Senator John Cornyn - TX

By W. James Antle III

Well, that didn’t take long. After Democratic supermajorities rammed through their health care bill, Republicans were full of sound and fury about how this injustice will not stand. Even John McCain was on board, telling a television interviewer, “Outside the Beltway the American people are very angry and they don’t like it and we are going to try to repeal this.”

But in the GOP, cooler heads always prevail. What these Republican heads want to cool down is the campaign to repeal the health care takeover. Reports the Associated Press: “Top Republicans are increasingly worried that GOP candidates this fall might be burned by a fire that’s roaring through the conservative base: demand for the repeal of President Barack Obama’s new health care law.”

One of the Republican leadership’s volunteer firefighters is none other than Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who chairs the committee responsible for getting GOP candidates elected to the Senate this fall. Cornyn initially unfurled the “repeal and replace” banner, only to quickly make an exception for the “non-controversial stuff,” such as the ban on preexisting conditions which is unfortunately exactly what necessitates the “controversial stuff” like the individual mandate.

Cornyn was later seen pouring cold water on the idea entirely. Asked by the AP whether he was going to advise Republican senatorial nominees to run on repeal, he said, “Candidates are going to test the winds in their own states… In some places, the health care bill is more popular than others.” Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee doesn’t need a weatherman to tell him where the wind blows: “It’s just not going to happen.”

Republican candidates seeking to join Cornyn and Corker in the club have gotten the memo. Shortly before Obamacare passed, Congressman Mark Kirk — the Republican running to fill Barack Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois — bravely vowed to “lead the effort” to repeal the bill. Now he glumly tells a local newspaper, “Well, we lost.”

Not only is it the case that Republicans “do not have the votes,” but Kirk noted “a sliver of good things in the bill which Republicans agreed with.” Judging from the similarities between the new national health care regime and the Massachusetts bill Republican Sen. Scott Brown voted for and GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney signed into law, for some Republicans it is more than a sliver.

Republicans against repeal have found an amen corner in the cooler heads among conservative commentators. One Oliver Garland even counseled that repeal was fundamentally unconservative: “True conservatives are not radicals; they respect tradition and work for stable reform to fix institutions.”

Read the rest of this article at The American Spectator.

Health Care Vote Puts Nelson 30 Points Down in Reelection Bid

From Rasmussen Reports

The good news for Senator Ben Nelson is that he doesn’t have to face Nebraska voters until 2012.

If Governor Dave Heineman challenges Nelson for the Senate job, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows the Republican would get 61% of the vote while Nelson would get just 30%. Nelson was reelected to a second Senate term in 2006 with 64% of the vote.

Nelson’s health care vote is clearly dragging his numbers down. Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their senator made on Medicaid in exchange for his vote in support of the plan. Overall, 64% oppose the health care legislation, including 53% who are Strongly Opposed.

Read the rest of this story at Rasmussen Reports.

Senator Tom Harkin on three separate occassions in the course of a single week basically admits the current health care ‘reform’ bill is nothing more than a stepping stone towards a government takeover of the health care industry.

Senator Reid Proposes Restrictions on Self-Governance

Senator Harry Reid has slipped language into the heath care bill, via an amendment that would tie the hands of future Congresses with regard to repealing or amending it. The amendment makes substantial changes to the standing rules of the Senate, a move that normally requires a super-majority vote of at least 67 Senators. When questioned about this by Senator DeMint, The Senate president ruled that the bill changes Senate procedure, but not Senate rules, so the 67 vote threshold did not apply. The unasked question that begs to follow is, “what establishes Senate procedures?” Answer: The rules. 

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment (page 1020) states that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The subsection pertains to regulations imposed by the Medicare Advisory Board. The amendment goes on to require a vote of 3/5 the Senate (60 votes) to waive the paragraph. 

This posturing, setting some provisions of the law above others, so as to make them untouchable sets a dangerous precedent. It is the Constitution that is established as the supreme law of the land. The threshold for changing it was set high by the founders. Senator Reid and his cohorts are now attempting to enshrine provisions of their health care bill as above normal laws, and not subject to the normal democratic processes to change or repeal them. 

DeMint observed, “I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this into every bill.” 

Ed Morisey made the point well in his article: “The elected representatives of today should not have greater authority than those who will follow them. Any attempt to pass this into legislation aggrandizes the power of this Congress at the expense of those that follow.” 

The proposed language of this health care amendment would, by simple majority vote, establish a requirement for a super majority to alter or repeal it. If this anti-democracy measure is allowed to stand, the implications for this and all future legislation are dire. Hundreds of years of established Congressional process will be subverted, the future will of the people, expressed by the election of their representatives, thwarted by unreasonable and unprecedented obstacles to our right of self-governance.

By David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear

After a long day of acid, partisan debate, Senate Democrats held ranks early Monday in a dead-of-night procedural vote that proved they had locked in the decisive margin needed to pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

The roll was called shortly after 1 a.m., with Washington still snowbound after a weekend blizzard, and the Senate voted on party lines to cut off a Republican filibuster of a package of changes to the health care bill by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.

The vote was 60 to 40 — a tally that is expected to be repeated four times as further procedural hurdles are cleared in the days ahead, and then once more in a dramatic, if predictable, finale tentatively scheduled for 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.

Both parties hailed the vote as seismic.

Democrats said it showed them poised to reshape the health system after decades of failed attempts.

“Health care in America ought to be a right, not a privilege,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. “Since the time of Harry Truman, every Congress, Republican and Democrat, every president, Democrat and Republican, have at least thought about doing this. Some actually tried.”

Republicans said that the bill was fatally flawed and that voters would retaliate against Democrats at the polls in November.

“It’s obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before Christmas — because they don’t want the American people to know what’s in it,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.

Mr. Alexander added, “Our friends on the Democratic side seem determined to pursue a political kamikaze mission toward a historic mistake.”

Each side blamed the other for the extraordinary series of votes — at dawn Saturday, after midnight Monday, at dawn again on Tuesday, at 1 p.m. on Wednesday and finally on Christmas Eve, when most Americans will be sequestered for the holiday.

The Democrats charged the Republicans with obstinately throwing every procedural obstacle in their way, including filibusters and the full 30 hours of debate allowed under the rules after each filibuster is broken by a vote of 60 senators.

The Republicans charged the Democrats with recklessly rushing to adopt a dizzyingly complex 2,700-page bill that would affect virtually every American, and would reshape one-sixth of the nation’s economy at a cost of $871 billion over 10 years.

“If the Republicans want to exercise every single right they have under the rules, they can keep us here until Christmas Eve, no doubt about it,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. “But to what end, I ask? To what end? We’re going to have the vote at 1 a.m. that requires 60 votes, and then why stay here until Christmas Eve to do what they know we’re going to do?”

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said he and his colleagues had a duty to fight until the last minute.

“There is nothing inevitable about this,” Mr. Cornyn said. “The only thing I think inevitable about it is in the light of the unpopularity of what is being jammed down the throats of the American people, there will be a day of accounting. We don’t know when that day of accounting will be. Perhaps the first day of accounting will be Election Day 2010.”

Adoption of the legislation is not a certainty.

The Senate bill, once completed, must be reconciled with the bill adopted by the House last month, and there are substantial differences between the two. The House measure, for instance, includes a government-run health insurance plan, or public option, that was dropped from the Senate bill.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said the House would not just accept the Senate bill. And some Senate Democrats have warned that they could turn against the bill if changes made during negotiations with the House are not to their liking.

Read the rest at New York Times.

What started as Sen. Ben Nelson’s personal stand against covering abortion with taxpayer money translated, somehow, into millions of dollars in federal aid for his home state — drawing criticism that his vote was bought.

From Fox News

What started as Sen. Ben Nelson’s personal stand against covering abortion with taxpayer money translated, somehow, into millions of dollars in federal aid for his home state.

The Nebraska Democrat, following weeks of negotiations with his caucus, finally agreed to back the Senate’s health care reform bill this weekend after Democratic leaders made a series of concessions. Nelson’s support gives Democrats the 60 votes they need to overcome a filibuster, barring any last-minute defections.

But critics by Sunday were heavily questioning Nelson’s motivations, given that the abortion restrictions he sought and won did not satisfy several major anti-abortion lawmakers and groups and that it took a major federal payoff to his state to seal the deal.

Critics were calling it the “cornhusker kickback” and the “Nebraska windfall,” lobbing accusations of political deal-making at Nelson.

“It’s pretty obvious that votes have been bought,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said.

Nelson did win restrictions on abortion coverage, which is what he sought for weeks. Under the compromise, states would be permitted to ban insurance coverage of abortions in policies sold in the exchanges, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. In states where such coverage is permitted, consumers must notify their insurance company they want it, and pay for it separately.

That didn’t do much to please some anti-abortion lawmakers. But Nelson also won several other concessions, most notably a commitment from the federal government to fully fund his state’s expanded Medicaid population. All states get full federal assistance for the first three years of the bill — but Nebraska would be the only state getting full assistance afterward. One Democratic official put the cost to the federal government at $45 million over a decade.

Democratic senators defended the Nebraska deal. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said all states get a lot of federal aid for Medicaid anyway, and that special treatment is hardly unique to Nebraska.

“Personally, every state gets some kind of differential treatment based on their situation,” he told “Fox News Sunday.”

“People fight for their own states. That’s the nature of a democracy,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.

But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Nelson’s victory came at the expense of the other 49 states.

“That puts an added burden on all the other states, including mine,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The concessions didn’t end there. Nelson also got an exemption from a fee on non-profit health insurers — the language was written in a way that only applies to Nebraska and Michigan.

Read the rest at Fox News.

By Ed Morrissey

How desperate has the White House become to get anything passed under the name of health-care reform?  According to Michael Goldfarb’s source on Capitol Hill, the Obama administration has targeted the last remaining Democratic holdout, at least among moderates — and they’re willing to damage national security to extort his support.  The White House has threatened Ben Nelson (D-NE) with the closure of Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska if he opposes Reid’s latest version, despite its status as the headquarters of US Strategic Command:

According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn’t fall into line.

Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a “naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson’s vote.” They are “threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?” asked the Senate staffer.

Indeed, Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security.

The Obama administration has little left to use for leverage.  Why not national security?  After all, if we’re going to bring terrorists into Illinois, what does it matter if we put the US Strategic Command on wheels for a few years?

Read the rest of this story at Hot Air.

Representative Michele Bachmann (R–MN–6) called for a march on Washington DC yesterday, terming it a “House Call” on the health care bill. Early estimates put the crowd in DC at 50,000 people protesting against the proposed government takeover of health care in the United States. Not everyone could drop everything on short notice and take a bus to the nation’s Capitol, though so Minnesota Majority organized a Youth Rally against the health care bill at the state Capitol. The event drew a couple hundred people of all ages to the Capitol steps at noon today.

Some parents took their children out of school to attend the event for what they were calling a “real-life civics lesson.” Children, teens and adults showed up carrying home made signs with messages like, “If Obamacare is so great, why is Congress exempt,” “Give me liberty or give me death panels,” and “Choose the Public Option (OR ELSE!),” among other creative expressions opposing the takeover plan.

Talk show host Sue Jeffers emceed the rally that included a recorded message from Rep. Bachmann, speakers Jeff Peil, Jeff Davis, Tom Prichard, Rose Barrett and 13-year-old Hannah Quinn. Quinn first provided her perspective on the universal sanctity of human life and posited that a law that doesn’t respect life – from the unborn to the elderly, without regard for ability – is doomed to fail. She also delivered a message from her state representative, Peggy Scott (R-49A) to the crowd.

A chant of “kill the bill” came up repeatedly during the one-hour rally and it was wrapped up with the crowd singing along to My Country ‘tis of Thee.

“This was a nationwide phenomenon,” said Davis. “While we were at this rally at the state Capitol, other people were bussing to DC and others were visiting their representatives’ local offices. People are taking action. It’s really encouraging,” he said.

Posted from Wall Street Journal

The Baucus plan would make insurance even more expensive

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus finally unveiled his health-care plan yesterday to a chorus of bipartisan jeers. The reaction is surprising given that President Obama all but endorsed the outlines of the Baucus plan last week. But the hoots are only going to grow louder as more people read what he’s actually proposing.

The headline is that Mr. Baucus has dropped the unpopular “public option,” but this is a political offering without much policy difference. His plan remains a public option by other means, imposing vast new national insurance regulation, huge new subsidies to pay for the higher insurance costs this regulation will require and all financed by new taxes and penalties on businesses, individuals and health-care providers. Other than that, Hippocrates, the plan does no harm.

The centerpiece of the Obama-Baucus plan is a decree that everyone purchase heavily regulated insurance policies or else pay a penalty. This government mandate would require huge subsidies as well as brute force to get anywhere near the goal of universal coverage. The inevitable result would be a vast increase in the government’s share of U.S. health spending, forcing doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and other health providers to serve politics as well as or even over and above patients.

The plan essentially rewrites all insurance contracts, including those offered by businesses to their workers. Benefits and premiums must be tailored to federal specifications. First-dollar coverage would be mandated for many services, and cost-sharing between businesses and employees would be sharply reduced, though this is one policy that might reduce health spending by giving consumers more skin in the game. Nor would insurance be allowed to bear any relation to risk. Inevitably, costs would continue to climb.

Everyone would be forced to buy these government-approved policies, whether or not they suit their needs or budget. Families would face tax penalties as high as $3,800 a year for not complying, singles $950. As one resident of Massachusetts where Mitt Romney imposed an individual mandate in 2006 put it in a Journal story yesterday, this is like taxing the homeless for not buying a mansion.

The political irony here is rich. If liberal health-care reform is going to make people better off, why does it require “a very harsh, stiff penalty” to make everyone buy it? That’s what Senator Obama called it in his Presidential campaign when he opposed the individual mandate supported by Hillary Clinton. He correctly argued then that many people were uninsured not because they didn’t want coverage but because it was too expensive. The nearby mailer to Ohio primary voters gives the flavor of Mr. Obama’s attacks.

And the Baucus-Obama plan will only make insurance even more expensive. Employers will be required to offer “qualified coverage” to their workers (or pay another “free rider” penalty) and workers will be required to accept it, paying for it in lower wages. The vast majority of households already confront the same tradeoff today, except Congress will now declare that there’s only one right answer.

Read the rest at Wall Street Journal.

From Rasmussen Reports:

President Obama’s speech to Congress Wednesday night has provided at least a short-term boost in support for the health care reform plan that he and congressional Democrats have proposed. But the bounce is partisan in nature, with the increase in support coming entirely from those in the president’s own party.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national tracking survey shows that 46% favor the plan and 51% are opposed. The survey was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday nights. The previous two-day sample, conducted Tuesday and Wednesday nights, found that 44% favored the plan while 53% were opposed.

Read the rest of this story at Rasmussen Reports.

By Gary Bauer, from Campaign for Working Families‘ End of Day Report

The president must have thought he was still speaking to second graders during last night’s speech to the American people and a joint session of Congress. How else can one explain the untruths, misrepresentations and contradictions that were centerpieces of the speech? He described a fantasyland where everyone gets more benefits, nobody loses anything and the deficit magically doesn’t increase. I will point out a few of the distortions below.

But first I want to point out what most of Big Media is ignoring this morning. Republicans are being bashed for inappropriate partisanship because there was a sprinkling of boos and a frustrated Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina accused the president of lying. Big Media is in shock about that outburst, but it appears to have forgotten that President Bush was booed in 2005, and that Harry Reid called President Bush “a loser” and “a liar.” In addition, many are ignoring the bitter partisan tone of the president’s speech.

He accused talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.), cable news (Fox News) and Republican leaders (Sarah Palin) of lying. He attacked the Bush Administration – AGAIN. And he said nothing about the “attack dogs” of the Left, including members of Congress who have labeled those of us who disagree with socialized medicine as “un-American” and “evil mongers.”

How partisan was his speech? Senator Lindsey Graham, who goes out of his way (too far in my opinion) to “make nice” with liberals in Congress, had this to say: “I was incredibly disappointed in the tone of his speech.  …I found his tone to be overly combative and believe he behaved in a manner beneath the dignity of the office. I fear his speech tonight has made it more difficult — not less — to find common ground.” Even Larry Sabato, a liberal political analyst, called Obama’s remarks, “…a tough, partisan speech.” They are right. The speech sounded like something a community organizer would deliver – not a president.

Now, let’s look at specifics. I’ll quote the president and then give you the facts.

Obama’s fantasy: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future — period.”

The Truth: Not even one Democrat version of the legislation is deficit neutral. The House version, according to the Congressional Budget Office, adds $220 billion to the deficit over the next decade. The Senate bill is changing by the hour, so it is harder to estimate costs, but common sense tells you it is nearly impossible to cover 30 million more people, not cut any services and do it all without more deficit spending.

Obama’s Claim: “Don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut… That will never happen on my watch.”

The Truth: His plan proposes $500 billion in “savings” in Medicare by cutting “waste, fraud and abuse.” This is a sleight of hand as old as Washington, D.C., and it is one reason why our deficit is out of control. There is no budget line for “waste, fraud and abuse.” If there are $500 billion that can be saved, prove it now. Cut that “waste, fraud and abuse” now, and save the money now!

Obama’s Deception: “…the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

The Reality: Is there an American alive who doesn’t know the fiasco of our immigration policies? Countless benefits go to illegal immigrants for one simple reason: There are no strong verification systems to prevent it. Illegals can’t vote, but we know some are voting because liberals oppose photo IDs and proof of citizenship on Election Day. Conservatives in Congress have repeatedly tried to add citizenship verification provisions to the socialized medicine bill, and Obama’s allies have voted them down every time. Voting down citizenship verification is how Obama’s allies ensure that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and groups like La Raza support the legislation.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that 83% of Americans say people should be required to prove their citizenship before receiving government healthcare benefits. But the Congressional Research Service admits that there is no verification mechanism in the bill. No wonder Rep. Joe Wilson yelled, “You lie!” at this point in the speech. And don’t forget: Obama intends to provide an amnesty to illegals anyway, making them eligible for all federal programs.

By the way, I insist that President Obama call Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Sarah Palin and apologize for calling them liars.

Obama’s Deceit: “…under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions…”

The Facts: Every attempt by pro-life congressmen to add specific language ensuring that your tax dollars won’t be used to subsidize abortions has been defeated by pro-abortion liberals in committee. The legislation requires that everyone receiving a federal subsidy (your tax money) under the proposed law be able to buy insurance that covers abortion. Even the Associated Press and Time Magazine admit that.

And did you notice that when President Obama said it wouldn’t cover abortion there were no cries of outrage from the dozens of pro-abortion extremists in Congress? They know the fix is in and that abortion coverage will be included.

Obama’s Sleight of Hand: Last night, Obama told Americans who already have insurance that they have nothing to worry about. He said: “Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”

But this statement is different from what he has said in previous speeches on healthcare. Previously, he claimed: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

Details are important. Why did Obama go from saying “you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period” to “nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have”? The answer is simple. Most Americans get their health insurance from their employer and they generally like it. But once a government-run health insurance company (the public option) is established, many businesses, no one knows how many, will opt to pay a fine and stop providing coverage if the government is going to assume that responsibility. Millions of Americans will lose the coverage they have and like, even though the legislation doesn’t “require” it. But the legislation just makes that outcome very predictable.

Obama’s False Promise: “Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together…”

The Reality: Conservatives have introduced 40 pieces of legislation to reform healthcare. None have been let out of committee by the Democrat majority. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi hasn’t included Republicans in negotiations for months. Obama has “locked” the White House doors since April – not inviting the congressional minority even once since then to negotiate. When Obama says he wants bi-partisanship, he means conservatives have to embrace his unacceptable Big Government, high cost, deficit-inducing ideas.

I could write a dozen pages, but you get my drift. It was a partisan speech long on distortions and short on facts. One more observation to close: President Obama expressed the same disdain for dissent and energetic debate that is quickly becoming a leftwing theme. He referred to the lively debate this summer at the grassroots as a “spectacle” and “bickering,” and added, “The time for games has passed.”

This is no game. Your freedom is at stake. If this bill passes, Congress will be creating another huge entitlement program. Big Government will be taking on an even bigger responsibility for your welfare and with that a greater demand on your income and standard of living.

But the president needs to be reminded that in America, in contrast to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Ahmadinejad’s Iran, vocal, robust dissent is not only our right, it is our obligation when government and politicians go too far. Brave men and women have died for our right to speak-up and no one, including the president, gets to decide when the debate is over.

President Obama and Speaker Pelosi deny the existence of so-called “death panels” in the health care reform package now underway in Congress, but provisions in the bill call for physician-directed end of life planning, similar to what’s been enacted in England. England’s National Health Service calls the program an “End of Life Scheme.” This article from the UK Telegraph demonstrates the potential pitfalls of such a plan.

The daughter of a stroke victim claims that her father is to be wrongly placed on an NHS scheme for the terminally ill which experts say is causing some patients to die too soon.

By Chris Irvine and Kate Devlin

Rosemary Munkenbeck says her father Eric Troake, who entered hospital after suffering a stroke, had fluid and drugs withdrawn and she claims doctors wanted to put him on morphine until he passed away under a scheme for dying patients called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP).

Mrs Munkenbeck, 56, from Bracknell, said her father, who previously said he wanted to live until he was 100, has now said he wants to die after being deprived of fluids for five days.

Along with her sister Jocelyn Troake, 60, who lived in Bermuda until recently moving to Frimley, Surrey, to care full time for her father and her mother Edna, 93, they are convinced their father is a victim of the system.

Last week The Daily Telegraph reported a warning from experts that some patients with terminal illnesses were being wrongly put on the NHS scheme and allowed to die prematurely if they ticked “the right boxes”.

The pathway scheme was developed to improve the care of patients in their dying hours and ensure that they were not being “overmedicalised”.

The scheme encourages doctors and other health care staff to consider removing medication, fluids and other treatments that no longer benefit the patient.

It also recommends discussing the situation with relatives, and if possible, with the patient themselves.

Mrs Munkenbeck said that her father was taken off an intravenous drip last week but she argues that he has as much of a right to life as anyone else. Although a spokesman for Frimley Park Hospital in Surrey says Mr Troake is not on the scheme “at the moment”, it is likely he will be offered a plan of care for dying patients.

“We believe that he has been forced down this route. By withdrawing fluids he is now very weak and there’s no going back from it,” she told The Daily Telegraph yesterday.

Read the rest of this story at UK’s Telegraph.