Saturday, March 25, 2017


Pictured here is part of the cover from my book Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster. This book was mocked when it first came out by many in power presently. They do not mock it any more. Dead on Arrival generated many radio interviews yet Fox refused an interview unless "big bucks" were handed over to them. The book foreshadowed the disastrous outcome for a piece of health legislation that was never ready for Prime Time. Jump forward four years to view a legislative effort whose shadow is no different than the horrific law it is suppose to replace. Wherever you stand politically replacing one disaster with another is just wrong. Similar to Nancy Pelosi's famous statement "we will find out what is in the legislation onced it is passed into law" the same will occur with the current offering. I am glad it was rejected. As a conservative I am disappointed Congress could not do better. Mark Davis MD manager of

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

What happens when judges abandon the Constitution and the law?

Commentary by James Shott

If you have read legal documents you will likely have noticed how detailed, specific and often obtuse the language is. The purpose of such language is to assure that the intent of the document is clearly set forth, and this language is well understood by lawyers.

However, despite the careful legal wording of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order (EO) temporarily suspending travel to the U.S. from seven countries with close ties to terrorism, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Washington found problems with the document last month, and issued a temporary stay. A revised second version of that EO, rewritten to avoid the objectionable parts of the first one, including removing one of the seven countries on the list, was found unacceptable by two other federal judges, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii, and Maryland U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang.

The revised document may as well have been written in the language of the Klingons, because these two judges ignored the Order itself, rejecting the travel suspension due to negative statements about Muslim immigrants Trump made during the campaign.

Even though the people who have to implement the EO must do only what it says, the judges, in their infinite wisdom, decided that what they imagine to be the thinking of the president is more important than what the document actually mandates, even though those who follow the EO will have no knowledge of what the president thinks, and therefore no obligation to implement those opinions.

Apparently, these federal judges are confused about their jobs or perhaps just don’t care about professional ethics or their sworn duties. They apparently believe that in ruling on a legal document they should ignore the actual document that is being challenged, and instead rely on speculation about the opinions of the document’s creator, and act to protect certain rights of immigrants and foreigners that the Constitution does not assign to them.

Under 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f) Congress granted the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” into the United States, and independently broad discretion over the refugee program.

That section reads: “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President - Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” This section of the law goes on to assign the Attorney General authority over activities by airlines bringing in non-citizen passengers, further assigning complete authority over entry to the country to the executive branch of the government, not the judiciary.

The law is crystal clear in its meaning, and does not provide as exceptions to the power of the President the personal opinions of federal judges or the beliefs or motives that these unelected referees ascribe to the president.

Perhaps the reason these judges didn’t want to rule on the actual language and effect of the Order is that it disagrees with their personal opinions. The Heritage Foundation’s Hans Von Spakovsky, a former Department of Justice lawyer, told Breitbart, “I don’t think [these judges] have any professional shame about it — in fact, they’re being applauded by newspaper editors for actually ignoring the law and [Supreme Court] rulings based on their own personal policy preferences.”

He notes that, despite the plain text of the law and prior Supreme Court decisions, these rulings are “destructive of the rule of law, which is the entire basis of our Republic.” This, he said, “is a very bad development that threatens our democracy … [and] it looks like it is going to get worse [because] we’re going to have more and more litigation, and it is very clear that the progressive left wants to use the courts to fight the way our democracy works,” he said, adding “I think what they doing is very anti-democratic.”

Indeed. What can be worse for a country that lives by the rule of law than to have some judges that do not follow or honor the law or the Constitution, but instead make law from the bench or twist laws to suit their personal or political preferences? That is what liberal judges do, and this behavior has reached crisis proportions.

These legal rulings raise important questions:

What is the proper response to a federal court ruling that is so plainly contrary to the law? Should the Trump administration follow a clearly illegal ruling and attempt to overturn it though a lengthy appeal process, or defy the federal courts?

What should happen to judges who issue rulings are at odds with laws and the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold?

Aren’t these judges directly responsible for any harm done to American citizens as a result of persons with the intent to do harm getting into the country by virtue of their rulings?

Cross-posted from Observations

Sunday, March 12, 2017



Amazon has removed my reviews of SPEX test and USMLE part 3 books. These books were either owned by me and or I have familiarity with. The reviews removed informed potential readers of the negatives and positives embodied in each of these books. Many were out date or their contents were far removed from that of the current test. Perhaps this is the reason for the high failure rate. As a result of purging my reviews many phony reviews are present giving them 5 star ratings. In the event you are preparing for the Special Purpose Exam (SPEX) there is very little guidance given by these books or other sources. As a SPEX tutor I was attempting to help potential test takers which direction they should take for their studies. I have had contact with an array of people who have taken this exam over the years which has allowed me to accumulate a significant fund of knowledge concerning the SPEX.

Please contact this SPEX tutor who can put you in the right direction to achieve a passing grade the first time around. Contact Mark Davis MD, or 410-515-7858. My fees are low and my experience very high.

Monday, March 06, 2017



White House is no longer in control by the Democrats. The fumigation process started immediately after Donald Trump took office. Sadly the residual stench of the Obama Administration remains strong. In the last few weeks Obama operatives have seriously attempted a “benign” Coup d’etat against the current leader of the Free World. Their actions are obvious, direct and appear very clumsy. A deficient media supplements these efforts denigrating President Trump whenever there is an opportunity. With revelations by the President his New York City office was wired tapped by the Obama Administration a disgusting clash of ideologies and criminality has reveal its ugly face. Obsessed with power the former Oval Office occupant’s plan is to undermine his successor with demagoguery and false allegations. As Obama’s efforts to subvert President Trump move forward democracy is actually strengthened. How? The electorate has a front row seat displaying that a small group of radicals want to bring America to its knees. Knowing the majority do not want to live in a country that produces nothing and is debt ridden is no consequence to them. Their agenda comes first. Donald Trump will survive every onslaught these diminished individuals bring to the steps of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The question is are you with him or against him?

Mark Davis MD,

Sunday, March 05, 2017


On a tight budget, need proofreading, editing or writing services please contact Mark Davis: 410-515-7858 or   Wide experience in an array of literature. No job too small.

Friday, March 03, 2017


Cold War revisited with the Russians

A great hysteria has emerged from the cauldron of Democrats still lingering in Washington. Most liberals had their egos deflated after the November 2016 election. Reviving their idiosyncratic methodology, which requires them to deride conservatives, Democrats have latched on to a nonissue, Russian contact. Claiming Trump and his subordinates had backroom discussions with Russians to enable the President’s election liberals of the lowest denominator are making groundless accusations. This includes Trump’s campaign team covertly met with high ranking Russian officials then hid the facts of these contacts. Jeff Sessions, the newest Attorney General, is now under fire for withholding data from the nominating committee. Sessions explained in detail his two meetings with Russian officials which occurred long before Trump took office and he became the highest ranking legal officer in the nation. Nothing short of Trump’s head will satisfy their thirst for conservative blood. Trump needs to concentrate on the people’s work not the nonsense continually thrown in his path. The Russians may be coming or going, but Trump is staying. Mark Davis, MD  Manager of Best Copy Editing, Proofreading and Writing.


Smash Words has kindly made Demons of Democracy available for a minute fraction of its original price. The political jokes alone are worth the cost. This book reveals the harsh reality of a legal profession that has taken control of this nation.