Global Nation Organization

Securing the Future With Love, Hardwork and Integrity

Last week, I was in San Diego for a trade show. It was my first visit to that part of California. No doubt, it is a great city, with lots of open spaces. The first night my husband and I stayed at the Hilton on Harbor Island. It was a beautiful location, with great sunsets across the harbor. Plus, we were struck by the enormous numbers of people jogging along the harborway. Trust me, this isn’t something you see here in Orlando. They really seemed to take physical fitness seriously in California, or at least, in San Diego.

The following three nights we stayed at the Homewood Suites Liberty Station. Again, there was a public access area along the hotel grounds, with joggers passing along a waterway. It seemed there wasn’t a single place in San Diego, where we didn’t see young people jogging.

At first we wondered if it was because of all the military bases in the area. We assumed being fit was a prerequisite of their occupation. But it didn’t matter where we were; downtown, along the Convention Center in a mall parking lot, people everywhere were jogging. And not just in parks, but along the streets. At the convention center there were groups of people racing up and down a very tall and very steep staircase that rested between two buildings. So, it was really disturbing to have been there last week, when 17 year old Chelsea King disappeared.

Sadly, as we all know by now, her life ended badly. She was assaulted, raped, murdered and then buried in a shallow grave at the same park where she had been jogging. How strange to have an abundance of wonderful parks available to the citizens of San Diego, while at the same time, knowing those open spaces are hunting grounds for sexual predators.

Mind you, this isn’t the first time a woman or young girl has been abducted while jogging in a park. Who can forget a very controversial disappearance in 2001 of Chandra Levy. At the time it was believed she was killed by U.S. Representative Gary Condit of California. In the end, it turned out to have just been another opportunistic killing by a sexual predator as she went for a jog in the park.

This afternoon while my husband and I were driving home from work, he suggested women should start carrying mace with them when they go jogging. On the news they suggested women run with a dog, or a companion. I have a much better solution.

Women should strap a gun into a shoulder or hip harness on top of their jogging outfits. Trust me; no sexual predator would ever assault a woman jogging with an exposed firearm. End of story!

As Abraham Lincoln said: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

It is so depressing for the USA to have a recorded 10.2% unemployment rate. We all know the true rate of unemployment is much higher, as that rate does not take into account the unemployable or those who prefer to NOT be employed. I do not know the statistic for that level of people, but have read it to be as much as 5%. But that doesn’t really matter. What is important is that 10.2% of our society genuinely is seeking a job and cannot find one. With a president who was sold on the ideological concept of redistributive wealth from his childhood, I think now, is the time to introduce a bit of reality. Wealth cannot ever be redistributed. Wealth can only be earned. Any attempts otherwise, lead to massive unemployment; ergo, our current state of affairs.

So, what is a freshly minted president to do? Well, invest; the same as any other enterprise would do. The United States of America is an enterprise. Yes, I know; our president thinks he can solve all ills with another government program. Fool; governments do not have a product to sell. As such, they do not create wealth, but suck on the teat of the working. Government agencies are nothing more than a police state, a parasite siphoning off the income of everyone who works and earns a living from the summation of their total intellect and ambition.

If President Obama, truly wants to step up, or at least keep stepping forward, then he must ignore the demands of the union, he believes got him elected. Because truthfully, they didn’t; he got himself elected. And now is the time to be a leader.

Obama should cancel the rest of the stimulus bill. Ask Congress to enact a new bill: A back to work bill; a wealth creation bill; or something more akin to an enterprise bill.

American does not need a new government agency, as governments do not create wealth, the steal wealth. They are parasites, sucking wealth from the working and redistribute it to those who don’t or won’t work. Government agencies haven’t a product to sell. They do not create wealth. Only private industry can do that.

What President Obama must do is take whatever money has not been spent on the stimulus bill and spend it on two things. One, bond money for private enterprise growth; private companies are facing a credit crunch. There are hundreds, if not thousands of businesses, seeking capital investments, which are unable to in today’s banking climate. Rather than giving money to banks, in the hopes they will lend to new and old businesses, give it directly to those businesses, and then offer to sell the asset to a bank at a discount.

Banks are a business. They know they need to be healthy and earn profits for their stock holders. So it is in their best interest to hold back the money they’ve received from the government. They absolutely do not want to fail. And the only way they can guarantee that is to take zero risks. That leaves everyone who has a great idea, but who needs financial input out in the cold.

The second thing the government should do with the stimulus money is offer a no-interest, pay-back differed, loan to every American who needs educational retraining. However, before embarking on such an adventure, the government should study what fields the bulk of the employed come from. And study what fields are seeking employees. And project, what fields will need employees over the next twenty years. Once that is tabulated, then offer educational retraining to anyone who wishes it. Trust me; learning is the cornerstone of humanity. People will hungrily devour such an opportunity.

It will take tremendous courage for President Obama to demand such a change to our government financial system. He will need to turn his back on the special interests that have been lying to him. But, if he can muster the gall to be President in deed, and not just name, then he will go down in history, as the most remarkable president in 100 years of American history. And if not, then he will be a failure.

Reading this article sent chills down my spine. The US is heading into a firestorm, which just might result in a revolution. Despite all the noise Obama’s people have been making, by labeling opponents to their agenda as “domestic terrorists”, it has always been clear to me – the union thugs are going to start the war.

George Stephanopoulos reports . . .

Labor Chief to Democratic Opponents of a Public Option: ‘Do So at Your Peril’

September 01, 2009 4:12 PM

As the White House spends the last few days of the recess hammering out a post Labor Day strategy on health care — Will the President lay out his own plan as advised by Bob Dole? Will he launch an all out battle for the public option (even if it is going to lose) as mused about by James Carville? Or is it time for a tactical retreat? — my colleague Teddy Davis reports that Big Labor is not going to make that kind of adjustment easy:

The incoming president of the AFL-CIO threw down the gauntlet Tuesday, warning fellow Democrats to get behind the creation of a government insurance option or face political “peril” in 2010.

“We will continue to push it and say to them: ‘Do so at your peril,” AFL-CIO secretary treasurer Richard Trumka told ABC News. “If you’re not willing to do what you promised to do, you’ll have a tough time convincing our members at election time.”

Asked to elaborate on what kind of “peril” these Democrats would face, Trumka added, “We’re going to tell our members the truth: ‘Who stood with them. Who stood for health insurance reform. Who wanted to make the insurance companies happy versus those who wanted to make Americans healthy. And at election time, I think it will be a tough sell for any politician who is a part of killing health insurance reform to get the support of working Americans.”

Trumka’s remarks, which were made during a pre-Labor Day briefing in Washington, D.C., came exactly two weeks before President Barack Obama is slated to address the AFL-CIO on Sept. 15 at its annual convention in Pittsburgh, Pa. Trumka is expected to be chosen as the labor federation’s new president on Sept. 16.

He will succeed John Sweeney who is stepping down after 15 years at the helm.

Trumka said that a public insurance option is one of three “absolute musts” for the AFL-CIO.

“It’s an absolute must,” said Trumka when asked if the AFL-CIO could compromise on the issue. “We won’t support the bill if it doesn’t have a public option in it.”

“There are three absolute musts,” he added. “You have to have an employer mandate; you can’t tax the benefits of workers to pay for it; and it has to have a public option. Otherwise, you don’t get health insurance reform, you don’t break the stranglehold of the insurance companies, and the system goes on and on and on as it has. Costs go up, quality of care goes down.”

Asked if that means that the AFL-CIO was prepared to work against a bill that does not include a public option, Trumka sidestepped the question, saying, “That means we won’t support the bill if it doesn’t’ have a public option.”

Trumka dismissed the possibility that co-ops could be an acceptable compromise.

“The only other thing we have heard are co-ops which are too weak, not ready for prime time,” said Trumka.

In a post-briefing interview with ABC News, he refrained from stating a position on whether a “public option with a trigger” could be an acceptable compromise.

A public option with a trigger would not come into effect right away. Instead, it would only come into existence after a period of time if private insurance companies did not hold costs in check.

While signaling his willingness to pressure fellow Democrats on health-care reform, Trumka said that President Obama’s allies have found themselves in this position because the GOP has been almost entirely unified in its opposition to Democratic proposals for comprehensive health-care reform.

“The Republicans have said ‘no’ to everything and they still try to pretend that they are bipartisan,” said Trumka. “Their program is: ‘trust the insurance companies and they will do what’s right.’”

Sweeney, the outgoing AFL-CIO president, acknowledged that Obama supporters were out-organized at the start of the August recess.

“We were a little slow in getting into those town-hall meetings,” said Sweeney in an interview. “But we are now far outnumbering opponents of reform.”

Despite the widespread television coverage that opponents of health-care reform have received, Sweeney expressed confidence that Democrats would ultimately rally behind a public option.

“We’re not going to let up,” Sweeney told ABC News.

ABC News’ Elizabeth Gorman contributed to this report.

We all want to help the homeless. But, at what cost and who pays for it? Better to help them, help themselves. Everyone has a right to life, but no one has a right to take from another so that they can live.

I recently asked my friend’s little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be president some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, as I asked her, “If you were president what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied, “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.”

Her parents beamed.

“Wow… what a worthy goal.” I told her, “But you don’t have to wait until you’re president to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, rake my yard, and sweep my walks, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I can drive you over to the grocery store where homeless guys hang out, and you can give them the $50 you earned to use toward food and a new house.”

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.

This is an excellent speech by Katrina Pierson at the Dallas Tea Party on April 15th. Not only does she exemplify the GNO motto of achievement through “love, hard work and integrity”, but she clearly points out the true nature of the problems here in the US. That being, the members of the Congress and Senate in Washington have 1) taken up permanent and lifetime membership in the House and Senate and 2) THEY, along with a Marxist leaning president, are driving us off the cliff. They are not of the people for the people, they are of themselves for themselves and those who get them elected.

Now is the time to liberate liberty from the shackles of an Authoritarian governments.

Recently, I received a letter that I would like to share with my readers. The author of the letter will be kept confidential. My answer to his final question is: Yes, we will do all we can to bring an end to the situation in Taiwan. Thank you for your letter.

Dear President,

I hope this email finds you well, and I wish you success in your mission.

I herewith apply for assistance in a mission to help liberate a hardworking nation from ongoing threat.

The strategic help is required in the form of media and recruitment of local intelligence officers, both contra US policy, and contra Chinese policy, mainly targeting the UN. It is high time, that the UN is publicly displayed as incompetent in the Taiwan Conflict issue, and that Taiwan is also supported by independant political organizations. I observe that Taiwan is still under enormous pressure by the US and Chinese governments, the country not really being recognized as a republic.

Further, it is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, that this INDEPENDANT country, cannot regain membership in the UN due to ongoing vetos from China who is a member of the Security Council. Upon inspection, we have to conclude, that the geographic location is more than the fire in the far east, with nations being weaponed to their teeth, and spending almost all of their Gross Domestic Income on weaponry, instead of working on medical standards, general hygene, education, infrastructure and child welfare. This money is therefore being wasted, and landing in the tills of mainly FOREIGN arms dealers for outdated or regulated defence systems, instead of supporting the people who are earning this money. To be honest, can this nation really protect itself with down-throttled weapons?

The whole fiasco is nothing more than money pushing and a lie, same game as always. The political situation is orchestrated by either arms manufacturers in cooperation with their governments who need to secure longterm sales, and governments who seek to profit on economic potential through military power in the region.

How’s about economic power through hard work for a fair alternative?

In other words, the US and China got to change their habits, they need international pressure.

I know this mission will cause you numerous problems.

Please let me know shortly, I wish you a great day!

I wanted to offer a few thoughts on the auto industry bailout. I think they should let the US auto industry go under. It will bust up the United Autoworkers Union and invigorate innovation.

I realize many people will become unemployed in the short-term, but the long-term prospect is good because new or more efficient automotive companies will come in, buy up some of the assets (the valuable ones) and re-invent the American auto industry by leveraging automation and supplying cars people demand. Moreover, they will do it at a much higher level of quality.

I do not favor unions. In the case of the United Autoworkers Union, they are too intrusive in managing the industry. It seems to me a union worker does not possess the same level of respect and pride for the company or the consumer, as a non-union worker. Unions are like welfare, they create a sense of entitlement, which is non-productive thinking.

When the union dictates to an organization how many people can be hired and fired; and when a union dictates to an organization that they can only use automation if there are no jobs lost — thus negating any cost savings to the company — it is time for the union to take a walk. The key is to get the union out of management’s wallet. Management needs to be free to make decisions about what is in the best interest of the company. A reasonable manager will take into account the employee’s needs, because such actions foster moral throughout the company. At the same time, every worker knows if the company cannot survive because of payroll gloat, then the entire company will go out of business, dragging every person down with the ship.

So, let the US auto industry go bankrupt. Let them shutter their doors and make way for more innovative and better-organized companies who are free of union dictates.

I am looking forward to the Republican National Convention this week. Primarily to hear Sarah Palin call the Obama camp on the smear campaign against her family. Afterall, it was Obama who first cried foul when the Tennessee Republican party used a video of Michelle Obama where she was caught lamenting “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.”

Here she was campaigning on his behalf, but the public was not supposed to be reminded of her animosity toward the USA. According to Barack Obama, he found it unacceptable the Republican’s would attack his wife, yet he has no problem with Democrat’s volleying attacks on Mrs. Palin’s family. What a hypocrite.

Yes, I am anxious to see Sarah Palin call him and the entire Democratic party out on their hypocrisy. Most of all though, I hope Sarah Palin will borrow a page from Obama’s speech by gazing straight into the camera and saying this:

If Barak Obama wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief - even though I have been nominated as the Vice President and not the President, such as he - that’s a debate I’m ready to have. As a governor who actually has experience managing a government by creating and balancing a budget; and who has navigated between the Democrat’s and Republican’s in my state to enact policy; and who has bucked the politics as usual mentality; and who has fought against corruption, instead of contributing to it, the way Obama’s friend’s and mentors have; and who lives my ethics as a public servant, then yes, I am ready to lead, because unlike you, Barak Obama, I am not just flapping my lips, I am doing.

Congratulations to John McCain for a wise choice and to Sarah Palin for being selected as his Vice President of the United States.

Sarah Palin’s speech after being selected by John McCain’s as his running mate.

The other day I was listening to a conservative talk show in the car on my way either to or from work. I can’t recall which one, perhaps it was Sean Hannity, but it could have been Neal Boortz. I haven’t been listening to their programs for very long, maybe a month and only occasionally.

I had caught the end of a discussion that was about how American’s do not have a constitutional right to vote. I haven’t had a chance to verify this, but I do believe it is true.

This idea works for me, as I believe people who vote on emotion, rather than reason, should not be permitted to vote at all. Then again, I suspect there have been a few local races where I was not always completely familiar with the slate of candidates. chosing a candidate after being influenced by a statement from either them or their opponent.

——————————————————————————

Timing Of Political Messages Influences Voter Preferences, Researcher Finds

ScienceDaily (Aug. 15, 2008) — In political campaigns, timing is almost everything. Candidates communicate with voters over a long period of time before voters actually vote. What candidates say to these voters is, of course, important, but it turns out that when they say it also influences voter preferences.

Why Obama’s reliance on lofty rhetoric has succeeded thus far is a puzzle addressed in the paper “It’s Time to Vote: The Effect of Matching Message Orientation and Temporal Frame on Political Persuasion,” forthcoming in the Journal of Consumer Research. The research, co-authored by the University of Minnesota’s Akshay Rao, Hakkyun Kim (Concordia) and Angela Lee (Northwestern), demonstrates that the timing and content of political messages affects voters, particularly swing voters.

When U.S. Sen. Barack Obama began his presidential campaign, his rhetoric emphasized abstract concepts such as hope, change and judgment. In contrast, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton and other candidates frequently presented detailed, concrete plans on a host of topics ranging from the Iraq War to the economy and health care reform. Political commentators criticized Obama for his lack of specifics, yet voters continued to respond to his message.

Rao offers this illustration to characterize the research: “Imagine taking a vacation to Cancun six months from now. You are probably thinking about beaches, sunsets and other abstract information. On the other hand, if you were going to Cancun tomorrow, you would be thinking about taxi cabs and boarding passes — concrete concerns — making you more likely to process information about speedy check-in or the phone number of a taxi.” He continues, “Similarly, a voter facing a choice in the distant future is less interested in particular plans and policies and is more persuaded by broad, abstract ideas. It is only as the election gets closer that voters start paying attention to concrete details of the candidate’s positions. In essence, when the choice is far away, a voter is more likely to think in abstract terms, but as the choice approaches, the voter puts more weight on the details.”

The researchers demonstrate this temporal effect in a series of studies and observe that it is relatively uninformed voters who are most subject to this effect. “What this finding implies is that the people who typically decide elections — voters in the middle — are most susceptible to this type of persuasion. Political novices tend to be more persuaded by abstract messages when the choice is far off, and by concrete messages when the choice is imminent,” said Rao. While the experiments focused on political contexts, the underlying argument applies equally well to other contexts, such as deciding which college to attend, which automobile to purchase or where to live when one retires.

The authors advise — particularly in this time of long campaign cycles and multiple media channels — that campaigns think strategically about the timing of messages targeted toward select markets, such as swing voters. Rao observes, “The fit of the right message with the right voter at the right time has never been more important to the outcome of a race.”

More information about Rao’s research and a copy of the paper may be found at http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/marketinginstitute/arao