Priscilla Frieberger was still alive when she began decomposing in this recliner chair after sitting in it for three weeks. (Image source: WKRC-TV)
The rest is here:
‘She Was Starting to Decompose’: Woman Charged in Death of Morbidly Obese Sister
Scroll down for an update to this story: Last Sunday, Catholic priests across the country read an open letter to their parishioners. The letter condemned the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to force religious employers to cover the cost of contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in its employees’ health-care coverage. The letter argued that the faithful could not and must not in good conscience comply with the HHS’ “unjust law.” However, Catholic chaplains in the U.S. military were “forbidden” from reading this letter. After Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains, sent out the letter to be read at Sunday masses, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication “forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief,” Business Insider ‘s Michael Dougherty reports. Military officials felt that “the letter contained language that might be misunderstood in a military setting,” according to Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online , and the Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit. “Instead, the letter would have been referenced in announcements and made available in the back of the chapel for the faithful, if they wished, as they departed after the Mass,” Lopez writes. Despite these instructions, some chaplains read the letter anyway. Business Insider reports: More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway. Others sought further instructions from their Archbishop. Some reasoned that because the letter was not “politically driven,” and that it only sought to reaffirm Catholic teachings on sexual ethics and the “sanctity of life,” they would risk punishment and disobey instructions, one source involved told The Blaze. Anticipating repercussions for reading the letter, a confidential letter was sent to the chaplains instructing them to contact the Military Archdiocesan lawyer in case of more interference or any punishment (via BI): The Archdiocese believes that any attempt to keep a chaplain from freely teaching and preaching the Catholic faith, for which you were endorsed, is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. If any of you are in any way punished or slated for punitive action, I ask that you kindly call our Archdiocesan Attorney, John L. Schlageter, Esq….he will immediately place you into contact with a Religious Freedom Law Firm that will be most willing to take your case free of charge. Here is the Archdiocese for Military Services account of what happened regarding the letter, its public reading, and a newly-edited, government-approved version to be released (via National Review Online ): On Thursday, January 26, Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit at Sunday Masses the following weekend in all military chapels. The letter calls on Catholics to resist the policy initiative, recently affirmed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for federally mandated health insurance covering sterilization, abortifacients and contraception, because it represents a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution. The Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop’s letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit. The Chief’s office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel. Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants. Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter. Additionally, the line: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience. The AMS did not receive any objections to the reading of Archbishop Broglio’s statement from the other branches of service. Update : The decision to forbid the chaplains from reading the letter is an odd one. This is not the first time that the question of religious liberty and freedom of speech in the military has been brought up. In fact, the Pentagon was once sued by The Becket Fund for having issued gag orders against a Catholic priest and Jewish rabbi for being vocal supporters of H.R. 1122 (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997). The Becket Fund argued in court that the gag order “violated their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, et . seq ,” according to Free Preach . The court agreed with The Becket Fund that the gag order was unconstitutional: What we have here is the government’s attempt to override the Constitution and the laws of the land by a directive that clearly interferes with military chaplains’ free exercise and free speech rights, as well as those of their congregants. 962 F. Supp. at 165. Free Preach writes: In particular, the court rejected all of the arguments advanced by the government to support their censorship of speech from the pulpit. For example, the government argued that it was not an important part of the plaintiffs’ religion to urge their congregations to contact Congress about particular moral or political issues. The court soundly rejected that argument, holding that it was not the role of the government “to determine whether encouraging parishioners to contact Congress [about a particular issue like] the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is an ‘important component’ of the [plaintiffs'] faiths.” Id . at 161. Moreover, the court held that “[e]ncouraging parishioners to contact Congress” about legislation addressing moral issues related to religious faith “appears to be no less important to the [plaintiffs' faith] than other religiously-motivated activity courts have held to be important enough to a religion such that its prohibition amounts to a substantial burden.” Id . The government then argued that the chaplains’ contemplated speech was “not religious” but merely “political.” The court rejected this argument also, holding that “it is not the role of this Court to draw fine distinctions between degrees of religious speech and to hold that religious speech is protected but religious speech with so-called political overtones is not.” Id . at 164. Finally, the court held that any interests advanced by the government for their censorship policy were “outweighed by the . . . chaplains’ right to autonomy in determining the religious content of their sermons.” Id . at 162. It is imperative to note that these same interests would likely be asserted by the government in the private freedom-to-preach context as well, and similar reasoning to reject such would apply. To summarize the holding: The State cannot interfere with the right of religious leaders to preach from the pulpit on political issues, even if those ministers are in the military [emphasis added]. Now, all that being said, and the legal and constitutional precedent having been set, the question is this: on what grounds did the U.S. military have right to forbid those chaplains from reading an open letter from the Archbishop during Sunday Mass? This is a breaking story. Updates will be added as they become available.
See the rest here:
U.S. Military Silences Catholic Chaplains From Speaking out Against Obama Admin Ruling
On Wednesday, the Republican-led House of Representatives took a major swipe at President Obama’s health care law, as it voted to repeal the Community Living Assistance Services and Support program (known as the CLASS Act). CLASS is, by all accounts, a financially-troubled and complex portion of the controversial overhaul; it deals with providing affordable, long-term care insurance to Americans in need. This provision in the health care law has been troublesome for some time now. Back in October, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she wasn’t able to find a way to make the voluntary program financially solvent. But the White House, despite these challenges, hasn’t yet been supportive of repealing it. Under the program, workers would pay a monthly premium during their careers and collect a daily cash benefit if they become disabled later in life. The White House describes the program as follows: The Act provides Americans with a new option to finance long-term services and care in the event of a disability. It is a self-funded and voluntary long-term care insurance choice. Workers will pay in premiums in order to receive a daily cash benefit if they develop a disability. Need will be based on difficulty in performing basic activities such as bathing or dressing. The benefit is flexible: it could be used for a range of community support services, from respite care to home care. No taxpayer funds will be used to pay benefits under this provision. The program will actually reduce Medicaid spending, as people are able to continue working and living in their homes and not enter nursing homes. Safeguards will be put in place to ensure its premiums are enough to cover its costs. The Associated Press further explains the plan: The CLASS Act was supposed to address the crisis in long-term care coverage. Currently some 10 million Americans need long-term care, and that number is expected to hit 15 million by 2020. But only about 8 percent of people buy private long-term care insurance. …monthly premiums would be used to finance benefits of at least $50 a day for those needing long-term care. The money would go for services at home or to help with nursing home bills. But government actuaries determined that unless a large number of healthy people signed up, premiums would have to soar to unaffordable levels to meet the growing needs of the disabled. “House Republicans voted to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act last year, but Democrats stood behind the president in defense of their landmark bill. Now, Republicans are trying to take it apart, piece by piece,” ABC News reported . The vote to strike down the act ended with 267 for and 159 against, as 28 Democrats joined in favor and all 239 voting Republicans showed their support for it. Republicans have targeted the program as part of their overall goal of dismantling the health care overhaul law. Action on the bill in the Democratic-controlled Senate is uncertain. One of the few changes Congress has been able to bring about concerned a requirement for small businesses to file more health care paperwork. “Republicans are committed to repealing and defunding it, piece by piece if necessary,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said of the health care bill after the CLASS Act vote. Experts have concluded, said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., that “the CLASS program can’t be operated without mandatory participation so as to ensure its solvency.” Unless it is terminated, he said, “it poses a clear danger to the fiscal health of our budget and to the American taxpayer.” The administration finally has come to the conclusion “that we knew even before the bill passed, that this was unsustainable, it was unworkable, it was fatally flawed,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La. But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the Republican goal was to “tear down and dismantle programs that provide health care in the United States.” He said “the solution is to amend the program to make it work, not just repeal it and leave nothing in its place.” Waxman isn’t alone in his criticism. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) penned an op-ed for Politico that railed against the Republican action : In the past, lawmakers would have worked together to amend existing law to address a serious national crisis like long-term care. But in our charged partisan environment, too many people would rather score political points than solve problems. They view repealing CLASS as a tactical step toward undermining health care reform – without putting forward any real alternatives for families who have nowhere to turn. Repealing CLASS won’t do anything to solve our nation’s long-term care crisis. Legislation rarely starts out perfectly – indeed, the Republicans’ own Medicare prescription drug bill left a huge coverage gap, forcing seniors to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. It is only because Democrats rejected the “throw out the baby with the bathwater” approach to legislating, and figured out a solution, that this gap will finally be closed and seniors can save millions on prescription drugs. More evidence that the battle over the American health care system is far from over. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read the rest here:
This Is the Portion of Obamacare That the House Voted to Repeal
This lady needs help. It’s too bad too — she’s very beautiful, but that “cougar” thing is bad for your health. At Los Angeles Times , ” Demi Moore plot thickens: Pursuing Zac Efron, fountain of youth? “: Demi Moore isn’t having the best week, as far as newsstands are concerned. The actress has reportedly been battling massive insecurity with age and weight, as well as chasing young things like Zac Efron. After her January hospitalization, allegedly thanks to a bad reaction to nitrous oxide and a smoke inhalant, reports are charging the “Margin Call” star with massive insecurities surrounding the breakdown of her marriage — all leading to this current crisis. “She’s been really down, and she’s surrounding herself with young people to make her feel better,” Us magazine cites one source as saying. And by “surrounding” the report suggests Moore “tracked down” 24-year-old actor Zac Efron for companionship. This proposed hunt led to a party in L.A.’s Venice Beach neighborhood, prior to Moore’s medical treatment. “As Demi got older, she convinced herself that she needed to stay young and skinny to remain attractive to her husband,” People magazine added to the party, via their own inside source. Well, I guess there’s a way to grow old gracefully, and then there’s not…
See original here:
Demi Moore’s Desperate Attempt to Shag Zac Efron
In an article titled “ Rick Santorum for President ,” conservative authoress Michelle Malkin throws her support behind the former Pennsylvania senator. Malkin argues that Santorum would be the best choice for the GOP and she does this by citing his political record. However , lest she be written off as a shameless Santorum shill, she also makes sure to point out that like the other Republican candidates, he has some shortcomings. Malkin begins by highlighting Santorum’s conservative credentials: his opposition to TARP, the fact that he didn’t “cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008,” that he is not among the GOP nominees (i.e. Romney and Gingrich) who supported the bailouts and he didn’t have to “obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did.” Furthermore, Santorum “strongly opposed the auto bailout,” the Freddie and Fannie bailout, “porkulus” bills, and he “ clearly and forcefully ” opposed individual health care mandates. He also voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted “Yes” to drilling in ANWR, and, unlike some of the other GOP candidates, he never “dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren , Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi ,” as Malkin puts it. “Santorum is strong on border security , national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement,” Malkin writes, “Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed .” Another feather in his cap: unlike Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and the former Speaker of the House, Santorum hasn’t attacked Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital with, in the words of Malkin, “ contemptible Occupier rhetoric .” However, as mentioned in the above, Santorum also has some shortcomings. “As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects,” Malkin writes. Santorum “lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives” and he was a ” go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era,” according to Malkin. “He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey,” Malkin continues. “I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul,” she writes. So, why isn’t she writing an article titled “Ron Paul for President”? Because, according to Malkin, the Texas congressman is a “far-out, Alex Jones-panderer” on foreign policy, defense, and national security. Malkin writes: If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul. What about Mitt Romney? Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassacor John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012. Should we even ask what she thinks of Newt Gingrich? Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere. Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race . Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent. Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer. It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.” For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine. Therefore, given that two of the four remaining GOP candidates are, in her eyes, part of “the machine,” and that she finds Paul’s stances on foreign policy and national security inadequate, this leaves her with one option: the former senator from Pennsylvania. “Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them,” Malkin writes.
See the rest here:
Michelle Malkin: ‘Santorum for President’
Rick Santorum opposed TARP. He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills. Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters. He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren , Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi . He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth.” Santorum is strong on border security , national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement. Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed . He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics. He rose above the fray by sticking to issues. Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it. Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey. I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul. And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is. If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul. Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassacor John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012. Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere. Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race . Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent. Remember October 2009? From reader Barnaby, who sent back his crossed-out Republican solicitation forms with a “NO RINOS” sticky note for Newt Gingrich: Remember the rebuke in Dubuque? May 11, 2011: Guy: Speaker Gingrich, what you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable. Gingrich: I didn’t do anything to Paul Ryan! Guy: Yes, you did. You undercut him and his allies in the house. Gingrich: No, I… Guy: You’re an embarrassment to our party. Gingrich: I’m sorry you feel that way. Guy: Why don’t you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself. Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer. It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.” For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine. And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them. *** Side note: Unlike many bloggers and pundits weighing in on GOP 2012, I have zero connections to any of the final four GOP candidates’ campaigns. I have neither received a single penny from, nor donated a single penny, to any of their campaigns. I have not served as any kind of consultant or adviser to any of the campaigns. I have not written any speeches or talking points or briefing papers for any of their campaigns. I have not organized any blogger calls or social media efforts for any of their campaigns. I have not spoken to Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich since interviewing them for Hot Air at CPAC in 2006, and as far as I can recall, I have not communicated directly with either Santorum or Paul. My first and only contact with Santorum’s campaign came last week when a spokesman called to assure me that Santorum was not withdrawing from the Florida primary or the race in general and was in it for the long haul. So much for my “establishment” credentials, eh? *** Santorum is headed to Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada. “The Rick Santorum for President Campaign will expand nationally this week with campaign stops in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada in the coming days,” a spokesman MAtt Beynon said in a statement. Santorum is slated to make several stops in battleground states over the next few days, but did not appear to be heading back to Florida, where Republicans go to the polls on Tuesday. Santorum is expected be in Las Vegas, Nevada on Tuesday when the Florida results are known. After winning Iowa — the first state to chose which Republican they want to face Obama in November — Santorum’s campaign has struggled to catch fire. In Florida — a winner-takes-all race — the former senator has not appeared much and is barely avoiding a vote share in single digits according to polls, putting him in third place behing Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Nevada will vote just four days after Florida, while Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri all vote on February 7th. Santorum had put campaigning in Florida on hold Sunday, as his daughter, Bella, was hospitalized just days before a key primary vote. Two days before Florida’s winner-takes-all primary, Santorum spent the day in Pennsylvania, where his three year-old was admitted to a Philadelphia children’s hospital. *** A reader writes: I read your “For Santorum” article on your website. You wrote the argument against Newt clearly and completely. While Romney’s been on both sides of issues, Newt has been on both sides at the same time. I think Newt would be almost as combative and adversarial to a Republican congress than a Democratic one… *** Question of the day: Who is the “machine?” Secondary question of the day: If you were a simple machine, what kind of machine would you be — inclined plane, wheel & axle, lever, pulley, wedge, or screw?
See the article here:
For Santorum
A friend of actress Demi Moore who phoned 9-1-1 after the star collapsed and began convulsing, told the dispatcher that Moore had “smoked something” that was not marijuana but “similar to incense and she seems to be having convulsions of some sort.” She also told the operator Demi was, “semi-conscious, barely.” The friend added, “She’s been having some issues lately with some other stuff, but I don’t know what she’s been taking or not.” “Is she breathing normal?” the operator asked. “No, not so normal. More kind of shaking, convulsing, burning up,” the friend replied. The recording captured the 10 minutes it took paramedics to arrive as friends gathered around the star, attempting to comfort her. The clip of that call, featured below, is just under two minutes long. Another woman was next to Moore as the dispatcher asked if the star was responsive. “Demi, can you hear me?” she asked. “Yes, she’s squeezing hands. … She can’t speak.” The city attorney’s office reportedly advised the fire department to redact details about medical conditions and substances to comply with federal medical privacy rules. Asked if Moore took the substance intentionally or not, the woman said Moore did ingest the substance on purpose but that the reaction was accidental. “Whatever she took, make sure you have it out for the paramedics,” the operator instructed. The operator asked the friend if anything like this had ever happened before. “I don’t know,” the friend said. “There’s been some stuff recently that we’re all just finding out.” According to AP, the 9-1-1 dispatcher told Moore’s friend not to hold her down but to wipe her mouth and nose and watch her closely until paramedics arrive. “Make sure that we keep an airway open,” the dispatcher said. “Even if she passes out completely, that’s OK. Stay right with her.” AP reports that the phone was passed around by four people, one of whom gave directions to the gate and another who recounted details about the mystery substance Moore smoked or ingested. Finally, the phone was handed to a man named James, so one of the women can hold Moore’s head. Due to some confusion at the beginning of the call, the ambulance was reportedly delayed by nearly two minutes. At one point during the call, Moore’s friend became agitated, asking, “Why is an ambulance not on its way right now?” “Ma’am, instead of arguing with me why an ambulance is not on the way, can you spell (the street name) for me?” the Beverly Hills dispatcher asked. By the end of the call, Moore’s condition had reportedly improved. “She seems to have calmed down now. She’s speaking,” the male caller told the operator. Moore’s publicist, Carrie Gordon, said previously that the actress sought professional help to treat her exhaustion and improve her health. Some speculate Moore may be suffering a sort of breakdown since her marriage to fellow actor Ashton Kutcher ended amid rumors of infidelity on the younger star’s part. Yahoo adds that, according to internet reports, the 9-1-1 call was placed after the actress had inhaled a dangerous amount of nitrous oxide, also known as “whip-its.” Following Moore’s collapse, her rep told ET, “Because of the stresses in her life right now, Demi has chosen to seek professional assistance to treat her exhaustion and improve her overall health.” She added that Moore, “looks forward to getting well and is grateful for the support of her family and friends.” The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Excerpt from:
Demi Moore’s Friend Tells 9-1-1 Operator Star Smoked Something ‘Similar to Incense’
Back in November, I spotlighted Obama’s half-billion-dollar crony drug deal involving a no-bid contract with politically-connected SIGA. Refresher course here . In November, Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill — chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Contracting and Oversight and up for re-election in less than a year — asked HHS to review the contract. Last week, the NYPost reported that SIGA execs dumped stock when they learned the contract would be far less than they anticipated last spring. Today, GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina asked the HHS Inspector General to investigate: “Yesterday afternoon I submitted my second letter to the Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services regarding apparent gross impropriety on behalf of the Obama Administration.” “The more I investigate this deal, the more shocked I become at the potential corruption and insider influence taking place at the highest levels of our government. I cannot help but see the similarities between this case and the Solyndra scandal, since both involve rewarding companies tied to Obama donors, billions in taxpayer dollars, and insider dealing.” “The decisions made by HHS have caused a legitimate small business in North Carolina to be denied a level playing field to provide smallpox treatments in the event of a national emergency. I will be very interested to see how the Administration explains their actions in awarding a billion-dollar corporation such a substantial contract when it falsely claimed to be a small business.” Federal law requires that a certain amount of grants for this research and production be set aside for small businesses. In turn, small businesses will compete for these contracts and “grant awards” while convincing the government that their products will provide the most effective treatment and protections, at the lowest cost to the American taxpayer. The two companies at the center of this – SIGA and Chimerix – competed for this award and submitted their own proposals for drugs to combat smallpox. SIGA’s small business status was challenged and the SBA ruled twice that they were “Other Than Small,” and therefore ineligible for a small business set-aside contract. But rather than acknowledging SBA’s decision, HHS pulled the small business set-aside and reissued the contract as a sole-source, non-compete to SIGA Corp. for $2.8 billion. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. is a corporation wholly owned by Ronald Perelman, and TransTech Pharma, Inc. (a privately-held drug discovery company controlled by MacAndrews & Forbes). In November 2003, Perelman announced he would invest $10 million through MacAndrews and Forbes into SIGA Technologies – at the time a tiny biotech company that was developing oral drugs to prevent and treat diseases, including smallpox and anthrax. Scandals? What scandals?
Continue reading here:
The SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
