola patients on a ship. Remember many of the ships in the United States fleet house 3,000, even 4000 or more individuals and since we already know how to equip a ship for medical treatments, one could be specific for Ebola patients. Again, One location, one facility.
6.Conduct frequent and periodic checks on any/and all health care workers and personnel working in the Ebola facility and around infected Ebola patients.
There clearly is many other suggestions that could and should be put in place to protect all Americans from the deadly Ebola but the ones mentioned herein is a start.
Finally, here's a scary though people. I predict that it will only be a matter of time, in the near future, before an illegal alien crosses our Southern Border carrying this deadly virus. And if I were a betting man I would put money down that the illegal will co-mingle with people in the community and pass the disease on to others before it is detected. By then -- the spread of this killer disease will be much more difficult to trace. That is what is happening right now in West Africa. People in those countries and their relatives are infected and they fail to report it. The result is now over 4000 deaths and climbing, as of this date. I would estimate that within 9 months to a year the death toll in West Africa will reach at least 10,000. per month You can bet that the same will occur here because of our porous borders if Congress does not address the problem.
I predict this scenario will happen because of our weak-headed lawmakers in Washington who are still playing games with securing our borders. Christ, they don't even want to suspend flights into the country or place visa bans on these West Africa countries (which would be a great first step). So wishing and hoping this lame Congress will get some back bone, step up and "secure" our borders to " prevent the spread of Ebola" is just that - -wishful thinking. It's been reported by West Africa officials and officials in the United States that the Ebola epidemic in West Africa is clearly "out of control." What does Congress not understand about "out of control?" You would think our lawmakers in Congress would learn by experience and from the past but they continue to ignore the warning signs and allow the lethal Ebola virus to gain a foothold in America. First, it was ONE patient, that ONE turned into TWO, TWO turned into THREE and so on, --- and it's going to get worse and the numbers are going to multiply if lawmakers continue on this irresponsible path.
I suggested that the first patient should not have been brought back to the USA, I said that he should have been treated in West Africa. Others like Donald Trump said the same thing. But the dumb bunnies in Washington put a rubber stamp on bringing the Ebola patients back to America. Look at the result. The stock market has crashed and burned. In fact it fell by hundreds of points three and four days in a row. Airline stocks fell. People are afraid to fly. And, I predict that when the Ebola numbers continue to rise the lawmakers and these same health officials that have been preaching the word will say they didn't see it coming and something unexpected caused the virus to "get out of control" in America. They will be playing the blame game and pointing fingers. - 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
Sunday, October 12, 2014
PEOPLE POSSIBLY INFECTED WITH A DEADLY DISEASE LIKE EBOLA OFTEN LIE.
THE KUHNS REPORT
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
As prior blogs of mine attest, my predictions regarding Ebola have come to pass. So, I dare make another prediction. If people who are suspected of having Ebola and those that actually do carry the virus continue to ignore Health officials warning of staying isolated and confined to their home and voluntarily quarantine themselves until the 21 days of expected infection has passed there will be many, many cases of Ebola showing up around the United States.
Two cases in point: The first is: The family of infected patient Duncan refused to follow the instructions and orders of the health officials in Texas. They didn't want to be isolated and wanted to venture out among the general public even though they may have been infected with the deadly virus. Thus, because of their stubborn refusal to follow directions guards had to be placed outside their residence.
Second case is: The NBC news crew that worked with American cameraman Ashoka Mukpo who was infected with the Ebola virus. He is currently being treated here in the U.S. at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The NBC news crew had "AGREED" with New Jersey health officials to sequester and isolate themselves upon returning to the U.S. but then "FAILED" to do so according to the New Jersey Department of Health. So, a MANDATORY QUARANTINE was issued late Friday and will ensure that the group will remain confined until October 22, 2014 the end of a 21- day maximum incubation period for Ebola. Now, the New Jersey Health Department spokesperson, for the Health Department, Donna Leusner, covers their butt by saying: " There is no reason for concern of exposure to the community." Really? What if the crew eventually exhibited symptoms that showed infection with Ebola? The community would have been at risk. It's these kind of screw ups by health officials that will cause the disease to spread. This NBC crew should have been mandated to be quarantined "immediately" upon arrival in the United States. There should have been no if, ands, or buts about it. The crew should not have had a choice to voluntarily quarantine themselves. Why? Because like what happened, they broke their agreement and FAILED to quarantine themselves.And like infected patient Duncan, who LIED to officials that he came in contact with an infected Ebola person and his relatives in Texas refusing to stay away from the general population it appears that possible infected people do not give a damn about anyone that they may come in contact with and pass the Ebola virus on to others.
That's not unusual though. It happened with AIDS/HIV and other deadly diseases where the infected person refuses to stay away from others while infected. No matter what, that infected individual insists on mixing and mingling with others. It's wrong but they do just that, usually rationalizing to themselves that they will not infect others.
I also made an earlier prediction that if these infected Ebola patients are spread out throughout the United States for treatment it will be more difficult to get a handle on the fatal disease and it will spread. I believe that any and all people diagnosed with Ebola should be transported to and treated at one "central" location. They should be isolated and quarantined at that "one" facility location. I submit that would be much safer for the general public. The entire country would feel confident that all of the infected Ebola patients was being cared for at a specialized location by health care workers who could control the environment at any given second. I also submit that there would be less chance of an error occurring at the one location rather that having an incompetent health care worker who violates policy and protocol at some hospital(s) spread out around the country. All it's going to take is "one" health care worker to screw up like the nurse and doctors in Texas did and the result will be crops and clusters of Ebola infected people in different towns and cities across the nation.
In the 1950's I had the opportunity to travel to Hawaii and spend some time at the Leper colony that was segregated on one Island of Hawaii. At the time, it appeared to be a good model to treat Leprosy. It could be said that with such a deadly disease as Ebola, the idea of one facility, one location (like the leprosy colony) in Hawaii is a good argument for treatment and control. If it were up to me I would argue against having Ebola patients treated here, there, and everywhere throughout the United States. People, we are not talking about a flu, a cold, even heart disease, diabetes, and the myriad of other diseases that afflict mankind. We are talking about one of the most deadliest, fatal diseases on the planet.
I would like to see all of these health department officials (talking heads) that go on T.V. and play the political correct card and (we got it under control) card take swift, concise action which may include, but not limited to: suspended flights from the West African countries; a ban on visas regarding people from the West African countries; treatment and quarantine of any infected Ebola patient done at one location in the country, at one facility.
I would venture to say that if some of my suggestions are adopted we would have control of each and every infected Ebola patient centralized. Tracking, observation and treatment of the Ebola patient could easily be under one roof. This idea of "I think the patient is okay, release them." is bad medicine. Foe all pf the medical community's bluster and assurance that everything is just "peachy" is a disservice to the American public. I suggest that there is still a very lot of unknowns to this Ebola virus that the medical people are unaware of (long term) and being afraid to make some people angry or upset by quarantine and isolation for the sake of a "free society" is ludicrous. - - 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
THE KUHNS REPORT
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
As prior blogs of mine attest, my predictions regarding Ebola have come to pass. So, I dare make another prediction. If people who are suspected of having Ebola and those that actually do carry the virus continue to ignore Health officials warning of staying isolated and confined to their home and voluntarily quarantine themselves until the 21 days of expected infection has passed there will be many, many cases of Ebola showing up around the United States.
Two cases in point: The first is: The family of infected patient Duncan refused to follow the instructions and orders of the health officials in Texas. They didn't want to be isolated and wanted to venture out among the general public even though they may have been infected with the deadly virus. Thus, because of their stubborn refusal to follow directions guards had to be placed outside their residence.
Second case is: The NBC news crew that worked with American cameraman Ashoka Mukpo who was infected with the Ebola virus. He is currently being treated here in the U.S. at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The NBC news crew had "AGREED" with New Jersey health officials to sequester and isolate themselves upon returning to the U.S. but then "FAILED" to do so according to the New Jersey Department of Health. So, a MANDATORY QUARANTINE was issued late Friday and will ensure that the group will remain confined until October 22, 2014 the end of a 21- day maximum incubation period for Ebola. Now, the New Jersey Health Department spokesperson, for the Health Department, Donna Leusner, covers their butt by saying: " There is no reason for concern of exposure to the community." Really? What if the crew eventually exhibited symptoms that showed infection with Ebola? The community would have been at risk. It's these kind of screw ups by health officials that will cause the disease to spread. This NBC crew should have been mandated to be quarantined "immediately" upon arrival in the United States. There should have been no if, ands, or buts about it. The crew should not have had a choice to voluntarily quarantine themselves. Why? Because like what happened, they broke their agreement and FAILED to quarantine themselves.And like infected patient Duncan, who LIED to officials that he came in contact with an infected Ebola person and his relatives in Texas refusing to stay away from the general population it appears that possible infected people do not give a damn about anyone that they may come in contact with and pass the Ebola virus on to others.
That's not unusual though. It happened with AIDS/HIV and other deadly diseases where the infected person refuses to stay away from others while infected. No matter what, that infected individual insists on mixing and mingling with others. It's wrong but they do just that, usually rationalizing to themselves that they will not infect others.
I also made an earlier prediction that if these infected Ebola patients are spread out throughout the United States for treatment it will be more difficult to get a handle on the fatal disease and it will spread. I believe that any and all people diagnosed with Ebola should be transported to and treated at one "central" location. They should be isolated and quarantined at that "one" facility location. I submit that would be much safer for the general public. The entire country would feel confident that all of the infected Ebola patients was being cared for at a specialized location by health care workers who could control the environment at any given second. I also submit that there would be less chance of an error occurring at the one location rather that having an incompetent health care worker who violates policy and protocol at some hospital(s) spread out around the country. All it's going to take is "one" health care worker to screw up like the nurse and doctors in Texas did and the result will be crops and clusters of Ebola infected people in different towns and cities across the nation.
In the 1950's I had the opportunity to travel to Hawaii and spend some time at the Leper colony that was segregated on one Island of Hawaii. At the time, it appeared to be a good model to treat Leprosy. It could be said that with such a deadly disease as Ebola, the idea of one facility, one location (like the leprosy colony) in Hawaii is a good argument for treatment and control. If it were up to me I would argue against having Ebola patients treated here, there, and everywhere throughout the United States. People, we are not talking about a flu, a cold, even heart disease, diabetes, and the myriad of other diseases that afflict mankind. We are talking about one of the most deadliest, fatal diseases on the planet.
I would like to see all of these health department officials (talking heads) that go on T.V. and play the political correct card and (we got it under control) card take swift, concise action which may include, but not limited to: suspended flights from the West African countries; a ban on visas regarding people from the West African countries; treatment and quarantine of any infected Ebola patient done at one location in the country, at one facility.
I would venture to say that if some of my suggestions are adopted we would have control of each and every infected Ebola patient centralized. Tracking, observation and treatment of the Ebola patient could easily be under one roof. This idea of "I think the patient is okay, release them." is bad medicine. Foe all pf the medical community's bluster and assurance that everything is just "peachy" is a disservice to the American public. I suggest that there is still a very lot of unknowns to this Ebola virus that the medical people are unaware of (long term) and being afraid to make some people angry or upset by quarantine and isolation for the sake of a "free society" is ludicrous. - - 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
Sunday, October 5, 2014
THE BEHEADINGS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED. DON'T LET THE GOVERNMENT FOOL YOU.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Another person was beheaded in the Iraq/Syrian conflict. Alan Henning, a British citizen, the fourth such killing by ISIS is now a footnote in history. Mr. Henning's statement before he was killed was: " Because our parliament's decision to attack the Islamic State, I, as a member of the British public, will now pay the price for that decision."
Then a male voice says: "The blood of David Haines (another Brit) who was beheaded was on your hands, Cameron, in reference to Britain's prime minister, David Cameron. " Alan Henning will also be slaughtered, but his blood is on the hands if the British parliament."
Following that the black-clan man later introduces another hostage he identifies as American Peter Edward Kassig , an aid worker, who delivered food and medical supplies to Syrian refugees. He said Kassig is the next person scheduled for execution. U.S. officials confirmed an American with that name was being held by militants and had no doubt the video titled: "Another Message to America and its Allies" was authentic.
The statement Alan Henning made before he died was denounced by British and U.S. officials as propaganda saying it was a forced statement as were all other statements from prior beheaded victims. They don't know that. That's political spin on their part. I say, what if those statements by these hero's were in fact the truth? Why is it when an American, Brit or any captive pleads for their life and/or gives a reason for their oncoming, eminent death the governments official line is the " statements were coerced." The U.S. has their own propaganda machine. It is the State Department's office for counter-terrorism propaganda which is currently headed up by Alberto Fernandez. It is their job to spin, mask, manipulate and cover statements to make them fit the administrations point of view. Thus, when a captive pleads for their life and/or gives statement before execution - - what is the truth? In many cases in the past where captives asked for rescue and help saying they felt let down by the U.S. government, I have no doubt they sincerely meant it.
When the first Brit was beheaded prime minister Cameron went before the news people and said:
The beheaded man was a "hero" for dying. That's nice words, but it's all lip service. I agree that the beheaded man was a hero for his good works around the world but what prime minister Cameron didn't say was that the man was also a "VICTIM," a result of the stubborn prime minister. Many Muslim groups across Britain, including some organizations that blame Western interference for stoking the fires of war in Iraq and Syria, had been calling for Alan Henning's release but their pleas fell on deaf ears. I submit Cameron should have negotiated with ISIS and paid a ransom and the Brits should have agreed to ceased air strikes. But instead, Cameron stands up before the nation and plays "macho" saying the beheading is a "terrorist act." He said it was disgusting but he and Britain will continue to attack Iraq ans Syria. It wasn't a terrorist act. It was retribution and retaliation for the Brits air strikes, nothing more.
The Islamic State made it very clear that the only reason for the beheading of British and American citizens was because of the air strikes in Iraq and Syria. They told the world that if the air strikes stopped, the beheading would stop. But because the USA and British officials don't want to lose face, they keep spouting the old line "we do not negotiate with terrorists."
Should we negotiate the release of hostages. You bet! Why? Because other countries do it. Lets look at American hostage freelance journalist Michael Foley, who was beheaded. The kidnappers and people holding Foley had only one thing in mind ... that was ransom, MONEY. They sent an email to the Foley's. Foley's parents John and Diane, turned the email over to the FBI people assigned to the case. The agent told the Foley's it was a crime for American citizens to pay off terrorists. They stopped the Foley's in their tracks, threatening them with prison time. Then the FBI left the Foley's hang out to dry. They were on their own. But believe it or not, the FBI DID NOT tell the Foley's that other hostages from Europe being held along with their son have negotiated ransoms for their release. The United States hands -off policy was very different from the position taken by European countries that "quickly" negotiated the release of their citizens in exchange for CASH.
The FBI was no help at all to the Foley's. The government made it very clear that no ransom would be paid. The United States and Britain are the only two countries that hold to the zero- concession, negotiation policy.
The Europeans set up a task force which included foreign ministries of France, Spain, Switzerland and Italy. They waited for the kidnappers to reach out, and when they did, intelligence services of one of the countries took over and negotiated with the Islamic State. When proof- of- life of the hostage was verified a counteroffer of the ransom demand was made. According to a person involved in the negotiations for the hostage release the average negotiated ransom for release was only about TWO MILLION EUROS. My view: Pay the money, U.S. government. What price can you put on a persons life?
The emails sent from the kidnappers to the Foley parents also seemed to be addressed to the U.S.Government, (i.e.) Obama, Congress, the administration. It read:
" You were given many chances to negotiate the release of your people via cash transactions as other governments have accepted." " We have also offered a prisoner exchange to free the Muslims currently held in detention like our sister Dr. Afia Sideiqqi however you proved quickly to us that this is NOT what you are not interested in. "You and your citizens will pay the price of the bombings."
Folks, ONE WEEK later the horrific video execution of James Foley occurred.
Lets talk about hypocrite president Obama. When it come to negotiating, on one side of his mouth he says it is strictly a "no negotiating" policy for release of a hostage. But - - out of the other side of his mouth he orders the EXCHANGE of "FIVE" top Taliban detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a military man who was allegedly said to be a deserter. A man some of his comrades said was a coward who ran away from service and duty, seeking sanctuary. FIVE dangerous killers of the Taliban for a deserter? Was it a fair trade? Obama thought so. He told Americans he had no regrets for the trade.Yet, when it comes to paying a few bucks to release journalists, aid workers and others doing good works for the U. S. our government plays the "we don't negotiate" card. My heart goes out to the Foley's and all the other VICTIMS families who's sons could have been brought home safely. And, now the Islamic State has Peter Kassig scheduled for beheading, courtesy of this administration. Where's the justice?
Do you think Obama and congress will step up to the plate and pay a ransom of a few million dollars or release a prisoner in exchange for Kassig? They clearly could. and should, but I have my doubts. Folks. the Foley's and the other parents would have been arrested if they attempted to negotiate with the kidnappers but Obama can pick and choose who he wants to negotiate for. What's wrong with this picture? I would suggest that the United States and Britain get with the rest of the world and negotiate for hostage release.
We could have had all of the people that were beheaded home if only we paid a few dollars for their release but apparently Obama and Cameron like to play the game of "Chicken" and "I dare you to knock this chip off my shoulder."
Cameron and his parliament and Obama and the congress go before the media and say the beheadings are disgusting and they tell us that is the reason we are fighting a war in Iraq and Syria. They blame the war on barbarism. How dumb is that?
If Obama and Cameron would catch up on history and culture they would know that a beheading in the middle east region is not uncommon at all. It is not disgusting to the people that live in those countries. That is a way of life with many of these groups as a way to mete out justice. Hell, it's not uncommon for different sects and factions in the middle east to impose a penalty of death and the method is that of beheading. Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region have "chopped off" the hands, even the arms of a thief. The sentence of death often results in the beheading of the criminal. There are other methods of death rendered in the region. One is stoning a person to death when citizens are ordered to take stones from a pile and throw them at the alleged criminal or crime violator until that person is dead. Disgusting? To us, maybe. To those living in those other countries, -- No! It's common place. It's part of custom and culture. Yet, our officials in America and Britain think it barbaric.
Lets talk about disgusting and monstrous acts. Most every day in the United States criminals commit heinous crimes and yes, they behead their victims, they torture the victim, there has been numerous cases where the criminal dismembers the victim and scatters the remains, sometimes in water or along roadsides; others put dismembered body parts in garbage bags and dispose of them in rivers, lakes, and the ocean. There is no limit what one person can do to another but to have people like the British parliament, the U.S. congress, Cameron and Obama stirring the pot using something like beheading as a pretext to go to war and spend billions and trillion of dollars is a farce.
I've always maintained that the British government is the "lap dog" of the United States. Whatever the U.S. wants, the British government complies with and plays along for money, prestige and power.
It should be noted that ISIS and the militant groups currently in conflict in Iraq and Syria has always said they do not want any Western and/or foreign powers interfering in their internal squabbles. The people of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other areas of the middle east DO NOT want want us there on their soil. I tend to agree. The fight is between different ethnic and religious groups in the region.
I will make another prediction: We here in the U.S. will be attacked by the Islamic State if Obama, this administration and congress DO NOT cease air strikes in Iraq and Syria. I submit that it is the fault of Obama, congress and the administration of constantly provoking and agitating these mid east countries. It it apparent that the U.S. has the intent to try to convert other countries people to the path of democracy when it is just as apparent their people's do not want OUR democracy. So, the only reason we will be attacked here on our soil is because of our governments meddling in internal problems of other nations. It is a good bet that these other countries will RETALIATE because we brought a war to their country.. People, you can't blame them because we would do the same thing.
And, if we are attacked I would also predict the president and congress will shout to high heaven - -"we were attacked, we have to respond, retaliate." But they will not mention that we started this whole mess by preemptive strikes in these other countries.
The middle east wars have been going on for centuries and it is clearly none of America's or Britain's business. But I guess the "greed" for oil by Western powers trumps common sense. I would suggest that we allow those different factions in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan to fight it out among themselves, without Western help. Then, which ever power in those countries come out on top that is the regime we deal with.
Folks, we spent TRILLIONS of dollars in Iraq the first go-round to train their military and build up their country. But now, only ONE HALF of the Iraqi military is reliable, people we could count on. We also lost 4000 LIVES to give Iraqis their freedom the first time. Now, this administration wants to spend MILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS of dollars taking the war into Syria. People, the sectarian divisions in the middle east has been on going for centuries and it will go on for centuries to come. Just because we think other nations/regimes should be democratic like the United States doesn't make it so. We cannot force our beliefs and way of life on others.
I say, put yourself in Iraq or Syria's place. If some country commenced air strikes on , say -- California, you can bet all of Congress and the American people would be in an uproar. We would be squealing and shouting that we will retaliate. In fact that is what occurred regarding the World Trade Center. We were attacked and we, with all our bluster, said we are going to retaliate. Well, we did. And, I say it should have stopped there when Osama Bin Laden was killed. But -- No! The old talking heads in Congress and arm chair military people wanted to start a war and conquer another country. OIL, MONEY, DRUGS, POWER , folks. It seems that's the name of the game.
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?
Another person was beheaded in the Iraq/Syrian conflict. Alan Henning, a British citizen, the fourth such killing by ISIS is now a footnote in history. Mr. Henning's statement before he was killed was: " Because our parliament's decision to attack the Islamic State, I, as a member of the British public, will now pay the price for that decision."
Then a male voice says: "The blood of David Haines (another Brit) who was beheaded was on your hands, Cameron, in reference to Britain's prime minister, David Cameron. " Alan Henning will also be slaughtered, but his blood is on the hands if the British parliament."
Following that the black-clan man later introduces another hostage he identifies as American Peter Edward Kassig , an aid worker, who delivered food and medical supplies to Syrian refugees. He said Kassig is the next person scheduled for execution. U.S. officials confirmed an American with that name was being held by militants and had no doubt the video titled: "Another Message to America and its Allies" was authentic.
The statement Alan Henning made before he died was denounced by British and U.S. officials as propaganda saying it was a forced statement as were all other statements from prior beheaded victims. They don't know that. That's political spin on their part. I say, what if those statements by these hero's were in fact the truth? Why is it when an American, Brit or any captive pleads for their life and/or gives a reason for their oncoming, eminent death the governments official line is the " statements were coerced." The U.S. has their own propaganda machine. It is the State Department's office for counter-terrorism propaganda which is currently headed up by Alberto Fernandez. It is their job to spin, mask, manipulate and cover statements to make them fit the administrations point of view. Thus, when a captive pleads for their life and/or gives statement before execution - - what is the truth? In many cases in the past where captives asked for rescue and help saying they felt let down by the U.S. government, I have no doubt they sincerely meant it.
When the first Brit was beheaded prime minister Cameron went before the news people and said:
The beheaded man was a "hero" for dying. That's nice words, but it's all lip service. I agree that the beheaded man was a hero for his good works around the world but what prime minister Cameron didn't say was that the man was also a "VICTIM," a result of the stubborn prime minister. Many Muslim groups across Britain, including some organizations that blame Western interference for stoking the fires of war in Iraq and Syria, had been calling for Alan Henning's release but their pleas fell on deaf ears. I submit Cameron should have negotiated with ISIS and paid a ransom and the Brits should have agreed to ceased air strikes. But instead, Cameron stands up before the nation and plays "macho" saying the beheading is a "terrorist act." He said it was disgusting but he and Britain will continue to attack Iraq ans Syria. It wasn't a terrorist act. It was retribution and retaliation for the Brits air strikes, nothing more.
The Islamic State made it very clear that the only reason for the beheading of British and American citizens was because of the air strikes in Iraq and Syria. They told the world that if the air strikes stopped, the beheading would stop. But because the USA and British officials don't want to lose face, they keep spouting the old line "we do not negotiate with terrorists."
Should we negotiate the release of hostages. You bet! Why? Because other countries do it. Lets look at American hostage freelance journalist Michael Foley, who was beheaded. The kidnappers and people holding Foley had only one thing in mind ... that was ransom, MONEY. They sent an email to the Foley's. Foley's parents John and Diane, turned the email over to the FBI people assigned to the case. The agent told the Foley's it was a crime for American citizens to pay off terrorists. They stopped the Foley's in their tracks, threatening them with prison time. Then the FBI left the Foley's hang out to dry. They were on their own. But believe it or not, the FBI DID NOT tell the Foley's that other hostages from Europe being held along with their son have negotiated ransoms for their release. The United States hands -off policy was very different from the position taken by European countries that "quickly" negotiated the release of their citizens in exchange for CASH.
The FBI was no help at all to the Foley's. The government made it very clear that no ransom would be paid. The United States and Britain are the only two countries that hold to the zero- concession, negotiation policy.
The Europeans set up a task force which included foreign ministries of France, Spain, Switzerland and Italy. They waited for the kidnappers to reach out, and when they did, intelligence services of one of the countries took over and negotiated with the Islamic State. When proof- of- life of the hostage was verified a counteroffer of the ransom demand was made. According to a person involved in the negotiations for the hostage release the average negotiated ransom for release was only about TWO MILLION EUROS. My view: Pay the money, U.S. government. What price can you put on a persons life?
The emails sent from the kidnappers to the Foley parents also seemed to be addressed to the U.S.Government, (i.e.) Obama, Congress, the administration. It read:
" You were given many chances to negotiate the release of your people via cash transactions as other governments have accepted." " We have also offered a prisoner exchange to free the Muslims currently held in detention like our sister Dr. Afia Sideiqqi however you proved quickly to us that this is NOT what you are not interested in. "You and your citizens will pay the price of the bombings."
Folks, ONE WEEK later the horrific video execution of James Foley occurred.
Lets talk about hypocrite president Obama. When it come to negotiating, on one side of his mouth he says it is strictly a "no negotiating" policy for release of a hostage. But - - out of the other side of his mouth he orders the EXCHANGE of "FIVE" top Taliban detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a military man who was allegedly said to be a deserter. A man some of his comrades said was a coward who ran away from service and duty, seeking sanctuary. FIVE dangerous killers of the Taliban for a deserter? Was it a fair trade? Obama thought so. He told Americans he had no regrets for the trade.Yet, when it comes to paying a few bucks to release journalists, aid workers and others doing good works for the U. S. our government plays the "we don't negotiate" card. My heart goes out to the Foley's and all the other VICTIMS families who's sons could have been brought home safely. And, now the Islamic State has Peter Kassig scheduled for beheading, courtesy of this administration. Where's the justice?
Do you think Obama and congress will step up to the plate and pay a ransom of a few million dollars or release a prisoner in exchange for Kassig? They clearly could. and should, but I have my doubts. Folks. the Foley's and the other parents would have been arrested if they attempted to negotiate with the kidnappers but Obama can pick and choose who he wants to negotiate for. What's wrong with this picture? I would suggest that the United States and Britain get with the rest of the world and negotiate for hostage release.
We could have had all of the people that were beheaded home if only we paid a few dollars for their release but apparently Obama and Cameron like to play the game of "Chicken" and "I dare you to knock this chip off my shoulder."
Cameron and his parliament and Obama and the congress go before the media and say the beheadings are disgusting and they tell us that is the reason we are fighting a war in Iraq and Syria. They blame the war on barbarism. How dumb is that?
If Obama and Cameron would catch up on history and culture they would know that a beheading in the middle east region is not uncommon at all. It is not disgusting to the people that live in those countries. That is a way of life with many of these groups as a way to mete out justice. Hell, it's not uncommon for different sects and factions in the middle east to impose a penalty of death and the method is that of beheading. Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region have "chopped off" the hands, even the arms of a thief. The sentence of death often results in the beheading of the criminal. There are other methods of death rendered in the region. One is stoning a person to death when citizens are ordered to take stones from a pile and throw them at the alleged criminal or crime violator until that person is dead. Disgusting? To us, maybe. To those living in those other countries, -- No! It's common place. It's part of custom and culture. Yet, our officials in America and Britain think it barbaric.
Lets talk about disgusting and monstrous acts. Most every day in the United States criminals commit heinous crimes and yes, they behead their victims, they torture the victim, there has been numerous cases where the criminal dismembers the victim and scatters the remains, sometimes in water or along roadsides; others put dismembered body parts in garbage bags and dispose of them in rivers, lakes, and the ocean. There is no limit what one person can do to another but to have people like the British parliament, the U.S. congress, Cameron and Obama stirring the pot using something like beheading as a pretext to go to war and spend billions and trillion of dollars is a farce.
I've always maintained that the British government is the "lap dog" of the United States. Whatever the U.S. wants, the British government complies with and plays along for money, prestige and power.
It should be noted that ISIS and the militant groups currently in conflict in Iraq and Syria has always said they do not want any Western and/or foreign powers interfering in their internal squabbles. The people of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other areas of the middle east DO NOT want want us there on their soil. I tend to agree. The fight is between different ethnic and religious groups in the region.
I will make another prediction: We here in the U.S. will be attacked by the Islamic State if Obama, this administration and congress DO NOT cease air strikes in Iraq and Syria. I submit that it is the fault of Obama, congress and the administration of constantly provoking and agitating these mid east countries. It it apparent that the U.S. has the intent to try to convert other countries people to the path of democracy when it is just as apparent their people's do not want OUR democracy. So, the only reason we will be attacked here on our soil is because of our governments meddling in internal problems of other nations. It is a good bet that these other countries will RETALIATE because we brought a war to their country.. People, you can't blame them because we would do the same thing.
And, if we are attacked I would also predict the president and congress will shout to high heaven - -"we were attacked, we have to respond, retaliate." But they will not mention that we started this whole mess by preemptive strikes in these other countries.
The middle east wars have been going on for centuries and it is clearly none of America's or Britain's business. But I guess the "greed" for oil by Western powers trumps common sense. I would suggest that we allow those different factions in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan to fight it out among themselves, without Western help. Then, which ever power in those countries come out on top that is the regime we deal with.
Folks, we spent TRILLIONS of dollars in Iraq the first go-round to train their military and build up their country. But now, only ONE HALF of the Iraqi military is reliable, people we could count on. We also lost 4000 LIVES to give Iraqis their freedom the first time. Now, this administration wants to spend MILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS of dollars taking the war into Syria. People, the sectarian divisions in the middle east has been on going for centuries and it will go on for centuries to come. Just because we think other nations/regimes should be democratic like the United States doesn't make it so. We cannot force our beliefs and way of life on others.
I say, put yourself in Iraq or Syria's place. If some country commenced air strikes on , say -- California, you can bet all of Congress and the American people would be in an uproar. We would be squealing and shouting that we will retaliate. In fact that is what occurred regarding the World Trade Center. We were attacked and we, with all our bluster, said we are going to retaliate. Well, we did. And, I say it should have stopped there when Osama Bin Laden was killed. But -- No! The old talking heads in Congress and arm chair military people wanted to start a war and conquer another country. OIL, MONEY, DRUGS, POWER , folks. It seems that's the name of the game.
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)