Tag Archives: R. Alan Harrop

The War Against School Choice

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

The Left is at it again:  opposing anything and everything that allows people to exercise their guaranteed right to freedom of choice for themselves and their families. This effort to create an all-powerful and controlling government is an essential part of the Marxist playbook–to substitute the government for the family and individual liberty. I am referring to what is currently happening in the North Carolina General Assembly (GA). At the beginning of each legislative session, legislators have the opportunity to introduce what amounts to large numbers of bills that they would like to become law in the state. Several bills have been introduced that if enacted would impact significantly on school choice here in North Carolina.   Let’s take a look.

Over the past several years, the Republicans who have controlled both the Senate and the House have enacted legislation that has greatly expanded the freedom of parents to select the school of their choice for their children. This has been primarily through the so-called Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides stipends to parents (who apply for the money) that can be applied to help pay for private school tuition and related expenses. Due to income limits and limited funding for the program, not all parents who apply receive the stipends.

As could have been anticipated, the Left is up in arms about this program because it enables parents to remove their children from government controlled public schools. Never forget, that all autocratic governments throughout history have always insisted on controlling public schools and what they teach. This is how they stay in power:  indoctrinating the children. Some recent examples are Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI); teaching that America is a racist country; teaching that everyone is free to choose their own gender; and biological men competing against women in sports. Parents want the freedom to choose schools that teach the values and principles they believe in and not this leftist woke ideology. They also want their children to attend schools that are successful in teaching basic academic skills, which many of the government run public schools fail to do. By the way, there is nothing in the U.S. or N.C. constitutions that require children to attend only government-run public schools. There are, however, groups like Public Schools First N.C. and the N.C. Teachers’ Association that want to do away with parent’s right to choose the school their children attend. Governor Josh Stein also appears to be against school choice.

Here are a few items in this year’s General Assembly that should concern all conservatives who believe in school choice. First, there are a couple of bills that seek to raise teacher pay. Importantly, however, none of these bills so far include any requirement that pay increases be linked to the job performance of the teachers. Given the fact that many children are failing to meet minimum grade requirements for reading and math, teacher pay should, to the greatest extent possible, be linked to the demonstrated effectiveness of the teachers in improving the educational achievement of their students. Otherwise, where is the incentive to improve teaching effectiveness? Second, Senate Bill 744, would place a number of extreme, government controls on private schools such as:  annual audits of their finances by the state treasurer’s office; requiring that a minimum of 50% of teachers in privates schools be certified by the state; private schools will not be permitted to raise their tuition by more than 5% a year; and private schools (including church affiliated) cannot select students based on their religion or stated gender. This would prevent all girls or all boys schools, and also require, for example, a Jewish school to admit Muslims students.

Lastly, a bill introduced, which I strongly favor, to allow homeschool parents to apply for an Opportunity Scholarship stipend has finally been introduced. Homeschool parents pay as much taxes to support education in North Carolina as any other parent; and in addition, make significant financial sacrifice in order to teach their children themselves, which is a basic freedom of our country. But who is opposed to this fair and equitable bill? The usual leftist suspects I mentioned above.

If you believe in school choice, now is the time to let your elected legislators know. In truth, the best solution to the school choice issue is to grant parents a set amount of money to be used for them to homeschool, or select a public, charter or private school for their children. All schools would then be treated equally as far as funding is concerned. Accountability for student learning should be the same for all types of schools consisting of standardized testing for strictly academic subjects. The money awarded should be independent of income level and guaranteed every year without having to enter a lottery to get the stipend. There are other states who handle school choice in the manner. North Carolina needs to do so also.

Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.   

The issue of whether we will allow Iran to have nuclear weapons is at the point of no return. For years, America has taken the position that Iran, the primary sponsor of terrorist activities in the world, should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. The time has come to put up or shut up.

Iran, an Islamist state ruled by a religious leader since their overthrow of the Shah in January 1979 (during the weak Carter administration), has vowed the destruction of Israel and death to America. Are they just saying these things or do they really mean it? Hitler, in his book “Mein Kampf,” written before he assumed power in Germany, stated his intention to eliminate the Jews. His actions while in power showed that he meant it. We should take the Iranian regime leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, at his word when he advocates the death of Israel and America. We would be fools not to. This is especially true because the Ayatollah has the backing of his religious beliefs. A few years ago, I had a conversation with a neighbor who did not believe that the Koran (the Muslim equivalent of the Bible) advocated the killing of infidels (anyone who does not believe in the Muslim religion) if they did not convert. With a brief review, I was able to identify ten quotations from the Koran than not only justify, but in some cases advocate, the killing of non-Muslims. I am sure that all of you have heard of the reward in their heaven of 30 virgins for killing non-Muslims. Clearly, Islam is not a religion of peace; it is quite the opposite.

So here we are at a decision point. Iran is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon capability and has already produced missiles that can strike Europe and soon our country. Why would any peace-loving country pursue this objective? Also, we know without a doubt that Iran has been providing weapons to their terrorist affiliates like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, who have been shutting down the shipping lanes to Europe from the far East. Iran has also violated all previous and current agreements to restrict their uranium production that would allow them to produce nuclear warheads. Instead of pursuing a policy to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons, Presidents Obama and Biden have facilitated their uranium enrichment by sending billions of dollars to their government without restrictions. So much, for a clear and definitive policy.

Looking back in history, we can clearly see that evil leaders do evil things, including starting wars that result in the killing of millions of innocent people. Sadly, technology has made war started by these evil people more and more destructive and deadly. Nuclear weapons in the hands of evil extremists threaten the existence of civilization as we have known it.  The risk of nuclear destruction is a direct function of the number of countries that have nuclear capability. The more countries with nuclear weapons, the more likely some evil person in one of those countries will find a reason to use them. Then all hell will break loose and the destruction of civilization will occur.   We have to have the courage not to let this happen.

As we have seen in many wars, including Putin fighting with Ukraine, the leaders who start these wars do not care how many of their own people are killed; to say the least their enemies. Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Zedong could have cared less about military and civilian deaths. The only possible hope is to limit the war-making ability of countries who have demonstrated evil intentions. It is time for America to stand up to the reality that Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be stopped. The fact that President Trump has increased our military presence near Iran with aircraft carriers and B 52 bombers shows a serious intention to stop Iran, one way or the other. Let’s hope that their nuclear program can be stopped without military action. Personally, I doubt it. If not, a joint attach by Israeli and U.S. forces should be initiated to remove the nuclear threat from Iran.

Fluoride Controversy is Back

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

Some of you may remember the controversy that occurred decades ago when the decision to place fluoride in municipal water systems occurred. The issue of fluoride in drinking water has been brought up again by the new Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources, Robert Kennedy, Jr. He has long been an advocate of ensuring that toxic chemicals should be eliminated, to whatever extent possible, from our food and drinking water. In fact, being placed in a position where he could influence this long-time major concern of his is part of the reason he may have decided to support President Trump’s campaign in 2024. Certainly, sounds like a reasonable concern and something we should care about.

Apparently, the primary concern about fluoride in drinking water is the suspicion that it may be causing the increase in childhood autism which has been reported over several years. Autism is a neurological developmental disorder that shows deficits in social communication and interaction with others, and restrictive, repetitive behavior and activities. Ability to relate to others is compromised. The symptoms of autism are usually observed in young children between two and three years of age. The symptoms may continue indefinitely. This can lead to difficult social adjustment and learning. Although autistic symptoms in children were reported in the 1920s and 1930s, the diagnosis of autism as a mental/behavioral disorder did not occur until 1980, when it was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMIII) by the American Psychiatric Association. The incidence of diagnosed autism was reported to be 1 in 88 children in the year 2000 and has risen to 1 in 31 children by 2024, obviously, a large increase. It should also be noted that autism diagnoses are approximately four times higher in boys than girls. An interesting side note is that another childhood diagnosed condition, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), has also shown a significant increase from 6% of children in 1998 to over 10% in 2024.

Issue number one in the discussion of whether fluoride in drinking water is causing an increase in autism is the accuracy and reliability of diagnosing autism. Unlike most physical illnesses that are verifiable with reliable laboratory tests, the diagnosis of autism, like most mental illnesses, relies on considerable judgement on the part of the diagnostician either through direct observation or reported information by parents, teachers, and others. Consequently, reliability is less definitive. Also, importantly, one only finds something when you are looking for it. Whereas now a child’s behavior may be justification for a diagnosis of autism, years earlier, the child’s odd behavior might have been attributed to being a loner or introvert or “that’s just Johnny.” For example, years ago a child who was hyperactive and unruly may have just been considered undisciplined.

The second issue that must be addressed is whether any incidence of increased autism is directly caused by the fluoride levels. Fluoride is a naturally occurring element in nature and is frequently found in surface and well water. In fact, it is the 13th most abundant element and can be found in oceans, soil, and plants. The fact that two things increase together does not prove that the increase in one causes the increase in the other. This is the difference between correlation and causation; the latter being more difficult to prove but critical to actual science and must not be forgotten when dealing with this enquiry.

A third issue is the overwhelming evidence that fluoridation has dramatically reduced the occurrence of dental cavities, especially in children. The original study of 300,000 children, conducted in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan showed a dramatic decrease of 60% of children’s dental cavities. In fact, the American Dental Association, which supports widespread water fluoridation, states that stopping water fluoridation would “ …take away the most effective, efficient, and equitable way for dental disease prevention.” Currently, about two thirds of the American population consumes fluoridated drinking water. On the other side, there has been a recent study that showed that fluoridated water may be negatively impacting children’s IQ, although that study used levels of fluoride twice the level allowed in drinking water. There is also concern about suspected thyroid and arthritis impacts. Assessing what levels may be safe certainly appears warranted.

The final issue, is one of control and freedom of choice, which are always important. Who gets to decide whether you consume fluoride in your water? In most places it is the state or local government. Secretary Kennedy appears to be of the opinion that fluoride should be treated like any medication to the extent that the individual ( or child’s parent) should make that decision. Not sure how that would be instituted, but it seems to make sense.

Secretary Kennedy, along with the Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin, announced that they would refer this matter to the Community Services Community Task Force, an independent panel composed of public health and prevention experts, to study this matter and develop recommendations. Sounds like a reasonable action to take. Let’s hope they do not throw out the baby with the proverbial bath water!

NPR and PBS: What Should Be Done?

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

Congress has recently been holding hearings on the National Public Radio (NPR).  The issue is whether NPR, and to a lesser extent, its related television organization Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), are politically biased and whether they should continue to receive federal taxpayer funding.  President Trump has consistently maintained that these two media outlets are consistently against conservative principles and messages and are strongly biased towards supporting leftist ideology.  Let’s take a look at some facts and see what should be done, if anything.

The NPR was created in 1967 by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, and at the time was totally funded by the federal taxpayer.  NPR consisted of a centralized program content and opinion service that was made available to local affiliated stations throughout the country.  Their offices are in Washington, D.C. and in Culver City, CA, not exactly centers of conservative thought.  Over the years, both NPR and PBS have reduced their dependence on federal taxpayer funding and now receive a majority of their funding from private corporations and individuals.  Consequently, the actual burden on the taxpayer is minimal.

The issue of their left-wing bias is more dramatic and, in many ways, more problematic.  An examination of their management structure is revealing.  Most, if not all, of the members of the board of directors of NPR/PBS are registered Democrats and/or donors.  Their current CEO, Katherine Mayer who testified before a Congressional committee, holds an undergraduate degree in Middle East and Islamic Studies and served in the Hillary Clinton State Department.  The issue of NPR bias has been raised for many years.  In fact, the Reagan administration and Congress in 1983 proposed steps to cease taxpayer funding of NPR because of anti-conservative bias complaints against NPR.  Interestingly, over the years there have been surveys and studies showing that NPR does indeed have a bias as alleged.  In fact, one of their own staff members, Business Editor, Uri Berliner, documented that bias on several occasions.  One occasion was in 2016 when Trump first ran for the presidency.  Another incident occurred during the 2020 election when NPR refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story, which many political pundits believe was a major factor in Biden being elected.  Even the present CEO of NPR, Katherine Mayer, admitted during recent testimony that hiding the Hunter laptop story was an act of bias on the part of NPR and should not have happened.  It should be noted that NPR left Twitter after Elon Musk purchased that platform and listed NPR as a government affiliated news source.   Guess, they did not like the truth.   There is also ample evidence to support the accusation that NPR has been pro-Hamas and the Palestinians, in the current conflict with Israel.

As far as the audience for NPR is concerned, a recent poll showed that 87% of listeners are Democrats and only 12% are Republicans.  Clearly, the fact that the broadcast content is favoring one side of the political divide is obvious to the listeners.  Of concern is that many of the local stations that broadcast NPR, are affiliated with universities and the listeners are predominantly college graduates/students.

So, what we have here is a leftist biased media platform that was originally started by the federal government that has morphed into a biased left wing media platform funded mostly by private sources.  While they may be unduly influencing university students and younger people, the conservative audience appears fully aware of what ideology is supported by NPR; and has obviously chosen other media platforms.  There appears to be two options for conservatives.  The first is to cease all federal taxpayer funding as proposed in legislation by Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-TX; or second, to leave the funding in place and use it to apply pressure for a less biased and more balanced programming and content.  Holding NPR accountable to the public as was done in the recent Congressional hearings may be the most effective.  We will see what Congress decides.

Tariffs:  Good or Bad?

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

Well, President Trump has done it again– kept his campaign promise about tariffs and putting America first.  This action, was the most dramatic and far-ranging impactful action by any president in quite some time.  Essentially, the whole world will be affected.  Before we can answer the question of whether these tariffs will be good or bad, we need to examine what they are intended to do.  While we cannot read President Trump’s mind as to his intentions, we can get a pretty good idea from his many comments about the problems facing this country.  Let’s check them out.

First, the national debt, currently at $ 36.8 trillion, which amounts to $93,500 for every man, woman, and child in this country, is clearly unsustainable and growing.  No country has ever survived that much debt without a total economic collapse.  How long do we have to address the debt crisis?  Based on their lack of action, according to most of our elected officials, there is no urgency.  Common sense, which is the guiding principle of the Trump administration, tells us otherwise.  Since the trade deficit with other countries is a major contributor to the national debt, the tariffs are a good place to start, since they directly attack the substantial trade deficit we have with other countries, which is now over $1.2 trillion per year.

Second is the loss of wealth creation.  Until recently, America offered the highest standard of living in the world.  How were we able to achieve this?  Through industrial manufacturing–that’s how.  From the mid- 1800s to the end of World War II, the manufacturing capacity of America was without equal.  A cursory examination of what we were able to produce during World War II shows that our label as the “Arsenal of Democracy” was based on our manufacturing capacity.  Not only did we arm ourselves in record fashion, but we were able to supply our allies, who would have been defeated without our arms supplies.  Converting raw materials into usable products using advanced manufacturing processes is the basis of wealth creation in the modern world.  Where are we now?  Over the past 50 years, we have been losing our manufacturing capacity at an alarming rate.  Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing plants have been closed in this country with the loss of millions of good paying jobs.  Looking back to the 1950s and 60s, it was typical that the man was the bread winner, and on his salary could support a family and own a home.  Now it takes two salaries and the cost of housing is beyond the reach of many.  This decline is primarily due to the globalization of the world economy and the policies that encouraged manufacturing to move to other countries where labor is much cheaper.

Third is national security.  In order to defend ourselves, it is necessary to maintain a strong military, which again relies on advanced technology and manufacturing.  For instance, we have 4 ship-building facilities in this country.  Our most immediate adversary, China, has 24 and leads the world in ship construction, both civilian and military.   Does China have the natural resources they need for their manufacturing?  Of course not–they get them from other countries, including us.  Many of the policies of the Left have contributed to the manufacturing demise–such things as excessive regulations, green energy mandates, DEI, etc. have complicated the operation of manufacturing plants, causing them to relocate to other countries to stay in business.  As we learned during Covid, obtaining medicines and essential medical supplies from other countries is potential social suicide especially in the case of war.

Fourth is the demise of the middle class.  The discrepancy between the top earners and lower groups has widened considerably.  The American Dream of economic advancement through hard work is seriously ill and getting sicker.  Excessive wealth disparities can lead to resentment and disillusionment that is not good for the unity of the country.

Fifth is unfair treatment by other countries.  If you were able to watch President Trump’s presentation about tariffs, it was clear that we have allowed ourselves to be taken advantage of by many other countries.  The idea of free trade that many economists have been preaching assumes a level of fair play that currently does not exist with many of our trading partners.  The have value-added taxes, forbid the import of certain items, and manipulate the value of their currency in order to maintain a trading advantage..  They get richer; we get poorer!  Pretty dumb on our part, wouldn’t you say?

There are other problems that President Trump hopes to address through the implementation of this ambitious tariff plan.  Obviously, these problems have existed for many years and addressing them is long overdue and will take time to accomplish.  Will there be some pain involved?  Of course–an omelet cannot be made without cracking the egg.   As the Left attacks him for his plan, I have not seen any of them present their own plan to solve this economic crisis.  The Left is quick to criticize, but presenting effective solutions is not something the Leftists ever do.  That is part of the reason we are in this fix.  So, let’s give President Trump’s plan a chance to succeed and support his efforts.  Doing nothing is not acceptable, and thank God we have a President who is dedicated, courageous, and willing to fight for this country he loves.  Many of our other presidents were not.

 

Defeating the Cartels

Posted on by

Author:   R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.              

Over the past several years, the Mexican drug cartels have been responsible for the deaths of more American citizens than all previous wars we have fought. Illegal drugs, and especially deadly fentanyl, prepared and sent across our southern border have been allowed to enrich the criminal cartels. Aided by China, which provides the ingredients and expertise to produce these drugs, and the Biden administration’s open border policy, the cartels have become a force to be reckoned with. They have accumulated wealth that has allowed them to purchase sophisticated weapons and technology more like a modern army than a gang of criminals. A recent report showed that over the four years of the Biden administration, the drug cartels made over $13 billion–truly a staggering sum.

In president Trump’s recent speech to Congress, he stated that the drug cartels have been waging a war on us and it’s time for us to wage a war on them. The question becomes how do we go about it. The first thing in any war is to fully understand the capabilities of your enemy. According to a recent article in the Epoch Times, the drug cartels not only have ample supplies of the usual firearms and weapons, but now have undetectable drones, military grade encryption, and even access to the Israeli created Pegasus spy system that can break into any cellphone system undetected. The drones are used to ferry drugs across the border, surveil our military bases, and carry explosives with pinpoint accuracy. They are equipped with self-contained GPS guidance that does not require detectable guidance from a central location, making them untraceable.

In addition to their increasing technological advancement, the cartels are recognizing the potential threat from the Trump administration and banding together as a united force instead of separate entities. They are being aided by the Chinese, who continue to provide technical support and training. The Attorney General of Oklahoma, Gentner Drummond, has reported that due to the pressure exerted on the cartels by Texas Governor Abbott, the cartels are increasingly using Oklahoma as their base of operations within the United States. Many of the centers for these activities are the marijuana farms which were created when Oklahoma legalized medical marijuana and are now being controlled by cartels and Chinese immigrants

What are our options in defeating this enemy? Direct military intervention is complicated by the obvious fact that they are mostly controlled from within Mexico and not directly accessible to our forces. Trump has once again put pressure on Mexico to close the border and help eliminate the cartels as he did in his first administration. These efforts should reduce the money going to the cartels. It remains to be seen how effective this will be since in many ways the drug cartels control the Mexican government, especially locally. Before fighting an enemy, it is crucial to define what the endgame will look like. Viewing the drug cartels as terrorist organizations like Isis may provide effective blueprint. The most effective strategy appears to be a counterinsurgency operation that targets the cartels’ operational structure. A covert special operations campaign to take down the cartels appears to be the best option at this time. We will need the cooperation of Mexico and the will to take this on.

I believe that President Trump has the will to deal with this and is truly concerned about saving the lives of our people, unlike the previous administration. Let’s get to it.

Should Trump Ignore the Lower Courts?

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D. 

The Left is at it again. They lost the last election to President Trump by a large margin, but since they do not respect the voice of the people, they are now using the courts to block his administration’s efforts to do what he promised the people. Remember, this is not just an attempt to block President Trump, but to negate the will of you the voters. Let’s look at some facts.

The reality is that our country is increasingly being run by unelected, lifetime-appointed judges. Just as we saw the left pursue lawsuits against President Trump to prevent Americans from being able to vote for him and elect him, the left is now judge-shopping for Democrat appointed judges to delay and block his actions. Whether they ultimately win or not, their tactics are to slow down and keep him from restoring this country to what the Founding Fathers intended. Never forget–with the Biden administration we were on a course towards socialism/communism that would have been difficult if not impossible to reverse had Kamala Harris won the election. We cannot let this opportunity to restore America be blocked.

The U.S. Constitution created three branches of government:  the legislative, executive, and judicial. Importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court is the only federal judicial entity mentioned in the Constitution. Currently, there are 677 authorized federal district judge positions all of which are appointed for life. A significant majority of these judges were appointed by Obama (329) and Biden (235). Consequently, the Left has no trouble finding a judge to support their socialist agenda. Another critical aspect of the federal judicial system is that a decision made by a single federal judge in an isolated district is now allowed to overrule the President who in Trump’s case was elected by a large margin of the voters. So here we have the top authority in the executive branch being overruled by a single minor judge in the judicial branch. Do you believe the Founding Father’s intended this? I don’t. Makes no sense whatsoever. But that is what we are living with at this moment in time. One man, an unelected judge, overrides the will of the people!

There is a historical event that dealt with this on at least one occasion. President Andrew Jackson, when told that a judge on the Supreme Court had overridden his action against establishing a federal bank, said to the effect: “…he made his decision, now let’s see him enforce it”.    A major case in point now is a decision by a federal district judge named Boasberg (appointed by Obama) that threatens to derail Trump’ s efforts to deport illegal aliens connected to Venezuelan gangs or otherwise here illegally. Deporting these criminals is an action supported by a large majority of Americans.  By the way, we should note that President Eisenhower was able to deport over 3 million illegals on his own authority in the 1950’s without court interference. President Trump believes that the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 gives him the authority to deport members of foreign terrorist groups.  Of course, the hair-splitting Leftists are saying that the law only refers to enemy “countries” not terrorist groups. The fact that there were no organized terrorist groups at that time does not bother the Leftists who are using this parsing of the language to stop Trump. That is typical lawyer strategy that once again defies common sense.

So, what should Trump do?   If he allows these judicial rulings to stop him, it is likely his term of office will be over before they are resolved.   On the other hand, if he defies this minor federal district judge, he will be protecting the security of the people in this country and fulfilling his election promises. Ask yourself, what would you do if you were in his place and knew that you were doing the will of the people not some leftist judge? Now, some have argued that if Trump defies the judge he could possibly be impeached. This is highly unlikely since the Republican’s control the House of Representatives who would have to initiate the impeachment. Politically, this would be the death knell of the Democrat Party to defy the will of the people, as demonstrated in the last election. Not a hill they would choose to die on. Even if President Trump were successfully removed from office, I am certain that Vice President Vance would stay with the same policy, so it would avail the Democrats nothing.

When in a crisis situation, oftentimes bold action is needed. The future of the country is at stake. This is worth considering by President Trump.

A Good Start With Energy

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

President Donald Trump is fulfilling all of the promises he made during his campaign for the presidency. He is truly a man of his word. Now if we can get the leftist, activist, federal judges appointed by Obama and Biden to act according to their oaths to uphold the law and constitution instead of following their leftist ideology and agenda, the country could be restored as all true Americans desire.

One of President Trump’s most important campaign promises was to stop the destructive implementation of green energy initiatives and mandates.  He has already taken significant steps at the federal level to save our economy from excessively restrictive and costly wind and solar electricity generation which will help with reducing electricity costs. It is now time for the North Carolina General Assembly to step forward and do likewise.

In this regard, there was very good news this past week when the Republican controlled Senate passed Senate Bill 261 that removes the requirement that electrical energy producers in North Carolina (essentially Duke Energy) reduce C02 carbon emissions by 70% by the year 2030. This mandate was originally passed in 2021 and was much debated and ill advised to say the least. A study by the Public Staff of the N.C. Utilities Commission reported that the mandate was impossible for the electrical energy producers in North Carolina to meet, and if the effort to do so was continued that the estimated cost to consumers was estimated to be a whopping 13 billion dollars! As expected, a group of Democrats voted not to remove the mandate in spite of this horrendous cost. For now, the mandate that electrical energy generation in N.C. reach a net zero carbon emissions standard by 2050 was left in place. Let’s hope the General Assembly removes that ridiculous mandate in the near future.

Interestingly, a resolution to remove the C02 emissions standard was passed by a local party precinct last year and may have had an influence on this legislation. Shows that local activism can have an impact.

However, more needs to be done. State tax subsidies are being used to significantly expand solar farms and wind turbine generators here in North Carolina to the financial benefit of specific individuals and corporations. For example, ex-governor Roy Cooper and his brother reportedly built a 1500-acre solar farm near Rocky Mount, of course, aided by tax subsidies paid by the average tax payer. The old saying “follow the money” is appropriate here. Another area of concern is another Cooper initiative, to allow construction of off shore wind farms along the North Carolina coast. By the way, not only do wind turbines kill birds, but off shore windmills can disrupt and kill sea creatures like whales. These green energy scams not only hurt the taxpayers, but they are enriching our adversary China which produces these products. The bottom line is that the General Assembly should take immediate steps to end all North Carolina tax subsidies for wind and solar projects and cancel any and all offshore wind turbine permits.

This first step by the Senate to remove C02 mandates is encouraging and hopefully will be passed in the House of Representatives. A veto by Governor Stein can be expected. Let’s hope that there is one Democrat in the House who will vote to override the expected veto and protect the interests of North Carolina citizens rather than the interests of the green energy profiteers.

Out of Control Judiciary

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

The traditional view of a judge is someone who puts aside personal prejudice and opinion, and rules on cases based on facts and a commitment to the meaning of written law and the constitution.  It is increasingly clear that judges in this country can no longer (if ever) be relied upon to follow this traditional ideal.  Not only do lawyers “judge shop,” meaning that they seek to bring cases before judges who they can rely on to rule in a certain direction, but as we are seeing, since President Trump was inaugurated, federal judges are blocking the president from carrying out the legitimate wishes of the people who overwhelmingly voted for him and his agenda.  This cannot be allowed to continue and represents a serious threat to our country.

One of the main problems is the ability of minor federal judges in local districts to make rulings that apply to the entire country.  The founding fathers established three branches of government:  the legislative, executive, and judicial.   They also firmly believed that the source of power in America is the people, expressed through the voting process.  In many ways, the three branches are considered co-equal.  However, the notion of lifetime appoints that apply only to the federal judiciary insulates judges from the power of the people.  Once appointed, they are essentially immune to rebuke or removal.  Let’s apply some common sense to what has been happening.  The president of the United States is elected by the people and has broad authority to manage and control all federal agencies since he is the head of the Executive Branch.  When, as in Trump’s case, he issues an executive order such as removing illegal criminal aliens, and a single judge in a single district overrides his order, I consider that an unacceptable overreach of the Judiciary Branch of government.  It would be like some low-level employee overriding the CEO of a major corporation.  Now, if the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the highest-level authority of the Judiciary Branch, overruled the highest authority of the Executive Branch (i.e. the President), that would make more sense.  However, allowing a minor appointed federal judge, who may have been a judge for just a few weeks, to control the actions of a duly elected president is unacceptable, especially since that judge is not elected or answerable to the people.  Solution:  only the Supreme Court as the highest authority in the Judicial Branch should be allowed to overrule the president who is the highest authority in the Executive Branch.

Lifetime appointments are another problem.  As we have seen, certain judges appointed to the Supreme Court, once on the bench, begin making rulings inconsistent with the principles and expectations of the president who appointed them.  For instance, judges that are expected to make decisions by closely following the constitution who instead show a disregard for the constitution as written in their rulings should be capable of being replaced by the president who appointed them.  Now this may only be feasible for the duration of the appointing president’s time in office, but would provide some degree of control which is now totally lacking due to irreversible lifetime appointments.

Another way of providing some control over the Judiciary would be through legislative action.  Right now, in a close Supreme Court decision, the vote of one judge can exert power over the entire country as shown in many 5-4 decisions.  This is not consistent with the power of government residing with the people, especially since the judges have lifetime appointments.  This is government by oligarchs.  A solution that would return the power to the people would be a process that would allow Congress to override a Supreme Court decision if they were able to obtain a two-thirds, or even a three-fourths vote in Congress.

Now, I will admit that these are radical ideas.  I can hear the howling from the judges already.  However, allowing these federal judges to usurp the authority of the president must be stopped.  Even when these lower-level judges are overruled, considerable damage can be done by delaying the implementation of the president’s actions.

Accountability in Public Schools

Posted on by

 Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

Let’s face the truth. The public school system in this country (including North Carolina) is not meeting reasonable expectations. For example, recent reports show that nationally reading proficiency is being met by less than 40% of students in public schools:  4th grade, 31%; 8THgrade, 30%; and 12th grade, 37%. The results for basic math proficiency are equally discouraging. This in spite of the cost per student of public education in this country being one of the highest, if not the absolute highest, of any other country, at a shocking average of $17,187  per year. With, say an average of 20 students per class, the cost is $242,740 per class per year. I would be happy to sign up as a tutor for that kind of pay. Proficiency in reading is such a basic and fundamental component of education; that overall educational achievement, must be profoundly negatively affected. Another shocking statistic is that of the approximate 10 million staff working in public education in the United States, less than 50% are teachers!

There are only two possible explanations for the poor performance:  either the people in charge of public education in this country, do not know how to teach or are not motivated to ensure that effective teaching practices are being followed. Obviously, there is no effective accountability in the public school system, and throwing more money at the problem will not fix it. No private business could afford to operate this way, unless like the public schools, they had no effective competition.

The NC General Assembly will be considering a bill this session that is designed to increase teacher pay. While increasing pay may be positive for teacher recruitment and retention; the question is, will it improve the academic performance of the students, which of course should be the main objective? Here is where the concept or meritocracy enters the picture.  Should pay increases be granted to existing teachers across the board, or rather, depend on the teacher’s effectiveness instructing their students?  Most private businesses award pay increases and bonuses based on an employee’s demonstrated ability to do their job. When I first started working for the N.C. Department of Correction in the 1970s under Republican Governor James Holshouser, supervisors could only grant pay increases to a percentage of their employees and were required to rank order the employees based on job performance. When Democrat Governor Jim Hunt was elected that system of awarding pay increases based on merit was eliminated and replaced by across-the-board salary increases. Supervisors were no longer able to reward their employees according to their work performance.

Human nature being what it is, workers are much more likely to be motivated to do a good job if their pay depends on their performance.  Actually, the school system could easily initiate a performance-based pay system since student learning is assessed using standardized tests.  Any fair system would have to take into account the existing differences between students’ proficiency. This could easily be done by testing all students at the beginning of the school year and then using year end testing to evaluate their level of improvement. This difference would provide a reliable measure of the effectiveness of individual teachers and serve as the basis for salary/bonus increases. Such a system would encourage teachers to improve their own teaching skills as well as experiment with new instructional techniques.  Not only would the teachers be accountable and rewarded for their performance, but school principals and administrators could be evaluated in a similar fashion.

Accountability and rewarding the effort and effectiveness of teachers is critical to improving a public school system that should not be allowed to continue failing.

Sliding to Socialism Part II 

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.              

Awhile back I wrote an article explaining why Medicaid expansion was a bad idea for North Carolina. Unfortunately, after several years of refusing to expand eligibility for Medicaid the Republican controlled General Assembly inexplicitly changed their minds and voted to expand Medicaid. Predictably, the numbers of people who signed up exceeded what was expected including many who were able to afford their own healthcare. So, North Carolina joined other states in promoting a socialist program that makes more people dependent on the government. Now the Medicaid program, which relies on federal government reimbursement, is in serious funding trouble and may require the state to spend more to keep the program operational. No wonder the federal budget deficit is over $36 trillion and increasing by another trillion every 100 days.

Besides the budget catastrophe, the move towards socialism should be a concern to us all. This country was founded, and has succeeded, based on the idea that individuals, if allowed to be free, can productively fend for themselves. Independence and freedom, along with responsible behavior and a work ethic, are the backbone of a successful Republic. Socialism is exactly the opposite. Socialism is based on keeping the individual dependent on the government and believing that you cannot succeed on your own.

A recent bill introduced to the General Assembly by Republican House majority leader Brenden Jones is another example of going in the wrong direction and making people more dependent on an ever expanding government. The bill, if passed, would allocate $217 million dollars of other taxpayer’s money to repair and rebuild homes that were damaged by hurricanes Matthew (2016) and Florence (2018). This bill raises some serious questions. First, whose responsibility is it to insure your home? You or other taxpayers? If you live anywhere near the coast, the threat of damage from hurricanes is a reality that every responsible home owner must face. I assume that those home owners who had damage and insurance would have been made whole by now. It is hard to believe that damage caused by storms occurring eight and six years ago respectively have not already been addressed. If a home owner chooses not to have adequate insurance coverage, then they must suffer the consequences. That is the reality of living in a free country. In effect, this bill makes the state government an insurance substitute. Why buy insurance when you can count of the state to repair storm damage?

Let me give you a personal example.   When my wife and I moved to New Bern, we considered several houses including one that was in the flood plain and only about three feet above normal high water. Because of that fact, we purchased another home not in the flood plain and, thank goodness, we were not flooded during Florence. The people who purchased the house we had considered had four feet of water in their house caused by Florence. They did not have flood insurance. Government to the rescue. They applied for a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) and received sufficient financial assistance to raise their home and rebuild the damage. I would like someone to show me where in the state or federal constitution, any section, is the authorization for the government to collect money from other taxpayers to pay for rebuilding homes that the owners failed to properly insure.

It is interesting to note, that Rep. Brenden Jones is from Columbus County here in the eastern part of the state. With all the money going to the western part of the state because of hurricane Helene, is this an attempt to balance the funding? Just asking.

Freedom cannot exist without having consequences for one’s decisions. Sometimes the consequences are not pleasant. Taking money from one person to pay for another person’s bad decisions is socialism unless the giving is voluntary.

Pay Down Debt or Spend More?

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

The first month of the second Trump administration has not only been historic, but has shown that he is determined to keep his promises and make “America Great Again.”  This has been exhilarating for his supporters and for every patriotic American.  One of the historic things he has done is the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).  No other president has taken such a meaningful step to search out fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government, even though we all suspected it was there.  Seemingly every day, DOGE reports examples of government spending of our tax money that needs to be stopped.

Although we do not yet know the total amount of taxpayer money that can be saved, the amount will be substantial.  The question that now arises is what to do with that money. At least three possible options are being considered.  First:  Pay down the national debt; second: use it in constructing the current budget; and third: give a direct refund back to the taxpayers.  Let’s examine these options.

The national debt is currently is $36.5 trillion and increasing by $1 trillion every 100 days.  By 2030, it is projected to reach $45.5 trillion.  Just the interest payment on the debt will be $1.2 trillion this fiscal year ending in October.  By 2035 it’s projected that just the interest on the national debt will be $6 trillion.  This far exceeds the total federal tax revenue for 2024 which was $4.5 trillion.  What does all this tell us?  That the federal government is on a slide to fiscal bankruptcy that is growing more inevitable every year.  The analogy with personal finances would be owing money, say to credit cards companies, where the total interest paid each month more than exceeds one’s monthly income!  Clearly, this is unsustainable.

As far as the annual budget option is concerned, in 2024, the federal government spent $1.8 trillion more than it took in in revenue.  The budget being considered for this fiscal year will likely have a deficit of similar size.   Applying any savings found be DOGE to this year’s budget would seem to help, but only if the politicians can be trusted to not spend more since they will have more to spend.   Given their track record, I am not optimistic they would do the right thing.

Lastly, giving a refund back to the people sounds good but in many ways is fraught with problems when deciding who should get the refund and how much.  Generally, only about 50% of workers actually pay federal income tax.    Also, the amount of tax paid varies considerably.  So, would it be right to grant, say, a refund of $5,000. to all workers when they vary not only in how much federal tax they paid to begin with, or whether they paid any at all? Sorting this out would be complex indeed.  It is also likely, that infusing more cash into the system will result in higher inflation, which we must not allow to happen.

Since the crisis facing our country is the national debt, it seems to me that the best strategy would be to directly apply any savings found by DOGE directly to reducing the federal debt.  It would be equivalent to the example of the person with excessive credit card debt applying some windfall to paying the credit card off or rather taking the money and buying more things.  We need to face up to the crisis of the national debt and the best way to do that is to apply any and all savings identified by DOGE directly to reducing that debt.  This will show our citizens and the world that we are actually serious about solving the federal debt crisis.

U.S. vs Chinese Navy

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, PhD.

Many military experts believe that if there is a conflict between the U.S. and China, the outcome will be settled by naval forces. Given the location of China, this makes sense, and it may be a repeat of World War II, where our overwhelming naval forces defeated Japan.

Assuming that this analysis is correct, a comparative assessment of the status of the navies of each country is appropriate. Most authorities believe that the U.S. Navy is still superior to the Chinese navy, but that superiority is shrinking. The Chinese have been rapidly increasing their number of ships over the past ten years. They currently have 340 naval ships compared to 280 in the US Navy. We still have a superiority in large aircraft carriers– eleven compared with China, which now has three. Similarly, we have a greater number of submarines. One area of concern is the rapidly increasing lethality of missiles, especially supersonic types. These missiles will make large aircraft carriers difficult, if not impossible, to defend adequately. In many ways, the aircraft carrier fleet was what allowed us to defeat Japan; whereas, the battleship which was dominant in an earlier era was no longer effective. Could this be the case for aircraft carriers in future conflicts?

The rate of increase in the Chinese navy should be of concern. Last year, China built 30 new naval vessels while the US built 2. Construction capacity is always a concerning factor. During WWII, the industrial capacity of the United States far exceeded any other country. The US was truly the arsenal of democracy. For example, at the beginning of WWII with the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941, both the US and Japan had eight aircraft carriers each. In the next four years, Japan built 18 new carriers (of various sizes) while the US built an astounding 144. China currently has 20 large shipyards that build both naval and merchant craft. The US has only 4 similar shipyards.

Another area of significant Chinese expansion is their merchant marine fleet. They now own over 50% of merchant shipping in the world, far exceeding the size of the merchant fleets of Japan and South Korea, which are their closest competitors. A large merchant fleet of container ships and tankers not only allows China to ship needed supplies and fuel to combat areas, but provides a large resource of trained seaman if needed for their navy.

China has also been making a concerted effort to operate and control seaports around the globe. They invest in existing ports and thereby obtain control of those vital stations. For example, the Chinese just made a large financial deal with Belgium which will allow them to dominate the port of Zeebrugge, the second largest port in that country. They are doing this around the world, including the east and west entrances to the Panama Canal, which President Trump recently targeted as an unacceptable threat to the security of the US. Also, even US ports are now using Chinese ship loading and unloading equipment.

China clearly has plans to dominate the world’s oceans and trade. Finally, we have a President who is willing to recognize and deal with this realty before it is too late.

Why Greenland?

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.   

President Trump has started his second term off with a flourish not seen by any other president in my lifetime. Only a true businessman could take over and rapidly make all the changes he has initiated. While most of his actions were anticipated based on election speeches, his comments about Greenland were quite surprising. It does show how wide ranging his thoughts are and his concern to do everything in his power to ensure the security of our nation. Let’s take a look at what is at stake with Greenland; it may surprise you.

Seemingly out of touch with reality, the European discoverers named an ice-covered island Greenland.  Actually, when discovered in 985 AD by Erik the Red, the climate in the northern hemisphere was in the midst of a warming period. Consequently, it is certainly probable that the vegetation in southern Greenland at that time was sufficient to warrant that label. Recent glacier melting has exposed numerous tree trunks and other evidence of vegetation that have not been able to grow there in hundreds of years. Recent ice melting bodes well for a future of a more livable climate.

Since Greenland is a part of North America and is in a very strategic location from a U.S. security perspective, efforts have been made to secure access for the U.S. military.  In 1951, at the beginning of the Cold War with Russia, then President Harry Truman offered to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100 million dollars in gold.  Denmark declined but Truman was able to work out an arrangement where the U.S. could install and operate military bases.  As a result, Thule Air Base, still operational by the way, was built and has served as a vital defense base against Russian aggression.  In fact, in 2019, President Trump offered to buy Greenland from Denmark, but the offer was not accepted.  Greenland is a semi- sovereign country that is closely aligned with Denmark.  In 2009, Denmark altered its agreement with the residents of Greenland; allowing them to terminate their dependence on Denmark by passing a referendum to that effect.  A recent poll showed that a majority of Greenland’s citizens would welcome closer ties to the United States.

There are several issues that make Greenland important to the U.S.  First of all, 40% of Greenland is above the Arctic Circle, giving it a critical location for defenses against Russia and China.  The Thule Air Base is 695 miles above the Arctic Circle and 947 miles from the North Pole.  Second, it is the largest island in the world; and at 836,000 sq. miles, it is far larger than Alaska, which is 663,000 sq. miles.  It contains enormous natural resources such as lithium, uranium, coal, oil, and natural gas.  China and Russia would love to get control over these resources, which would greatly shift the balance of power into the hands of communist oligarchs.  China’s moves around the world to control natural resources, called the Belt and Road Initiative, must be taken seriously.  The melting of the ice around the Arctic is making shipping much more feasible and allowing access to previously difficult areas.  Russia currently has a large fleet of diesel- and nuclear-powered ice breakers that can crush ice up to 14 ft. thick.  Our most powerful ice breaker, the U.S. Healy, can only manage ice 4 ft. thick.

Recently, the government of Denmark admitted that it is incapable of defending Greenland.  It is past time for us to take this threat seriously.  At least President Trump is concerned and likely to take needed action.  Look at all the money the Biden administration has spent on the USAID (aide to foreign countries) for such nonsense as transgender surgeries, DEI, providing condoms to Hamas, etc.  Thankfully, we finally have an adult in charge, so there is hope for the future.

Common vs Non Sense

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D. 

President Trump has made it clear that the policies that he intends to implement, and has already initiated, make basic common sense to most clear-thinking Americans.  This is in direct contrast to the Biden administration, whose leftist policies made no sense to most people, yet were implemented to achieve some radical leftist agenda.  This is the primary reason that Trump received overwhelming support in this past election.

Glaring examples include: the idea that there are multiple genders instead of just male and female; the idea that it is best to select people for jobs based on race, gender, etc. instead of their ability to do the jobs effectively; and the idea of rewarding people who cross our borders illegally with free meals, housing in swank hotels and healthcare.  I suppose the Democrat Party believed that Americans would continue to fall for this nonsense.

One of the issues that President Trump, who is the most courageous president since Ronald Reagan, has addressed is the so-called “anchor baby” situation.  The advocates of this nonsensical policy where the baby of any person here illegally is automatically a citizen, cite the 14th Amendment as justification for this practice.  And they further claim that the family of the anchor baby are consequently all eligible to remain in our country.  They call this birth right citizenship.  Applying the common-sense test clearly shows the absurdity of this policy.  It would be like claiming that someone who broke in your home has a right to stay there because they need a place to stay.  The anchor baby policy is so absurd that a pregnant woman from any other country can travel to America as a tourist, have her baby here, and have that child automatically become a citizen.

The 14th Amendment, which was drafted in 1866 and ratified in 1868, was passed specifically to qualify newly freed slaves as citizens without having to go through the naturalization process of taking qualifying tests, etc.  When interpreting the meaning of any constitutional amendment, it is critical to understand the purpose of the amendment when originally proposed and approved.  There is no evidence that the 14th Amendment was meant to reward illegal criminals who violate our immigration laws with citizenship for their children.  Absolutely none.  The Democrats want this policy to stay in place because they hope that it will increase their voter base.

This ongoing problem has existed for years, and finally we have an elected official who has the courage to try to correct it.  Clearly, this battle will be determined by the Supreme Court, where we hope common sense will prevail.   Failing that, there is always the option of drafting a constitutional amendment that will correct the problem.  Rewarding criminal conduct is never a good idea, especially when it pertains to granting the privilege of citizenship, the value of which must be maintained.

Drones Part III Chinese Threat 

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop,Ph.D.

As I reported in the prior two article on this topic, drones are increasingly changing the nature of warfare.  With the reality that China represents the greatest security threat facing our country, it is critical that we stay apprised of their actions in this area.  Let’s take a look.

China not only has produced some of the most effective and reliable drones, but their production capacity far exceeds any other country including the United States.  For example, their company, DJI Technology, dominates the U.S. market for commercial and recreational drones which is estimated to exceed 6 billion dollars.  They produce 90% of the drones sold worldwide.  China, like most other countries, has noted the effectiveness of drones for military purposes being used in the Russia/Ukraine war.  In fact, it was just reported that the Chinese military has placed an order with DJI Technology, for almost one million drones.  The potential impact of these “kamakaze” drones armed with explosives has proven very effective against tanks, artillery placements, naval vessels, and troop placements in the Russia/Ukraine war.

China has developed a drone system that consists of a large “mother drone” that can be directed towards a target area and then releases multiple smaller drones to hit specific targets.  The swarming effect of this system would be very difficult to stop to say the least.  Combine this with low altitude flight patterns and difficulty detecting with radar and the threat increases dramatically.  On a much larger scale, China is producing drones that are the size of fighter aircraft that are flown using artificial intelligence.  The plan is to have a manned fighter/bomber accompanied by multiple unmanned drones overwhelm the target using missiles to deliver the explosives.  The use of artificial intelligence as the drone control system eliminates the need for extensive training programs required by human pilots.  China at a November 2024 air show unveiled a stealth drone not easily radar detectable that is 190 ft. long with a wing span of 175 ft. with a range of 4,000 miles.  This is scary stuff indeed.  Do we need any more evidence that China is preparing for future warfare?  Financed, of course, with the money they make from trade with our country.

There are some of our lawmakers that are waking up to this threat.  For example, Senator Rick Scott (R-Fl) has proposed a ban on the import of Chinese made drones.  The ban is being resisted by people in this country who rely on these relatively inexpensive drones for commercial purposes.  For example, for about $35,000 a farmer can purchase a Chinese drone to monitor and spray crops as compared to a ground sprayer that can cost up to $250,000.  Clearly, like many items we get from China, we need to return to relying on our own domestic production.  We cannot continue to rely on a communist adversary for essential products.  Also, we must recognize that the only way to defeat new technology is with other new technology.  For example, our military has been developing the use of high energy lasers to defend against missiles, artillery, drones, etc.  This may be a solution to some of the challenges of drone warfare.  Clearly, using expensive missiles that cost near one million dollars a piece is not the solution to the drone threat.

Hopefully, the new Trump administration will take whatever action necessary to defend our country and allies.  Wasting money on green energy and DEI is not the answer.

Drones Part II 

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

In Part I, I presented a summary of how the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (i.e. drones) have changed the conduct of military combat as witnessed most vividly in the Ukraine/Russia War. These changes must be addressed by the United States if we are to preserve our national security. This article will address the potential impact of domestic drones.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has established rules for the recreational and commercial use of drones. A quick search of the Amazon website will show an amazing variety of drones available to the general public. Here are some of the FAA rules for recreational drones:  Maximum flight elevation: 400 ft., weight limit: 55 lbs., must be flown within visual line of sight of operator at all times, and must observe airspace restrictions, such as around airports. In addition, operators must be at least 13 years of age and pass an operator’s exam and register their drone. Commercial drone operators must be at least 16 years of age, obtain a remote operator’s license, and speak and read the English language. Commercial drones may be flown at night and out of sight of the operator.  What is troubling is that non-citizen foreigners may operate drones in our country, even those manufactured outside the United States. Note that individual states may impose stricter regulations. Commercial drones are used, among other things, for real estate and agricultural purposes, such as monitoring crop conditions. There is also an effort underway to use drones to deliver online purchases.

Law enforcement use of drones has been expanding rapidly. Drones are used for search and rescue operations as well as border control surveillance, for which they are quite useful and economical, having been used since 2005. They have replaced helicopters in many circumstances. They also have an important role in security surveillance, which unfortunately was not done effectively by the Secret Service on the two assassination attempts against President Trump. Of course, criminals can also use drones to monitor potential crime scenes, as we have seen. Some police departments are considering using drones to approach vehicles they stop rather than having vulnerable officers approach the vehicle.

As we can see, there are some positive uses for drones. But like all things, the potential negative aspects must be addressed as well. For example—privacy. Right now, there is no way to prevent anyone from flying a drone over your home/property and photographing everything they wish. The ability of a drone to hover for extended periods is far different than a small airplane flying overhead.  By the way, do not think about shooting a drone down. You will become the law breaker.  Another concern is the potential for any drone to become a carrier of explosives. It is certainly feasible for criminals and assassins to equip a drone with explosives and strike their targets. Detection of drones is very difficult since they fly at elevations that are below normal radar detection. The recent reported sightings of drones in New Jersey (and other locations) for which no adequate explanation was forthcoming, shows the inability to track and identify all drones.

The potential threat by terrorists is especially worrisome.  China in particular, has sent thousands of their citizens over our open borders, and since they own thousands of acres of land in this country, could conceivably establish centers of drone activity that could destroy our electrical grid and attack military targets. It should be noted that China has probably the most sophisticated drone technology in the world.  By the way, foreigners cannot own land in China, nor can they own or operate drones. Should we trust the Chinese communist government?  Absolutely not.

So, what should we do? First, stop China and other communist countries from owning any land in the United States. Second, non-citizens should not be allowed to own, import, or operate drones in this country. Third, establish a standing security task force to monitor and assess the threat of domestic drone activity. Fourth, harden our power grid to reduce its vulnerability to terrorist attacks. It is time for our elected officials to deal with this issue.

Drones and Artificial Intelligence: Part I 

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

Advancing technology is the essence of modern civilization. The rate of technological change is becoming downright mind boggling. Since changing technology is neither inherently good or bad, the question becomes how effective will mankind be, in using these rapid technological changes in a manner that benefits the human race. Looking back in history is not reassuring, especially how new technologies have permitted mankind to dramatically increase the lethality of war.

One of the major changes impacting the military is the development and use of drones (i.e. unmanned vehicles).  When most people think of drones, they imagine small, battery powered flying devices used for recreational or aerial photography. The war between Ukraine and Russia has shown that drones have become major components of war. It is estimated that over a million drones have been used thus far in that war. The United States military has been exploring the use of drones, and in fact deployed them in Afghanistan and possibly other areas such as Iraq. Most other countries are now producing and equipping their military with drones.

The variety of military drones is amazing and getting more sophisticated by the day. Here are just a couple of examples. One of the simplest is the RQ-11 Raven:  Size 3 ft. by 5 ft.  Hand launched.  Speed: 18 mph.  Endurance:  90 minutes.  Cost: $250,000.  Purpose:  Used for close-up reconnaissance and observation of enemy positions and troop placements.   A medium size drone example is the Boeing RO-21 Blackjack.  Size: 8 ft. by 16 ft. Ground launched. Speed: 100 mph.  Endurance: 24 hrs.  Cost:  $ 14 million. Used for longer range and higher elevation surveillance. The third example is the MO Reaper:  Size: 36 ft. by 65 ft. Land or aircraft carrier launched. Speed:  400 mph. Range: 1200 miles. Cost:  $28 million.  Essentially replaces manned air craft. Notice the cost of these drones. Not cheap.

Most of the drones used in the Ukraine/Russia war have been relatively small drones used in support of local ground forces. With appropriate explosives they can attack and destroy not only infantry positions but artillery placements and even armored tanks. This undoubtedly has saved many human casualties. One aspect of drone attacks is that they are effective against parked aircraft and even naval ships; especially if they are deployed in swarms which overwhelm defenses. There is also the disparagement in the cost. The smaller drones that the Houti rebels have launched against our naval ships require expensive defensive missiles to shoot them down.   Drones that cost, say $25,000, require Patriot system missiles to shoot them down which cost well over $1 million each to produce.

Most of the early drones were radio signal controlled. However, the development of artificial intelligence is allowing the control of the drone far beyond most radio control systems. How much independence AI systems have when controlling and directing the drone attack remains to be discovered. Admittedly, the military use of drones is in its beginning stage.   Have we reached the point where robots flying robotic vehicles are fighting our wars? If so, who will actually be in control? Also, there was a time in the Cold War where only super rich countries could afford the expense of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Will the spread of inexpensive drones expand the threat of war by other countries? Will there come a time when countries will no longer need highly trained pilots? Just reflect on what China has been doing buying up extensive farmland around our military bases. How about attacks on our power grid?

The challenge of drones from a security perspective must be taken seriously.

Culture And Birthrate

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

History clearly shows us that the culture of a society determines whether that society will advance the quality of life of its citizens or lead to a deterioration and eventual downfall.  In most cases, cultural deterioration is not obvious to the members of a society until it may be too late to turn things around.  A declining birthrate to a level that is less than needed to maintain its population (usually about 2.3 children per woman) can be a significant warning sign. The U.S. birthrate has been declining for several years and now is at 1.6 births per woman for year 2022, which is considerably below replacement levels. The birthrate in 1960 was 3.5. What is true for the U.S. is also true for most, if not all, Western countries.

As a result of the declining birthrate, the percentage of the U.S. population over 65 has been steadily increasing and is now at 17.3%. That percentage is expected to increase to over 22% by the year 2040. This will put increasing demands on the Social Security system since there will be fewer workers paying into the system. It will also make it more difficult for the younger population to achieve their goals since they will have to pay higher taxes.

Now some people may argue that this is a reason to increase immigration to offset the declining birthrate. The difficulty with that solution is the impact of large numbers of immigrants who do not share our cultural values. Instead of a unified population, the result is a splintering of the population into subcultures that may be at odds with our values and beliefs. The idea of the United States as a “melting pot” has definite limitations. In fact, in the mid-1920s, Congress passed immigration restrictions that severely limited immigration into our country because of concern that the high number of immigrants would not be able to be assimilated smoothly into our culture. Those restrictions were in place until the late 1960s when Democrat Ted Kennedy led an effort to greatly expand the allowable number of immigrants and opened immigration to America up to countries from around the world. The recent flood of illegal immigrants encouraged by the Biden administration has created substantial problems with crime, economic dependency, and the public-school systems.

The question before us is how do we encourage our native-born women to have more children? This will be a challenge for not only the new Trump administration, but for subsequent administrations. Part of the problem comes from young people marrying later than they used to. In the 1960’s, the average age of first marriages was the early twenties. Now it is in the thirties, which of course leaves fewer years for child rearing. There was a time when being married was expected before two people lived together. Now it is commonplace for young people to live together without being married. This seems to be totally acceptable where previously it would have been highly frowned upon and disapproved of. Another issue is economic. In the 1960’s it was still expected that the man would be the sole support of the family; and generally, a man could find a job that would allow him to be the “bread winner.” The economic realities of increasing inflation have made it difficult for a young family to live comfortably with only one income.  Another factor, of course, is the increasing expectation that women should have a career, and motherhood is not valued as it once was in our society.

The solution to this problem may not be easy, but the problem is one that needs to be recognized and efforts made to solve it if we are not to lose our cultural heritage.

Standing Up To China

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

Let me start off with a clear understanding of our relationship with China. Is China an adversary or an enemy? According to Webster’s dictionary, both labels refer to an entity that is out to harm and diminish you. What do the facts show about China’s actions and plans towards our country?

Here are a few things to consider: 1)  China is ruled by a communist government which we have been resisting and fighting (Korean and Vietnam Wars) since the end of World War II. Communists are committed to over-throwing all other forms of government worldwide. It is an essential part of their mission.  2)  The Chinese are shipping vast amounts of fentanyl to the cartels in Mexico and killing approximately 100,000 Americans each year.  3)  The Chinese steal our intellectual property and protected information to produce products and weapons.  4)  The Chinese are infiltrating our borders and subverting our universities by using grants and student visas.   5) The Chinese recently hacked into our communications network and recorded telephone calls made by our elected officials (e.g. J.D. Vance) and business leaders.  6) The Chinese flew at least one spy balloon (probably one of many) across our country targeting military bases.  7)  Just recently, several drones were sent over three of our military bases in the United Kingdom.  8)  The Chinese are in the process of using the profits from our trade deficit with them to build the largest and most advance military in the world–especially naval ships and supersonic aircraft.

In addition to these actions, China has announced its so-called Belt and Road Project, which involves expanding its economic influence globally, and consequently, diminishing our role and influence with other countries, seriously injuring our economy and making the world dependent on the Chinese. This, if it happens, will provide the communist takeover that they have been seeking.

The question is what do we do about it.  Thankfully, on January 20, 2025, we will have a president and administration that recognizes the reality of the threat from China and will not be afraid to take necessary action. One obvious thing for us here in North Carolina, is to follow Florida’s lead and curtail and reverse the ownership of land in our state– especially around our military bases. A recent report  by the federal Agriculture Department listed North Carolina as one of five (5) states that have “…worrisome amounts of land owned by the Chinese.”  (Always remember that all private Chinese businesses are beholden and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.)   In 2010, China did not own any land in North Carolina. They now own over 50,000 acres, most of which is in close proximity to the largest military base in the state:  Ft. Liberty ( formerly Ft. Bragg).   If you believe this is by mere chance, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you! Posing as farming operations, the Chinese can set up reconnaissance, radar tracking devises, monitor communications and troop movements, and send out spy drones. Fortunately, the House portion of the General Assembly drafted and passed HB 463 in the last session to restrict China’s ability to purchase land around military bases. The bill was not taken up by the Senate. Personally, I do not think the bill goes far enough. If we really believe that China is an existential threat, we should do what Florida did and preclude them from owning any land in North Carolina and force them to divest themselves of what they currently own. By the way, China does NOT allow any foreign entity to own land in their country; why should we?

We need to get serious about the threat that China poses before it is too late!    No more half-measures!

Time to Stand Up

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

The recent election was very positive for freedom loving Americans at the national level, but not so much at the local level. Case in point is the struggle to ensure that our public education system follows the guidelines and principles that made this country great. Clearly, many of us believe that the public school system in North Carolina has been on the wrong path. The evidence in part is the large numbers of parents who are electing to send their children to private, charter or home-schools.   The demand for school choice has grown substantially.

The results of the race for state Superintendent of Public Instruction should set off alarm bells for all those who were hoping for change. The defeat of conservative Michelle Morrow by a left learning Mo Green, as well as the election of a Democrat Governor and Lieutenant Governor, will ensure that no significant improvement in the public schools will come from the state level. When asked what he would do if elected, Green is reported to have said he would keep things on the same path.   After serving 8 years as superintendent of Guilford County schools, he became the director of the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, a notoriously leftist organization that is committed to supporting “social, economic, and environmental justice.” Sound familiar? In spite of spending 10 times the amount on the election than did Morrow, Green narrowly won by 119,000 votes.  It should be noted that Green opposes school choice and Opportunity Scholarships. Instead of a rational debate of the issues, Green’s campaign engaged in what all Democrats do–that is, personal attacks without any basis in fact. This is their typical strategy, and unfortunately, it frequently works.

So, faced with this situation, what can be done? A review of the General Statutes that govern the role and authority of local county Boards of Education does provide some glimmer of hope. For example, the local Boards of Education may:  provide training for teachers; make rules concerning conduct and duties of teachers and staff; obtain and select books and material not adopted by the state Department of Public Instruction; and regulate extracurricular activities such as athletics. The question now becomes whether the local Boards who want to return to traditional learning and stop the “Woke” indoctrination of our children will step up to the challenge, even if it means confronting the state Superintendent of Public Instruction. Many of the local Boards have Republican majorities. Let’s hope they have the courage to step up to the plate. If not, even more parents will take their children out of the public schools. I would not blame them.

Christians and Politics

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

As a practicing Christian, I have frequently been troubled by the seemingly low interest in politics in churches. Since this country was founded on Judeo/Christian principles, it is essential that those principles be proudly and consistently displayed and promulgated. If Christians would consistently vote in high percentages in every election, then those who want to remove Christian principles from our schools and culture would fail. In fact, John Adams, one of the original Founding Fathers, wrote that our country would not be successful if the people did not continue to practice Christian principles.

Let me give you an example. While attending church service a couple of weeks ago, I reminded the congregation that the upcoming election was crucial and that they should get out and vote and base their candidate selection on which candidate(s) advocated Christian principles. I did not specify any particular candidate.  A week later, I was informed that a married couple told the pastor that they would never again attend that church because politics were mentioned. Now you have to ask yourself, if practicing Christians do not stand up for Christian principles and values, who will? Fortunately, our pastor was not intimidated by the couple leaving and advocated exercising our constitutional right to vote and to select candidates with biblical teachings in mind. Good for him.

How did we ever get to this point? Throughout most of this country’s history, pastors routinely discussed what was happening in the political arena because they realized our freedom and welfare depended on who was elected. In 1954, Democrat Lyndon Johnson (who later as President would author The Great Society, a leftist program that destroyed the black family structure as well as making people dependent on the federal government welfare programs) introduced an amendment to a spending bill that prohibited churches from advocating for specific political candidates or they would lose their tax-exempt status. Note that even though no church has ever lost their tax-exempt status since the restriction was enacted, the majority of churches have caved in and restricted their own freedom of speech. The amendment only prohibits churches from formally endorsing or raising money for a specific candidate. The impact, however, has been the silencing of many churches on any matter that even appears in anyway to be political.

This is very unfortunate since issues in the political realm frequently reflect values and principles that are prohibited by the Bible. For example, homosexual marriage, abortion at any stage of pregnancy, and transgender mutilation of children are contrary to Judeo/Christian values and teaching, but are now rampant in our increasingly secular society. And we are the worse for it. A recent survey reported that 94% of atheists voted Democrat in the last election. It is past time for Christians in general and pastors in particular to stand up for the values and principles that are essential to the survival of this country. The invasion at our borders by people who do not share our values will destroy this country just as it destroyed other countries throughout history. This invasion is being facilitated by Non-Government Agencies (NGOs) many of which are religious organizations that are being paid to assist the flood or aliens into this country.

It is time for true Christians to stand up against this.

Civics At Home

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

A very unusual thing happened to me on Election Day, as I was providing voter information outside the election site.  A man walked up with his grandson who looked about ten years old. He asked me if I would explain to his grandson how the voting process worked and why it was important.  I responded with a short summary of how our government is controlled by the people and how important it was for all citizens to vote.  After a short discussion, the man took his son inside to observe the voting process and to vote himself.

I did not ask the man why he felt a need to do this, but he volunteered that he was not certain that the public schools were teaching his grandson the civics he had learned when he was a student.

This incident, which I found refreshing, reminded me of an article I read recently about a patriotic family and how they observe Constitution Day.  Most of us may have heard of Constitution Day, but most likely do not celebrate or recognize it. What the family in the article does is gather as a group and take turns reading the U.S. Constitution from start to finish.   They have been doing this for several years with family members taking turns reading. Takes about 30 minutes.

Both of these events demonstrate that we, the parents and grandparents, can make sure that children not only are exposed to the essential elements of our country but they learn that we as adults believe that these things are vitally important.

Given all the woke nonsense that children are exposed to, we cannot be certain that civics is being taught and emphasized in the schools. The recent election of Mo Green, leftist Democrat, as the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, is not reassuring to me; quite the opposite.

When my grandchildren visit me for Thanksgiving, I plan to do a group read of the Constitution. You might want to try it yourself.

According to the North Carolina Civics Coalition:

NC requires one high school civics course for graduation.
Several states also have a middle school civics class. NC
does not. In K-5, social studies often shares instructional
time with science and is rarely taught daily.

Unfortunately the requirement for a high school civics course is not actually being enforced. Rather than have a separate civics course, schools are including civics in other courses. In most cases, the subject of civics is not getting the individual attention that is needed.

NOTE:

In 2011, The North Carolina legislature passed The Founding Principles Act, House Bill 588. This bill required local boards of education to teach a semester course, “American History I – The Founding Principles” to includes at least the following:

    1. The Creator-endowed inalienable rights of the people.
    2. Structure of government, separation of powers with checks and balances.
    3. Frequent and free elections in a representative government.
    4. Rule of law.
    5. Equal justice under the law.
    6. Private property rights.
    7. Federalism.
    8. Due process.
    9. Individual rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights.
    10. Individual responsibility.

A passing grade in the course shall be required for graduation from high school.

Is your school board following the law?

Christians and Politics

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

As a practicing Christian, I have frequently been troubled by the seemingly low interest in politics in churches. Since this country was founded on Judeo/Christian principles, it is essential that those principles be proudly and consistently displayed and promulgated. If Christians would consistently vote in high percentages in every election, then those who want to remove Christian principles from our schools and culture would fail. In fact, John Adams, one of the original Founding Fathers, wrote that our country would not be successful if the people did not continue to practice Christian principles.

Let me give you an example. While attending church service a couple of weeks ago, I reminded the congregation that the upcoming election was crucial and that they should get out and vote and base their candidate selection on which candidate(s) advocated Christian principles. I did not specify any particular candidate.  A week later, I was informed that a married couple told the pastor that they would never again attend that church because politics were mentioned. Now you have to ask yourself, if practicing Christians do not stand up for Christian principles and values, who will? Fortunately, our pastor was not intimidated by the couple leaving and advocated exercising our constitutional right to vote and to select candidates with biblical teachings in mind. Good for him.

How did we ever get to this point? Throughout most of this country’s history, pastors routinely discussed what was happening in the political arena because they realized our freedom and welfare depended on who was elected. In 1954, Democrat Lyndon Johnson (who later as President would author The Great Society, which was a leftist program that destroyed the black family structure as well as making people dependent on the federal government welfare programs) introduced an amendment to a spending bill that prohibited churches from advocating for specific political candidates or they would lose their tax-exempt status. Note that even though no church has ever lost their tax-exempt status since the restriction was enacted, the majority of churches have caved in and restricted their own freedom of speech. The amendment only prohibits churches from formally endorsing or raising money for a specific candidate. The impact, however, has been the silencing of many churches on any matter that even appears in anyway to be political.

This is very unfortunate since issues in the political realm frequently reflect values and principles that are prohibited by the Bible. For example, homosexual marriage, abortion at any stage of pregnancy, and transgender mutilation of children are contrary to Judeo/Christian values and teaching but are now rampant in our increasingly secular society. And we are the worse for it. A recent survey reported that 94% of atheists voted Democrat in the last election. It is past time for Christians in general and pastors in particular to stand up for the values and principles that are essential to the survival of this country. The invasion at our borders by people who do not share our values will destroy this country just as it destroyed other countries throughout history. This invasion is being facilitated by Non-Government Agencies (NGOs) many of which are religious organizations that are being paid to assist the flood or aliens into this country.

It is time for true Christians to stand up against this.

California Here We Come (or Not)

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

One way to determine where a presidential candidate will take the country is to examine their past record. Uniquely, we have clear evidence of what we can expect from former President Trump and Kamala Harris. The evidence about President Trump could not be clearer: low inflation, cheaper energy, high employment, lower mortgage rates, secure borders, and few international conflicts. One way of determining where Kamala Harris will take us is to examine what has been happening in California, which clearly reflects her socialist principles and values, where she was the Attorney General.

Let’s take a look. As a comparison to California, I will use North Carolina, which has benefitted from conservative leadership consistent with what we can expect from President Trump.

There is an old and valid saying that people vote with their feet, meaning that when able, they will choose to live where conditions are most favorable to their standard of living. California has been steadily losing population in spite of a steady influx of illegal immigrants. Over 500,000 residents of California have left the state over the past couple of years. The percentage of immigrants is California (a sanctuary state) is 27%, as compared to 9.2% in North Carolina. It is well known that a country can only absorb a small number of immigrants and still maintain their essential cultural integrity. Another issue is the destruction of their cities, like San Francisco and Los Angeles, due to the out-of-control homeless population. California, due to its lack of enforcement of vagrancy laws, has the highest number of homeless persons, at 172,000, in the entire country. North Carolina reportedly has just over 9,000 homeless. The homeless in California are notorious for illegal drug use and dealing as well as property crimes and other crimes.

Besides these population factors, there are many economic factors causing people to exit California. For example, the median price of a home in California is an astounding $807,000, compared to $336,000 in North Carolina. Similarly, the state income tax in California is 13.3%,  compared to 4.75% in North Carolina. Sales tax in California is 7.25%, and 4.74% in North Carolina. In spite of these much higher taxes, California has managed to accumulate a debt of $73 billion, whereas North Carolina has a budget surplus and a rainy-day fund. The cost of energy shows a great disparity with gas in California at $ 4.64 as compared to North Carolina at $2.96. Cost of electricity is 29.5cents per kWH as compared to North Carolina at 13.0 cents. There are also many regulations in California that have caused a closing of many businesses and retail stores.

The reality is that the conditions in California are the result of socialist policies and actions that have effectively destroyed one of the most successful and prosperous states. The facts are clear. If you want to keep this country from becoming another California, you know what to do. It is essential that you get out and vote to keep this from happening to the entire country.