We need more of these clips, for sure. If you’re going to try to slam government healthcare, you might want to avoid talking about a (near) tragedy that callous private insurance companies caused.

Goes to show how little thought is being put into the propaganda effort.

What a brilliant move that would have been.

Cheney Says He Was Proponent for Military Action Against Iran

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney hinted that, in the waning days of the Bush administration, he had pushed for a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.

“This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don’t need it to be more unstable,” Adm. Mullen said in July 2008.

So many reasons why war mongers make for terrible Presidents and Vice Presidents. Cheney’s gambit would have…

1.) Started a third war, in Iran.
2.) Pissed of the majority Shiites in Iraq, placing American military personnel in danger.
3.) Pissed off the Taliban in Afghanistan, with similar results.
4.) Provided a terrific recruiting tool to terrorists, their organizations and sympathizers world-wide.
5.) Handed Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda a giant p.r. victory, legitimating their propaganda that we are the real terrorists.
6.) Soured virtually any western-style reform efforts in the Middle East.
7.) Steeled Iran’s pursuits of nuclear capabilities ‘in defense of the nation.’
8.) Put Israel’s security in jeopardy.
9.) Forced Iran to redouble their efforts to fund and support the attacking and killing of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.
10.) Further divided an already divided United States.

And those are just the first 10 things I could think of. Attacking Iran would have been even dumber than invading Iraq, and that’s one of the biggest fiascoes in U.S. history. Incidentally–how do you successfully end a war with Iran? How do you get out with the ‘victory’ Americans always require? They’ve got over 70 million people.

Dick Cheney is an absolutely moronic, evil human being.

Facebook guy:

Health Care Reform, And The Whole Foods Boycott
Monday, August 17, 2009 at 1:26pm

I haven’t been reading Sully as much as I did a few months ago, a practice partly started when he decided to take an August vacation. That doesn’t mean the quality of his blog has declined, but I suspect for me it was an indicator that I, too, should take a break. That’s too bad, because I almost missed the news that there’s a large movement to boycott Whole Foods as a consequence of co-founder and CEO John Mackey writing a shockingly commonsensical op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that, to his more liberal customers, amounted to a “turd in the punchbowl” as one of his less-broad-minded customers put it.

Cue the narrow-minded ‘customer’:

“Let’s not pretend Mackey’s op-ed was meant to inject new ideas into the health care reform effort. He wanted to squeeze a turd into the punchbowl. The changes he proposes would be a radical departure from the core tenets that (most) dems are trying to get through (employer mandates and the public option). So publishing his comments now, in the midst of a heated battle for hearts and minds, he is in effect trying to scuttle the current reform effort. The only thing “moronic” is thinking no one on the left would notice.

Christ, I love a good boycott, give me half a reason. Our money is the only thing we as citizens have any fucking control over anyway. You really think I shouldn’t “punish” a guy who tries to step on my political goals? I’m curious, would it play any role in your shopping habits to learn that the CEO of some company was actively working to curtail your gun rights? When is a boycott justified?”

Mmm, I feel ‘Turd’ guy wins. Facebook guy only triumphs in a contest where everybody pretends to be ‘reasonable’ and ‘rational’ without actually employing reason or rationale.

The fact that he (or possibly an editor) prefaced his piece with a Margaret Thatcher quote – “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” – undoubtedly provided a double helping of salt to that wound.

So what was his Dickensian, burn-the-orphans-for-firewood solution to health care? Here’s a bullet-point summary of his commentary, which you should really read in full:

Right then, here we go:

* Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

Hahaa! This tops your list? Name one person who wants a $5000 deductible health plan. Or an HSA. Name one person who currently gets decent healthcare by way of either one. I don’t know one. Seriously, Face, this is fucking stupid. And just how far will a savings account go towards healthcare for a person with one of those insurance-killing ‘pre-existing conditions’?

* Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. [This is the single biggest reason we have the current disaster of a system that we have.]

Holy crap, Face, double stupid. The biggest reason we’ve got a disaster is that the private-insurance-for-everybody concept is whacky: up-front money for no services. It’s un-capitalistic. It’s only a reasonable contract if the company is forced to provide services when the services are finally needed. The insurance companies have been cheating: they only take certain people, then they dump you when you request that they fulfill their part of the bargain. It’s no way to provide a national service.

So how do you force them to be honest? By having the government provide an ‘insurance’ option that can’t disappear. There is no healthcare reform without this, the public option. What you’re backing here, Face, is dumb and pathetic. Nothing but internet smoke and mirrors, web song and dance.

* Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

* Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. [Or, why should I have chiropractic/holistic/etc. treatments covered when I will never use them because they are based on no science at all?]

* Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. (Although, as we have previously seen, Texas has very strict standards for malpractice suits and still has very high costs per patient.]

* Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. [Medical billing is sooo random. For instance, we just got a medical bill for $430 in copays for Helen's allergist. What? They couldn't have dunned her at the time she got the treatment? And of course there are the horror stories of $100 Tylenols in hospitals.]

* Enact Medicare reform.

* Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Ooooh, private donations, that will solve the problem. It’s too bad that people can’t currently donate money to…oh, WAIT–they can! And do!. Shockingly, the crisis survives: 47 million people have not been gifted comprehensive healthcare for the rest of their lives, just yet. Is this the perfect example of Mackey and Face’s impotent .22 caliber attack on the Nuclear War against Death and Illness, or what? They’d probably beg the government to put up billboards, too: “Health! You Can Do It!”

Now cue Mackey:

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly-they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”? The answer is clear-no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.-or in any other country.

Thank you, John, for tossing up such a meaty fastball. I’d like to add that this is the stupidest thing I’ve read in a month.

Let’s see:

1.) I have the right to ‘free speech’. But if I speak a whole lot, it no longer exists? If I choose to speak more than John expects, it no longer exists? If I speak more than others, it no longer exists? If someone asks me ‘Would you like to speak some more?’, and I say ‘Yes’, it no longer exists? If I write a book, that would be ‘additional’ free speech, which indicates that it no longer exists?

2.) I have the right to own property. If I buy a second house, the right no longer exists? If John asks me ‘Would you like some more property?’, and I say ‘Yes’, the right no longer exists?

3.) I have the right to a court-appointed lawyer to defend myself. If John says ‘I can get you a great lawyer, for free’, and I say ‘Thanks’, the right no longer exists?

How did this Mackey get to be a CEO? I thought they were supposed to be smart.

More Face:

But because this doesn’t square with the political views of many of his customers, a lot of people went into full boycott mode. Radley Balko (who writes for Reason, as well as having a blog I’m sorry to say I don’t read nearly enough) recently posted a summary of why he’s doubling down on his purchases at Whole Foods after this fiasco got started. Snippy:

…The reason the boycott is moronic is that you’re punishing a company that does everything the left thinks a company should do in just about every other area (save for a few, noted below) solely because its CEO expressed opinions about health care that you don’t like. And I don’t mind that you disagree with Mackey’s opinions. But if they offend you, you’re way too damned sensitive. He didn’t say, “I think all Americans should have access to health care . . . except for black people.” That would be offensive. He put forth some proposals that he thinks would make the health care system more efficient. You can disagree with those proposals. But if you’re offended by them, you really have a low tolerance for offense.

Just what is this ridiculous reverence for the almighty corporation? Why can’t folks do as they please? People are in a difficult fight for a literally life-and-death issue, and this rich CEO writes an obnoxious, ill-informed missive that pisses off huge sections of his customers.

No, but don’t boycott his company, that would be stupid. Just because Whole Foods has benefited enormously from customers who are energetic and savvy about what decent businesses should get their dollars, what organizations reflect their values, that doesn’t mean anything now: they should all change their attitudes and habits entirely. Gee, maybe it’s the CEO who royally screwed this one up, and not the customers? Maybe?

…Just curious, if we get single payer, and the government does something you don’t like, where are you going to take your business?

I think the cool kids call this irony.

No, only the Annoying Dorks. We can boycott Whole Foods, but we can’t boycott the government. Okay, and…what? We shouldn’t want government healthcare? How about the FDA, EPA, the military–reject that stuff because it’s the un-boycottable government as well? Or we can accept government services, but only if we never boycott anything in the private sector, ever?

For the record, I think Mackey’s absolutely right.

Aw, Face, but you were wrong, and it’s on the record.

Previously: “How to annoy…#1.” “How to annoy…#2.”

Poor Gateway Pundit:

Of Course… Dems Push For Obamacare at Teddy Kennedy’s Funeral Mass (Video)

“Of course, they couldn’t help it. Nothing is sacred.

Not even a funeral is off limits for pushing their socialist agenda.”

Politicized, you say? I blame that hopeless jerkwad politician whose whole professional life was consumed with fighting to provide national healthcare.

Wonders, did anyone mention ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ at Reagan’s funeral?

UPDATE: selected post comments, verbatim.

Brainless and moralless wonders descrating a Catholic Church with their heresy, communism and Islam.
federale86 | Homepage | 08.29.09 – 11:07 am | #

————————————————————

And Dear Lord, even though we have saddled America with over 100 TRILLION dollars of debt over the last 30-40 years it was only trying to help people. Could you please pay that for us kids so we don’t have to when we grow up? Lord hear our prayer.
Greg | 08.29.09 – 11:14 am | #

————————————————————

Leftist have no shame.
Steve | Homepage | 08.29.09 – 11:22 am | #

————————————————————

Yet another rotten fruit falls from the Catholic tree.
syn | 08.29.09 – 11:29 am | #

————————————————————

I would not put it past Teddy to have scripted his whole service. After all, he would have known that if his death could be manipulated and prostituted to get CrapCare passed then the revisioning psuedo-historians of this day and age could make him into a genius or something. Maybe St. Peter would cut him some slack for Mary Jo’s demise at his hands.
Steve | 08.29.09 – 11:54 am | #

————————————————————

Adding child exploitation to funeral exploitation?

Keep it classy, Democrats.
Evil Pundit | Homepage | 08.29.09 – 11:59 am | #

————————————————————

Totally appropriate to name this health care bill after Kennedy, after all, like this bill, he also showed a callous disregard for life.
TaSS | 08.29.09 – 12:00 pm | #

————————————————————

Ted Kennedy was not Catholic.
Catholics do not approve of abortion.
Catholics do not get divorced and remarried.
Catholics do not leave young women at the bottom of a bay and swim away, then pay without remorse or shame.
gus | 08.29.09 – 12:38 pm | #

————————————————————

This is the second grave in history where I must dance on.

Sadly Hitler has no grave I could dance on. And Mao and Lenin are in glass coffins.
Andreas K. | 08.29.09 – 1:48 pm | #

After analysis, the CIA, who tried the torturing, are obviously unconvinced that it works. But, hey, who the fuck are those useless wallflowers, right? Everybody push aside, here comes The Weekly Standard:

Acknowledging the Obvious

Is the mainstream media coming around?

The Washington Post has an important front-page story this morning, with matter-of-fact reporting on the importance of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as an intelligence source and the enhanced interrogation techniques that made him talk. The piece is headlined: “How a Detainee Became an Asset: September 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding.”

Scoop. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured. And he talked. No, I’m not going to post the hundred thousand links that pre-date this report. So the only question that’s ever been relevant is whether brutalizing him was the one and only thing we could have done to succeed in extracting useful information. Seeing as how it’s such an animal way for a nation to behave, it’s an important question.

One key source is former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, who acknowledged that two of the CIA’s “most powerful” enhanced interrogation techniques “elicited a lot of information.”

“Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information,” he said in an interview with the Post.

Helgerson authored the 2004 IG report that the Department of Justice released on Monday. The evidence presented in the IG report made clear that EITs had been effective, but Helgerson, well-known inside the CIA as an opponent of the program, stopped short of making that claim in a declarative fashion.

Well, when the guy from the Agency tasked to write the report isn’t so hot on it, it gets my attention.

In his interview with the Post there seems to be a subtle shift in his argument. In the IG report Helgerson had written that “measuring the overall effectiveness of EITs” is challenging and a “subjective process.”

In his interview with the Post, Helgerson narrowed the reasons he gave for his reluctance to draw conclusions. Count the qualifiers. Helgerson said he was not in “a position to reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods” and that “we didn’t have the time or resources to do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out.”

That’s straightforward. They had no way to judiciously assess the information they got from all the squawking to stop the violence. Torture always gets people to talk, everybody knows that. They’ll tell you the truth and lies and everything you ever wanted to hear. This guy seems to think that talking = “win”.

But that kind of analysis misses the point. The fact Helgerson didn’t perform such a study hardly prevents us from concluding that EITs were effective.

What? Yes it does. Unless you’re just an angry sonuvabitch who wants to break people.

It is not the effectiveness of “particular interrogation methods” that matters. It’s whether the EITs were effective used together, sometimes simultaneously and sometimes sequentially. And they were.

What, you lump all the ‘techniques’ together and the truths suddenly pop out? Like holograms?

Naw, it appears that one human being, paid to write lies, figured out that all the shit the post-tortured KSM said was previously concretely unavailable but dead true, rare and perfectly accurate, without question. Yeah, wingnut who writes for the Weekly Standard knows better than the guy the Agency burdened with the analysis. That’s why the intellects at The Weekly Standard exist: to redirect CIA officials about their own analysis of their own secret affairs.

“The huge reason the program was successful was because the detainees did not know what to expect,” says one intelligence official with detailed knowledge of the program. “Sleep deprivation, forced nudity, dietary manipulation, the waterboard – all of these together created a feeling of utter helplessness and cluelessness.”

Certainly, this random WS source is unimpeachable. No doubt he heard KSM say to him directly, “Gotta tell ya, buddy, I feel helpless and clueless.”

Helgerson says something else important. He acknowledges that EITs, particularly sleep deprivation and waterboarding, “elicited a lot of information” but he laments his inability to assess the quality of that intelligence. And the quality does matter. If EITs simply elicited lots of bad information nobody would consider them effective. They didn’t.

HA. “They didn’t consider them effective.” Strange turn of tone, but okay. Once again, how this guy trumped the CIA’s determination of the accuracy of its elicited confessions is a mystery.

Bzzlouhrgle, here’s the rest. How this guy has the chutzpah to write anything, considering his serious lack of honesty and attachment to reality, is mysterious as well. This is the caliber of article that’s turned a corner of the internet upside-down today? The web’s overrun with hysterics, I guess.

Seriously, who reads this McArdle’s blogging? I don’t understand its appeal in the least. I think I’ve gotten through maybe four of her posts [like this embarrassment on the Tiller assassination], and I end up scratching my head every time. The level of discussion here never gets above high-school forensics, and, yet, there this Megan person is on the internet every day, going on an on about issues she never seems to make the tiniest headway on–in this case, the troubling new trend of right-wingers to show up at healthcare reform Town Halls strapped with guns.

Well, maybe that’s the way to get a cushy gig in this world: stay in the mushy middle. Drown in the edgeless oatmeal of your own making.

Good morning netizens, and grab a spoon and about a ton of brown sugar…

My Last Word on Guns

Jason Zengerle indicates that the real point is that openly carrying weapons at a protest makes it harder for the Secret Service to do their job. Probably.

No, absolutely. Assassinations of the president have been a brutal part of our history, tearing the country down. Do you think the Secret Service aren’t aware of the worst possible scenario for the President, the country, the Secret Service, their careers and their personal lives? So why make it harder for the Secret Service absent a really good reason? Carrying a gun around at a Presidential event is clearly a wink in that direction, fuck that.

On the other hand, lots of things make it harder for the Secret Service to do their job. Protesting is much harder on the Secret Service–almost certainly harder than one guy openly carrying a gun, because the protesters are a crowd of people who have to be watched constantly for suspicious movements. Should we ban protesting? Or force the people who do it off the premises and into a park eight blocks away?

You see what I’m talking about with this McArdle? Holy smokes, stupid. Protesters are a 100% given at these events, that’s probably been going on for more than a century, that’s routine for the Secret Service. Yes, still ‘the protesters are a crowd of people who have to be watched constantly for suspicious movements’, the reason being it’s possible there could be a credible threat to the President out there. Like someone carrying a gun.

Of course not. Expression in a free society is important–important enough even to let us risk the president’s life, as we are indisputably doing every time we allow a protest, or for that matter a crowd, near him. You can say, well, free speech is really important, and carrying a gun isn’t, but that’s begging the question.

We don’t allow protests, Megan, the Constitution does. And just what is this ‘begging the question’? It sounds like something really stupid meant to sound smart.

I’m going to stop discussing this after the post, because what it comes down to is liberals saying, “Conservatives with guns make me extraordinarily anxious and upset,” and clearly, they’re right. Nonetheless.

Nonetheless. Porridge. Glorps. And thanks for acknowledging those nervous liberals, ‘they’re right’ about their own feelings. The Atlantic pays this McArdle, really?

Carrying a gun is clearly an attempt to make some sort of political statement, though we may not know what–rather like flag burning. And the supreme court takes a very dim view of “Fighting words” type excuses to limit constitutional rights.

Rather like flag burning, it shouldn’t happen, even though you’ve a perfect right to do this.

AAAAAAAAAUUGGHHHHHH. Flag burning? I can do that in the privacy of my own backyard. Menacing the President–and everybody in the vicinity–takes loading your AR-15 and tracking Obama down at a Town Hall.

The problem with taking a narrow position is that everyone wants to push you into the broader position.

Wow. I’m going to take a wild guess there’s the opposite problem with the broader position. Seriously, who is this naif? She fascinates me.

It’s easier to argue with the opposite of your position than a halfhearted compromise. And making narrow arguments in the face of towering rage and anxiety seems, well, kind of wussy.

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

Nonetheless, I take the narrow position: openly carrying a gun to a protest is idiotic…

And we are done.

Oh, alright, sigh. One last McArdling:

I’m done talking about this now. To me, liberals sound like the pro-war crowd did in 2002–positive that they’re right, and constructing a lot of arguments around their ability to imagine what is going on in the heads of people they don’t know very well, and like even less…

I should add that Zengerle asks me what, besides a bet, I would take as proof that liberals are 100% serious in their beliefs about protesters. Well, I think revealed preference is the best cue, but I would take a non-bet bet. That is: what would falsify your belief that these people are the vanguard of a rising tide of dangerous right-wing militia action?

I don’t get the feeling that it is possible to falsify these beliefs–indeed, the rage that confronts me when I attempt the fairly anodyne task of showing that law-abiding gun owners almost never turn criminal, suggests a very considerable emotional investment in them.

Which of our Presidential assassins weren’t ‘law-abiding gun owners’ until they pulled off their violent, jaw-dropping coups? Off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald took a shot at General Edwin Walker, but law enforcement had no idea. His wife didn’t even know.

by Standard American

It’s quite a coincidence the way so many big independent tax-exempt Christian evangelicals always seem to find themselves siding with the Republicans despite the scriptures on Jesus’ supporting big business being pretty rare, even in the worst conservative translations, and he even acquiesces to big government regarding taxes at one point.

It happens so often you could almost think they were coordinating with and actively promoting Republicans or something, but that just can’t be because that would be a violation of their tax-free status, and love-gifters to their anointed ministries would be sinfully deprived of the double blessing of financially backing the righteous condemnation of all those slutty bitches that have more sex than them while simultaneously starving the beast.

Just spin the wheel with one random issue .. say, national healthcare .. and one random Christian group .. say, Focus on the Family.

So what do these concerned Christians, with their finely tuned understanding of the will of Jeebus, say God wants us to do? They’d like to support it, it being humane and all, but dadgum it .. sometimes what was meant for good the Devil can turn to evil.

Admittedly, it’s a complex issue. ["Praise god we're here to tell you what you need to know"] For some, there is a genuine and sincere appeal to its passage, centered on a desire to help those families least able to help themselves. Few would fail to acknowledge the real pain of those most in need; those who are unable to access necessary care for themselves and their loved ones. [That's so sweet and charitable .. sounding]

As the head of an organization devoted to helping families thrive, I’m keenly aware of the challenges befalling moms and dads all around the country. As we have been since our inception in 1977, we’re fully committed to advocating for the health and well-being of America’s citizens.

Hooray! Focus on the Family is with us! Except here comes the dadgum part:

But sometimes you can actually do more harm trying to help if you’re going about it the wrong way.

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language,” former President Ronald Reagan once said, “are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” He was likely echoing the sentiments of Thomas Paine, one of our Founding Fathers. “That government is best which governs least” he famously said.

We would be wise to heed their words.

That’s our source for our fallacious appeals to authority? Reagan and Paine? A guy who never went to church but took advice from his wife’s astrologer, and the author of The Age of Reason? Let’s get down to the theological meat here — we know what we have to lead with. The Christianist Right’s number one nukular option — abortion. You Liberals may think you’re going to get the insurance and healthcare corporations to give something back, but it won’t be before we hang big “BABY KILLER” signs around your necks.

Regardless of where you stand on the need or wisdom of the overall reform, I do believe one aspect of this legislation is more troubling than any other.

As currently drafted, taxpayers would be forced to pay for abortions-

Horrors! No, wait .. that’s not horrible enough. Let’s horr it up some more:

-and doctors and hospitals that refuse to perform abortions may be forced to close their doors rather than violate their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This would include some of the finest facilities throughout the union.

Of course this last part is complete horseshit, but I’m sure JC wouldn’t mind a little Noble Lying if it’s for a good cause.

What a travesty and outrage to think that those within the medical community who have committed their lives to the preservation of the sanctity of life will be silenced. My heart aches at the thought of precious viable babies being slain-with the use of our tax dollars! What a terrible step backward; how could this be allowed to happen in the United States of America?

But what other ministerial authorities were consulted?

In her recent Wall Street Journal column, Peggy Noonan [!] wrote the following: “putting abortion in the mix takes the Christian out of Christian Democrat. It breaks and jangles the coalition, telling those who believe abortion is evil that they not only have to accept its legality but now have to pay for it in a brand new plan, for which they’ll be more highly taxed. This is taking a knife to your own supporters.”

I think I’ll check in with D(ead). James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries next. I wonder what side they’ll be on?

[Apparently, this is how 'genuine Americans' are:]

An honest obituary of “Sir” Ted Kennedy you’ll never see in print
08/26/2009
By Kevin “Coach” Collins

Senator Ted Kennedy has lost his battle to live. As a Christian I hope God has mercy on him. He suffered from a ghastly cancerous brain tumor that has apparently taken his life.

Obviously Kennedy will be canonized by acclamation in the media today and for days to come. The British Crown has already given him an honorary knighthood making him “Sir Edward” but genuine Americans know better.

These things said, I offer the following brief but honest obituary items which have no chance of appearing anywhere in the Democrat controlled media.

“It’s hard to think of anyone who singlehandedly did more damage to America than Ted Kennedy. Starting with his disgusting criminal conduct at Chappaquiddick when he abandoned Mary Jo Kopechne to die, Kennedy was always a destructive force in America’s public life. Because Kennedy was never prosecuted, as he should have been, his crime did enormous damage to America’s sense of justice and belief that “no one is above the law.”

“Sir Edward’s family asks for donations to LaRaza or Moveon.org. groups he loved so dearly.”

Politically correct services in Sir Edward’s memory will be held in Boston New York and San Francisco. I won’t be attending any.

Do it for Ted

The Marxists will try to use Kennedy’s corpse as a platform to spring into action ram through Obamacare and “do it for Ted.” We have to redouble our efforts to stop this last assault by sycophantic liberal robots all snots and tears over their hero’s death. We can’t become slaves just to honor this man who has already done us some much harm. We can’t let Sir Edward assault us even from his grave.

“Sir” Edward was an enemy of everything that made America great and now he is gone. There is not much more to honestly say about him. Nevertheless, I hope God’s mercies showered him at his judgment.

It wasn’t a heart attack, that much we know. It was drugs, or stupidity, or the unending demands of a superstar or the weaknesses of people who knew better. All of those things:

Coroner Attributes Michael Jackson’s Death to Sedative
Physician Gave Propofol to Singer As a Sleep Aid

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 24 — Michael Jackson died in his rented mansion June 25 from a deadly dose of the powerful anesthetic drug propofol, according to an affidavit unsealed Monday…

Murray said he feared that Jackson was forming an addiction to the drug, which the singer allegedly referred to as “milk,” and that he was trying to wean him off of it. So he lowered Jackson’s propofol dosage to 25 milligrams, mixing it with two other sedatives, lorazepam and midazolam, according to the report. On June 23, two days before the singer’s death, he reportedly gave Jackson lorazepam and midazolam, withholding the propofol.

Searching Murray's house

On the day Jackson died, Murray tried to induce sleep at 1:30 a.m. with Valium; at 2 a.m. with lorazepam; and at 3 a.m. with midazolam, according to the affidavit. After Murray failed to put Jackson to sleep with additional doses over the next few hours, Jackson then demanded propofol. At 10:40 a.m., the report notes, Murray administered 25 milligrams of the drug and continued to monitor Jackson for 10 minutes, until Murray left for the restroom. Murray told investigators that he returned after no more than two minutes and noticed Jackson had stopped breathing.

Between all the drugs (Ativan is lorazepam, and Versed is midazolam), the dangerous use of propofol and the shocking amount of time Dr. Murray spent on the phone while Jackson was either dying or dead, the doctor’s goose is cooked:

Coroner’s preliminary finding: Jackson overdosed on propofol

…Murray recounted to detectives in an hour-by-hour account detailed by detective Orlando Martinez of the Los Angeles Police Department:

– At about 1:30 a.m., Murray gave Jackson 10 mg of Valium.

– At about 2 a.m., he injected Jackson with 2 mg of the anti-anxiety drug Ativan.

– At about 3 a.m., Murray then administered 2 mg of the sedative Versed.

– At about 5 a.m., he administered another 2 mg of Ativan.

– At about 7:30 a.m., Murray gave Jackson yet another 2 mg of Versed while monitoring him with a device that measured the oxygen saturation of his blood.

– At about 10:40 a.m., “after repeated demands/requests from Jackson,” Murray administered 25 mg of propofol, the document said.

“Jackson finally went to sleep and Murray stated that he remained monitoring him. After approximately 10 minutes, Murray stated he left Jackson’s side to go to the restroom and relieve himself. Murray stated he was out of the room for about two minutes maximum. Upon his return, Murray noticed that Jackson was no longer breathing,” the affidavit said.

Efforts at CPR proved fruitless, according to Murray.

Shortly after Murray said he found Jackson not breathing, Murray was on the phone with three separate callers starting at 11:18 a.m. and ending at 12:05 p.m., according to the court documents which cite the doctor’s phone records.

Michael Jackson’s doctor ‘set to be charged with manslaughter’

…Dr Murray has admitted administering the powerful sedative propofol to the singer on the day he died to help him sleep.

But he claims the amount, 25 milligrams, was small and should not have been fatal.

To secure a conviction for involuntary manslaughter prosecutors will have to prove that Dr Murray acted recklessly and created a high risk of death.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bjDWRJx9I]

He will also be asked why he didn’t tell paramedics or doctors at the UCLA hospital, where Jackson was rushed after collapsing, that he had administered propofol.

Leading US attorney Roy Black said the intensity of the two month police investigation made it inevitable that Dr Murray would be charged. He said: “I have no doubt he’s going to be indicted. Just the amount of work tells us that.”

The homicide ruling by the coroner’s office was based on forensic tests that found propofol combined with at least two other sedatives, lorazepam and midazolam, to kill Jackson.

Lee Cantrell, director of the San Diego division of the California Poison Control System, said 25 milligrams of propofol was “not a whopping amount” but in a cocktail of other sedatives may have “pushed him over the edge”.

He said: “This is horrible polypharmacy. No one will treat an insomniac like this.”