Science grows by accumulation. Discoveries, inventions, and new knowledge, are added to the existing stock. These new elements are usually very small. Inventions, as additions of something new, are seen after analysis to be not nearly so large as they popularly appear to be. An invention is rather a small step in a process growing by small accretions. There are discoveries, big in significance; but their coming is hard to predict and they are rare. The new elements of knowledge are determined in part by the existing elements, and for this reason the addition of a desired element cannot be secured by will-power and enterprise alone. Sometimes your skills and accomplishments were perfect for a previous stage of life, but the current situation demands: more authority, more resources, institutional power, a different type of leverage. When dealing with systems that resist accountability, where personal excellence does not automatically translate into institutional response, this is especially true. Primitive man needed and desired medical progress as much as modern man, and worked at it as arduously; but modern medical achievements are more dependent upon previously existing elements. Existing assets or achievements may be recognized indirectly, but they are not emotionally experienced. “My patients seem to think I am a good doctor.” “My friends say I am a good storyteller.” “Men teachers think I am very intelligent, but they are mistaken.” The same attitude prevails toward financial assets. Such a person may not have the feeling of owning the money he has earned through his own work. If he is financially well off, he nevertheless experiences himself as poor. Any ordinary observation or self-observation lays bare the fears behind all this overmodesty. They emerge as soon as he raises his head. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

Whatever sets the self-minimizing process to work, it is maintained by powerful taboos on trespassing the narrow confines he has set for himself. He should be content with little. He has should not wish or strive for more. Any wish, any striving, any reaching out for more feels to him like a dangerous or reckless challenging fate. He should not want to improve his figure by dieting or gymnastics, or to improve his appearance by dressing better. Last but not least, he should not improve himself by analyzing himself. He may be able to do so when under duress. However, otherwise, he simply will not find the time for it. I am not referring here to individual fears of tackling special problems. There is something beyond these usual difficulties that holds him back from doing it at all. Often, in sharp contrast to his conscious conviction about the value of self-analysis, it appears to him as “selfish” to “waste that much time” on himself. What he scorns as “selfishness” is almost as comprehensive as what he considers “presumptuous.” To him, selfishness includes doing anything that is just for himself. He is often capable of enjoying many things but it would be “selfish” to enjoy them alone. He is often unaware of operating under such taboos and merely deems it “natural” to want to share a joy. Actually, the sharing of pleasures is an absolute must. If it is not shared with somebody else, whether it is food, music, or nature, it loses flavor and meaning. He cannot spend money for himself. His stinginess with personal experiences may reach absurd degrees, which is particularly striking when contrasted with his often lavish spending for others. When he trespasses this taboo and does spend money on himself, even though it may be objectively reasonable, he will become panicky. The same holds true with regard to the use of time and energies. He often cannot read a book in his free time unless it is useful for his work. He may not grant himself the time for writing a personal letter, but furtively squeezes it in between two appointments. He often cannot make or keep order in his personal belongins—unless it is for somebody who would appreciate it. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

Similarly, he may neglect his appearance unless he has a date, a professional or social engagement—id est, again, unless it is for others. Conversely, he may display considerable energy and skill in attaining something for others, such as helping them to make desirable contacts or to get a job; but he is tied hand and foot when it comes to doing the same for himself. Although much hostility is generated in him, he cannot express it except when emotionally upset. Otherwise he is afraid of fighting and even friction for several reasons. Partly, this is because a person who has thus clipped his wings is not and cannot possibly be a good fighter. In part, he is terrified lest anybody be hostile toward him, and prefers to give in, to “understand” and forgive. Consistent with the other taboos and actually implied in them, is one on being “aggressive.” He cannot stand up for his dislike of a person, an idea, a cause—and fight them if necessary. He cannot keep a sustained hostility nor can he carry a grudge, consciously. Hence, vindictive drives remain unconscious and can only be expressed indirectly and in a disguised form. He cannot be openly demanding nor can he reprimand. It is most difficult for him to criticize, to reproach, or to accuse,–even when it seems warranted. He cannot even in joking make a sharp, witty, sarcastic remark. There are taboos on all that is presumptuous, selfish, and aggressive. If we realize in detail the scope covered by the taboos, they constitute a crippling check on the person’s expansion, his capacity for fighting and for defending himself, his self-interest—on anything that might accrue to his growth or his self-esteem. The taboos and self-minimizing constitute a shrinking process that artificially reduced his stature and leaves him feeling like one patient’s dream in which, as a result of some merciless punishment, a person had shrunk to half his bodily size and was reduced to utter destitution and a moronic condition. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

The self-effacing type, then, cannot make any assertive, aggressive, expansive move without trespassing against his taboos. Their violation arouses both his self-condemnation and his self-contempt. He responds either with a general panicky feeling, without special content, or with feeling guilty. If self-contempt is in the foreground, he may respond with a fear of ridicule. Being in his self-feeling so small and so insignificant, any reaching out beyond his narrow confines may easily arouse the fear of ridicule. If this fear is conscious at all, it is usually externalized. If he spoke up in a discussion, ran for office, or had the ambition to write something, others would think it ridiculous. Most of this fear, however, remains unconscious. At any rate, he never seems to be aware of its formidable impact. It is, however, a relevant factor in keeping him down. The fear of ridicule is specifically indicative of self-effacing trends. It is alien to the expansive type. He can be blusteringly presumptuous without even realizing that he might be ridiculous or that others might so regard him. While curtailed in any pursuit on his own behalf, he is not only free to do things for others but, according to his inner dictates, should be the ultimate of helpfulness, generosity, considerateness, understanding, sympathy, love, and sacrifice. In fact, love and sacrifice in his mind are closely intertwined: he should sacrifice everything for love—love is sacrifice. Thus far, the taboos and shoulds have a remarkable consistency. However, sooner or later contradictory trends appear. We might naively expect that this type would rather abhor aggressive, arrogant, or vindictive traits in others. However, actually, his attitude is divided.  He does abhor them but also secretly or openly adores them. And does so indiscriminately—without distinguishing between genuine self-confidence and hollow arrogance, between real strength and egocentric brutality. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

We easily understand that, chafing under his enforced humility, he adores in others aggressive qualities which he lacks or which are unavailable to him. However, gradually, we realize that this is not the complete explanation. We see that a more deeply hidden set of values, entirely opposite to the one just described, is also operating in him and that he admires in an aggressive type the expansive drives which for the sake of his integration he must so deeply suppress in himself. This disavowing of his own pride and aggressiveness, but admiring them in others, plays a great part in his morbid dependency. As the patient becomes strong enough to face his conflict, his expansive drives come into sharper focus. He should also have the absolute of fearlessness; he should also go all out for his advantage; he should be able to hit back at anybody who offends him. Accordingly, he despises himself at bottom for any trace of “cowardice,” of ineffectualness and compliance. He is thus under a constant crossfire. If he does something, he is damned, and if he does not, he is damned. If he refuses the request for a loan or for any favor, he feels that he is a repulsive and horrible creature; if he grants such requests, he feels that he is a “sucker.” If he puts the insulter in his place, he gets frightened and feels utterly unlikable. As long as he cannot face this conflict and work at it the need to keep a check on the aggressive undercurrents makes it all the more necessary to adhere tenaciously to the self-effacing pattern, and thereby enhances its rigidity. Such a man must be assumed to be in the throes of a conflict which probably made the idea of a marital commitment repugnant to the point of open panic. However, when he married twenty years later, having in the meantime taken the vows of celibacy, broken with the Church, set a fire to the world around him, publicly proclaiming as his first and foremost reason for taking a wife was that it would please his father. However, on July 2^nd, he was surprised by a severe thunderstorm. A bolt of lightning struck the ground near him, throwing him to the ground, and causing him to be seized by a severe, some say convulsive, state of terror. He felt, terrore et agonis mortis subitae circumvallatus: as if completely walled in by the painful fear of a sudden death. #RandolphHarris 5 of 23

Before he knew it, he was seeking help and wanted to renew his vows of celibacy. He felt bound by what he considered to be a vow and began to think of the experience as a frightful call from heaven: de caelo terroribus. Was this thunderstorm necessary? Some believe that it was God’s way of calling him away (abgerufen) from a glamorous career which the young man had every reason to desire. His psychiatrist assumes that the event was only the climax of an agitated depressive state which gradually had ruined the perspective of that career. A student of motivation cannot well ask what motivates God to do something extraordinary; yet he may wonder what in the world would at that moment call for an un-Aristotelian thunderstorm. The monastic profession was not an uncommon career; it was even a respectable way of becoming a scholar and of eventually rejoining academic work. This concern with the adequacy of established explanatory frameworks—whether theological, philosophical, or psychological—finds a parallel in the historical understanding of monastic vocation, which likewise resists simplistic or conventional interpretation. Transactional analysis as a therapeutic method is based on the assumption that words and gestures can have a therapeutic effect without any bodily contact with the patient beyond a handshake. If a transactional analyst considers that bodily contact is desirable for a certain patient, he refers him to a dance class, sensory-awareness group, or a “permission class” with a prescription for dancing. Permission classes are run as groups, so that the patient does not get individual hugging or individual dancing exercises. All the patients do the same things at the same time, but the teacher is aware of each one’s special needs and devotes some attention to them. (The patients do not have to do the same things at the same time. The teacher merely makes the suggestion, but each person is free to do as he wishes—that is part of the permission derived from the class. Usually, however, they enjoy the participation with other people, something they may have missed in childhood.) #RandolphHarris 6 of 23

Since permission is the decision intervention for script analysis, it is worth having as clear as possible an understanding of how it works, and every opportunity should be taken to learn about it by observing this in different situations. However, while therapeutic models can offer valuable explanations for experiences that appear extraordinary, it is equally important to recognize that many individuals interpret such moments through the lens of the divine calling. If one abuses the license and goes too far, he will hear from the authorities under ordinary circumstances. When there is a prohibition against doing something, a dialogue will result whenever the person starts to do it. Only a small part of the totality of human experiences is retained in consciousness. The experiences that are so retained become sedimented, that is, they congeal in recollection as recognizable and memorable entities. Unless such sedimentation took place, the individual could not make sense of his biography. Intersubjective sedimentation also takes place when several individuals share a common biography, experiences of which become incorporated in a common stock of knowledge. Intersubjective sedimentation can be called truly social only when it has been objectivated in a sign system of one kind or another, that is, when the possibility of reiterated objectivation of the shared experiences arise. Only then is it likely that these experiences will be transmitted from one generation to the next, and from one collectivity to another. Theoretically, common activity, without a sign system, could be the basis for transmission. Empirically, this is improbable. An objectively available sign system bestows a status of incipient anonymity on the sedimented experiences by detaching them from their original context of concrete individual biographies and making them generally available to all who share, or may share in the future, in the sign system in question. The experiences thus become readily transmittable. #RandolphHarris 7 of 23

It is often maintained that the neglect of a divine calling invites adverse consequences, for such disregard is understood as a refusal of grace. Numerous witnesses throughout the Christian tradition attest that the doctrine of divine grace and salvific purpose—articulated most fully in the Epistle to the Romans and commonly associated with the Calvinistic tradition—has impressed upon students the necessity of presenting themselves as approved before God, rightly dividing the word of truth. However, in times of change—and what other times are there, in our memory? One generation differs so much from another that items of tradition often become disturbances. Conflicts between the divine way and one’s own self-made style, conflicts between the expert’s authority and one’s own style may disturb God and show a lack of faith. Furthermore, all the mass transformations in American life (immigration, migration, and Americanization; industrialization, urbanization, mechanization, and others) are apt to disturb the divine way in those tasks which are so simple yet so far-reaching. No wonder, then, that Proverbs 3.5-6 says, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to Him, and He will make your paths straight.” Change, the true change is when eternity exists. Eternity is just than the earth and the world; for eternity there is a crown of honor laid aside for each of those that have in truth willed only one thing. So also with riches and power and the world that passes away and the lust thereof. The one who has willed either of them, even if he only willed one thing, must, to his own agony, continue to will it when it has passed, and learn by the agony of contradiction that it is not one thing. However, the one who in truth willed one thing and therefore willed the Good, even if he be sacrificed for it, why should he not go on willing the same in eternity, the same thing that he was willing to die for? Why should he not will the same, when it has triumphed in eternity? #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

To will one thing, therefore, cannot mean to will that which only appears to be one thing. The fact is that the worldly goal is not one thing in its essence because it is unreal. Its so-called unity is actually nothing but emptiness which is hidden beneath the manyness. In the short-lived moment of delusion, the worldly goal is therefore a multitude of things, and thus not one thing. So far is it from a state of being and remaining one thing, that in the next moment it changes itself into its opposite. Carried to its extreme limit, what is pleasure other than disgust? What is earthly honor at its dizzy pinnacle other than contempt for existence? What are riches, the highest superabundance of riches, other than poverty? For no matter how much all the earth’s gold hidden in covetousness may amount to, is it not infinitely less than the smallest mite hidden in the contentment of the poor! What is worldly omnipotence other than dependence? What slave in chains is as unfree as a tyrant! No, the worldly goal is not one thing. Diverse as it is, in life it is changed into its opposite, in death into nothing, in eternity into damnation: for the one who has willed this goal. Only the Good is the one thing in its essence and the same in each of its expressions. Take love as an illustration. The one who truly loves does not love once and for all. Nor does he use a part of his love, and then again another part. For to change it into small coins is not to use it rightly. No, he loves with all his love. It is wholly present in each expression. He continues to give it away as a whole, and yet he keeps it intact as a whole, in his heart. Wonderful riches! When the miser has gathered all the world’s gold in sordidness—then he has become poor. When the lover gives away his whole love, he keeps it entire—in the purity of the heart. Shall a man in truth will one thing, then this one thing that he wills must be such that it remains unaltered in all changes, so that by willing it, he can win immutability. If it changes continually, then he himself becomes changeable, double-minded, and unstable. And this continual change is nothing else than impurity. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

Such inner inconsistency does not remain an abstract defect; it manifests with particular clarity in the way individuals attempt to justify the volatility of their affections. Rarely will you find that a man whose love turns from one woman to another feels no need to legitimate this before himself by saying: she was not worthy of my love, or, she has disappointed me, or whatever other like “reasons” exist. This is an attitude that, with a profound lack of chivalry, adds a fancied “legitimacy” to the plain fact that he no longer loves her and that the woman must bear it. By virtue of this “legitimation,” the man claims a right for himself and besides causing the misfortune seeks to put her in the wrong. The successful amatory competitor proceeds exactly in the same way: namely, the opponent must be less worthy, otherwise he would not have lost out. It is not so different, of course, if, after a victorious war, the victor in undignified self-righteousness claims, “I have won because I was right.” Or, if somebody under the frightfulness of war collapses psychologically, and instead of simply saying it was just too much, he feels the need of legitimizing his war weariness to himself by substituting the feeling, “I could not bear it because I had to fight for a morally bad cause.” Likewise, with the defeated in war. Instead of searching like old women for the “guilty one” after the war—in a situation in which the structure of society produced the war—everyone with a manly and controlled attitude would tell the enemy, “We lost the war. You have won it. That is now all over. Now, let us discuss what conclusion must be drawn according to the objective interests that came into play, and what is the main thing in view of the responsibility toward the future which above all burdens the victor.” Anything else is undignified and will become a boomerang. If its interests have been damaged, a nation forgives. However, if its honor has been offended, especially by a bigoted self-righteousness, no nation forgives. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

Every new document that comes to light after decades revives the undignified lamentations, the hatred and scorn, instead of allowing the war at its end to be buried, at least morally. This is possible only through objectivity and chivalry, and above all, only through dignity. However, never is it possible through an “ethic,” which in truth signifies a lack of dignity on both sides. Instead of being concerned about what the politician is interested in, the future and the responsibility towards the future, this ethic is concerned about politically sterile questions of past guilt, which are not to be settled politically.  If such a guilt exists at all, to act in this way is politically guilty. And overlooks the unavoidable falsification of the whole problem, through very material interests: namely, the victor’s interest in the greatest possible moral and material gain; the hopes of the defeated to trade in advantages through the confessions of guilt. If anything is “vulgar,” then, this is, and it is the result of this fashion of exploiting “ethics” as a means of “being in the right.” More and more, revolution has found itself delivered into the hands of its bureaucrats and doctrines on the one hand, and to enfeebled and bewildered masses on the other. When the revolutionary elite are guillotined and when Telleyrand is left alive, who will oppose Bonaparte? However, to these historical reasons are added economic necessities. The passages by Simone Weil on the condition of the factory worker must be read in order to realize to what degree of moral exhaustion and silent despair the rationalization of labor can lead. Simone Weil is right in saying that the worker’s condition is doubly inhumane in that he is first deprived of money and then of dignity. Work in which one can have an interest, creative work, even though it is badly paid, does not degrade life. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

 Industrial socialism has done nothing essential to alleviate the condition of the workers because it has not touched on the very principle of production and the organization of labor, which, on the contrary, it has extolled. It even went so far as to offer the worker a historic justification of his lot of much the same value as a promise of celestial joys to one who works himself to death; never did it attempt to give him the joy of creation. The political form of society is no longer in question at this level, but the beliefs of a technical civilization on which capitalism and socialism are equally dependent. Any ideas that do not advance the solution of this problem hardly touch on the misfortunes of the worker. In a society marked by stagnant wages, the moral implications of economic inequality become increasingly difficult to ignore, particularly when viewed through traditions that emphasize justice, stewardship, and the dignity of labor. The root causes of recent labor unrest is to be found partly in causes which are worldwide, and affect all countries as well as ourselves, partly in cases which are special to our country and give differences, the fundamental differences, between the point of view of the present government on fiscal questions between the modern one-sided Free Trader and the Tariff Reformer? The modern Free Trader looks first and foremost only to the interests of the consumer. He says that all men are consumers, and therefore, he can leave other aspects of the great industrial problem to take care of themselves. Tariff Reformers on the other hand, say that our whole society, to a degree which has never been true of any other country in the world and is not even true today, depends upon the producer. Every man is a consumer; that is true. However, most men, directly or indirectly, are producers. All the rich must produce before they can consume. Production to them is a sine qua non of consumption, and unless they find scope for their industry, work for their hands or brains, the means of gaining a livelihood which they need, cheapness is a mockery and a sham. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

However, they also believe that our present system does not serve the interest of cheapness in what is most necessary for our people to have—cheap food and the raw materials of industry. They have said—and facts have shown that they are right, and they are entitled to point to it now to show that they are not mere prophets after the event—that if the Government persists in their policy of doing nothing, prices will rise. And they have risen. Prices of the necessities of life. Only one thing has not risen—the price of labor. The trouble in the midst of which they now live finds its root cause in the general rise in the necessaries of life, which is aggravated by the fact that in this country, that rise has been unaccompanied by an equivalent rise in the price of labor. The man who now draws the same wages as ten or twenty years ago finds that his position is not better whilst he looks for betterment, has not even remained the same, but that the pinch is sharpened, the struggle for life harder, the margin between him and real distress more narrow than ever it is in his experience before. What is the government doing? Some economists argue that tariffs can boost wages only when paired with strong unions or when they successfully expand domestic production. When tariffs reduce import pressure, domestic firms may expand production. More production leads to more hiring, and upward pressure on wages in that specific sector. This effect is strongest in manufacturing and heavy industry. As tariff revenue is reinvested in the American economy, it will generate more government revenue, pay down debt, increase private investment and production, which will increase wages over time. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

However, if nothing is done to protect American-made goods, and the American workers, low wages will deprive people of any chance or hope for decent existences, which perpetuates misery and breeds ill-health in the children before ever they come to face the struggle of life, they will do what they can to prevent that cancerous growth in their midst. In dealing as America has been dealing by giving away farm land, importing food and good and services, and poverty, they have been turning the pyramid upside down, and if they do not take care, and the people of this country do not take care, the whole weight of it will topple over and crush the masses of our people They cannot put all these new charges upon the industry, nearly all of them desirable, many of them most necessary, unless they give industry the support and the encouragement which is necessary to enable our industry to bear the fresh expenses. It is no good treating our commerce and our industry as existing in a watertight compartment of its own, unaffected by what goes on elsewhere in the world. The existing methods provide palliatives which might raise great hopes, and for a moment might seem to promise great results, but which, as they raise them upon an insecure foundation, we are bound in the long run to make their last step worse than the first. Unless and until they recognize that the necessity of national production, employment of our own people and our own capital, and the encouragement of industry and enterprise within our own boundaries is as much one of the chief tasks of Government, their labour will be fruitless and worse than fruitless. In trying to improve the conditions of workpeople, they will create more unemployment; in trying to raise wages without increasing production in America, they will decrease the amount of work going; in trying to better the condition of their people, they will lower it, because they are loading an industry that is already finding itself oppressed to the uttermost to maintain its position. We need tariffs to protect the American worker. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

America has become so expensive that record numbers of Americans are relocating to Mexico. According to the U.S. State Department, the number of American citizens living in Mexico increased by 75 percent between 2019 and 2025, reaching an estimated 1.8 million people. Many of these individuals work remotely for U.S. companies while taking advantage of Mexico’s lower cost of living, natural beauty, and vibrant culture—and they are thriving. California illustrates the severity of the affordability crisis anc corruption. Under Gavin Newsom’s controll, nearly $80 billion has been wasted and/or stolen. Also, California is now the third most expensive state in the nation and is facing a $20 billion budget deficit, reflecting the financial strain on its residents. In 37 percent of California counties, a family of four earning a six‑figure income is considered low‑income. The average home price in the state is approaching $1 million, while the average salary is just over $96,000—making homeownership unattainable for most Californians. The situation is even more stark for individuals. In five counties—Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin—a single person earning more than $100,000 a year is now classified as low‑income. Traditional mortgage guidelines recommend spending no more than 28 percent of gross income on a mortgage payment and no more than 36 percent on total debt. Based on the median household income in Sacramento County, a homeowner can afford a mortgage payment of about $2,070 per month, or up to $2,661 for all debts combined. Yet home prices in Sacramento County require far higher incomes. To purchase a typical home using standard lending guidelines, a household would need to earn roughly $135,000 per year. In reality, the median household income in Sacramento County is about $88,724—often with two to four people working to support the mortgage. This mismatch raises serious questions about how lenders are qualifying buyers for such expensive homes. #RandolphHarris 15 of 22

Home prices in Sacramento County are now rivaling those in the Bay Area, and in some cases, Bay Area homes are actually more affordable. Historically, the Bay Area has commanded higher prices due to higher‑paying jobs, a larger population, and its status as a major tourist destination. Sacramento’s rapid price escalation signals a deepening affordability crisis. According to this viewpoint, state leadership has contributed to the problem. Governor Gavin Newsom has directed taxpayer‑funded resources and cash aid toward individuals in the country illegally, while state workers—who keep California running—are overdue for a 25 percent wage increase. This prioritization, critics argue, worsens the affordability crisis and leaves California residents struggling to keep up with rising costs. Additionally, while California is facing one of the most severe affordable‑housing crises in the nation, yet at the same time the state has embarked on an extraordinarily expensive renovation of the Capitol building—known as “The Castle”—in Sacramento. According to public reports, the project has already cost taxpayers more than $1.2 billion, and some analysts estimate the final price could reach as high as $5 billion before completion. Classical buildings rely on stone or stone-like finishes. Modern additions often use concrete, glass, steel, or flat stucco, which can feel cheap or abrupt next to marble-like surfaces. Because the addition is bulkier, taller, or visually heavier, it overpowers the original architecture of the Ancient Greek and Roman design. Critics argue that Capitol buildings are not just architecture — they are civic symbols. When an addition does not “speak the same language,” people feel like the symbolism has been diluted, such unnecessary spending reflects deeper structural problems in the state’s governance. They point to decades‑old laws that restrict housing supply and discourage home sales, as well as concerns about bureaucratic inefficiency, corruption, and wasteful government spending. These factors, they contend, have contributed to soaring rents, limited housing availability, and a growing sense that state priorities are misaligned with the needs of ordinary Californians. The consequences of these policies are increasingly visible. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

Between 2018 and 2023, California received $24 billion to fund 30 homeless and housing programs. These programs produced 100,000 housing units—an average cost of $240,000 per unit. For comparison, Roger Lucas, owner of Grand Castle, LLC, spent $50 million to build The Grand Castle, a 522‑unit residential community in Grandville, Michigan. The development includes studios, one‑bedroom, two‑bedroom, and three‑bedroom units, as well as a multi‑level penthouse. Rents range from $1,000 to $2,500. Built on a 23.6‑acre site, the community features 750 covered parking spaces, a clubhouse, and a resort‑style pool, and was completed in just 12 to 18 months. The average cost per unit was approximately $95,785—about $144,000 less per unit than California’s publicly funded projects. California also has the highest unemployment rate in the nation at 5.4 percent, compared to the national average of 4.5 percent. As household bills surge and the minimum wage rises to $20 an hour, people living on Social Security retirement benefits are especially strained, with monthly checks effectively equating to $5 to $7 an hour. Meanwhile, as Americans struggle to find and afford housing, Governor Gavin Newsom signed two bills on February 7, 2025—SBX1 1 and SBX1 2, both part of the Budget Act of 2024—allocating $50 million to protect individuals in the country illegally from deportation. Additionally, the governor extended free health care to 700,000 undocumented immigrants, costing taxpayers $3 billion annually. At the same time, funding was reduced for programs serving veterans, schoolchildren, people with disabilities, and the homeless. Given these circumstances, it is understandable that many people who are legally in the United States—and paying between 30 and 90 percent of their income in taxes—are deeply frustrated. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

Advocates argue that the crisis unfolding in California—driven by Democratic policies—is pushing home prices, mortgages, and rents higher not only across the United States but around the world, making everyday life increasingly unaffordable. Many believe the situation is far from stabilizing. At the same time, China—where the United States has outsourced significant jobs and capital—has more than 50 ghost cities containing an estimated 65 million vacant homes. These ghost cities are the result of massive overdevelopment in areas where few or no people live. By contrast, if all categories of homelessness are counted, California is estimated to have as many as 4 million homeless individuals. The state also has the highest home prices in the nation, the highest taxes, and some of the most restrictive business regulations anywhere. Because of what critics describe as a hostile environment for both residents and employers, more than 360 companies have left California since 2020. Additionally, more than 500,000 residents leave the state each year because it has become too expensive to live in. Critics also point to Governor Gavin Newsom’s policies, including the criminalization of homelessness and the arrest of individuals without housing, rising crime, and widespread job losses as companies continue to move operations elsewhere. California also has the highest unemployment rate in the country at 5.4 percent, compared to the national average of 4.1 percent. Advocates argue that the crisis created by Democratic leadership is driving up housing costs nationwide and globally, and that the situation is far from resolved. California is also home to more than 3.5 million undocumented immigrants. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

America is facing a slow‑moving crisis that too few people are willing to confront: we are losing farmland at a pace that threatens our long‑term ability to feed ourselves. Much like the land shortage unfolding in Las Vegas—where rapid development has pushed the city to the edge of its buildable limits—we risk running out of the agricultural land that sustains our food supply. Once farmland is paved over, it is gone forever. And if we continue down this path, the consequences could be severe. Food security is national security. A nation that cannot grow its own food is a nation that must rely on others for survival. In a world already strained by geopolitical tensions, climate pressures, and supply‑chain disruptions, the idea of future “food wars” is not far‑fetched. Protecting American farmland today is an investment in tomorrow’s stability. One of the most effective ways to safeguard our agricultural base is to support the farmers and ranchers who keep it productive. That starts with buying American‑made beef, poultry, dairy, and produce. When consumers choose domestic products, they strengthen the economic foundation of rural communities. They also send a clear signal to investors: American agriculture is worth backing. The imbalances we saw in the past are exactly why President Trump implemented traffis: to protect American industries, reduce trade deficits, and prevent the United States from being taken advantage of economically. The goal, in this view, is to return America to the status of a creditor nation rather than one borrowing money to support other countries. According to this perspective, President Trump’s tariff policies generate approximately $400 billion in annual revenue and help create hundreds of thousands of jobs. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

When Americans shop locally, they do more than support their neighbors—they strengthen the national economy. Every dollar spent on American‑made goods circulates back into our communities, generating tax revenue that funds schools, infrastructure, and public services. It keeps jobs here at home, ensures wages rise naturally, and reduces the burden on taxpayers. In contrast, buying foreign goods often means lighter tax loads for overseas companies and money flowing out of our economy, strengthening other nations at our expense. There are environmental benefits too. American‑made products travel shorter distances, reducing carbon emissions. And unlike many foreign manufacturers, American companies are held to higher standards for pollution control. They must dispose of waste responsibly and protect our air, land, and water. Supporting them is not only patriotic—it’s environmentally responsible. Under President Trump’s administration, policies have emphasized prioritizing American workers and industries. Efforts to secure the border, reduce illegal crossings, and crack down on drug trafficking have been paired with significant investment in U.S. manufacturing, production, and innovation. These measures have helped channel trillions of dollars back into American industry, reinforcing the pledge to “Make America Great Again.” The lesson is clear: when we buy American, we invest in ourselves. We protect farmland, preserve jobs, reduce pollution, and strengthen our economy. We also reduce reliance on foreign nations and help lower the national debt by keeping tax revenue at home. The human intellect we possess today, so rich and capable, did not appear suddenly. It evolved through countless stages, shaped by experience, struggle, and the gradual awakening of self‑awareness.  And yet, for all our progress, something essential is missing. We have had scientific thinking, business thinking, and political thinking in abundance. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

What the world needs now is inspired thinking—thinking that rises above self‑interest and moves toward wisdom. The intellect may begin in selfishness, but its natural evolution leads toward reason, and ultimately toward selflessness. This is where parents play a vital role. Teach your children to love America, to appreciate the freedoms and opportunities they inherit, and to support the workers and businesses that keep this nation strong. Teach them to respect law and order, to honor their elders, and to understand that good character is the foundation of a meaningful life. It is inborn in the human mind to want to know. Curiosity begins with a child’s endless questions, deepens through a scientist’s investigations, and eventually reaches toward something higher—a union of reflective thought and intuitive insight. This is the beginning of true intelligence, the kind that seeks a view of the whole, not just the parts. When the mind reaches this stage, it enters the realm of philosophy. But too many children today are struggling in school, not because they lack ability, but because they are not reading. Reading is the gateway to thought. When you read books, you absorb the rhythm of language, the structure of ideas, and the example of how to express yourself. You learn to write, to think, and to understand the world beyond your immediate experience. So to every young person: take your education seriously. Read your books. Ask questions. Think deeply. The effort you put in now will shape the opportunities you have later. Your success will not only make your family proud—it will give you the tools to contribute meaningfully to your community and your country. The evolution of the mind is a lifelong journey. But it begins with simple habits: curiosity, discipline, respect, and a willingness to learn. These are the qualities that build strong individuals—and a strong nation. “Oh, thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand between their loved home and the war’s desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause is just, and this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’ And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

Loving God, I lift the relationships in my life that are filled with tension and discord to You. Pour out your peace on those involved, softening hearts and fostering understanding. May your love guide our words and actions, bringing reconciliation and harmony. Grant us the wisdom to forgive and the humility to seek peace. In Jesus’ name, I pray. Amen.