<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18813"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Arial>responses <FONT color=#0000ff>in blue</FONT>
below...</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=snug.bug@hotmail.com href="mailto:snug.bug@hotmail.com">Brian
Good</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=dimension04@sbcglobal.net
href="mailto:dimension04@sbcglobal.net">dimension04@sbcglobal.net</A> ; <A
title=geri@thetwofacesofmoney.com
href="mailto:geri@thetwofacesofmoney.com">geri@thetwofacesofmoney.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net
href="mailto:citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net">citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 12, 2009 7:52
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [CitizensTruth] "Were They
Drunk?"</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT size=3> Obama lost me when he voted for the telecom
wiretap immunity bill <BR>after promising that he would filibuster to oppose
it. He never explained <BR>why he voted for it. He was a
constitutional scholar and he understood <BR>the issues, and he was a lawyer
who understood that the bill would stop<BR>the 50 pending lawsuits' discovery
process that would have revealed the <BR>depth and breadth of the <U>wiretap
violations</U>.</FONT></DIV><FONT size=3></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=3>There are numerous such examples -- IMHO, the
wiretap immunity bill being no more egregious than other such issues!
<U>All of which might have to be shelved until he can create a safe beachhead
in the WH</U> -- something which JFK failed to do and paid the price.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=3>Hopefully, Obama is not as obtuse as JFK
(who was eventually honorable, I think, but overall far
too distracted by his stupid sexual escapades.) </FONT></DIV><FONT
size=3></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT
size=3>
<DIV>I would like to believe that he's a good guy who will at some
dramatic<BR>point whip off his Bush-lite mask and show us who he really is,
but <U>I<BR>already went through that process with Kerry.</U> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>No disrespect, but <U>I personally can't imagine
feeling anything good about Kerry.</U> I deeply reluctantly voted for
him ONLY as a vote against Bush -- would've voted for a wombat over Bush,
and pretty much felt that was what I was doing. (Don't even know what a
wombat IS -- but I'd vote for one, over Bush.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Through the whole<BR>Ohio recount process in 2004 I kept telling
everybody--"You just watch,<BR>the Democrats know what they're doing.
This is a trap for Bush." I was<BR>wrong. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>I personally was very concerned that Kerry
was a sell-out. And he was. I think it would be a shame
to taint Obama with Kerry's lack of character. The two men have nothing
in common.</FONT></DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT
size=3>
<DIV>From 2006 to 2008 the Dems told us "We must appease and concentrate
<BR>on winning the next election." So now that it's won, we must keep
on<BR>appeasing? On his third day in office Obama declared his contempt
for <BR>international law, the Nuremberg Principles, the UN, and simple
human<BR>decency by ordering drone missile attacks on Pakistan that killed
14<BR>civilians. He's a war criminal. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>I think he's doing what I would do if I were in his
awful position -- above all, unlike JFK, do NOT fire everybody and
change everything right away and signal the PTB that you're NOT their boy
after all. Uh -- Suicide! Stupid!</FONT></DIV><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT size=3><FONT color=#0000ff>Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I
can't help but feel that Barack's cellular immersion in his mom's and
gran's lifelong humanitarianism and character-shaping FAR outweigh any
johnny-come-lately PTB influence. </FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT
color=#0000ff size=3></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=3>Like Gen. Smedley Butler in the White House
coup-plot in the 1930's -- string'em along until you can expose
them -- and then defeat them. It's been done before, and a scholar
like Obama may well feel it can be done again.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=3>I can only say, though, I hope that's the
case. But it seems logical to me, the most likely reality to me, given
his background.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=3>Connie</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR><BR><BR>> From:
dimension04@sbcglobal.net<BR>> To: geri@thetwofacesofmoney.com<BR>>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:11:47 -0500<BR>> CC:
citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>> Subject: Re: [CitizensTruth] "Were They
Drunk?"<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Good and well-informed points, as
always, Geri.<BR>> <BR>> Re, the "hope" thing. A LITTLE more to it than
that is my surprise that <BR>> given a potential 4-8 years in office,
there's so much conviction, it seems, <BR>> that in less than one year he's
a Failure, or worse. Could all this be <BR>> "premature
speculation"?<BR>> <BR>> I think his rise to power is founded on his
natural abilities -- BUT, I <BR>> understand that like Kucinich, all the
natural abilities in the world can't <BR>> "get you there" if you don't
have the backing of the powers-that-be.<BR>> <BR>> I still wonder
whether They are using Barack -- or given time, it will turn <BR>> out that
he has used Them. That it's been his strategy all along to use <BR>> them
to get to where, well actually -- to where he CAME FROM and bless the <BR>>
world with it -- and that would be his mom's and grandma's life-long <BR>>
grooming to truly love and help humanity.<BR>> <BR>> The ptb, or mom and
gram. Hmmmmm...which will it turn out to be...<BR>> <BR>> ?<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Geri
Perry" <geri@thetwofacesofmoney.com><BR>> To: "Connie Smith"
<dimension04@sbcglobal.net><BR>> Cc: "Chuck Minne"
<mincam2@yahoo.com>; <citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net><BR>>
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 6:24 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [CitizensTruth]
"Were They Drunk?"<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > And there is yet another
perspective . . .<BR>> ><BR>> > This one holds that Obama, like so
many before him, is little more than a <BR>> > puppet.<BR>>
><BR>> > How else can we explain his meteoric rise from total
obscurity to become- <BR>> > in one giant leap - president of the Unite
States, and tainted no less by <BR>> > the same Rezco scandal that so
heavily damaged the Blago image?<BR>> ><BR>> > We can guess who
pulls the strings, but following the money is a good <BR>> >
start.<BR>> ><BR>> > Amazingly poor timing was evident when Obama
convened his war council for <BR>> > crucial talks on Afghan strategy
within hours after being named Nobel <BR>> > Peace Laureate. This may be
due to the fact that, as Chalmers Johnson <BR>> > posits in Sorrows of
Empire, CentCom pulls the shots on foreign policy, <BR>> > not the pres.
(Or maybe now its NATO?)<BR>> ><BR>> > I'm no fan of Michael Moore
but there is something to be said for those <BR>> > who at least HOPE
the president will do right by the people and not the <BR>> > money
power. Wishful thinking in the face of current facts, but WAY better <BR>>
> than actually "hoping he will fail" as Rush Limbaugh has publicly AND
<BR>> > wrongly asserted.<BR>> ><BR>> > Geri P<BR>>
><BR>> > Connie Smith wrote:<BR>> >> Or...we could consider
another point of view:<BR>> >><BR>> >> *Get Off Obama's Back
...second thoughts from Michael Moore*<BR>> >><BR>> >>
Saturday, October 10th, 2009<BR>> >><BR>> >>
Friends,<BR>> >><BR>> >> ...I went back and re-read what I
had written. And _I listened for far <BR>> >> too long yesterday to
the right wing hate machine who did what they could <BR>> >> to crap
all over Barack's big day. Did I -- and others on the left -- do <BR>>
>> the same? _<BR>> >><BR>> >> We are weary, weary of
war. The trillions that will have gone to these <BR>> >> two wars
have helped to bankrupt us as a nation -- financially and <BR>> >>
morally. To think of all the good we could have done with all that money!
<BR>> >> Two months of the War in Iraq would pay for all the wells
that need to be <BR>> >> dug in the Third World for drinking water!
Obama is moving too slow for <BR>> >> most of us -- but he needs to
know we are with him and we stand beside <BR>> >> him as he attempts
to turn eight years of sheer madness around. Who could <BR>> >> do
that in nine months? Superman? Thor? Mitch McConnell?<BR>> >><BR>>
>> Instead of waiting to see what the president is going to do, we all
need <BR>> >> to be pro-active and push the agenda that we want to
see enacted. What <BR>> >> keeps us from forming the same local
groups we put together to get out <BR>> >> the vote last November?
C'mon! We're the majority now -- the majority by <BR>> >> a
significant margin! We call the shots -- and we need to tell this wimpy
<BR>> >> Congress to get busy and do what we say -- or else.<BR>>
>><BR>> >> All I ask of those who voted for Obama is to not
pile on him too quickly. <BR>> >> Yes, make your voice heard (his
phone number is 202-456-1414). But don't <BR>> >> abandon the best
hope we've had in our lifetime for change. And for God's <BR>> >>
sake, don't head to bummerville if he says or does something we don't <BR>>
>> like. Do you ever see Republicans behave that way? I mean, the Right
had <BR>> >> 20 years of Republican presidents and they still
couldn't get prayer in <BR>> >> the public schools, or outlaw
abortion, or initiate a flat tax or put our <BR>> >> Social Security
into the stock market. They did a lot of damage, no doubt <BR>> >>
about that, but on the key issues that the Christian Right fought for,
<BR>> >> they came up nearly empty handed. No wonder they've been
driven crazy <BR>> >> lately. They'll never have it as good again as
they've had it since <BR>> >> Reagan took office.<BR>>
>><BR>> >> But -- do you ever see them looking all gloomy and
defeated? No! They <BR>> >> keep on fighting! Every day. Our side? At
the first sign of wavering, we <BR>> >> just pack up our toys and go
home.<BR>> >><BR>> >> So, at least for this weekend, let us
celebrate what people elsewhere are <BR>> >> celebrating -- that
America now has a sane and smart man in the White <BR>> >> House, a
man who truly wants a world at peace for his two daughters.<BR>>
>><BR>> >> Many, for the past couple days (yes, myself
included), have grumbled, <BR>> >> "What has he done to earn this
prize?" How 'bout this:<BR>> >><BR>> >> The simple fact that
he was elected was reason enough for him to be the <BR>> >> recipient
of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Because on
that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were <BR>> >>
totally and thoroughly rebuked. One man -- a man who opposed the War in
<BR>> >> Iraq from the beginning -- offered to end the insanity. The
world has <BR>> >> stood by in utter horror for the past eight years
as they watched the <BR>> >> descendants of Washington, Lincoln and
Jefferson light the fuse of our <BR>> >> own self-destruction. We
flipped off the nations on this planet by <BR>> >> abandoning Kyoto
and then proceeded to melt eight more years worth of the <BR>> >>
polar ice caps. We invaded two nations that didn't attack us, failed to
<BR>> >> find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own
wave of terror. <BR>> >> People all over the world wondered if we had
gone mad.<BR>> >><BR>> >> And if all that wasn't enough, the
outgoing Joker presided over the worst <BR>> >> global financial
collapse since the Great Depression.<BR>> >><BR>> >> So,
yeah, at precisely 11:00pm ET on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama won <BR>>
>> the Nobel Peace Prize. And the 66 million people who voted for him
won <BR>> >> it, too. By the time he took the stage at midnight ET in
the Grant Park <BR>> >> Historic Hippie Battlefield in downtown
Chicago, billions of people <BR>> >> around the globe were already
breathing a huge sigh of relief. It was as <BR>> >> if, in that
instant, one man did bring the promise of peace to the <BR>> >> world
-- and most were ready to go wherever he wanted to go to achieve <BR>>
>> that end. Never before had the election of one man made every other
<BR>> >> nation feel like they had won, too. When you've got billions
of people <BR>> >> ready, willing and able to join a cause like this,
well, a prize in Oslo <BR>> >> is the least that you deserve.<BR>>
>><BR>> >> One other thought. The Peace Prize historically has
been given to those <BR>> >> who have worked to throw off the yoke of
racial discrimination and <BR>> >> segregation (Martin Luther King,
Jr., Desmond Tutu). I think the Nobel <BR>> >> committee, in awarding
Obama the prize, was also rewarding the fact that <BR>> >> something
profound had happened in a nation that was founded on racial <BR>> >>
genocide, built on racist slavery, and held back for a hundred-plus years
<BR>> >> by vestiges of hateful bigotry (which can still be found on
display at <BR>> >> teabagger rallies and daily talk radio). The fact
that this one man could <BR>> >> cause this seismic historical event
to occur -- and to do so with such <BR>> >> grace and humility, never
succumbing to the bait, but still not backing <BR>> >> down (yes, he
asked to be sworn in as "Barack Hussein Obama"!) -- is more <BR>> >>
than reason enough he should be in Oslo to meet the King on December 10.
<BR>> >> Maybe he could take us along with him. 'Cause I also suspect
the Nobel <BR>> >> committee was tipping its hat to all of us -- we,
the American people, <BR>> >> had conquered some of our racism and
did the truly unexpected. After <BR>> >> seeing searing images of our
black fellow citizens left to drown in New <BR>> >> Orleans -- and
poor whites seeing their own treated no better than the <BR>> >>
black man they had been raised to hate -- we had all seen enough. It was
<BR>> >> time for change.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Thank
you, Barack Obama, for giving us the opportunity to redeem <BR>> >>
ourselves. Now for the tasks ahead. We need you to do all that you <BR>>
>> promised to do. We need it. The world needs it.<BR>>
>><BR>> >> My prediction for the future? You become the first
*two-time* winner of <BR>> >> the Nobel Peace Prize! Yeah!<BR>>
>><BR>> >> Fred (that's Norwegian for "Peace"),<BR>>
>> Michael Moore<BR>> >> MMFlint@aol.com<BR>> >>
MichaelMoore.com<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> Join
Mike's Mailing List | Join Mike's Facebook Group | Follow Mike on <BR>>
>> Twitter | Become Mike's MySpace Friend<BR>> >><BR>>
>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> >> *From:* Chuck Minne
<mailto:mincam2@yahoo.com><BR>> >> *To:*
citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>> >>
<mailto:citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net><BR>> >> *Sent:* Sunday,
October 11, 2009 6:47 PM<BR>> >> *Subject:* [CitizensTruth] "Were
They Drunk?"<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> Foreign
Newspapers on Obama’s Nobel Prize Victory<BR>> >><BR>> >>
October 10th, 2009 | By: Michael van der Galien<BR>> >>
<http://www.poligazette.com/author/michael-van-der-galien/><BR>>
>> Tags: Barack Obama
<http://www.poligazette.com/tag/barack-obama/>,<BR>> >> News
<http://www.poligazette.com/tag/news/>, Nobel Peace Prize<BR>>
>> <http://www.poligazette.com/tag/nobel-peace-prize/>,
PoliGazette<BR>> >>
<http://www.poligazette.com/tag/poligazette/>, Politics<BR>> >>
<http://www.poligazette.com/tag/politics/><BR>> >> Leave a
comment<BR>> >> <BR>> >>
<http://www.poligazette.com/2009/10/10/foreign-newspapers-on-obamas-nobel-prize-victory/#respond><BR>>
>> | Trackback<BR>> >> <BR>> >>
<http://www.poligazette.com/2009/10/10/foreign-newspapers-on-obamas-nobel-prize-victory/trackback/><BR>>
>><BR>> >> obama nobel peace prize<BR>> >> The
left-wing NRC Handelsblad<BR>> >>
<http://weblogs.nrc.nl/commentaar/2009/10/09/bedwelmd-door-hoop/><BR>>
>> (Netherlands): ”What got into the committee to award this prize
to<BR>> >> a man who has yet to live up to the high expectations?
*Were they<BR>> >> drunk?”*<BR>> >> Center-left to center
Volkskrant<BR>> >>
<http://extra.volkskrant.nl/opinie/commentaar><BR>> >>
(Netherlands): ”It’s clear that Obama has increasingly more<BR>> >>
difficulty meeting expectations. His inspiring words about peace<BR>>
>> and deproliferation have yet to be supported by any concrete<BR>>
>> results. What is meant to be a reward [for great
achievements],<BR>> >> could very well end up being tremendous burden
for Obama.”<BR>> >> The right-of-center Telegraaf<BR>> >>
<BR>> >>
<http://telegraaf-i.telegraaf.nl/daily/2009/10/10/TE/TE_2S_20091010_3/articles/artikel_TE_2S_20091010_3_172.php><BR>>
>> (Netherlands): “This isn’t the first mistake of the Committee,
but<BR>> >> it is the biggest. The value of the Nobel Peace Prize has
been<BR>> >> diminished.”<BR>> >> Benedict Brogan, writing
for the British newspaper the Telegraph<BR>> >> <BR>> >>
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100013071/nobel-prize-for-president-obama-is-a-shocker-he-should-turn-it-down/>:<BR>>
>> “To reward him for a blank results sheet, to inflate him when
he<BR>> >> has no achievements to his name, makes a mockery of what,
let’s<BR>> >> face it, is an already fairly discredited process
(remember<BR>> >> Rigoberta Menchu in 1992? Ha!). That’s not the
point. What this<BR>> >> does is accelerate the elevation of
President Obama to a comedy<BR>> >> confection, which he does not
deserve, and gives his critics yet<BR>> >> another bat to whack him
with. Shame on the Swedes Norwegians*. He<BR>> >> should turn it
down, even if he does look great in white tie and<BR>> >>
tails.”<BR>> >> The Times of London<BR>> >> <BR>>
>>
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece>:<BR>>
>> “Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and
partisan<BR>> >> intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel
committee as a<BR>> >> way of expressing European gratitude for an
end to the Bush<BR>> >> Administration, approval for the election of
America’s first black<BR>> >> president and hope that Washington will
honour its promise to<BR>> >> re-engage with the world.<BR>>
>> “Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims,<BR>>
>> patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to<BR>>
>> build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let<BR>>
>> alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.”<BR>> >>
Left-wing rag the Guardian<BR>> >> <BR>> >>
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/09/barack-obama-nobel-prize-why>:<BR>>
>> “Indeed, the reasoning behind the awarding of the prize to<BR>>
>> previous American presidents has been easier to discern.
Teddy<BR>> >> Roosevelt opened the court of arbitration in the Hague
and helped<BR>> >> mediate a peace treaty between Russia and Japan;
Woodrow Wilson<BR>> >> was the founder of the League of Nations.
Jimmy Carter won his<BR>> >> prize for his “untiring efforts to find
peaceful solutions to<BR>> >> international conflicts”.<BR>>
>> “Which is what makes the awarding of this year’s prize to a<BR>>
>> president who has been in office for a mere nine months an
odd<BR>> >> departure. It is as if the prize committee had been
persuaded to<BR>> >> give the award on the future delivery of
promises.”<BR>> >> The Sydney Morning Herald<BR>> >>
<BR>> >>
<http://www.smh.com.au/world/they-think-he-can-obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize-20091009-gqwu.html>:<BR>>
>> “YES, surprisingly, he could. Barack Obama, is the shock
choice<BR>> >> for the Nobel Peace Prize, less than a year after his
election as<BR>> >> U.S. President.”<BR>> >> Il
Giornale<BR>> >> <BR>> >>
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/international-media-reactions-obama-peace-prize/><BR>>
>> (Italy): “Let me be clear: the discourse on Islam in Cairo
was<BR>> >> beautiful, tall, and it opens up new horizons, but did
not lead to<BR>> >> anything. And on the other matter, as pointed out
repeatedly in<BR>> >> this blog, Obama has been evasive or
inconclusive, starting with<BR>> >> Iran and Afghanistan. Nor can he
boast the merits of rapprochement<BR>> >> with North Korea, which was
brought about by Bill Clinton. He kept<BR>> >> only one real promise:
the gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Enough to<BR>> >> deserve the Nobel
Prize?”<BR>> >> Center-left the Spiegel<BR>> >>
<http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,654251,00.html><BR>>
>> (Germany): “The Nobel Peace Prize has come too early for
Barack<BR>> >> Obama. The US president cannot point to any real
diplomatic<BR>> >> successes to date and there are few prospects of
any to come.”<BR>> >> National Post<BR>> >> <BR>>
>>
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/09/jonathan-kay-giving-barack-obama-the-nobel-peace-prize-is-ridiculous.aspx><BR>>
>> (Canada): “Obama is being given his award for mere words —
for<BR>> >> striking fashionable poses in favour of multilateralism,
for<BR>> >> making a nice speech in Cairo, for offering “hope.”
Months after<BR>> >> Americans learned to dismiss Obama’s 2008
presidential campaign<BR>> >> slogans as the meaningless bromides
they were, Scandinavians are<BR>> >> still drinking his
Kool-aid.”<BR>> >><BR>> >> "*_most of those bankrupted by
medical problems had health<BR>> >> insurance"_*<BR>> >>
*_"Two-thirds were homeowners and three-fifths had gone to <BR>> >>
college."_*<BR>> >> *_"Often illness led to job loss, and with it the
loss of health<BR>> >> insurance."_*<BR>> >> *Medical
problems contributed to nearly two-thirds (62.1 percent)<BR>> >> of
all bankruptcies in 2007*, according to a study in the August<BR>> >>
issue of the American Journal of Medicine that was published today<BR>>
>> online. The data were collected prior to the current economic<BR>>
>> downturn and hence likely understate the current burden of<BR>>
>> financial suffering. Between 2001 and 2007, the proportion of
all<BR>> >> bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by
49.6<BR>> >> percent. The authors’ previous 2001 findings have been
widely<BR>> >> cited by policy leaders, including President
Obama.<BR>> >> *_Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by medical
problems had<BR>> >> health insurance. More than three-quarters (77.9
percent) were<BR>> >> insured at the start of the bankrupting
illness,_* including 60.3<BR>> >> percent who had private coverage.
Most of the medically bankrupt<BR>> >> were solidly middle class
before financial disaster hit.<BR>> >> *_Two-thirds were homeowners
and three-fifths had gone to<BR>> >> college._* In many cases, high
medical bills coincided with a loss<BR>> >> of income as illness
forced breadwinners to lose time from work.<BR>> >> *_Often illness
led to job loss, and with it the loss of health<BR>> >>
insurance._*<BR>> >> From:<BR>> >> <BR>> >>
http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/more-medical-bankruptcy-have-insurance-go-bankrupt<BR>>
>><BR>> >><BR>> >> "*_most of those bankrupted by
medical problems had health<BR>> >> insurance"_*<BR>> >>
*_"Two-thirds were homeowners and three-fifths had gone to <BR>> >>
college."_*<BR>> >> *_"Often illness led to job loss, and with it the
loss of health<BR>> >> insurance."_*<BR>> >> *Medical
problems contributed to nearly two-thirds (62.1 percent)<BR>> >> of
all bankruptcies in 2007*, according to a study in the August<BR>> >>
issue of the American Journal of Medicine that was published today<BR>>
>> online. The data were collected prior to the current economic<BR>>
>> downturn and hence likely understate the current burden of<BR>>
>> financial suffering. Between 2001 and 2007, the proportion of
all<BR>> >> bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by
49.6<BR>> >> percent. The authors’ previous 2001 findings have been
widely<BR>> >> cited by policy leaders, including President
Obama.<BR>> >> *_Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by medical
problems had<BR>> >> health insurance. More than three-quarters (77.9
percent) were<BR>> >> insured at the start of the bankrupting
illness,_* including 60.3<BR>> >> percent who had private coverage.
Most of the medically bankrupt<BR>> >> were solidly middle class
before financial disaster hit.<BR>> >> *_Two-thirds were homeowners
and three-fifths had gone to<BR>> >> college._* In many cases, high
medical bills coincided with a loss<BR>> >> of income as illness
forced breadwinners to lose time from work.<BR>> >> *_Often illness
led to job loss, and with it the loss of health<BR>> >>
insurance._*<BR>> >> From:<BR>> >> <BR>> >>
http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/more-medical-bankruptcy-have-insurance-go-bankrupt<BR>>
>><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
>> _______________________________________________<BR>> >>
CitizensTruth mailing list<BR>> >>
CitizensTruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>> >>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth<BR>> >>
website: http://citizenstruth.info<BR>> >><BR>> >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
>><BR>> >>
_______________________________________________<BR>> >> CitizensTruth
mailing list<BR>> >> CitizensTruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>> >>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth<BR>> >>
website: http://citizenstruth.info<BR>> >> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> CitizensTruth mailing
list<BR>> CitizensTruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth<BR>> website:
http://citizenstruth.info<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>
<HR>
</DIV>
<DIV>Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. <A
href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/" target=_new>Get it
now.</A> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>