Tag Archives: R. Alan Harrop

Christians Targeted in Nigeria

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

While the world has been focused on the Islamist Hamas attack on Israel, an even worse situation has been occurring in the African nation of Nigeria. In this case, Islamists have been attacking and killing Christians (who make up about half of the 227 million people in Nigeria). Not only is this important because of the barbarity and killing, but also because it reflects the reality of the threat that Islamist extremists represent all over the world, including our country. The numbers are staggering, with estimates that over 50,000 Christians have been killed since 2009 and over 7,000 killed this year alone.

According to a U.N. report, this all started with the rise of Boko Haram, a designated Islamist terrorist group, that kidnapped 270 Christian secondary school age girls in 2014 (91 are still missing or in captivity). Since then, other Islamist groups have joined with Boko Haram in attacking Christians and even destroying thousands of churches. Clearly their goal is to rid Nigeria of all Christians and create a unified Islamist state. While the government of Nigeria is opposing this takeover, it is clear they are not succeeding. The government claims they have “neutralized” over 13,000 terrorists and arrested over 17,000. They also claim that they have rescued over 9,000 Christian kidnapping victims. The continued killing not only shows the ineffectiveness of the Nigerian government security forces, but, importantly, reflects the large numbers of Islamists in Nigeria who are part of this terrorist movement. Nigeria is divided into separate “states” as in the U.S. and twelve of those states have declared that they are now committed to following Sharia Law. It should be remembered that Sharia Law permits, and in some cases encourages, the killing of non-Muslims and those who were once Muslims but changed to another religion. Recently, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Riley Moore (R-W. Va.) have spoken out about this tragic situation. President Trump has indicated that he is concerned and that military intervention by the U.S. may be needed. We have not heard much, if anything at all, from the fake media or during the Biden administration.

We should note several things. First, the ineffectiveness, once again, of the United Nations in addressing these terrorist activities. Second, the fact that all of these terrorist activities targeting Christians and Jews are exclusively Islamist must be recognized. We do not hear of any terrorist Christian or Jewish groups attacking and wantonly killing Muslims or members of other faiths. That is no accident. Third, Governor Abbott of Texas has recently declared the Council on American Islamist Relations (CAIR) to be a terrorist group due to their close ties to Hamas. Texas is having an ongoing dispute with a group that wants to establish an Islamist enclave in Collin County. Fourth, Governor DeSantis of Florida recently addressed the issue of what he considers excessive legal immigration and the potential impact on the integrity and traditions of our country. He expressed his concern that our country cannot effectively assimilate the large numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, that we have admitted over the past several decades.

I strongly agree with Governor DeSantis, as I have expressed clearly in a previous article. America for Americans, and only a limited number of those who want to identify as Americans. We finally have a political leader who has spoken out on this issue. We need to encourage others to do the same. The idea that we can accept millions of people from other countries and still maintain our 250 year old identity is a Leftist lie that will lead to the destruction of our country as we have known it. Look what recently happened in N.Y. City.

Dealing with the Islamic Threat Part II 

Posted on by

Article:  Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

In Part I of this article, I noted that there is an important distinction between nationalistic Islamists who want to change our government/culture and Muslims who want to practice their religion but are not dissatisfied with the secular aspects of America. Let’s examine the impact of Islamist immigrants in European countries, where their numbers are much greater (about 8% of their populations) compared to our country (about 2%).

Let’s start off with Sweden, which has been allowing Muslims refugees for several decades into their country which has historically had very little immigration.   Currently. There are about 60 enclaves/neighborhoods in Sweden that are occupied almost exclusively by Muslims. Most of these enclaves follow Sharia law and discourage non-Muslims from entering there or living there. In fact, many of them have erected physical and/or informational barriers to non-Muslims. Some of them have vehicle check points operated by Muslim gangs. They are known as “No-Go” zones where local police rarely if ever enter. One reason the police are reluctant to enter is that the authorities are reluctant to provoke demonstrations, which at times in the past have led to violence. Essentially, the Islamists have taken over these so-called enclaves and are functioning as if they were in a middle- eastern country. Non-Muslims who enter these areas are required to follow Sharia law or face a potential violent reaction. As a result, the crime rate against native Swedes has increased dramatically, especially sex crimes against native born women. In 1975, there were 421 reported rapes in Sweden, in 2024 that has risen to 10,167 which is an astonishing 2300% rise. Sixty three percent of the reported rapes were by immigrants. Immigrants are also 5 times more likely to commit robberies. Similar crime increases have occurred in France, Britain, Austria and Brussels. In Britain, a Muslim group known as “Muslims Against the Crusades,” have identified 12 cities that they plan to occupy and turn into independent micro-states that will operate outside British law. These European countries are being taken over piece by piece by Islamists. This is the opposite of assimilation, where immigrants accept, value, and practice the rules and traditions of their new country. This threatens the very existence of these countries as we have known them.

Is this happening in America? You bet. For example, in Patterson, NJ, which has a large percentage of Muslims, the city council, sheriff’s department, and the local schools are effectively controlled by Muslim immigrants. Recently, a mob tore down the American flag and replaced it with the Palestinian flag and declared Patterson to be the capitol of Palestine in America. This is happening in other cities as well, particularly in Michigan. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbot, and his administration are fighting against the establishment of a Muslim enclave in Collin County where a Muslim group is trying to establish a community on 400 newly purchased acres of land, called East Plano Islamic Center, funded by Community Capitol Partners. A promotional video shows the President of this group speaking against American law and openly advocating for Sharia law. They plan to establish seven other similar communities. To purchase a dwelling a person must agree to financially support the local Mosque and Islamic private school. According to Governor Abbott, he signed a law several years ago that prohibits replacing American law with Sharia law (as have a few other states). The effectiveness of these efforts has yet to be demonstrated. Texas Congressional Representative Chip Roy, has introduced a bill entitled “Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act,” and Senator Tommy Tuberville from Alabama has done likewise in the US Senate. Whether either bill will generate enough support, remains to be seen.

We need to learn from what Europe’s experience and take appropriate steps before it is too late. Part III of this article will address what needs to be done, assuming we have enough leaders who recognize the problem and have the courage to take appropriate action. We cannot allow what happened when New York City elected a Marxist Muslim mayor to spread to other areas of our country.  Stay tuned.

Dealing With the Islamic Threat to America: Part I

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

In a previous article, I outlined the threat that unfettered immigration poses to America. Starting with this article, I want to provide more details and give examples of what we are facing and how to deal with that threat. First, let me state that I am not against the practice of any religion. I agree that America should allow the practice of any religion. However, an Islamist is someone who supports a political ideology that advocates for a society governed by Islamic law and values. The central goal of Islamism is the establishment of a state governed by Sharia law. A person can follow the Muslim religion and not be an Islamist. This distinction is critical to remember. I am opposed to any group that wants to fundamentally change America (as Barack Obama famously once said). Islamists are committed to using any and all means to create an Islamist state, including violence.

I would like to start off with an exploration of what Sharia law entails. The laws we follow in this country are derived from Western civilization sources such as the Roman Empire, Judeo/Christian beliefs like the Ten Commandments, and the historical British legal system. Sharia law derives solely from the writings of the prophet Muhammed. Also, our legal system focuses on the sphere of public interaction; Sharia law controls public interactions and also controls private behavior and beliefs. While an internet search will provide information about all of the elements of Sharia law, I am going to address some that are most concerning. Sharia law advocates drastic physical punishments for violators, as well as being especially restrictive to women. A few examples:  amputation of a person’s hand for theft; a woman who alleges she was raped must present four male witnesses in order to seek justice; a woman found guilty of adultery is punishable by death; Muslim men have sexual rights to any woman that does not wear a Hijab (covering of neck, head, ears, except face) in public; a man can have up to four wives, whereas a woman can only have one husband; a man can physically beat his wife for insubordination; a woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative; women and girls should be genitally mutilated; a Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by  death; criticizing Muhammed, the Quran (i.e. their Bible), or Allah is punishable by death.

While these rules are obviously not the laws that Americans want to live by, the majority of people in many Muslim majority countries find them very acceptable. For example: 74% of Egyptians; 71% of Jordanians; 72% of Indonesians; 86% of Malaysians and 91% of Iraqis are in favor of living under Sharia law. Of course, that is their heritage, and they have a right to any legal system that they choose. The problem is that many of the immigrants from these and many other Muslim majority countries want to have Sharia in the country to which they immigrate. A good example of what can happen when large numbers of Islamists immigrate is the current situation in Europe. European countries have experienced higher numbers of Muslim immigrants over the past few decades than we have here in America (at least until Biden opened up our borders to all comers). As of 2024, 8.5% of the population of Sweden are Muslim immigrants; Britain at 6.9%, France 10.5%, Germany 7.2%, and Austria 8.6%. Estimates show that about 2%, or 5 million people in the United States are Muslims. One thing to note is that among Muslims, the birthrate is much higher than for native born Americans (which is now at 1.6 children per woman), so even if all immigration were stopped, the percentage of Muslims in America would continue to increase. As shown above, with a high percentage of Muslims committed to Sharia law coming to America, what is the likelihood that they will assimilate and become committed to America as we have known it? Very slim to say the least. Part II of this article will address the impact and what we should expect if the Islamic philosophy is permitted in this country. Stay tuned.

Problem Immigration

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D   

When this country was founded, not only were we a country of immigrants, but we needed immigrants to expand and populate the vast expanse of the continent. This is no longer the case. The recent election of a Marxist immigrant as mayor of New York City (NYC) would not have occurred without unrestricted immigration. No country can retain its cultural and political integrity when overwhelmed by excessive and nonselective immigration such as we have been experiencing. We could take the position that what happens in New York City is not our concern since we do not reside there, but this would be a serious mistake as I will show. Let’s start with some facts.

In 1970, 18% of the residents of NYC were not born in this country, today that figure is 38%. Zohran Mamdani received 70% of the votes of foreign-born residents in his election as mayor, compared to less than 40% of American born residents. He was born in Uganda and still holds citizenship there as well as being a naturalized U.S. citizen. He has refused to renounce his Ugandan citizenship. He is a practicing Muslim and an admitted Marxist who does not reflect the traditional values of this country. Another example of immigrants taking over and not assimilating is a city of 28,000 people, Hamtramck, Michigan. In 1970, 95% of the residents were American born; today it is less than 40%. Muslims account for 70% of the population. Their mayor was born in Yemen, and their police chief and all six city council members are Muslims. Likewise in California, a state that elected Ronald Reagan as governor for two terms, the demographics have shifted. In 1970, the foreign-born residents represented about 12% of their population; now it is 38% and is solid leftist.

This disturbing trend is no accident. In the mid-1920s, a Republican Congress and President implemented a law that severely reduced the number of legal immigrants over concern that we were admitting more than could be assimilated as patriotic Americans. The law established maximum quotas for foreign countries. This law was in place until a Democrat Congress and President in 1965 passed the Immigration and Nationality Act that essentially eliminated immigration quotas. In addition, President Reagan in 1985 agreed to an ill-advised amnesty agreement that permitted 3 million illegals to stay in this country. A strict closing of the border was supposed to be implemented (which never happened). More recently, the Biden administration essentially opened the borders to all comers, resulting in a flood of an estimated 20 million people in four years. Europe has already experienced the negative impact of too much immigration– a dramatic change in their cultures making them unrecognizable from what they have been historically.

So, what do we do to prevent losing our culture, traditions, and ultimately country? First, we accelerate and complete the deportation of all illegal aliens. No exceptions. Not just those with criminal backgrounds. Second, we reinstate a system of quotas for legal immigration to ensure that we select those who are committed to accepting our culture and values. Third, we significantly reduce or eliminate student and work visas, especially from non-Western countries. Fourth, we stop allowing immigrants to receive welfare payments and free medical care and go back to the old system where all immigrants were required to show that they had access to sufficient resources to support themselves and not be a burden on our country.

If we do not take significant action, what we have seen in NYC will spread throughout our country and destroy the very fabric of our culture and traditions. We need to elect officials who recognize and are will to make the hard decisions to deal with this oncoming crisis.

Pros and Cons of AI

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

All changes have advantages and disadvantages. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no exception. Because the impact of AI is going to affect all of us in some way or another, we should take a look at what is already happening and what is likely to happen. What’s more, the idea of creating an intelligence that rivals and may exceed human capabilities warrants special caution. Let’s start off with what we already know of the pros of AI.

The idea of creating artificial intelligence is not new; the possibility has been around ever since the invention of computers. AI has already been shown to be capable of data processing and linking at speeds and accuracy well beyond the human mind. Like automated machines used in manufacturing, the accuracy and precision of production is greater than humans. Machines do not get tired, do not need lunch breaks, sleep, or overtime pay. Same thing with AI, only more so. For example, students can now access AI to write reports on many topics. AI scans and collects the facts from the internet, and assembles the information in a manner that duplicates what a human can do. AI can also duplicate the human voice making it impossible to distinguish from the actual person. The autopen on steroids.

From a military perspective, AI will be used in advanced weapon systems that will enhance their potency and accuracy. Consider what is happening with the first “ war of the drones” now occurring between Russian and Ukraine. Fewer humans will be placed in harm’s way, as the combat role of humans is replaced by machines. Wars between robot armies are on the horizon. In medicine, not only is accurate diagnosis enhanced because AI will not fail to consider all the possible facts, but AI may produce more successful surgical outcomes because of greater accuracy and precise movements. This has already started with some surgical procedures that us robotic techniques and instrument control.

The development of AI and its application in all aspects of human activity is already occurring and is likely to accelerate. Countries will not be able to neglect AI if they hope to remain competitive and to be able to defend themselves from potential adversaries. Now, let’s examine some of the cons of AI. One immediate impact will be on the need for human workers. For example, high tech companies have been reducing their workforces as AI is developed. Over the past two years, the following layoffs have occurred:  Amazon: 30,000; Microsoft: 35,000; Google: 20,000; Meta: 23,000 and UPS: 14,000. Now not all of these layoffs are directly related to AI, but many of them are. Many of the jobs are high tech programming and code writing which AI is being created to do itself.   Who needs humans?

Another area of concern is energy consumption. For example, it takes 10 times the amount of electricity to conduct an AI search compared to a regular internet search. A recent report on Barclay.com indicated that the expanded use of AI data centers will increase the demand on the electric grid by 25% per year for the foreseeable future. Obviously, the existing electric grid cannot meet that demand without substantial expansion in generating power. Wind and solar will not help in the slightest. Expansion could be through more nuclear plants. However, the current restrictions and regulations can be prohibitive.  There has not been a new nuclear power plant built in North Carolina for over forty years. Some are suggesting the use of smaller nuclear reactors, about one-third of the reactors currently in place. Theoretically, these could be located near to the AI data centers reducing the demand for transmission wires. A troubling trend is being implemented by local power companies like Tidewater. Starting in January, electricity rates per KWH will depend on the time of the day the electricity is used. Not good. This plan reduces your freedom to use electricity when you decide and allows the company to dictate your access. Instead of manipulating demand, they should be increasing their generating capacity. China has been building coal fired plants for years and will be able to meet their demands. We have been handcuffed by the environmental extremists who fear monger about climate change. Through executive order 14241, President Trump has significantly reduced the restrictions on building coal fired plants, especially the additional restrictions placed by the Biden administration. There is no reason why electric companies should not immediately return to building coal fired plants, especially since coal is one of our greatest resources. Until recently, Bill Gates had believed that climate change caused by burning fossil fuels was an existential threat. He has done an about face, and now says that climate change is not a threat! That shows what a hoax the whole climate change scare has been.

Besides these practical problems, the potential impact on humans must be considered. Are we creating something with more brain power than we have? AI is not only capable of learning and thinking faster and more accurately than humans, it has the potential to learn how to control itself. A few months ago, there was a report in the Epoch Times newspaper about an AI system that would not allow itself to be shut down by its human creators! Will these systems take on a will of their own? Who knows, but it could happen. Also, as humans rely more and more on AI for such things as data gathering and analysis, what happens to the skill level of humans who are now performing these functions? Our intelligence is based on using our brains to solve complex problems and think for ourselves. With increased reliance on AI, will we get dumber? How about the impact on our self-esteem? Most people feel good when they accomplish a challenging task. With AI performing these tasks, what are humans good for? Not much I suppose. As we get dumber and less ambitious, AI takes over more and more of human activities. AI becomes the master and we become the slaves. As we become more dependent on AI and lose our skills and abilities, what happens if AI destructs? Power outage? Hacking into the system? Something to think about.

While it is true that AI development is rushing forward, we need to think about what we are creating and the pros and cons of how far we go. AI has the potential to be one of the most powerful and life altering inventions in the history of mankind.  Let’s make sure that it will enhance our lives, and not be our undoing as human beings.

Exploding Government Programs

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D. 

We Americans have been warned about the dangers of big central federal governments, not only by the Founding Fathers, but more recently by President Ronald Reagan among others. Apparently, the warnings have gone unheeded, especially by the Marxist Left in our country, many of whom would rather be called “progressives” even though they are following the Marxist playbook. According to Karl Marx, a strong central government is critical to his theory of getting people dependent on the government rather than on themselves. Most of these dependency programs are initially sold to the people by appealing to their willingness to assist people who are in need and cannot help themselves. The Marxists then continue to expand these programs to more and more people, most of whom are fully capable of supporting themselves.

Let’s take a look at a few examples. Medicaid was initiated by the Democrats in 1966. The program was intended to assist children without parental support, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Within a couple of years there were 2 million Americans receiving Medicaid. Flash forward to 2024, there are now 89 million recipients of Medicaid. The expansion has added adults regardless of age, raised the income level to qualify, and expanded the definition of eligibility. Since 2020, the number of recipients has grown by 47%. The annual cost of Medicaid in 1966 was $900 million. It is now over $900 billion! Food Stamps (now called SNAP) again was started by the Democrats and was supposed to help the very poor and disabled. The number of recipients of food stamps in 1967 was 2.1 million; now it is 42 million. The cost of the food stamp program in 1967 was less than $2 billion dollars; it is now it is over $100 billion. Another example is the so-called Section 8 (Housing Voucher Program) This program, originally intended for struggling poor families, now pays up to $1700 per month for recipients, many of whom have incomes above the federal poverty level. It should be noted that 61% of current recipients do not have children. Also, many illegal aliens are accessing these programs.

What we have here is the classic Marxist strategy of the transfer of wealth from hard working tax payers to those who choose not to rely on themselves, but become wards of the government. The people advocating these program expansions, such as Rep. Alexandria Cortez from New York, claim that healthcare is not a privilege but rather a right! –a right that others must pay for. Of course there is no such right mentioned in the Constitution, but that does not matter to the Marxists who use giving free stuff to their supporters to get votes. We see this dependency during this ridiculous Schumer government shutdown, where recipients of food stamps are threatening to go into food stores and take what they need without paying. So much for these programs helping make people self-sufficient.

Meanwhile, the national debt keeps growing. It has now reached $38 trillion, which amounts to $327,000 per taxpayer. The largest expenditure in the federal budget is Medicaid/Medicare at $1.7 trillion. Just the annual interest on the national debt is now almost a trillion dollars a year ($970 billion). If you have not done so, go on the website: The National Debt Clock. This will provide a clear picture of what we are facing.

The question becomes, “Is it too late to turn things around?” Our country cannot survive as we have known it, if the value of the dollar collapses. Schumer and his Marxist buddies want to undo the cuts made by the Trump administration and fellow Republicans, and add back $1.5 trillion to the budget. Also, the Marxist candidate for mayor of NY City is running on more free stuff for the voters. This is not good for our country.

It will take extreme political courage for our elected officials to turn this around.

Violence and Transgenderism

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.   

Most clear-thinking people realize that trying to change one’s gender from what a person is at birth is extremely abnormal and against nature and God’s plan. Unfortunately, the Marxists in our country think this is just fine, and many actively support this destructive idea. The fact that some medical professionals who take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, provide prescriptions, and in some cases surgery, both of which have permanent effects, is difficult to believe, but is happening. There is evidence that people who undergo these transgender treatments commit acts of violence beyond what would be expected from such a small fringe group. Let’s examine why this is happening.

Transgender individuals represent less than one percent of the population (0.7%); yet recent data shows that they commit over 5% of the mass shootings. Here are a few examples: Anderson Lee Aldrich, a man who identifies as a “non-binary,” shot and killed five people in Colorado in 2022; Audrey Hale, a woman identifying as a man, killed three children and three adults in Nashville in 2023; Robert Westman, who changed his name to Robin, killed two children and wounded 21 others in Minneapolis in 2025 and left a message that he was ”tired of being trans”; Cameron Arnold and Bradford Morris, both transgenders, attempted to murder an ICE agent in Texas in 2025; the man arrested for trying to kill Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh in 2022 identified as a woman; and most recently, Tyler Robinson, the alleged killer of Charlie Kirk had a transgender sex partner. These are some of the most prominent examples; there are others. President Trump has reported asking the FBI to look into this problem.

There are groups such as the Armed Queers of Salt Lake City, the Zizians, and the Trans Army which warrant further investigation. The Armed Queers, who describe themselves as a revolutionary LGBQ organization defending oppressed people, are led by a transgender activist whose parents were Iranian immigrants. There is evidence that this group is receiving funds from the Chinese Communist Party. We see in these organizations the traditional revolutionary effort by Marxists to divide our country into factions that have the intent of creating groups of the oppressed and the oppressors.

Looking at the psychological aspects of transgenderism, we see pathology that can certainly be directed towards violence. Gender dysphoria and the desire to change to the opposite sex used to be classified as a psychiatric disorder. However, the World Health Organization removed that designation in 2019 in an effort to normalize what is clearly abnormal. Transgenders have higher rates of depression, anxiety, and a suicide rate that is 20 times higher than the regular population. Once an individual has decided on suicide and also blames others for their problems, they are much more likely to kill others and then kill themselves, something that is frequently seen in mass violence incidents. Administering strong hormones can also be a destabilizing factor in their mental status. It should also be noted that the young people who are most easily persuaded to change their genders often have a history of social isolation and lack of interaction with mentally normal friends. By accepting transgenderism, they are welcomed into a close-knit group and vulnerable to other influences, some of which are antisocial.

Parents of children who start expressing gender dysphoria should seek out assistance to correct that way of thinking. If you live in Colorado, that may be difficult, since their legislature passed a law making it a crime for a medical professional to counsel a child against transitioning. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a challenge to that law. Let’s hope they overturn it.

Saving the Traditional Family

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop,Ph.D.      

Charlie Kirk discussed many issues as he conducted his debates on college campuses during his famous “Prove Me Wrong!” tour. One of the most important issues that I want to address is his effort to save the traditional family. As a husband and father of two children, he was well acquainted with the reality of living within the traditional family. He loved it! Importantly, he realized that resisting a Marxist takeover of this country relies on the strength of the intact traditional family.

The traditional family structure has been the bedrock of Western Civilization for hundreds of years. In fact, no successful country has ever existed without the traditional family. However, Karl Marx and his partner Friedrich Engels realized that they could not destroy the essence of the free market system without first destroying the traditional family. Sadly, there are many signs that Marxism is being successful in its effort to do just that. The family structure that most of us grew up in is no longer what it was. Our parents would be shocked at many of the things that are occurring now that would have been totally unacceptable in their lifetimes. Why does Marxism want to destroy the traditional family? One reason is that they want people to be dependent on the government, not on each other. That is where their power lies. Another reason is their belief that sexual activity should have no restrictions. Marx and Engels wrote that people should be free to engage in sex with anyone and in any way they wanted, including homosexuality. Allowing homosexual marriage in this country during the Obama administration was a Marxist triumph. Further efforts to undermine parents are occurring in some states like California that have attempted to prevent parents from stopping their children from receiving gender altering medications and surgery. The Supreme Court recently heard a case where the state of Colorado passed a law that prevents medical personnel from counseling children and their parents against receiving these horrific treatments.

Charlie Kirk understood this threat to the traditional family and confronted the problem directly as he debated college students. He would clearly tell them that the importance and rewards of marriage with children far exceed any satisfaction and importance of a career, especially for women. He also made the point that marriage between a man and a woman is divinely inspired, as is having children. Here are some of the examples of how the traditional family is being destroyed, and then I will present some ideas about what we can do to reverse this trend.

In 1960, the average age at first marriage was 23 years for men and 20 years for women. Now, it is 32 years for men and 28 years for women; thus resulting in 40% fewer years for having children. The result has been a significant drop in the average number of children in this country from 4.5 per woman in 1960, to 1.6 per woman currently, which is insufficient to maintain the population. Prior to the 1960s, pre-marital sex was frowned upon and waiting till marriage was considered a virtue. Children are now being instructed in sexual practices in so-called sex education classes that encourage them to engage in sexual activity at a young age and before marriage. Living together before marriage used to be strongly discouraged and a mark of shame. Now, cohabiting before marriage appears to be the norm, frequently going on for years before marrying or breaking up. By the way, couples who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced.

The traditional family was the provider of not only the continuation of American traditions, history,and values, but also importantly, moral conscience development through a religious framework. Children are not born knowing the difference between right and wrong; they must be taught. The failure to socialize children is glaringly obvious when noting that the percentage of children born out of wedlock in 1960 was 3% for white mothers and 24% for black mothers. Now the figures are 21% for whites; and 70% for blacks. We know that children raised without two parents are less likely to complete high school, are more likely to become addicted to drugs, and are significantly more likely to spend time in prison. No surprise here. Parents are the first teachers of their children and should serve as role models of what they should endeavor to be when they grow up. This does not happen except in the intact traditional family. Also, social media is having an extremely negative impact on children. Increased anxiety, depression, suicide and anti-social behavior have all increased with the use of smart phones by children. Australia, and now Denmark, are banning access to social media sites by children under 15. We should do the same. Our children should not be raised by the social media! The increased divorce rate since the advent of no-fault divorce has also harmed the traditional family. Married people not only report being happier, but they also live longer. This is especially true for couples with children.

How do we encourage a return to traditional families? First, we should do what Charlie Kirk did–speak out in support of marriage and having children, especially to our children and grandchildren. For example, I have two grandsons in their 20s both of whom have been dating their girlfriends for several years. I occasionally would ask them when they were getting engaged. Several months ago, one of them asked me what I thought he should get his girlfriend for her birthday. My reply was “an engagement ring.” Let them know where you stand. By the way they are both engaged now and have set marriage dates. Discourage them from living together before getting married. Encourage them to attend church, and do so yourself to model appropriate behavior. Talk about traditional values, don’t be reluctant. We have to counter the leftist indoctrination in our universities.

From an economic perspective, the Trump administration is developing proposals to provide tax incentives and relief for families with children. Do what you can to assist family members with children financially. Why wait to give them an inheritance when you can help them now when they may actually need it more. The NC General Assembly has recently increased funding for school choice. However, they still have not provided vouchers for homeschoolers. This needs to be done, as it has been done in other states.

Let us all make a commitment to follow Charlie Kirk’s example and support the traditional family which is essential to the survival of our country as we have known it. Otherwise, the Marxists win.

The Real Cost of Illegal Aliens

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan  Harrop, Ph.D.

The Marxists in our country love to point out that we are a nation of immigrants. Of course, they fail to acknowledge that until recently, we were a nation of legal immigrants. President Trump as usual is fulfilling his campaign promises, including stopping the flood of illegal aliens we witnessed during the Biden administration. Biden lied when he said we needed new legislation to deal with this problem. In reality all we needed was a new president who put the welfare of our country first. The result is that illegal immigration has essentially been stopped and is at the lowest levels in fifty years. However, the damage caused by the Biden administration open border policy is continuing.

Let’s first look at the financial impact. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. is close to 20 million. Many of these illegals access government services for free, for example housing, healthcare, education, food stamps, and other welfare programs. FAIR calculates that the cost to the American taxpayer in 2022 was 182 billion dollars. (This amount has only increased since then.) The cost for each illegal is about 9,000 dollars a year or an average of 1,200 dollars per each taxpayer. This includes federal, state, and local taxes. Note that the Democrats, who have chosen to shut down the federal government, want the taxpayers to shoulder an increasing tax burden by expanding funding for healthcare for illegals. It should be remembered that prior to the Democrats led by Ted Kennedy changing the immigration laws in the 1960s, all immigrants into this country had to provide proof that they or their relatives had sufficient resources and income to support themselves economically.

It should be noted, that Marxism has always advocated open borders and eliminating national governments in favor of global governance. The potential impact of open borders is the destruction of a countries traditions and values. Note how the left wants to tear down our statues for example. Many of the illegals let in by the Biden administration have no intention of giving up their own culture and adopting ours. Up until the 1960s immigration law change, most of the immigrants were from European countries who share our heritage of western civilization. That is no longer the case. Many of the groups currently coming here are unlikely to ever assimilate as immigrants have done in the past. Europe is about five years ahead of us with this problem. The cities of London, Paris, Brussels, etc., have been essentially taken over by immigrants. An example of this happening in our country is Dearborn Michigan, which is essentially a Muslim community, many of whom want to live under Sharia law. The situation is aggravated by the fact that some of these cities (like New York) are allowing illegals to vote in local elections even though federal law prohibits voting in national elections. The mayoral race in New York City should concern us all since the election of an avowed Marxist in one of our largest cities would mark an advancement of Marxism that could not have been imagined 30 years ago.

There was a time right after World War II, when most people in America were aware of and dreaded the possibility of a Marxist takeover in our country. That is obviously no longer the case. Massive immigration and the leftist takeover of many of our universities has set the stage for what we are seeing now. Abraham Lincoln once said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power, but if we were to be destroyed, it would be from within. Open borders, the destruction of the traditional family, diminishing church attendance, homosexual marriage, reliance on the government for healthcare and other benefits are all symptoms of our slide to Marxism. Patriotic Americans must recognize this reality and stand up for traditional American values before it is too late. Fortunately, we have a president who is leading us back in the right direction. We all need to support him as much as possible and fight for our freedoms.

Solving the Crime Problem Part II

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D. 

As I stated in Part I of this article, a society that fails to instill a law abiding conscience in its children will have to resort to extensive external controls to keep crime under control. Let’s take a look at what needs to be done given the reality that crime, especially violent crimes, are occurring at unacceptable levels, particularly in urban areas.

Socialization of children depends on, and is the responsibility of their parents. The high rate of children born out of wedlock (over 40%) and therefore lacking two effective parents needs to be reversed. Nowadays, adults living together before marriage has not only increased, but is seemingly totally acceptable. That was not always the case. In the 1950s and before, society reacted very unfavorable to cohabitation before marriage. This of course led to earlier marriage. The average age at first marriage has increased by almost ten years as has the number of people who never marry. One thing parents and grandparents can do is to encourage young people to marry instead of living together. Don’t be afraid to let them know what you believe. I remember one of my grandsons asking me what he should get for his girlfriend’s birthday. He had been dating her for several years. I suggested that he get her an engagement ring! Several months later they did get engaged. Encouraging going to church and setting an example by doing so yourself can also help return children to traditional values. Expounding on the benefits of marriage and having children is also something we can all do. This was one of the themes of Charlie Kirk’s message that he spoke about frequently in his talks with younger people, particularly young men. Relatedly, law makers can consider increasing tax benefits to families with children. We need to strengthen the traditional family.

As a psychologist who worked in the N.C. Department of Correction for thirty years, I had the opportunity to observe criminals first hand. Raising law-abiding citizens depends on a system of reward and punishment. Reward good behavior and you will get more of it; punish bad behavior and you will get less. That is the simple rule of all human and animal behavior. To be effective, the reward and/or punishment must be consistent and immediate. Our current criminal justice system as advocated by the Left does not punish criminal behavior as was once the case. Cashless bail, light sentences, and delayed prosecution send the wrong message. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Sentences should escalate significantly for those committing repeat offences. There used to be a process called “Three strikes and you are out” which referred to the fact that someone who commits a third felony would receive the maximum sentence. Repeat offenders are clearly telling us that they have made crime their career and we should recognize that fact. I recently heard a leftist mayor of one of the high crime rate cities state that “You cannot arrest yourself out of a crime problem.” Actually, the opposite is the case–incarcerating career criminals is the most effective way to lower the crime rate.

Illegal drugs are a major driver of crime. Legalizing marijuana is the wrong approach since it is clearly a gateway drug. Not only is the level of the intoxicating chemicals in marijuana increasing but some drug cartels infuse it with fentanyl to increase its addictive properties. President Trump’s actions like closing the border, declaring drug cartels as terrorist groups, and attacking drug smuggling ships from other countries are all useful efforts. Drug dealers are killing our youth and should be treated with punishments that fit the crime. In some cases, drug treatment can be effective; however, when it fails, incarceration may actually protect the life of the addict. Allowing addicts to freely live on the streets must be stopped. Vagrancy laws need to be re-instated with incarceration used as needed.

Mental illness can also influence criminal behavior, especially if not treated properly. Fortunately, most diagnosed mental illnesses do not increase the proclivity to commit crimes. However, in cases where the mental illness is related to severe emotional disturbances and aggressive behavior, it must be treated as a significant factor in predicting future criminal behavior. It should be noted that many of those with serious mental disorders related to criminal behavior resist treatment. Involuntary commitment is usually not very effective since it is usually temporary. The General Assembly should reconsider establishing a facility for the criminally insane that could hold and treat convicted felons with serious mental disorders. Clearly the current approach is not working.

Solving the crime problem will require a comprehensive effort which ensures that there is a police presence sufficient to ensure public safety as President Trump recently showed in Washington, DC. The North Carolina General Assembly’s passing of the Iryna Crime Act in response to the brutal murder on the Charlotte commuter train is also a step in the right direction. We will see if Governor Stein vetoes the bill as I expect.   Democrats have consistently shown that the safety of the public is not their concern.

Solving the Crime Problem Part I

Posted on by

Author R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

Crime continues to be a major concern of the American people. This is understandable since one of the prime responsibilities of any government, local or federal, is to ensure that citizens are safe in their homes and in public. Recent horrific tragedies, like the knife killing of Iryna Zarutska on a commuter train in Charlotte and the assassination of freedom patriot Charlie Kirk,  show the urgency of the crime problem. When examining any issue, it is best to start off with the facts before addressing causes and potential solutions.

Below is a list of some of the basic facts about crime in this country. Violent crime rates are higher in urban than in rural areas. Democrat run cities have the highest crime rates. The cities with the highest crime rates include:  Memphis, Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, and Milwaukee. All of these cities have had Democrat mayors for most of the past 30 years with few exceptions. Cities with the highest crime rates tend to have liberal district attorneys who favor no cash bail and other soft on crime policies. Most of the violent crimes are committed by a small proportion of the population. For example, over 60% of the violent crimes are committed by black males between the age of 18 and 45 which represent only 3% of the entire population. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders who have multiple arrests and prior convictions. Longer incarceration terms for so-called career criminals keep the community safe by keeping criminals off the streets. Prison rehabilitation programs are not a reliable way of reducing recidivism rates since most repeat offenders return to a life of crime.

The causes of criminal activity need to be understood before corrective action can be taken. Human beings are not born with a conscience or any knowledge of right or wrong. A person with a properly developed conscience controls their own behavior by judging and directing their behavior according to the rules of their learned conscience. A society that does not teach strong moral standards to their citizens is forced to rely on external controls, such as police presence and fear of apprehension instead of internal control of one’s behavior. Historically, western civilization has relied upon parental instruction and religion to ensure that children develop a law-abiding conscience. If a child learns to believe that stealing is a sin, they will not steal. Since the 1960s, the traditional family has been significantly weakened in our society. In 1960, 72% of adults were married. By 2017 that number was down to less than 50%. The average age for first marriage in 1960 was 20 yrs. for women and 23 yrs. for men; it is now 28 yrs. for women and 30 yrs. for men. Consequently, the birthrate has declined significantly. The birthrate is now 1.6 births per woman, which is not sufficient to maintain the population. Since 1960, the divorce rate has more than doubled. In 1960, only 5% of all births occurred out of wedlock. That number has now risen to over 40%. The diminishing of the traditional family has negatively impacted the socialization of children into law abiding citizens. Combine this with the dramatic decrease in church attendance, particularly among younger people, and the problem of raising children without a prosocial conscience is obvious. The diminishing of the role of the family is exactly what the Marxists have hoped for and is one of their prime goals. They want people to be dependent on the government–not their family. Speaking of Marxist influences, Marxists divide society into the oppressed and the oppressors. In so doing, they provide for some people the justification for criminal behavior towards those they deem to be oppressing them. It is certain that some of the criminals believe they are entitled to prey on the rich because they have been unfairly oppressed. The final factor that I want to mention that influences crime is mental illness. While mental illness in general does not substantially increase the likelihood of committing crimes, certain disorders that impact on misinterpreting the motives of others, such as paranoia, and loss of emotional control can be related. For example, depression can influence a person’s decision making, leading to suicide or in some cases blaming others for their problems. Mass shooters are examples of misdirected anger and blaming of others resulting in murder/suicides.

Part II of this article will address what society can do to control crime.      

Charlie Kirk:  Death of a Freedom Warrior

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D. 

When asked what type of government was created by the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin replied “A republic, if you can keep it.” This well- known comment, could not be more relevant than it is today. While threats from other countries have occurred and are still occurring, the threat Franklin was referring to was from within. For our country to survive as founded, it must have people who not only recognize threats, but are willing to stand up and fight for freedom. Charlie Kirk, was one such prominent freedom warrior.

Marxism, since its founding in the 1800s, has been a continuing threat to all freedom loving people. Essentially, Marxism encourages people to group themselves into the oppressors and the oppressed and also, importantly, sanctions the use of whatever means necessary to overthrow the so-called oppressors. The fact that all Marxist countries are notorious for taking away individual freedoms and establishing oppressive regimes (e.g. Russia, China, North Korea, etc.) is ignored by those who follow Marxist principles. The largest mass killings of their own people were committed by Marxist governments such as Russia and China. After WWII, the people in this country recognized and resisted the threat of communism. Increasingly, many of the people in our country are leaning more to the left, as can be seen by the support for an avowed Marxists Zohran Mamdani in NYC, Congresswoman Cortez, and Bernie Sanders. Charlie Kirk recognized this threat and created Turning Point USA to defeat it. He appealed to the rational side of human nature–not the emotional side as the Marxists do. He was willing to debate all-comers and did so in a non-defensive manner. His slogan was “Prove me wrong!” Unfortunately, most of those on the left do not want rational debate which they cannot win, so they hurl insults and use hateful labels against their political opponents. Recent polling shows that left leaning people are much more likely to accept violence as a way of dealing with their opponents. This is especially troubling since it occurs on college campuses where one would hope that rational debate would be the ideal.

Charlie Kirk was also not afraid to state and defend his religious beliefs. In fact, he acknowledged that his Christian faith was the basis for his political stance and the motivation behind is effort to challenge destructive Marxist indoctrination. It must be remembered that Marxism is anti-religion in any form. In fact, Marxists endorse what is called nihilism, which essentially states that life has no meaning and that there are no absolute morals. Basically, one is free to do whatever one wants without guilt. It is impossible to imagine a law abiding, successful culture without any guidelines on behavior and no accepted right or wrong. One can see this thinking in those who believe in unrestricted abortion and especially in transgenderism where not even one’s sex is predetermined. This philosophy leads to hopelessness, depression, and lack of conscience, which we are seeing in the senseless killings, many of which are by transgenders and other disturbed individuals. Charlie Kirk fought against this destructive philosophy by including Christianity in his appeal to younger people.

Another traditional value that Charlie Kirk emphasized was the importance of the nuclear family and the raising of children. Marxism discourages the traditional family, since they want people to rely on the government not family. This enables them to more easily control people. Charlie challenged men to get married and assume the traditional role of a man as the breadwinner, leader and protector of wife and children. He realized that the declining birthrate in America would eventually be its undoing, as has happened to many earlier civilizations such as Rome. Marriage and raising a family are the natural order of things that is rejected by the Left, leading many people to live lonely, disconnected, and unfulfilled lives.  The Bible also supports the idea of being fruitful and multiplying.

The Left is always accusing the conservative right of being dangerous because of their affinity for guns and the Second Amendment. The truth is that the Leftists are the actual fomenters of violence. Not only with actual or attempted assassinations, but as one can see, by comparing the reactions to the death of George Floyd and Charlie Kirk. George Floyd was a multiple offender who refused to obey the legitimate command of law enforcement officers responding to the commission of a crime. The result was months of riots, burnings, robberies and taking over parts of cities. Many deaths and injuries, as well as billions of dollars in property damage, were the result. Charlie Kirk, a law-abiding father of two who was engaging in rational debate on a college campus, did nothing wrong except hold beliefs opposed to by the left. The reaction by conservatives has been vigils, prayer services, and memorials to a true patriot. Actually, this comparison is all one needs to know about the true threat to our republic. Over 50,000 media posts have celebrated the assassination of someone who did nothing but stand up for American principles and his religious faith. Things the Left cannot stand.

To respect the legacy of Charlie Kirk, we conservatives must show the same courage and convictions that he did. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced. We must speak out as well as take action to rid ourselves of the Leftist ideology that is destroying our country. Getting involved and staying active in conservative organizations like the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association, supporting Turning Point USA, and attending school board meetings are some ways we can fight back against the Left. Because many of our universities are controlled by Leftist administrators and professors, I would like to see the Trump administration require all institutions receiving federal money, to balance the percentage of staff that are Left leaning with equal numbers of conservatives. Although extreme, it is going to take innovative action to reclaim the universities that are indoctrinating our children to hate America. Patriotism and love of country must be restored.

Dealing With Cybersecurity Threats from China

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.   

The liberal policy of dealing with the threat from communist China by opening up free trade and granting most favored nation status, like most leftist policies, is clearly not working. The idea was that if we treated the Chinese communist government like friends, they would see the error of their ways and become allies. China instead has become more belligerent and adversarial, and is clearly intent on becoming the world’s superpower and replacing American democracy with communism. They continue to take steps to weaken our influence and that of other democratic countries while aligning themselves with Russia and North Korea. China’s continuing support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is all the proof needed. Our economic policies have enabled China by to become the second largest economy in the world. The Chinese ever-expanding military is poised to exceed our military capability. We have been played for fools.

China believes in the concept of all-encompassing war, not just direct military action. For example, China continues to encourage and support the illegal flow of fentanyl into the U.S. which kills more people each year than died in the Korean and Vietnamese Wars combined. Another critical part of their plan is the war on cyber systems which are increasingly essential the operation of any modern society. Since Kevin Mandea, special cyber expert to the Air Force, several years ago detected and reported the Chinese cyber campaign that breached the security of 27 U.S. military bases with the aid of Chinese students at a west coast university, communist China continues to expand its hacking of essential cyber systems here in the U.S. While much of the hacking was initially directed towards private companies wanting to do business in China, the focus recently has been directed at critical infrastructure systems, such as transportation, oil pipelines, and the electrical grid. China’s goal is to develop the ability to shut down the internal systems essential to our country and thereby intimidate us into compliance with their objectives.

In 2015, when Xi Jinping assumed leadership in China, he pledged that China would become the superpower in cyber space. He has fulfilled that promise with expanded funding and training of enormous numbers of cyber experts far exceeding the number of such experts in the U.S. Paul Rosenzweig, a cyber expert and former assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security, recently told the Epoch Times newspaper that even though our cyber experts may have greater capability, we have 100,000 and they have a million.

In 2023, Microsoft dubbed the communist Chinese campaign as the Volt Typhoon. They reported that since 2021 they have been increasingly active against critical U.S. infrastructure. In 2024, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before congress that Volt Typhoon was “pre-positioned for disruption.” It was also reported that China was using its manufactured consumer electronic devices, such as Wi-Fi routers, computer servers, and cameras, to create a network to carry out cyber espionage operations.

As we can see, the threat from China is abundantly clear. So, what do we do about it? Fortunately, we have in President Trump a leader who recognizes the threat. Shortly after his inauguration this year, he re-emphasized the need to “mitigate, deter and defeat foreign adversaries in cyber, including China.” He also made similar commitments during his first administration. Not responding to China (and Russia) will just encourage them to continue. For example, what was the response from the Biden administration when China sent a spy balloon across our country–silence. This is unacceptable. It just showed weakness.

So, we need to retaliate in kind. Let them know that we have a system to attack their cyber systems if we are attacked. This is called deterrence–a tactic that was used during the cold war with the Soviet Union. We also need to address the reality that China is using the over 300,000 Chinese students attending our universities as potential espionage agents. Do we seriously believe that communist China funds these students to attend our universities because they cannot obtain a quality education in China? Or, as the leftists would have us believe, that they want their students to learn how a free and democratic country operates? They are being, and will continue to be, used to obtain research and technical information that China can use against us.  They should all be sent back to China, which would also permit the admission of over 300,000 Americans to these universities which we as taxpayers are funding in large part. Expanding the number of Chinese students as President Trump has mentioned should not be done.

Our lawmakers must get serious about the reality of the threat posed by China not only in the cyber area, but in other areas of concern. For example, China owning agricultural land in our country must be stopped and reclaimed. Also, allowing China to own the largest pork producing company in the U.S., Smithfield, is totally absurd and should also be undone. It is past time that we stand up and defend our interests before it is too late.

Digital Currency:  Threat to Freedom?

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D 

 Like all things, the high-technology revolution we are experiencing has both positive and negative possible outcomes. Those who advocate the new high-tech systems only tell us the positive side since they are the ones most likely to benefit financially. I strongly recommend that you read or re-read George Orwell’s novel, 1984. In that story, the author shows some of the ways that modern technological advances can negatively impact our most basic freedoms.

The January 6th investigation showcased how easy it is for the federal government to monitor our whereabouts using our cell phone locations. Our movements can be traced not only in the present, but also in the past. Many people were subjected to criminal charges because their cell phone location data indicated they were on the Capitol grounds on January 6th. In his prophetic book, Orwell relates how two of the characters had to arrange meeting in a forest in order to avoid being filmed and monitored together in public. The extensive use of digital surveillance cameras throughout our country has established exactly that scenario in today’s society. While one could argue that surveillance cameras are useful to identify law breakers, which is true, the cameras provide the capability for the government to use this information for nefarious purposes if it so chooses. Ask the innocent people caught up in the January 6th dragnet.

A couple of more mundane examples are the attempted use of GPS tracking data on automobiles by a city in the United Kingdom to put limits on how many miles a resident could drive from that city. How about the proposal by some of the environmental extremists to limit how many miles a person is allowed to drive per year to reduce fossil fuel consumption and emissions? Farfetched? Look at the mandatory system currently in place that slows down a diesel-powered truck to 5 MPH if there is a defect in the emissions control system that has not been corrected within a certain predetermined mileage limit? The point is that high tech is providing mechanisms for the government to control our lives in ways that were never anticipated years ago.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is another rapidly advancing technology that has the potential for very positive changes that may enhance human existence, but at the same time could be used to interfere with our freedoms in significant ways.

Now we come to the issue of digital currency, which is in the process of being implemented in several other countries. The Biden administration sanctioned the development of a proposal or plan for digital currency here in the United States. While not yet implemented, we could see it in the near future. Digital currency is a government-controlled system that does away with cash transactions and replaces them with a system of electronic data for all monetary transactions. Your wealth exists only as an electronic record somewhere in the digital world. The software even has what is called a digital wallet which is where your assets are stored for use in purchasing and selling. Why would anyone want this phantom money system? The main advantage according to advocates is that the government would have increased ability to manage the economy by monitoring and controlling the use of money. Of course, this would also allow the government to monitor and record all your purchases and expenditures.

Unlike credit cards and bank accounts today that use electronic accounting for deposits and withdrawals, the digital currency system bypasses the local banks and is managed directly by the federal government. Now, what could possibly go wrong with that? Well, actually several things. We continually hear about foreign entities successfully hacking into supposedly secure private business and government computer systems. What if these hackers destroyed the entire digital system? How about an attack on our electrical system? The old saying, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” applies here. Another issue is that the government could monitor and actually control how you spend your money. They could easily see what you are spending your money on and redirect it to items they deem more appropriate. For example–buying too many juicy steaks instead of beans. Of course, no government would ever do such a thing; or would a government that mandates unproven vaccines do so?

The bottom line is that a digital currency system, while it may have some advantages, would give the government almost unlimited capability to monitor and control our economic freedom to spend our own money as we see fit. By the way, which country is strongly moving towards a complete digital currency system? You guessed it; communist China. We must monitor where our legislators are on this issue if we are to preserve our freedom.

Defeating China Economically

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.   

It should be abundantly clear to every American by now that communist China is out to dominate the world and replace the United States as the most powerful nation. China is a threat not only to our country, but to western civilization as a whole. The breadth of their effort is mind boggling. They leave no stone unturned, in their effort to achieve world dominance. Sadly, many of our country’s leaders, until President Trump took office, have not only failed to recognize the threat, but in some cases have actually facilitated China’s efforts. To defeat an adversary, it is essential to recognize accurately the tactics they are employing.

The question facing us now is whether we can reassert our previous economic strength to ensure that China does not achieve economic dominance. Fortunately, President Trump not only recognizes the threat, but is determined to rebuild our economic prowess, particularly in manufacturing. For too long, our presidents have failed to take action to stop and reverse the transfer of our essential manufacturing capacity overseas. We have increasingly become a country of importers instead of producers, which not only makes us less wealthy and independent, but makes us militarily vulnerable.

The federal government has even contributed to the decline of manufacturing in this country by implementing unwise policies. One glaring example was the North Atlantic Fair-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed into law by President Clinton in 1994. This agreement resulted in many U.S. manufacturers moving to Mexico, and to a lesser extent Canada, particularly in the areas of food production, textiles, and automobile manufacturing. The result was the loss of over a million good paying jobs and the suppression of the wages of American workers. Also, our trade deficits with these two trading partners rose dramatically. Fortunately, President Trump in his first term was able to do away with NAFTA and negotiate a fair deal with Mexico and Canada. Another disastrous government action was the granting of permanent-most-favored-nation status to China in the year 2000. Permanent-most-favored-nation status had previously required annual approval by our president. As a result, many American companies rushed to take advantage of the much lower wages paid to Chinese workers as well as weaker environmental requirements and other factors by moving their manufacturing plants to China. As a result, our global trade deficit soared from $381 billion in 2000 to $945 billion in 2022.

Historically, we have rapidly declined from a manufacturing powerhouse to dependency on other countries. For example, it was largely the economic manufacturing capacity of America that resulted in the defeat of Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan during World War II. We were rightly called the arsenal of democracy since we not only were able to produce enough military equipment to meet our needs, but supplied these items to our allies. Even the Soviet Union benefited, since we provided over 30% of the military equipment they used to help defeat Nazi Germany. Clearly, a strong manufacturing capacity is essential to national security.

Here are some ways that we can regain our manufacturing capacity and ensure we are able to stand up to China as needed. First, we must insist on a level, fair playing field in our dealings with China and other countries. For example, Communist China provides substantial government financial support to their steel manufacturing companies. This makes it next to impossible for American companies to compete, since the Chinese can sell steel at prices that are actually below the cost of production. Communist China also requires our companies to turn over their manufacturing patents and technology if they want to do business in China. Communist China has consistently violated fair trade agreements and has begun using other countries as sites for their manufacturing to avoid tariffs and other restrictions. Not only should President Trump continue his tariff policies to reign in China but their status as permanent-most-favored nation needs to be revoked. Second, we must refocus our educational system to ensure sufficient skilled workers for an expanding manufacturing system in our country. We must get away from the college for all idea and refocus on the trades, engineering, robotics, and vocational training. Many college graduates spend inordinate amounts of money on useless college degrees that do not prepare them for available jobs and careers. The federal government spends billions of our tax payer money supporting colleges and universities. Much of these funds should be redirected to practical job skill training including apprenticeships.

President Trump has done a great job in the short period of time he has been back in office to return manufacturing to this country. He has incentivized American and foreign companies to build new manufacturing plants in our country. Congress needs to step up and confront the reality that we must not allow communist China to grow their economy at our expense. Competition must be fair and equitable, which it will never be with communist China. Americans need to be encouraged to “Buy American.” Our survival in an increasingly risky world depends on having a strong economy. We did it once, and must do it again.

 

President Trump:  Just Say No! 

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

 Recently, President Trump raised the question about legalizing marijuana for recreational use by having the federal government reclassify the drug to a different category which would remove government sanctions. As of today, 24 states have already decriminalized marijuana for recreational use. Forty states allow use of marijuana for medical purposes, usually requiring a doctor’s prescription. By contrast, in the European Union, while 28 countries allow medical use, only four countries (Netherlands, Malta, Luxembourg, and most recently Germany) allow recreational use. Before making a decision to further expand access to marijuana, we should consider the pros and cons, as should be done when making any rational decision.

The first question that needs to be answered is why do people want to take marijuana in the first place. A previous national report revealed that approximately 45% of people have tried marijuana at some time in their lives and 15% are regular users. Leaving medical reasons aside, the most often cited reasons for using marijuana are curiosity/experimentation, peer acceptance, reducing stress, enhancing pleasurable activities, lowering sexual inhibitions, and altering depressed/anxious mood. The so-called marijuana high is attributable to the THC levels in the marijuana plant itself. Unfortunately, the level of THC has been increasing dramatically over the years due to selective plant development. For example, the typical THC level in the 1970s was about 4%; whereas now it is 30 % with some samples as high as 90%, making marijuana much more potent and impactful on brain function. Also, the higher the THC levels the greater the likelihood of addiction and related mental health problems.

Research has shown that marijuana use can lead not only to dependency and addiction, but to respiratory and heart problems. More negative health effects are likely to be reported if more people begin using this drug. The greatest concern however, is marijuana’s recognized role as a gateway drug to other substances that are not only more potent and addictive but are likely to remain illegal such as cocaine, meth, etc. The use of deadly fentanyl in these drugs by the cartels is already the leading cause of death in this country of people aged 18 to 35, which is likely to worsen if marijuana use expands.

One could argue, of course, that people should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies including taking mind altering drugs. The question, however, is what is the impact on society when increasing numbers of people are taking these drugs. As China found out during the epidemic of opium use in the 1800s, the results can be devastating to the society as a whole. As the Director of Mental Health Services in the N.C. Department of Correction for many years, I became acutely aware of the connection between drug use and criminal activity. Many drug users resisted rehabilitation and just resigned themselves to being drug addicts incapable of change. We clearly see this today in the expanding homeless population, who willingly live in primitive conditions as long as they can obtain drugs and get high.

All humans encounter stress, anxiety, depressive moods, and other reactions as a normal part of living. The healthy person develops ways of coping with these issues and frustrations and ultimately leads a productive life. Choosing drugs as a way of coping with life’s challenges is not only destructive to the individual but to society as well. Does relying on marijuana make a person more industrious, better able to solve interpersonal problems, more self-confident, more morally responsible or a better spouse or parent? Obviously not. We, as a society should encourage and instruct people in healthy ways of dealing with life’s challenges.

The bottom line is this. Legalizing marijuana will increase access to this increasingly potent drug and create more helpless drug addicts. We have enough people who abuse alcohol as a coping mechanism without adding easy access to an even more potent substance with more addictive potential. By the way, China has been increasing expanding its role in the growing of marijuana in this country. They would surely love to see the use of marijuana expand among our people. A recent article in the Epoch Times related that younger people are beginning to return to religion as a source of meaning in their lives. Let’s hope that this trend will continue since religion has traditionally provided guidance and support for people as they deal with the stresses of life.

So, President Trump, please do not go in the direction of easing access to marijuana, but rather take President Reagan’s advice and “Just say no!”

Fear Tactics of the Left 

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D. 

Decision making by human beings is affected by both emotions and rational thought. Ideally, people should make decisions based on a reasoned assessment of the facts and the verifiable truth. Emotions can help motivate and energize, but may seriously interfere with making quality decisions that have lasting consequences. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, then President Franklin Roosevelt broadcast national weekly Saturday radio talks. On one of the broadcasts, he stated “…The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” Although, he was not one of my favorite presidents, he was correct about fear in particular and emotions in general. The leftists in this country consistently use fear to convince people to support their programs, most of which would seriously undermine our country and lead us down the path to communism. Let’s look at a couple of examples. 

The Trump administration’s Department of Energy recently released a report prepared by a panel of scientists about global climate change in general and CO2 emissions in particular. The report found that the harmful effects of CO2 from burning fossil fuels are overstated and exaggerated since they based on erroneous models. Any global warming that is occurring is more likely due to the variation in the sun’s output. There is also no evidence that extreme weather events are occurring more frequently than in the past. Sea level rises are not increasing above the historical average. Finally, the measures to combat so-called man-made climate change (e.g. solar and wind power) are more detrimental to the US economy (and the environment) than CO2 emissions. Actually, increasing CO2 levels accelerate plant growth and are good for agriculture and the food supply. Of course, the Left and the climate extremists are up in arms about this report. How dare they challenge the Left’s narrative! What is important to note about this report is that it was released with a request for comments and feedback from interested parties. It was not issued as a government decree or mandate more typical of the Biden administration. In reality, the report opens the door for rational discourse and debate. Unlike the Left’s tactics of using fear such as the world will end in 12 years or the oceans will rise and destroy our coastal cities, this is a rational way to deal with the issue of climate change.

Another example of the Left’s use of fear is all the nonsense we hear about President Trump wanting to be a dictator. Actually, President Trump is respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution as he has repeatedly shown by appointing constitutional conservative judges. Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to block his nominees for various appointments to the Executive Branch. He has the authority to make those appointments. Evidence continues to mount that the Obama administration tried to influence the 2016 election with false claims that Trump was in league with Russian President Putin. Instead of debating the issues rationally, the Left want us to fear President Trump.

While most clear-thinking Americans can see through this fear mongering, this is not true for youth of this country. High school and college age individuals do not have the experience or wisdom to see through all of these fear tactics; especially when hearing it from their teachers and professors. This is why it is important for parents to discuss these issues with their children. What we really need to fear is the radical leftists who are increasingly controlling the direction of the Democrat Party. Avowed Marxists like the Democrat New York mayoral candidate Zoran Mandani show how far to the Left the Democrats have shifted.

Rational debate, not fear and emotions, needs to return to the political arena. However, this requires that both sides actually have respect for facts and the truth. When one side cannot win based on rational debate, we can expect more fear mongering and personal attacks. That is all the Left knows how to do.

Addressing Social Security

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop PhD

A recent report indicated that Social Security is in worse condition than previously estimated and will be operating at a deficit by at least 2033 if not before. If no changes are made by Congress, social security benefits will have to be cut by about 23% to match payments into the program. Let’s take a look at what is causing the problem and potential solutions.

Currently, 74.2 million Americans receive Social Security benefits. This is about one fifth of the population. Eighty-seven percent of people over 65 years of age are currently receiving benefits. In 2023, this amounted to 1.4 trillion dollars or 23% of the federal budget. There are three types of benefits. The largest group, 67 million, is retirees who receive an average of $1,999 per month. The second group is 4.9 million people receiving Supplemental Security Income of an average of $1,581 per month. Lastly, there are 2.5 million receiving both types of benefits.

There are a few reasons for the solvency issues with social security. First is the percentage of employed workers paying into the system compared to the number receiving benefits. For example, in 1965 there were 4 workers for every person receiving retirement benefits. Now it is 2.7 workers per retiree. This trend is expected to continue. Second, people are living longer and due to the so-called Baby Boomer generation, the number retiring is at an all-time high. Also, the number of manufacturing jobs has been decreasing. This is due in part to allowing cheaper imports and the increasing use of machine-based manufacturing which lowers the number of workers needed. The third issue is the expansion of the Social Security programs from strictly a benefit for retirees, as intended by the original legislation creating the program in the 1930s, to income supplementation for the disabled. The definition of a disabled person has expanded from clear physical limitations to vague and less certain psychological disorders. The final problem is the declining birthrate. It takes a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman just to maintain a stable population. The current birthrate is 1.4 and declining.

The question is, “What options are available to keep the social security system solvent?” The Social Security program is not allowed to operate at a deficit, and therefore the problem must be solved before benefits exceed revenues. One option is to reduce the benefits paid to retirees. This would break the promise made by the program to workers who have paid into the system all their working years. This would also be a problem as the cost of living continues to increase. A second option would be to increase the qualifying age for receiving benefits. Because people are living longer, this would still allow a considerable number of years for the average person to receive benefits before they die. It would also maintain more people in the workforce to continue to contribute to social security program revenues. A third option would be to increase the rate of payment into the system by those employed. The question of fairness becomes a problem with this option since we would be increasingly requiring workers to pay for the retirement of others. More socialism. Also, the Big Beautiful Bill included a unique program that awards $1000 for each child born from 2025 through 2029 for parents to establish nontaxable-interest accounts that can be added to over the years.

None of these potential solutions will be easy for Congress since they all have potential political blow back. This is another example of social programs that continue to grow and expand until they threaten to bankrupt the system. In a truly free society, each individual should be responsible for earning and saving enough so they can finance their own retirement. Many people have done that and do not have to rely on Social Security.  This needs to be encouraged, and perhaps if Trump’s plans to expand the economy succeed, it will allow more people to achieve this goal. Relying on the government is always a bad idea.

Third Parties:  Shooting Ourselves in the Foot

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D. 

 Elon Musk recently made a comment about starting a third political party to provide an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats. He wrote on “X” that the so-called America Party is intended to appeal to the centrist voters who he believes make up 80% of those in the middle. Let’s examine why this is a terrible idea for anyone who wants to preserve the United States as it has existed for almost 250 years.

America has been essentially a two-party system since 1856 with the emergence of the Republican Party. Although no third-party candidate since then has ever won the presidency, there have been instances where they dramatically influenced the outcome of the presidential race. The Republican Party was formed before the Civil War as an alternative to the Whig and Democrat parties, neither of which was willing to take a definitive stance against slavery. The abolition of slavery was one of the main issues favored by the new Republican Party.

Forming an effective, winning third party is difficult in this country due to the existence of the Electoral College process and the creation of voting districts that permit only one person to be designated as the winner. In contrast, in parliamentary democracies, each party can use its winners to combine with other parties to elect a prime minister or president even though they are in the minority. That is exactly how Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany even though he received only 30% of the popular vote. Another obstacle to third parties is the primary election system where voters get to select their candidates in each party instead of party bosses.

However, in at least two notable instances, third-party candidates have garnered enough votes to determine who won the presidential election even though their candidate did not win. The first example was in 1912 when ex-president Theodore Roosevelt decided to withdraw from the Republican Party and form a third party called the Bull Moose Party. As a result, he split the conservative vote, receiving 27% while the Republican nominee William Howard Taft received 23%. This allowed Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win the presidency even though he only received 42% of the popular vote, considerably less than the 50% combination for Roosevelt and Taft. The second example occurred in 1992 when Ross Perot, running as a third-party candidate received 20% of the popular vote allowing Democrat Bill Clinton, who received only 43% to defeat Republican H.W. Bush who received 38%. In both cases the third-party candidate split the conservative vote, allowing liberal Democrats to win with considerably less than 50% of votes cast. Clearly, the Democrat Party would love to see Elon Musk launch a third party in time for the next presidential election in 2028.

Winning the presidency is not just a matter of spending money. If it were, then billionaire candidates would be favored to win. What really counts is a party organization that can do the grass roots work to get out the voters for their candidate. Also, getting on the ballot in most states requires varying amounts of voter signatures, which again requires a strong grass roots organization.

Another troubling thing is that Musk himself is not a natural born citizen since he was born in South Africa in 1971. This makes him ineligible to run for president himself. Consequently, some other person would have to be his third-party nominee. He became a naturalized citizen in 2002 after having immigrated to this country in 1992.

The bottom line is that we do not need recent immigrants, no matter how rich, determining the outcome of our elections. We, conservatives should not allow ourselves to be duped into thinking that a third party can do anything but hand the presidency to the leftist Democrats, who on their current path, will continue to move America towards socialism. Conservative tax payers must stay loyal to the only party that is for lower taxes, smaller government, and freedom to achieve our goals.

Developing Our Work Force

Posted on by

Author:   R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D. 

This country was built on the labor and work output of its citizens. President Trump, through many of his policies such as tariffs, eliminating unnecessary regulations, and encouraging cheap energy production is seeking to return manufacturing back to America. Once known as the manufacturing super power of the world, we have allowed ourselves to become dependent on other countries, especially communist China. Not smart.

Accomplishing the manufacturing goals he has set for our country will require not only government incentives and encouragement to build new factories and expanding existing capacity, but, most importantly, an effective and readily available workforce. Currently, it is estimated that there are close to 500,000 vacant jobs in the manufacturing sector of our economy. This problem was verified in a recent survey of 200 companies by the Manufacturing Institute. More than 65% of the companies surveyed reported that recruiting and retention of workers was the number one business challenge that they face.As manufacturers expand their production, this problem will only get worse unless steps are taken to expand available manufacturing workers. The problem will be made worse by the high percentage of manufacturing workers who are approaching retirement age.

One step that needs to be taken is to correct the false notion that modern manufacturing jobs are dirty, monotonous, and potentially dangerous. The reality is that current manufacturing takes place in high technology facilities that are safe and efficient. There is also the notion that manufacturing jobs are the purview of the lower class and are poorly paid. The reality in many cases is quite the opposite. Our younger people are being raised to believe that a college degree in just about any academic field will guarantee a successful well-paying career. As many graduates are finding out, that is not the case. The knowledge gained in many college majors does not align with what is actually needed in the real world. Tremendous amounts of money are expended on useless degrees that do not provide preparation for available jobs in today’s economy. Our country does not need more liberal arts degree graduates. College students should be encouraged and incentivized to pursue courses in engineering, technical training and financial skills needed by our expanding manufacturing companies. To give you an example, the son of a friend of mine graduated last year from college with a degree in the social sciences. Unable to find employment, he decided to take some courses in refrigeration and air conditioning at a local community college and immediately was able to get a good paying job with a local refrigeration company. It turns out that the small investment in courses at the community college, gave a much better return on investment, than his four-year degree.

Another step, would be increasing technical courses in high schools. Coupling this with part-time and summer jobs in the manufacturing sector will encourage students to pursue this type of career and job opportunity. Apprentice training should also be expanded.

Of course, the pay scale for manufacturing jobs must be sufficient to attract and retain skilled workers. President Trump’s tariffs should help make American manufacturing competitive with other countries. Penalties for stealing our manufacturing knowledge and advances must be put in place. For too long we have allowed countries like China to steal our intellectual properties. This is the only way we can ensure that the productivity of our workers will outpace other countries and allow us to pay higher wages.  While wages and career opportunities are primary incentives, we must also remove disincentives to work such as too many social and welfare programs that diminish the work ethic. Marxism destroys the motivation to succeed through hard work and encourages dependence on the government.

These suggestions should all help solve the worker shortage. We should not allow ourselves to rely on immigration as the source of needed workers. We are already having an assimilation problem in this country due the recent flood of immigrants. Immigration must be restricted to only those who are likely to accept our culture and traditions, otherwise we risk losing the essence of who we are as is happening in several European countries. We must focus on our citizens to provide what is needed to keep our country prosperous.

Should We Trust The Experts? 

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

We are frequently told “The experts say….” with the implication that we should trust the so-called “experts” who know better than we do. The question is, “How is that working out?” Logically, it seems to make sense to trust the opinion of those people who theoretically know more about a topic than we do. This is especially true in our increasingly complex and technical society.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, United States v. Skrmetti, refuted the argument raised by the plaintiffs (advocates for transgender altering medication and surgery on children) that lawmakers in Tennessee should go along with the experts when writing legislation and making law. In the 6 to 3 majority opinion, the judges ruled that the legislators in Tennessee had the right to enact a law abolishing gender-altering medication and surgery, regardless of the opinion of so-called experts such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association. According to the court, the common-sense wisdom of the people should take precedence over groups of experts. This was a decision of historic importance since it reasserted the principle of government by the people– not by some elite group.

Looking back over the recent past reveals numerous instances where the experts have been proven to be wrong. A far reaching and dramatic example is the experts who have been claiming that the earth’s climate will undergo devastating, irreversible warming if we do not cease burning fossil fuels. Turns out that all these predictions were founded on unproven data and mere speculation about the future. Computer models were used by the environmental extremists rather than verifiable scientific facts. Nevertheless, a large percentage of the expert worshipers went along, forcing us to demolish the greatest most economical source of energy in favor of expensive, unreliable solar and wind power generation.

A more mundane example was the expert’s war on the consumption of eggs that started in the late 1970s. We were told that eating eggs would raise deadly cholesterol causing an epidemic of heart disease. The fact that no definitive scientific proof existed at the time to validate this warning did not seem to matter to the experts. They knew what was best for us, and like a bunch of sheep, many of us just followed along. Recent evidence appears to show that not only does eating eggs not increase the risk of heart attacks, it may actually reduce the levels of LDL, the so-called bad cholesterol. I have not heard any of the experts apologize for the misinformation about eating eggs.

There are many other examples of the experts being wrong which lead to the question of why? How can this be the case? One factor is that many experts are not merely accumulators of facts, but already have a bias towards one side of an issue. Funding of research is frequently provided by organizations and corporations that stand to benefit from a particular outcome. For example, millions of Americans are taking statin medications to lower cholesterol and hopefully reduce the likelihood of a heart attack. The evidence for this is not as definitive as most of us would like, but the prescribing of statins certainly helps Big Pharma.

It is past time to listen to the advice of experts with a healthy level of skepticism. Wisdom is not a function of the number of degrees a person has accumulated. We must take upon ourselves the ultimate responsibility for decisions that affect our lives and not rely solely on experts. Fortunately, we live in an era where a great deal of information is readily available on the internet. We must trust our own judgement and weigh the facts and the sources of the information. We should have the courage to stand up to such absurd notions that a child can alter their gender despite the genetic differences imposed by nature. Of course, public education and universities staffed with extreme Leftists are a major source of much of the indoctrination we see in our society. This influence must be counter balanced by reasoned conservative staff and teachers to provide a balanced perspective. The common sense of the people must be allowed to manifest itself and not be controlled by over deference to the experts.

Failure to Assimilate: Creating Patriots

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

 We have a serious problem in this country which should no longer be ignored. That problem is the number of people in this country that not only do not love what America stands for, but, are hell-bent and determined to undo what we have built over the past and soon to be 250 years.

A recent poll reported that 49% of Democrats believe in the American way compared to 92% of Republicans. Quite a disparity. The two political parties could hardly be further apart on their love of this country. This was not always the case. In his inaugural address, Democrat President John F. Kennedy specifically called upon Americans to do what they could to support the American way of life. What does Barack Hussein Obama do? He goes on a world tour apologizing for America. In the 1980s, Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill met regularly and was friends with Republican Ronald Reagan deliberating on ways to move America forward on key issues. I cannot imagine Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer or Democrat Congressman Hakeem Jeffries working with President Trump in  a similar manner.

The question that needs answering is why so many members of the Democrat Party are moving so dramatically to the Left. In my opinion, there are at least two major reasons.

Number One is the influx of so many immigrants into this country over the past sixty years or so. Any country can only absorb a limited number of immigrants and still hope to maintain its political and cultural traditions, values, and beliefs. Not only does the number of immigrants matter, but also their country of origin. This country was built primarily on immigrants from Europe, most of whom shared Judeo/Christian values, and were more easily assimilated than immigrants from other countries with dramatically different values and traditions. The immigrants from countries that do not share our values increasingly make up a large portion of immigrants, especially illegals. Concern over the high number of immigrants resulted in Congress passing a law limiting the number of immigrants and actually establishing a series of quotas for each country. That law was in effect until Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy sponsored a bill that was passed and signed by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson that essentially removed immigration restrictions. The result has been a flood of immigrants, many illegals, that do not share our values and traditions. Sadly, President Reagan, who wanted to deport all illegal immigrants as President Eisenhower did in the 1950s, allowed himself to be talked out of deportation. We must not allow that to happen again. All persons here illegally should be removed.

The consequence of the no restriction immigration has been the move away from traditional America as we have known it and the election of people like Barack Obama, Kamela Harris, Illian Omar, and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez who bring leftist ideas with them. The recent nomination of Marxist Zohran Mandani for Democrat candidate for mayor of New York is another scary example.

Number Two is the failure of our public schools to teach the basic values and principles that made America great. We are no longer producing reliable patriots that love and respect this country. This is especially true in Democrat controlled cities and areas. Patriots are not born, they are made. The failure in this regard is most obvious in many universities where left leaning administrators and professors predominate. Polls consistently show that over 90% of college professors vote Democrat and conservative Republicans can scarcely be found on university campuses. President Trump’s efforts to remove federal funding of National Public Radio, a major leftist controlled media source, is long overdue.

So, what is to be done? First we need to return to restricted immigration with quotas. It worked before, and can work again. President Trump has shown what strong leadership can do to stop illegal immigration, but we must stop the rogue federal judges who continue to try to block him at every turn. Second, we must insist that universities receiving federal funds demonstrate that their administrative and teaching staff include equivalent numbers of conservatives. Allowing the Left to control our universities must be stopped. Now, these measures will require courage on the part of our elected officials, let’s hope they take this problem seriously and do something about it.

The Possible vs The Impossible

Posted on by

 Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

We are currently observing the realities of the legislative process in a true representative republic. President Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” has been a tedious process, but an absolutely crucial one. Our country has been so influenced by the Biden administration’s and the Democrat Party’s Marxist policies, that something drastic and comprehensive is needed if we are to reverse course and return to the traditional conservative values and policies that built this country.

 The first problem is that Congress has increasing gotten themselves into the habit of drafting very large, overly complicated bills instead of smaller bills ideally focusing on a single issue rather than a multiplicity of issues. The Big Beautiful Bill contains over 1900 pages and took over 16 hours to be read out loud on the floor of the Senate. While reading the bill out loud seems to make sense, the hypocritical Democrat senators who insisted on this did not even attend the reading! Just another effort to block the passage of the bill. One of the primary reasons that large multiple issue bills have become the standard is they allow congressman to attach issues that would likely never be approved if voted on individually. It also makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for the average citizen to understand what is actually in the bill and thereby evaluate whether their congressman is doing what they promised while campaigning.

 The second problem is the power and influence of big donors. Political campaigns are increasingly costly, requiring millions of dollars. While campaigns funded by the voters reflecting their wishes would be ideal, congressman are increasingly reliant on donors (like big pharmaceutical companies, and political action committees) for campaign funding. These big donors obviously expect to receive something for their investment which can unduly influence bill drafting and congressional voting.

The third problem is the grand standers. Senators like Rand Paul and, more locally, Thom Tillis have shown that making personal statements is more important than what is best for the country. All congressman should vote the wishes of their constituents if they truly believe in representative democracy. They are elected to vote for the what their voters want, not crusade for something they want. This is especially clear with Senator Tillis who states that he will vote with the Democrats and the hell with the Republican voters who elected him. This arrogance and violation of his duty to his constituents is typical of him. In fact, in June 2023, Senator Tillis was censured by the North Carolina Republican Party convention for supporting typical Democrat Party issues like LGBTQ rights, illegal immigration, and restricting citizens gun rights. He also voted for the Democrat so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which was in reality, a major funding of green energy scams. Facing a likely primary battle in the next election, instead of bowing out gracefully, he thumbs his nose at his constituents and President Trump by announcing he would join Senator Rand Paul and vote against the Big Beautiful Bill. I say good riddance to him.

The fourth problem is how large multi-issue bills will always contain items that individual congressmen oppose. How should they deal with this reality? All decision making in the real world includes pros and cons. Very rarely is a major issue without things we would prefer be different. The symbol of a two-sided scale works well here. We typically have to balance the good with the bad. The possible with the impossible. Given the realities of these multiple issue bills, accepting this reality is critical. Personally, I would have preferred more cuts to federal spending and regulations as well as downsizing government agencies. However, a good start was made in this direction and should be recognized. This bill represents the possible and deserves support as does President Trump.

Freedom to Succeed or Fail 

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

 This Independence Day represents the 240th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.   Historically, many countries founded on democratic principles did not survive this many years.  If we want our country to survive for the benefit of our children and grandchildren, we have to recognize and deal with the problems that are a threat to our country’s existence.  Abraham Lincoln once said that America would never be destroyed by external enemies but if we are destroyed it would be from within.  That statement is increasing self-evident today as we see what is happening in many areas of our country, particular the cities run by extreme leftists, and our schools and universities.

The Founding Fathers were adamant that for America to succeed and endure, the citizens must manifest the values and beliefs essential to a republican form of government.  They were referring to traditional Judeo-Christian values.   Liberty and freedom were the essential goals of the American Revolution.  Freedom, however, is a two-sided coin.  True freedom only exists when citizens not only have the ability to succeed by their own efforts and just rewards, but importantly are also allowed to fail if they do not put forth the effort to succeed.  America has long been viewed as the “Land of Opportunity,” not the land of government support and welfare.  Sadly, many Americans no longer believe that people should be responsible for the just outcomes of their efforts, frugality, and work ethic.

The basic Marxist principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to their need” is the direct opposite of freedom and is increasing being ascribed to by some of our citizens.   This has produced ideas such as participation trophies, reparations, guaranteed income for all, and student loan forgiveness.  Human nature is not inherently industrious, quite the opposite in many cases.   Who would not prefer to inherit a million dollars rather than being born into poverty and having to earn it?  Marxism appeals to our flawed human nature, whereas democratic freedom requires citizens to take responsibility for themselves and not depend on others.   Behavioral science is clear, if you want responsible hard-working citizens, clear examples of how to behave must be presented and a system of rewards for diligence and self-responsibility has to be in place.  This must also include the freedom to fail when the effort is not made.

What is the woke left teaching?   They tell children that they are inherently good and worthy of love and success, regardless of their behavior and effort.  They even tell them that they can be any gender that they prefer.  There are no limits to what they can do or deserve.  Also, many of our schools and universities teach that if a person is not successful, especially if they are a member of some minority, then it is because they are a victim of oppression and unfairness, not because of their lack of effort.  Victimization is the bedrock of Marxism and justifies hatred for the successful members of society, leading in many cases to revolution.  Ironically, they demand free stuff and in so doing destroy the very system that created the goods and services they want.

So as we celebrate Independence Day, let us recommit ourselves to model and teach the essential values of freedom and personal responsibility and reward only those who practice these values.  America is the greatest of countries because we have encouraged and rewarded people who are freedom loving, hand working and industrious.  This must be continued if America is to exist as we know it.   We must fight against the radical left that wants to destroy this country.   You can see it in many places.  It is time to renew our effort to save our country from the slide towards Marxism.

God Bless America!

Reining In The Federal Reserve

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

 President Trump is engaged in an ongoing struggle with Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve (Fed) over interest rates. Interest rate levels are set by the Fed and have a substantial impact on the growth of the economy and the national debt. President Trump believes that economic growth is essential for the security of the country but also essential to making America Great Again.  It is important to note that Jerome Powell was not elected by the people whereas President Trump was. Consequently, this issue is directly relevant to whether power belongs to the people as intended by the Founding Fathers or to appointed bureaucrats.

 Historically, the Federal Reserve (essentially the national bank), did not exist until it was created in 1913 as a result of a secret meeting of bankers who drafted the legislation in Jekyll Island, Georgia. The bill creating the Fed was signed into law by Democrat president Woodrow Wilson, who was a leftist. President Andrew Jackson was instrumental in doing away with the previous national bank during his administration in the 1830s, primarily because he believed the national bank had too much power and that Congress should decide important economic policies. The goal of the legislation creating the Fed in 1913, was to create a more “elastic” currency and control the banking industry by creating 12 member banks making up the Federal Reserve system. They would set interest rates on federal bonds as well as the money supply. Remember, this was a time when there was a heated debate over whether to do away with gold as the basis for our money supply. The paper dollar switched from representing a certain amount of gold or silver (which you could redeem), to faith in the promise of the federal government: the so-called promissory note. If you look at the top line on a dollar bill, it now says “Federal Reserve Note.” I remember in my youth that it used to say “Silver Certificate.” Also, remember that in the 1930s, Democrat president Franklin Roosevelt, required all citizens to turn in their gold coins to the government to be replaced by paper money. What all this tells us is that the Federal Reserve has essentially total control over the monetary system of the country.

One of the main functions of the Fed is to use interest rates to control economic growth as well as inflation. Lower rates encourage businesses to borrow so they can expand, resulting in more hiring. Consumers also buy more since mortgage rates and credit card rates go down. Raising interest rates by the Fed is usually done to decrease inflation since it slows economic growth and spending. Since President Trump has been in office, the inflation rate has dropped substantially, surprising most economic experts. President Trump wants the Fed to lower rates so more people can afford to buy homes and other consumer items, which would result in economic growth. He also knows that lowering interest rates will reduce the amount of payment necessary to service the 37 trillion-dollar national debt, which is approaching one trillion dollars a year.

 The Fed has recently announced that they do not intend to lower interest rates in the near future, which is in direct opposition to the president’s request. Since the people selected President Trump to run the country for the next four years, doesn’t it make sense that he should be able to dictate the interest rates consistent with his agenda?

 If so, Congress needs to rein in the independence of the Federal Reserve so that they act in an advisory rather than decision making authority. If not, what would prevent the Fed from using their existing authority to undermine a president with whom they have political differences? A president should be free to exercise his authority to enact the policies and actions that the people who elected him have reason to expect,