Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Ryan Leaving Washington Broke(n)

What should be said of Wisconsin's Paul, the Unwilling: the earnestly mannered, fresh-faced, doe-eyed House Speaker? During his three years in charge, this “policy wonk” spends as frivolously as any progressive—while piously opining about conservatism. For context, when Mr. Ryan became a representative in January of 1999 the U.S. debt was only $5.56 trillion. Given the nation's deeply underwater finances—that ballooned over his 19-year career (and spanned four U.S. presidents), Ryan's truly a Republican In Name Only (RINO).

Specifically, he's the embodiment of incompatible opposites. Mr. Ryan took the top congressional job in October of 2015—while publicly proclaiming he didn't want it. Likewise was his chilly embrace of then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. As the standard-bearer, the President was never the beneficiary of Mr. Ryan's largesse: extended to all Democrats. Regarding support of Trump, this highest elected Republican famously said, “I’m not there right now.” Contrast that to Ryan's sunny treatment of his liberal colleagues in his first speech as the 62nd Speaker of the House:

“But let’s be frank: The House is broken. We are not solving problems. We are adding to them. And I am not interested in laying blame. We are not settling scores. We are wiping the slate clean.”

In retrospect, Mr. Ryan's loyalty was always to the entrenched Washington establishment (read: the swamp), not to the brash billionaire businessman become president or his populist constituency.

Let's look briefly at this Speaker's “report card”. When Mr. Ryan assumed his leadership role on October 29, 2015, the national debt was $18,152,590,112,385.69. Upon his retirement announcement on April 11th, the figure was $21,121,833,941,447.86. That's an increase of $2.97 trillion in two years and 5 ½ months. Per Gallup, Congress's approval rating (Nov. 4-8, 2015) was 11%. As Gallup's figure is not yet available, the RealClear average is currently 13.2%. That's a meager improvement of 2.2%. Schizophrenically, Mr. Ryan reforms taxes like a Republican while squandering like a spendthrift Democrat. What else explains his rubber-stamping a budget-busting 1.8 trillion dollar spending bill early in his tenure (December 2015), barely averting a government shutdown in March (with another $1.3 trillion in expenditures) while previously passing tax relief (December 2017)? Given his track record and fiscal results, that's an F.

While Paul Ryan basks, taking his self-congratulatory victory laps—only his myriad failures weakening America will be his legacy.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Guns Banned, Knives Next?

Shockingly, New York and London, two world-famous cities of similar population sizes, currently have equivalent murder rates.  The glaring differences are that the United Kingdom has no Second Amendment, and prohibited firearms in 1997.  That has not stopped the violence, however.  The mostly gang-related carnage has been accomplished with knives instead. 

That’s no problem to London Mayor Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim to hold the post in a major Western capital.  He tweeted, “No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.”  Since Mr. Khan plans to restrict British cutlery, will his next target be serving forks?  If this is the new trend there, he has certainly fashioned a big job for himself.  Imagine confiscating all of the blunt objects at hand, or lying about, that can be weaponized!

When will leftists finally acknowledge the simple truth that inanimate objects cannot be blamed for the hateful intentions of the wielder?  So much for the “evolved sensibilities” of our floundering cultural cousins in the gun-free zone across the pond.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

The Young Lead The Foolish

Last Saturday's “March for Our Lives” rally had a wealth of protesting voices, but little common sense. How topsy turvy is our political landscape when hundreds of thousands gathered in Washington, DC to protest the Bill of Rights: specifically the Second Amendment? Benjamin Franklin would counsel the outspoken masses thusly: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” For the illusion of some greater sense of security, individuals would willingly submit to further government restriction and control? Yet, in large part, wasn't it the failure of law enforcement that facilitated the Parkland, Florida school shooting rather than preventing it?

Deluded marchers, as embattled Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, completely miss the lesson of the Valentine's Day massacre of 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. It's not about blaming the gun or even the homicidal shooter. It's about the complete failure of the State to protect the local population from a clear and unmistakable danger. It's about profound incompetence masked as self-congratulation. What else explains Sheriff Israel's disinterest in immediately viewing the video of his four errant deputies: who neglected to enter the school while the shooting took place? What else explains his laughable statement to CNN's Jake Tapper, “I've given amazing leadership to this agency” the following Sunday? He's ignored calls for his resignation, and refused to release the video of his officers' dereliction of duty. What does that say about this public servant's responsiveness and accountability?

In essence, “March for Our Lives” malcontents advocate giving Sheriff Israel's ilk more power. Is that wise given their colossal bungling—that cost lives rather than saving them? Specifically, an armed deputy wearing a bullet proof vest (a resource officer sharing the already infamous name Scot Peterson) arrived 90 seconds into the attack, but remained outdoors while the perpetrator shot innocents inside for nearly five minutes. Sheriff Israel's other responsibility-phobic officers milled around outside too. In retrospect, can anything good be said about these cowards? Per Naples Daily News, authorities received at least 18 warning calls from 2008 to 2017 regarding Nikolas Cruz, 19. NDN reports, “In February 2016, neighbors told police that they were worried he 'planned to shoot up the school' after seeing alarming pictures on Instagram showing Cruz brandishing guns.” So neighbors (a group that historically never sees or hears anything about a given suspect) saw something and said something. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School also did something. Per Fox News’s Sean Hannity, Mr. Cruz was such an apparent threat, he was prohibited from wearing a backpack for security concerns. Ultimately, he was expelled from the school for misbehavior. Shockingly, law enforcement visited Cruz's home 39 times over seven years. Even the FBI was alerted twice: one instance was just weeks before the shooting occurred. Despite all these blurry blue lines of bureaucracy, this highly preventable tragedy was not. The fact that Officer Peterson resigned, and suspect Cruz was arrested, is cold comfort to the families who lost loved ones in such a violent and horrific manner.

Despite numerous red flags authorities dropped the ball on every level. In that regard, nothing at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School has appeared to change. As reported by local10.com's Tim Swift last Tuesday, a Broward County sheriff's deputy, Moises Carotti, has been suspended—with pay—after he was caught sleeping in a patrol car outside that very site! If “March for Our Lives” anti-gun protesters are looking for a legitimate reason to object, a golden opportunity exists: police not serving the communities they're sworn to protect. Hence, the real issue here is not guns. As with all objects that can be weaponized (read: cars, bats, knives, rocks etc.) doesn't the wielder vitally determine whether something is good or bad? In a free society that answer is always yes.

What all of this hubbub boils down is who to trust: faceless government bureaucracy or the individual to make responsible choices. Unfortunately, the reality here is that law enforcement has fallen inexcusably short, contributing to 17 deaths. Therefore, legally armed white hat elements in our society should fill in the gap. Naturally, most teenagers understand none of this. How can they when they're biologically impulsive and notoriously shortsighted as to life's consequences? Their wish to be cocooned in metaphorical bubble wrap is certainly understandable: it's the naive thinking of the unrealistic dreamer. Yet, what of the mature bubbleheads supporting these misdirected young marchers? It's pure folly for adults to believe these kids will save us from ourselves. From playwright Herb Gardner's aptly named “A Thousand Clowns” comes the common sense adage: “Out of the mouths of babes comes drooling”. For good reason since time immemorial adults have guided children, not vice versa. Only the aged and the addled follow anywhere teenagers lead.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Slut-Shaming A U.S. President

With the #MeToo movement in full flight, why hasn't anyone in the legacy media finally held former U.S. president Bill Clinton to account for his lifetime of boorish behavior? What of his string of adulterous affairs with numerous accusers—even within the Oval Office? What of Juanita Broaddrick's 40-year-old allegation of rape? Is it fair for Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen to slut-shame the sitting U.S. president: while giving worse behaved Bubba a complete pass? For one thing, Mr. Clinton's juvenile high jinks—among them, the Lewinsky affair: a national scandal that virtually brought the country to a standstill, and led to Bill's impeachment—happened while he was in office. How is that comparable to a porn star's allegation of a consensual affair with Donald Trump, then a private citizen, in 2006?

Where is this partisan's “honesty, dignity and rectitude”? In reality, Mr. Cohen engages in the yellowiest journalism by using language better suited to the gutter: “But Trump himself is a slut. He is a liar and a moral harlot who revels in irresponsibility and bad-boy behavior.” To paraphrase the Bible, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7). That would be good advice for the Post's holier than thou columnist to heed: especially given his own sexism directed at a younger, female subordinate in the workplace. As reported in June of 1998 by the Washingtonian's Harry Jaffe in “Cohen Gets Kid-Gloves Treatment in Harassment Case”:

“Among the allegations reported to [deputy managing editor Milton] Coleman: Cohen asked [Devon] Spurgeon to come into his office and close the door, then queried her about her generation's view of oral sex. Also at issue: a conversation where Cohen said it's too bad Bill Clinton is the only one who can grope in his office and get away with it. He also is said to have intimidated her with references to his connections with top Post editors, such as Tom Wilkinson, who can hire and fire.”

How is it not beyond creepy for a then 57-year-old man to question a then 23-year-old editorial aide about sexual mores? At the time, the Post's response was simply to move his office to a different floor. As for curbing potential misdeeds, that's about as effective as moving an accused pedophile priest to a new perish. Indeed, all these years later, where's Richard Cohen's, or The Washington Post's, integrity and transparency regarding these events? As of now, this stone thrower is still employed there. In fact, sanctioned for decades to point fingers at others while ignoring his own less than chivalrous conduct. (As was typical in the Clinton era of “bimbo eruptions,” the wagons were circled and the young woman in question was blamed.) Unfortunately, his journalistic old boy's club is still stuck in Clintonian amber. Neither Clinton nor Cohen have yet received their deserved comeuppance in 2018.

Upon reflection, how was the lurid, sex scandal-plagued Clinton era not a shadowy reflection of recently exposed Hollywood sex scandals (read: Clinton friend and donor Harvey Weinstein), and the #MeToo movement? In both cases, didn't prominent Democrats misuse their lofty positions to exploit underlings for sexual favors? Specifically, when Bubba chased Monica around the resolute desk in the Oval Office, wasn't Bill's bad-boy behavior (with her and others) equivalent to the adulterous antics of a bathrobed Harvey? Rightly, today's press has excoriated the disgraced movie mogul Yet, Bill's extramarital affair with then 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky is still treated with kid gloves. Ironically, his still traumatized former paramour, now 44, couldn't bring herself to hold the Clintons responsible in her candid March 2018 Vanity Fair article: he for his arguably predatory behavior; she for calling Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony toon”. Shouldn't the Clintons be held to the same standard of conduct that the media is rabidly trying to hold The Donald to?

The hard left media continuing to protect the coddled Clintons conveys the message that questionable actions, or words, have no bearing on character or a president's ability to lead the nation. And despite the sea change regarding sexual harassment, Bill and Hillary have survived their various imbroglios, haven't they? So, it stands to reason that President Trump will also survive the supposed peccadilloes of his past. Before applying such blatant double standards to U.S. presidents, Democratic surrogates of the biased MSM need to take a long look in a mirror. Not to do so shows the truth of what they are: untrustworthy mudslingers of salacious leftist propaganda.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Monday, March 19, 2018

Fuzzy Words Hide Shady Leftists

I was not aware of any Communists at Fort Roach*, although there were several gentleman of the extreme left … who called themselves 'progressives', a term I subsequently learned was the Party's code word for true believers.” – Edmund Morris, Pulitzer Prize winner and author of “Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan”

*The First Motion Picture Unit of the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) during World War II (installed at the dormant Hal Roach Studios in Culver City, California) in the 1940s

As disclosed by biographer Morris, the label progressive is leftist code for an adherent of communism. Yet, communism's collectivism diametrically opposes American principles embodied by individual liberty. In short, such oil and water philosophies don't mix. What's misleading is the root word of progressive happens to be “progress”. So, it's easy to assume that both terms mean the same good something. (After all, in this technologically driven age, who's not in favor of advancement?) Yet, progressivism is destructive in its practice, and backward in its orientation. In reality, it fails everywhere it's tried. By almost every objective measure (with the anomaly of a flourishing Wall Street), President Obama's progressivism was ruinous for America. Specifically, the economic albatross of a record-shattering 9.3 trillion added to the national debt was no accident. Likewise, leftist leadership turned oil and diamond rich Venezuela into a hellhole where basic necessities, like toilet paper, are scarce. Democrats typically use such nebulous, good sounding language to conceal their real anti-American intentions. For example, their knee-jerk advocacy of “investment” in some fashionable cause. That's just doublespeak for raising taxes and growing government. Such poison pills only undermine our nation's solvency, and future prospects. For these wastrels, it's better to rule in a leftist hell—propagated by their political pandering and cultural divisiveness—then serve in heaven as pro-American constitutionalists.

In the same vein, political movements with the word “Democrat” in them are usually totalitarian: as the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea. Certainly, no lover of civil rights, and human freedoms, are they. For proof of Kim Jong-Un's liberalism, who can forget the tragic fate of American student 22-year-old Otto Warmbier? For the college prank of foolishly attempting to steal a propaganda poster this future ivy leaguer was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Fifteen months later he was returned to the United States in a vegetative state. This coma—the result of likely torture—led to his premature demise; a young man in full flower cut down. What a waste of potential, what a senseless loss of life.

Speaking of destroying life of accused agitators on foreign soil, how about Barack Obama's Orwellian-style “disposition matrix”? This was the former president's secret kill list: a database of suspected terrorists to be dispensed with, either targeted in drone strikes, or captured and interrogated. How is that nihilistic system not equivalent to the barbarity of the Kim regime? In fact, some of Mr. Obama's quarry were even American citizens! The horror is that guilt or innocence didn't matter. The accused were deprived of their lives without due process: that means no right to legal representation and a fair trial, and no judgment by a jury of one's peers. From on high, what a megalomaniac thrill to play God!

That's not the only similarity between the leadership in North Korea and today's Democrats. Both groups use demonizing rhetoric against their perceived adversaries. Specifically, reported by FoxNews.com on March 7th, the former instruct their people to call Americans bastards. How is Hillary Clinton's repudiation of Trump supporters as a basket of deplorables any less hateful and derogatory? The 2016 presidential election ended over 16 months ago, but she's still spewing venomous blame. In India, this foul-mouthed “feminist icon” smeared the married, white women who didn't support her. Outrageously, she implied they were mindless chattel: incapable of acting independently of their husbands, bosses or sons. So much for this skin-deep “champion of women”.

With all leftists, freedom of thought is vehemently suppressed because it departs from the Party's official position. On every issue under the sun, conformity of perception is paramount. What liberals say is “right” in this moment can be completely the opposite of what they stood for yesterday. Even writers David Nakamura and Ed O'Keefe of the highly partisan Washington Post acknowledged:

In 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Secure Fence Act, a bill that authorized the construction of hundreds of miles of fencing along the border. That legislation was approved with broad bipartisan support, including, in the Senate, by such Democratic luminaries as Barack Obama (Ill.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), now the Senate minority leader.”

In 2018, that's The Donald's border wall. Yet, so afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome are they, progressives automatically oppose what they previously supported—under the previous two administrations. As masters of the political flip-flop, hypocrisy and self-interest define them (read: Crooked Hillary).

Thus, proponents of the left—regardless of their particular stripe—demonstrate a jackbooted impulse to dominate others. In common, each ruling class controls via a herd mentality. Unchecked, the Worker's Party of Korea (WPK) can govern by overt force. Meanwhile, dissembling Democrats weaponize their words to incite protests. Sometimes these “social justice” movements metastasize into mob violence (read: Black Lives Matter). Yet, either by force or by fearmongering the left advances its un-American notions. These exploitative elites preach inclusivity while repressing and actively dividing.

These true believers, as Hillary and Obama, are oblivious to patriotic Americans' views or problems. They're insulated creatures of the Washington establishment; buoyed by their hard left extremism and access to governmental influence. In truth, they care nothing for their fellow citizens' freedoms (particularly the Second Amendment), and actively work to subvert them. As a parallel, their mindset is epitomized in “Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith” (2005) when the Republic becomes a dictatorial galactic empire:

“So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause.” – Padmé Amidala (played by Natalie Portman)

As “Democratic” leader Kim Jong-Un is a scourge upon the world stage, progressives are a cancer upon the American body politic. Acting and speaking with the same anti-U.S. malevolence is clear—regardless of what commonality their fuzzy labels are designed to obscure.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Lying Left's Legacy Lifting

...[T]ruth will come to light; murder [read: political malfeasance] cannot be hid long...at the length truth will out.” – William Shakespeare, “The Merchant of Venice” (1596)

For over a year now the false narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election has loomed large on the political landscape: a petulant fury from crybaby Democrats who populate the MSM, the legislative minority, and the deep state within government. Ironically, these so-called Democrats no longer respect the democratic process because their “inevitable” candidate didn't win. For them, this defeat is particularly stinging. What else explains the Obama/Clinton party of progressives/socialists who pulled every dirty trick—and still lost?

What will today's breed of Democrats likely be remembered for? Certainly, their constant, unsubstantiated smears of President Trump (and the GOP, in general). And an utter lack of constructive ideas, viable policies and trustworthy words. Besides being anti-Trump what do these polarizing grandstanders stand for—besides doing or saying anything to remain in office?

Perhaps for the first time during the disastrous Obama years, these liberal “servants of the people” habitually make public pronouncements completely divorced from reality. In fact, so incensed by Mr. Obama's dubious claims, who can forget Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelling “You lie” during the former president's healthcare speech to a joint session of Congress in 2009?

Mr. Wilson quickly apologized for his lack of civility. But in our topsy turvy culture, then, the person demonized was only this truth-telling congressman! Two years later “CNSNews.com” reported the facts:

“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday [August 9, 2011] that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law.”

Migrant and seasonal workers are typically foreigners. And these subsidized clinics routinely do not ask for or collect data regarding a patient's citizenship status. So, as light dispels shadow, the truth emerged eventually. Unfortunately, a forgiving electorate did not hold President Obama accountable for his utter lack of veracity at the ballot box (as it likely did for Hillary Clinton in 2016).

Speaking of Barack's whoppers, related to Russian interference, he proclaimed during a Rose Garden press conference on October 18, 2016:

“‘There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections …. There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.’”

Because the liberal establishment was so confident of Hillary's victory, they did not want to cast doubt on the expected outcome of the 2016 election. When they lost their only option was to tar the winner with falsehoods. Yet, where is the actual evidence of political collaboration with the Soviets? It's only found in the Democratic Party. For example, who can forget President Obama's hot mic disclosure to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” to negotiate on missile defense after the November 2012 election? Furthermore, how is the fake Russian dossier on Donald Trump—paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign—not blatant collusion? Likewise, what about the infamous Uranium One deal? The Clinton Foundation accepted $145 million while Russia gained control of 20 percent of domestic U.S. uranium production! (Is that not collusion that rises to the level of treason?) These many instances range from the serious to the silly. More recently, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was caught on audio tape trying to obtain nonexistent “naked” photos of Trump from Vladmir Kyzetsov and Alexei Stolyarov. He thought they were highly placed Russian officials, but they were just comedians spoofing him! For their deplorable track record, why should anyone believe anything any prominent Democrat politician says?

As intangible as a shadow, the Trump collusion fog is slowly dissipating. Indeed, Trump's election remains an important turning point in our political discourse. As light dispels darkness, the People have liberated themselves from their self-imposed progressive stupor. Besides restoration of the American Dream, hopefully, the Trump era will be remembered for demarcation. Only one party advocates honesty, fidelity to law, citizen's rights and American exceptionalism. The other offers only continued pot-stirring chaos via their bold-faced lies resulting in further anarchy and lawlessness. In the meantime, their untruthful rhetoric will not stick to the trash-talking “Teflon” Don. Democrats' spurious claims of conspiracy are only true regarding themselves.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

Friday, December 8, 2017

How to Rebuild a First World Economy

We've indulged in this fiction that we can build a vibrant economy by deregulating the financial sector, and cutting taxes, and putting off investments in things like infrastructure and education and our kids. But we can't anymore. And now we have to ask the question about what really went wrong.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), from Rana Foroohar's “Makers and Takers” (2016)

To solve this pressing and systemic problem, the last place to look for insight is to any big government progressive like Elizabeth Warren. Likewise, to her fellow travelers of Congress's spendthrift establishment (of both parties). In truth, the insulated beltway bubble has no clue regarding what fundamentally remains wrong with America's economy.  Ms. Warren's so-called solution, “investments in things,” is code for increased federal deficit spending. Yet, the government is flat broke: thanks, in large measure, to the already-tried-and-failed policies of Barack Obama, and Ms. Warren's fellow Democrats. In fact, over President Obama's two terms the average annual GDP growth was a measly 1.48%. Another disgrace was his virtual doubling of the nation's debt by a whopping $9.3 trillion. Funding wasteful schemes like his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (more commonly known as the Economic Stimulus Act) injected $787 billion into the marketplace, but to no avail. The economic malaise persisted because ill-equipped people—making wrongheaded decisions—were in charge. Simply put, Obamanomics conclusively demonstrated that Washington cannot tax, borrow or spend the nation into prosperity.

Politically, what's the definition of insanity? Electing the same types of people doing the same things, but expecting a different outcome.  (Thus, perhaps the main reason Donald Trump was elected president, in 2016, is neatly explained.)  More to the point, on an economic level, what's the definition of insanity—other than doubling-down on what has been done previously? Thanks to President Trump, and the promise of Republican tax cuts, the tide—superficially—has started to turn. However, a record-setting Wall Street is not the same thing as a booming Main Street. After all, Wall Street is based upon the return on investment by stockholders. That's rather far removed from real-life factors like creating homegrown American businesses, generating highly skilled domestic jobs or providing Americans opportunities to advance up the socioeconomic ladder. So, the true test of a strong economy is an expanding, upwardly mobile middle class. Yet, this all-important demographic has been declining for more than 40 years:

“After more than four decades of serving as the nation’s economic majority, the American middle class is now matched in number [read: statistically equivalent to] by those in the economic tiers above and below it. In early 2015, 120.8 million adults were in middle-income households, compared with 121.3 million in lower- and upper-income households combined, a demographic shift that could signal a tipping point, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data.”

For context, in 1971, 61% were in the middle class compared to only 50% in 2015. This disturbing trend depicts the downward spiral rotting the fundamentals of our economy from the inside out. What is it that we did better in those prior years that we're not doing now? Back then, did we not produce competitive products—products that truly satisfied one or more customer's needs better than what was produced by international competitors? In other words, did American made products and services not dominate global markets—and did that not naturally result in sustained economic prosperity for the majority of our society?

As our middle class is clearly hollowed out, that's not happening today. Indeed, the anecdotal evidence is literally in everyone's face. Are the devices that populate your daily existence constructed by American hands, or others? (On a related note, how about the manufacturer of your vehicle?) After all, what customers chose with their wallets is meaningful. Thus, one can reasonably infer that a common sense reason exists as to why American businesses are not patronized as they were by past generations. Logically, at its root is the reality that the consumers' needs are no longer being met so they have looked elsewhere. What's also apparent is that, generally speaking, American companies are being outcompeted by their international counterparts for the world's largest market share.

How is that happening?  It's because U.S. businesses rely upon financial shell games designed to generate profits on their balance sheets. This has the superficially positive effect of artificially buoying the stock price (benefiting executives' salaries and stockholders' investments), while inversely gutting the real-world ability of a company to compete in the global marketplace. If that is not the case, why do American corporations widely participate in cost-slashing measures like corporate inversion, using inferior components in U.S. products (read: bailed out GM's Ignition Switch Scandal) and outsourcing jobs?

Contrast that mind-set with fundamentally producing products and services that excel at satisfying one or more customer needs for a true competitive advantage in the worldwide market. Instead, U.S. companies engage in modern-day finance-based parasitic behavior: absorbing weaker firms, often stripping them of their employees and selling off divisions for quick infusions of cash to elevate the “almighty” stock price. In popular culture, this dynamic was immortalized by the contentious exchange between corporate raider Edward Lewis (Richard Gere), and embattled “old-time” business owner Jim Morse (Ralph Bellamy) in “Pretty Woman” (1990):

Morse: “Mr. Lewis, if you were to get control—and I don't think you will—but if you did, what do you plan to do with the company?”
Lewis: “Break it up and sell off the pieces.”
Morse: “I'm sure you'll understand I'm not thrilled at the idea of your turning years of my work into your garage sale.”
Lewis: “At the price I'm paying for this stock, Mr. Morse, you are going to be a very rich man.”
Morse: “I'm rich enough. I just want to head my shipyard.”

Morse represents the only viable direction by which America can rightfully regain her former glory as an economic superpower—exploiting technology more effectively than the competition for products and services that have a true competitive advantage in the marketplace—technology-based planning. By contrast, Lewis is just manipulating the finances to produce a profit. He doesn't create anything of value to society; he exploits capitalism simply to further enrich his moneyed class.

As an analogy, following “Lewis's lead” is where so many U.S. corporations have gone wrong. In truth, such “monkey business” only produces an artificial competitive edge, and being artificial it is not sustainable.  Eventually the company—as the country—runs out finances to manipulate and everything comes crashing down.  A true competitive advantage in the worldwide market—as demonstrated by countries like China—is a result of exploiting the technology more effectively the competition. This is mandatory for businesses to thrive in the 21st century—and beyond!

How does one achieve this illusive key to lasting success? For that answer, one must look to Ronald Reagan's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, circa 1985. Remarkably, this forward-thinking president was troubled by the overt financialization of the U.S. economy, and specifically, its adverse impact on American competitiveness. In response, Reagan launched a then classified initiative known as the Socrates Project with the mission of transitioning the U.S. back to technology-based planning—and away from the type of financial shenanigans mentioned above.  It was so astonishingly effective that it far surpassed what countries like Russia, Japan and China were executing or could execute in the foreseeable future.

In turn, the Socrates Project developed the Automated Innovation System. Today, it can map global technology—high-tech, low-tech, “no”-tech –in real time. In function, it operates like a digital four-dimensional chessboard showing foreign organizations' and countries' plans for exploiting worldwide technology.  Specifically, it details the full range of present and future technology opportunities, and constraints, that can be exploited by U.S. public and private organizations for the essential competitive advantage to bring true and lasting economic prosperity back to America.  How wonderful would it be for President Reagan’s vision to be finally realized in 2017!  If spearheaded by the Trump administration, private industry and government can adroitly outmaneuver foreign competitors in the exploitation of worldwide technology at will.

Furthermore, the Automated Innovation System dictates how funds, manpower and natural resources etc. must be deployed to generate the all-important competitive advantage.  Specifically, the System shows how money, and the wide range of other resources, should be appropriately allotted, while simultaneously detailing up-to-the-moment strategies that block competitors with equivalent aims. Vitally, it operates in the time frame before a new product or service comes to market—from a few months to several years. That's important because this ability eliminates the sudden emergence of so-called disruptive technology that, at present, consistently catches flatfooted American corporations unaware.

How do we revitalize the American Dream as it was enjoyed by previous generations? For starters, that means running businesses as they were traditionally conceived: to serve society rather than exploit it. Beyond that, U.S corporations’ primary goal should be on dominating the 21st century technological landscape.  That guarantees the long-term profitability they single-mindedly strive for.  In real terms, that’s only achievable by continuously satisfying the evolving domestic and foreign consumers' needs and wants with highly competitive American products and services. (To be frank that means not cutting fiscal corners in order to save pennies.)  Hence, exponential profit becomes a given: a natural result technology-based planning as developed by President Reagan's Socrates Project. No other path will enable us to truly “Make America Great Again.” Unfortunately, the time to make these foundational shifts is perilously short. The country's very survival as a First World power hangs precariously in the balance.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog