Donald Trump Had Great Ideas for His Airline as Well

This is the story of a very rich man who decided to get into something with which he had no experience. He was determined to win by insulting his competitors, using his business success as the basis for the move, and by throwing out ideas that sounded great to the layman.

We’re not talking about Donald Trump’s run for President… not yet, anyway. We’re talking about the sorted tale of Trump Air, an apostrophe in his resume that he likes to sweep under the rug whenever it’s brought up. In the late 80s, Donald Trump saw what was happening with air travel and felt that he had better ideas. He had the money and experience, both of which he inherited from his father, to accomplish great things in real estate. Certainly his ability to make a deal was enough to get him into the airline business. After all, how hard could it be to run an airline?

The story is long and there’s no need to rehash it, but we’ll give the short version. He bought an airline and proved that he had no idea how to run it. He had some successes that came about as a result of his tremendous business skills and ended up gaining nearly half of the market travelling between New York City, Washington DC, and Boston. That part of his promise was fulfilled. Unfortunately, it didn’t yield the desired results.

His miscalculations and horrific ideas endeared him to his supporters – passengers and airline employees – but proved to be undeniably foolish in the practical sense. From gold-colored fixtures in the bathrooms to flight attendants with mandatory faux-pearls around their necks, the Donald’s ego overruled his ignorance. For a more in-depth look at his airline adventures:

Carly Fiorina is not the only failed corp exec running for Prez: Remember Donald Trump's debacle at Trump Air? http://t.co/l7hAONb1te

— JQ Public (@JQP6) October 4, 2015

His ideas for the country aren’t very different, nor is the story. He claims competence in politics with the same bravado that he claimed competence in the airline world. Unfortunately, he failed to do his homework back then and is doing the same thing with his Presidential bid. One of his most naive ideas was to try to have the 727s in his fleet flown by two pilots instead of the required three in order to save money. It would be like asking a one-armed man to drive a big rig; in order to shift, he’d have to take his lone hand off the wheel. The FAA would never have allowed it, but Trump’s business-oriented mind thought it was a good idea.

The same holds true for his obscure policy recommendations. So far, his Presidential campaign promises have included concepts that will cost an extreme amount of additional expenditures added to the budget and at the same time he wants to reduce taxes across the board. His solution to the clear contradiction is to “make America rich” by bringing back jobs with tariffs and taxes that make it harder for American companies to do business offshore, but they’re somehow supposed to make more money by incurring more expenses and reducing their ability to sell their products abroad.

His proposed solutions for Americas problems are untenable, even more so than his proposed solutions for his airline. Unfortunately, his airline only lasted three years before he was forced to abandon ship. As President, he won’t have that option. The more likely scenario is that he’ll sink the country faster than he sunk his airline.

The only two differences between Trump Air and his Presidential run is that running an airline is easier than running a country and you can’t bail out of the Presidency after three years the way he did with his aviation abomination.

via Soshable http://ift.tt/1OQa75v

Gun Laws Aren’t the Problem. It’s All About Loss of Values.

The argument coming from the left is that guns are too easy to get, too easy to own, and too easy to take into a crowded public place and use them to take people’s lives. The stats they point at is the recent rise in mass shootings. This reasoning is very flawed.

Guns have been around for a long time. They’ve been readily available for a long time. In fact, it’s harder to get guns now than it was in the past. Prior to 1968, one buy a gun through a mail-order catalog and have it shipped to their house.

Certainly gun laws have to be more lenient today if you follow their logic. Access to them is their answer to the rise in gun violence, but if the gun laws haven’t changed, what has? To us, the answer is crystal clear. It’s the values in America that have been on a decline and the result is that people are more likely to do crazy things.

It was infuriating when I read the article on the NY Times about the Oregon shooter’s father who is wondering how his son had such easy access to all of the guns.

Instead of an apology for raising a nutcase that kills Christians, the father of OR shooter calls for gun grabbing: http://t.co/zFu1bmaakj

— HonorableAdvocacyAZ (@AZHonorable) October 4, 2015

It’s not the availability of guns that has changed. It’s the lack of values, the shift away from the family, the acceptance and even promotion of sinful acts, and the lack of proper parenting that is producing killers. We see it very clearly illustrated in the places where gun violence is most prevalent. They don’t necessarily have more guns. They have reduced morals, fewer active parents, and liberal acceptance of sin.

I’m not going to go any further on this topic. You either see it or you don’t.

If the country focused on tightening up the moral fabric rather than on guns that have always been around, this debate would be over very quickly. If we push for gun bans, things are going to get much worse.

The post Gun Laws Aren’t the Problem. It’s All About Loss of Values. appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1YZxgWI

Addressing the World from a Biblical Mindset

As things begin to accelerate around the world towards a perceivable prophetic fulfillment of the Bible, our thoughts and actions must shift. For those living a life of Biblical faith, it means that now is the time to act. For those living partially in the Spirit and partially in the world, now is the time to make the commitment. It’s not just about believing or even proclaiming. Now is the time to live as the Bible declares.

We are living in a special time. Some continue to say that it’s no different now than in the past, that every generation felt like theirs was the special one and possibly the start of events prophesied in Revelation, Daniel, and other books of the Bible. The difference today is that the settings are primed for Biblical prophetic fulfillment. Israel is a nation, a burdensome stone to all other nations.

2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.Zechariah 12:2-3 (KJV)

We saw a strong representation of this in Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the United Nations this week.

This isn’t the time to try to convince you that we’re entering or soon to be entering the end times. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, our purpose is the same. The world has gone from appreciation of Christianity to neutrality in just a few decades. Now, we’re seeing it shift much more rapidly from neutrality to hatred and attacks.

Abroad, being a Christian can bring hardship, torture, and even death. We’re seeing this start to emerge in western culture as well. It’s not just the crimes perpetrated by individuals such as the militant-atheist Chris Harper Mercer who attempted to single out Christians. It’s more than the subtle shift in sentiment against business owners who espouse Christian values in their businesses against the secular whims of the government. It’s bigger than that. It’s quickly turning universal. It has become acceptable.

As Judeo-Christian believers in our Lord and Savior, Yeshua Ha-Mashiach, called Jesus Christ in western culture, it is our responsibility to shift our mindset. The majority of believers today are satisfied with living mostly secular lives with the Bible in one hand for reference on Sundays and occasionally when problems arise. It’s time to shift to put the Bible firmly in both hands held out in front of us to lead us through everything we do.

A Journey of Spirit

One of the most important parts of our spiritual journey is to acknowledge that it really is a spiritual journey. That’s not double talk, nor is it meant to sound confusing. This acknowledgement changes the way we perceive and act upon everything in our lives.

When we start to view our lives in full service to our Messiah, we can allow our hearts and minds to be fully guided by the Holy Spirit. This is imperative; the changes that are happening are so powerful and happening so rapidly that it’s easy to fall for the delusion that is sweeping across the world. One of the clearest illustrations of this is in the dramatic shift in sentiment towards gay marriage in America.

Life is a spiritual journey. In the past, it was easier to keep both a secular and a Biblical perspective simultaneously because the secular aspects of America were tolerant of the Christian perspective. Kids could pray in school. Lawsuits weren’t filed if a photographer didn’t want to shoot at a gay wedding. Protests weren’t held if police departments put the words “In God We Trust” on their cruisers.

Many Christians are “going along to get along.” We’re making our spiritual lives more private and personal and justifying it with a false belief that it’s not our right to impose our beliefs on others. That’s not the case. The secular world and other religions are actively imposing their beliefs on us and so many believers are letting it happen to avoid conflict.

That’s not what Jesus instructed.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.Matthew 28:19-20 (KJV)

This isn’t a call to have every believer proselytize. It’s not for everyone. However, we must start allowing the Holy Spirit to guide all of our actions, all of our beliefs, and all of our decisions. By living our lives as the Bible instructs, we can be a light to others simply by setting the proper example.

The post Addressing the World from a Biblical Mindset appeared first on Judeo Christian Church.

via Judeo Christian Church | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1M8dsXs

True Conservatives have been Right All Along

There are two prevailing stereotypes that are touchstones for attacks from the opposite political side. For liberals, they have a tendency to proclaim that conservatives are racist. For conservatives, we often feel like liberals are stupid. Neither is universally correct and the sooner we can stop acting like they are, the easier it will be to make things better for the whole country.

The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.

via Soshable http://ift.tt/1GpxHy7

In Retrospect, Enforcing the ‘Red Line’ Would have Protected Millions of People

Hindsight is said to be 20/20, but the cliché is not as accurate as one might think. The past can be almost as murky as the future; it all depends on who tells the story. In the case of the current situation in Syria, the past is being intentionally blurred to save face and protect President Obama’s legacy.

Another pertinent cliché is that history is written by the victors. Again, this isn’t always the case and Syria once again breaks the paradigm. The recent history is being rewritten by the losers. In this case, the losers refurbishing recent history are the same ones blurring the past. Unfortunately, the real loss from these actions are being felt by at least three million people in the Middle East though it’s probably a great deal more than that.

Russia is doing exactly what we predicted they would do. They’re defending Bashar al-Assad’s position against both types of uprisings: the populists and the savages. The populists are the groups that most coalition nations are calling the “moderate” rebels while the savages are the Islamic State and their supporters around the globe.

Western media is echoing American talking points that Russia is out of line for using their military might against the “moderate” forces that oppose Assad rather than the Islamic State threat to the east. They are using very harsh words to try to dissuade Russian President Vladimir Putin from attacking the forces that the coalition has supported. It’s accelerating much more quickly than most anticipated with some areas friendly to the rebels demanding anti-aircraft missiles or a diplomatic solution to keep Putin from achieving his goals.

Good luck with that. it’s not going to happen. The saddest part is that three things could have been easily avoided: Russian engagement in the area, tens of thousands of people killed throughout the bloody civil war, and millions of displaced people flooding into Europe and other geopolitical. All President Obama had to do was fulfill his promise of getting directly involved once his “calculus was changed” by Assad’s usage of chemical and possibly biological weapons.

He did not fulfill that promise. Had he done so, things would be completely different. Here are three reasons why…

Assad Would Be Gone

Invading Baghdad turned out to be relatively easy. Building a working country from the rubble was the hard part and we failed miserably at it. Perhaps the lessons have been learned and we could have done it more easily if we would have acted on the threat that President Obama made. Unfortunately, the Nobel Peace Prize winner had a reputation that he’d failed to live up to at that point, so he backed down.

The Refugee Crisis would be Much Smaller

It isn’t just the rise of the Islamic State in the region that has forced people to flee Syria and other places in the Middle East. The destruction and chaos that has been allowed to continue for the last four years would have been reduced dramatically and most would have chosen to rebuild in peace. Instead, we’ve left them no choice but to abandon ship since the fighting has continued without ceasing. Assad had to stop using chemical weapons, but that didn’t stop conflict, death, or destruction. It simply allowed conflict, death, and destruction to continue in a more civilized manner through traditional life-shattering means rather than the unacceptable life-shattering means. We allowed them to continue the conflict in a way that better suited our western sensibilities. The result: millions of people trying to find new homes in the wake of Obama’s inaction.

The Islamic State would be… Different

There is no way to predict the actions of a chaos-driven entity like the Islamic State. It’s possible that they wouldn’t have pushed as deeply into Syria as they have. It’s also possible that they would have doubled down on their efforts and pushed towards Damascus while it was rebuilding once Assad was removed from power. Either way, the coalition presence around Damascus would have been better positioned to address ISIS. Instead, we’re relying on Russia to take action, a course that will halt ISIS in Syria but that will do nothing to prevent their expansion in other areas. Russia can push them back to Iraq, but from there they’ll enjoy the same free rein that already possess.

Normally, it’s not difficult to make a call after the fact, particularly when the results of the actual decision are so clearly bad. In this case, we’re seeing the blame pointed everywhere other than the point when all of this could have been avoided.

via Soshable http://ift.tt/1PajOLc

Rubio, Paul, and Jindal should Plan for Their Future

The first thing that people seeing this headline will wonder is why Marco Rubio is included. We’ll get to that shortly. First, let’s talk about the two lower candidates who should be thinking about their future as they push their Presidential aspirations forward.

Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal are both young. They have great futures in the Republican Party and they each have combined about a 1/100 chance of winning. Paul is already lashing out at frontrunner Donald Trump, top conservative Ted Cruz, and lower-end candidate Chris Christie. Now is not the time to make enemies. He should regroup, rethink, and make friends. Jindal is doing what he can to derail Trump’s campaign and it isn’t doing him any favors. He looks foolish by opening himself up to attacks from Trump’s tremendous crew of supporters. If Trump doesn’t win this time and Jindal tries for the White House again in the future, there will be many Trump supporters who will remember the attacks.

Marco Rubio is the youngest of the three. In fact, he’s the youngest of all of the major candidates running. He’s a rising star. Of that there is little doubt. However, he hasn’t built up an impressive resume yet with the Gang of 8 floating over him like a permanent dark cloud. It’s not permanent. The amnesty/immigrant debate will likely be settled to some extent before his next opportunity to run for President. Now, he should start accumulating wins in the Senate rather than building a reputation of missing out on important votes.

Now is simply not his time.

Any of the three could be formidable candidates in 2020 if the Republicans lose the next election or 2024 if they win. Today, that sounds like a long time, but ask Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Hillary Clinton about waiting in line from the first time they ran for President until they actually got the nomination (though Clinton’s is still in doubt) and you’ll understand that waiting can be worth it. Being so young gives them the ability to continue their political careers or work in the private sector for a while, shaking hands and making friends until their chosen time.

We have so many great options this election. I’d hate for any of these three promising candidates to burn their chances for the future by making things volatile in losing efforts today.

The post Rubio, Paul, and Jindal should Plan for Their Future appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1OLoyrv

Why did the chicken cross the road? To get a hug

As a vegan checks over a menu at the Keg Mansion Steakhouse in Toronto he asks the hostess, “I don’t see any dog meat here.” After the hostess looks at the man, seemingly not understanding the question, he goes on to ask “…I thought this was a meat restaurant?”

After the man asked his asinine question, as if that wasn’t enough stupidity for one hostess to take in a day, a woman followed by asking her “where’s the dog meat? I mean, you’ve got other meats. I don’t understand it. Are you ever going to have dog meat here?”

The steak protesters then proceeded to the middle of the restaurant shouting at customers while the woman who couldn’t understand why a steak house wouldn’t serve dog meat gave her story of a chicken she once knew.

VIDEO: #Vegan lunatics storm steakhouse, shout at customers about a chicken who loves hugs – customers snicker http://t.co/29Att9F7g7 .

— Hillary's Cankles (@17ebivor) October 2, 2015

Folks, sanity has just left the building.

This is not what those cows would have wanted http://t.co/oKkkdcVAj1

— Jason (@LukeTheSaint) October 2, 2015

The post Why did the chicken cross the road? To get a hug appeared first on Uberly.

via Uberly | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1KZMkJo

Shootings and Gun Laws are Already Politicized. That’s the Problem.

After the horrific shooting at Umpqua Community College, President Obama took to the airwaves and declared that this issue should be politicized. Part of the issue definitely hasn’t been politicized enough, but it’s not gun laws or mass shootings at schools. It’s the atmosphere generated by the President that rolls down throughout American society.

Those who support the President’s ideas that gun laws are the problem based upon the increase in mass shootings over the last few years seem to conveniently forget one important thing. Guns aren’t new. There have been good guys and bad guys with guns since the country was formed. There have been those who use guns for evil purposes for a centuries. We aren’t looking at a sudden influx of gun violence because guns are too easy to get. We’re seeing a sudden influx of gun violence because values in America have been pushed aside by a government that thrives on perpetuation of strife.

Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, getting firearms was pretty easy. One could buy through a mail-order catalog and have a rifle shipped to their door. The act was put into place because a particular gun ordered by a particular man was used to kill President John F. Kennedy. Since then, the issue has been politicized.

Very few major changes have been made to gun control laws since. Sure, we have Brady and the assault weapons ban, but for the most part people who want to own guns and use those guns to commit mass shootings at schools or other places have had that ability for decades. The problem isn’t that people have guns. The problem is that there’s a new atmosphere in which traditional American values have been replaced by radicalized anger and indoctrination into a mindset that makes everyone a victim to something.

Mass shootings have always been possible but were rare when the country had a core of #values. Gun laws haven't changed. Sentiment has. #2A

— JD Rucker (@0boy) October 2, 2015

The President and the country’s shift away from these values is the real cause. This really isn’t even a question of right versus left. It’s a question of faith. The country has been pulling away from the Judeo-Christian values that helped to prevent much of the anger that forms the foundation for radical actions.

It’s important to note here that I’m not talking about the church or the people who have used a false sense of Judeo-Christian values to justify evil actions. We’ve had our share of those people as well. I’m referring to the God-fearing true Christians who don’t want to hurt others. I’m talking about the Judeo-Christian values that allow good people to own guns for the sake of self-defense and protection from tyranny. I’m talking about the values that are passed down from parents to their children that do not embrace liberal secular ideals but that focus on the Bible and the American dream of building something.

Many will make a note that the shooter, Chris Harper Mercer, listed himself as a “conservative Republican” on a dating site. The same people who note this won’t point out that he wasn’t a Christian, that he didn’t like organized religion, or that he related to groups that espoused hatred.

There are many reasons that people choose political opinions. One of the sad realities of this country is that some of the core values of conservatism such as limiting government and gun-owner rights appeal to people who have been radicalized to do bad things. The same can be said for certain core liberal values such as income equality and affirmative action which appeal to people who have been radicalized to do bad things. These people are different but the end goals are often the same.

The President is turning this into a political debate about why this killer had the ability to own a gun. This is ludicrous. Instead, the President should ask what is pushing people to be more violent today than they were in the past.

Mass shooting have increased in frequency over the last several years. Guns have been available for decades well before the escalation. The unique driving factor today isn’t the presence of guns. It’s the shift in values that starts with the President and works its way down through society.

via Soshable http://ift.tt/1LW1kgE

William F. Buckley on Self-Reliance

There’s an old saying that can be easily paraphrased by saying, “As government grows, freedoms shrink.” This is William F. Buckley’s variation of this concept. Big government seems like a good idea to those in the government, but politicians simply cannot do better than what individuals and the private sector can do in nearly all situations. Sure, we need the military, utilities, and other things that should be controlled by the government, but beyond that the control factors are normally extraneous.

The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.

The post William F. Buckley on Self-Reliance appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1O4et7m

Ronald Reagan on Government Spending

There’s a simple truth to Ronald Reagan’s words. On the surface, it’s as straightforward as can be. If you think about it a bit more deeply and consider the opposite concept, could it be the key to saving the country’s and world’s finances? What I mean is this: if governments will spend whatever they get, could they also learn to not spend what they don’t get?

Think of it like this. If a government were to take on truly conservative values of cutting taxes and simultaneously cutting spending, would thing get better? The answer is very much hidden in gray area since “better” is relative and somewhat ambiguous. We believe that it’s a clear certainty as long as both the reduced taxes and reduced spending were done properly, but it’s the veil in the gray area that prevents liberals from seeing the truth.

The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.

via Soshable http://ift.tt/1L5u1XE