The Torture Of Going To the Dentist

I hate using the word hate.  It's a venomous verb.  I don't hate yucky kale, mushy fish or stinky cheese. I just haven't acquired a taste for them. I don't hate humans, except Michigan fans. But I confess I hate going to the dentist. I would rather endure torture at Abu Ghraib prison than let a dentist near my teeth.

Come to think of it, a dental procedure is similar to being waterboarded in some remote rendition center. Only the music is better in Iraq's Abu Ghraib.  Who selects the tunes piped overhead while you maintain a death grip on both arms of a dental chair?  North Korea's Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un?  

Millions of Americans share my irrational fear. Some pointy heads in the dental health profession published a study in 2013 revealing 36% of my fellow citizens suffer from this phobia.  Of those, fully 12% are classified as having "extreme dental fear."  I am in the 1% that dentists fear most: whiners.

When a dentist spies my name on the daily appointment list, she likely gulps a few Xanax. "Not that guy!" I expect to be sedated right after I check in with the receptionist.  My teeth are more sensitive than a Woke college student.  A prick with a metal dental tool triggers electrical shocks to my gums.  

My adventures in Dental Hell began with my first trip to the dentist at about six years of age. I started bawling the minute the dentist cooed, "Open wide."  The poking, prodding and probing were excruciating. The dental assistant dropped her girth on my tiny body to prevent movement.

I was too young to remember this episode but it was repeated countless times by my parents whenever I was scheduled for another check-up, along with a stern warning: "Don't cry!"  Not exactly the most comforting thought before entering the Chamber of Torture.  But I never cried again.  So there.

My worst nightmare was the summer before my senior year in high school.  At a routine check-up, the dentist announced excitedly: "I found ten cavities!"  His thoughts must have drifted to an expensive vacation in the Swiss Alps.  This was going to be a whopping payday for a small-town practitioner.

Over the next two months, I shuttled back and forth to the dentist.  It seemed like the whole summer was wasted.  My mouth was permanently numb.  My jaw ached.  My teeth clanked with metal fillings. The anticipation of another  trip to the dentist haunted my dreams and kept me awake at night. 

Then in my 20's, I endured my first root canal.  For the uninitiated, this procedure ranks near the top of the pain scale, at least in 1970's dentistry.  Imagine a sensitive tooth pummeled with a hammer.  Then your mouth is stuffed with foul tasting goop. Warning: there are root canals in Hell.

When I lived in London in 1995, I was introduced to the Dark Ages of European dentistry. The techniques and equipment were right out America's 1950's.  Noisy foot-pedal drills, painful cleanings and brusque dentists.  And those were some of the bright spots.

The dentist examined a tooth that had been throbbing with pain. After a stroke of his chin, he decided an extraction was required. "Do you prefer I use a knife or pliers?" he asked with a poker face. Are you kidding me, I mumbled under my breath.  I almost bolted from his office.

Then he patiently explained he had been trained as a field surgeon in the British Army.  He was proficient at extracting teeth with a knife. But we weren't in a war theater.  Bombs weren't falling around us.  I was in a dentist office, for goodness sake.  "I prefer the pliers," I said. He appeared disappointed. 

Back stateside, I went 18 months without a checkup.  Bad idea.  When I finally trudged to the dentist's office, the torturer peered into my mouth and harrumphed.  "You have a lot of old fillings. Some are deteriorating. You need crowns.  Gold crowns."  This sounded like some crypto currency scam to me.

After a series of agonizing visits, my mouth resembled Fort Knox. Overnight, my crowns were worth more than my stock holdings. My net worth soared.  Big banks became my best friends.

These incidents were leading up to the equivalent of dentistry's MegaMillions jackpot.  An annual check-up revealed I needed a tooth implant.  There are few words that would do justice to the experience.  Close your eyes and pretend a 18-wheeler just plowed into your mouth.  Sideways.

A metal socket was implanted into my gums. Driven in with a sledge hammer or some such instrument. Then a tooth that appeared as if it was found in the zoo was fitted into the receptacle.  I have condensed the process to spare you the grisly details.  I guarantee you having heart bypass surgery is less stressful.

Pain is not just found in the dental chair.  Once a harassing assistant called my office and left a message with my secretary, claiming I owed $300.  The back office had filed my claim incorrectly.  It was their error.  I never got an apology.  I sent the dentist a nasty letter and told him I hoped his teeth rotted.

More than a decade ago,  I was fortunate to locate a compassionate, skilled dentist who empathizes with my peccadilloes.  Her name is Dr. Joan Dreyer DDS. She is the first dentist I have known with a sense of humor.  Apparently, you are required to be humorless to get a dental certification.  

Dr. D, as I call her, has a syringe standing by whenever I plop in the dental chair.  At the first sign of a twitch, she injects me with Happy Numbing Juice.  The pain disappears.  My heart palpitations vanish. She talks me through each procedure, like a psychiatrist dealing with a troubled child.

I know this may sound like I am a ninny.  But frankly, I don't care. Once you have suffered through the dental wars as I have, it is almost certain you will develop Post Traumatic Dental Stress Disorder (PTDSD). You won't find it in the medical books.  But I assure you it is real.  At least, I think it is.

Burgeoning Crime Wave Swamps Big Cities

America's big cities are wrestling with an unprecedented surge in crime.  No one can claim the rolling swell of crime is a shock in the wake of the nationwide clamor to defund police departments.  City officials bowed to rioting mobs demands, cleaving police budgets and trimming cops on the street.

The impact was predictable.  A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) preliminary report shows murders and non-negligent manslaughter offenses increased 14.8% after years of decline.  Aggravated assaults climbed 4.6%.  Arson skyrocketed 19.2%. The reporting period covers January to June 2020.

The final FBI report for last year won't be released until this September.  However, In the last three months of 2020, the crime wave evolved into a tsunami.  Homicides spiraled 32.2% in cities with a population of at least one million, according to data in the FBI Quarterly Uniform Report. 

After the George Floyd death, riots and looting erupted in many major cities.  As the lawlessness continued night after night, weak kneed, mostly Democrat city officials surrendered to Black Lives Matter and Antifa by rushing to defund their police departments with little or no public debate. 

Cities including New York, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Austin and Atlanta ordered deep budget cuts that impacted manpower.  Departments were forced to slice payrolls and decrease police presence, which slowed response time.

Cuts ranged from $1 billion in New York City to $29 million in Oakland.  The result was devastating for the most vulnerable residents of these major cities.  Deadly crimes spiked in neighborhoods with mostly African-American and Hispanic majorities.  

In Minneapolis, scene of the Floyd death, murders jumped 46% between December of last year and March 28 of this year.  In New York City, murders shot up 11.8% as of March 21 year-over-year.  Shootings spiked 40.1% in just the first quarter of this year.

Los Angeles reported a 38% increase in murders in 2020, despite the Coronavirus  mandates that kept most residents sheltered in their homes and apartments.  After Austin sliced its police budget by $43 million, arsons soared 73%, aggravated assaults rose 26%.  

Portland, scene of some of the worst rioting, experienced a 1,600% increase in murders in just the first two months of this year.  From July 2020 to February, the homicide rate escalated 270.6%.  Once peaceful, laid back Portland was transformed into a war zone by anarchists. 

These depressing statistics prompted an outcry from citizen groups in these cities, pressuring city councils and mayors to backtrack in the face of withering criticism.  New York reinstated $92 million in its police budget, Baltimore proposed a $27 million increase after chopping $22 million in 2020.

Other cities followed suit, including Oakland, Minneapolis, Houston, San Diego and others.  After being drowned out for months by the anarchists, ordinary citizens and many business said: Enough!  But restoring budgets may be too late for many cities caught up in anti-police media and protests frenzy.

Police are leaving in droves in the cities that refused to back the blue.  New York City Police Department resignations and retirements are up 75% from the previous year.  More than 5,300 uniformed officers have left the force.  When cities defund police, it's a clear signal policing is no longer a priority.

In Minneapolis, more than 200 officers left between last July and this March.  That is a 49% increase from the previous year. The Police Department union blames the lack of city council support and the city's refusal to back officers during the worst of the riots.  

The story is the same in other crime plagued cities.  Seattle and Portland have both reported the biggest wave of  police departures in recent memory. Staffing shortages are exacerbating the out-of-control rise in violent crime in these cities and others.  Cutting police budgets has deadly consequences.

The head of the Police Union in Portland had harsh criticism for City Commissioner Joe Ann Hardesty, who spearheaded the defund the police movement in the city,  "Roving gangs of black clad rioters do not speak for the hundreds of thousands of residents and business owners, who want a safe and clean city. Yet local politicians supported them."

Some concerned law enforcement officials are speculating the defund the police movement has a broader agenda than just addressing the law enforcement shooting of African-Americans. Former Arizona police officer Brandon Tatum, author of an upcoming book on the subject, has a plausible theory.

"I believe it's an agenda to completely destroy and dismantle local police departments so that the (federal) government can have control of law enforcement in this country and push a nationwide agenda," Tatum said in an interview. 

Tatum has a point.  If law enforcement is federalized, then the government in Washington can enforce mandates and restrictions that support its progressive agenda.  Imagine a federal cops seizing guns from legal owners, forcing citizens to get COVID vaccines or policing public speech.

That would be a dangerous development that would infringe on Constitutional rights.  However, if the Washington progressives pass laws, then what better way to force compliance than having a federal police force to do its bidding?  It's a sobering thesis that should worry every American.

Evidence Mounts Virus Escaped From Wuhan Lab

A  clump of square buildings hunker in the forests of Wuhan China.  At the epicenter is a windowless steel structure, which houses a bio-safety level 4 laboratory. The sterile lab handles some of the world's most contagious pathogens and also conducts classified research for the Chinese military.

The facility is located just a few kilometers from a "wet market" where the first Coronavirus infections  emerged. In recent weeks, the Chinese scientific lab has bolted into the headlines as scientists take a fresh look at a once discredited theory that a leak at the facility may have been the origin of the Coronavirus.

Nearly 18 months ago, the official version circulated by American and Chinese health officials claimed the virus spread from the market, where vendors sell meat, fish, produce and some live animals. Scientists agreed the Coronavirus was naturally transmitted from a bat to humans. Few questioned the thesis.

A brave scientist speculated the virus may have spread as a result of an inadvertent leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. (WIV).  Molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright expressed concerns because of previous leaks at labs in Beijing.  Facebook and Google banned any discussion of the lab leak theory. 

In recent weeks, a drizzle of conjecture has evolved into a downpour of circumstantial as well as unambiguous evidence that the Coronavirus may be linked to a leak from the Wuhan facility, despite continued and often contentious denials from Communist Chinese officials.

Last year President Trump publicly speculated the virus may have been engineered in a laboratory, fueling a firestorm of outrage from scientists and the media. They coordinated an attack on the accusation, demeaning it as a conspiracy theory.  The lab leak thesis was effectively banned. 

The Washington Post huffed that the president and his supporters were "fanning the embers of a conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked by experts."  The New York Times labeled the claim a "fringe theory."  The media piled on to promote its narrative that Trump was solely to blame for the virus.

Still questions lingered in medical chat rooms and among scientists whose concerns were never made public.  There were coincidences too foreboding to deny.  However, Dr. Anthony Fauci led a chorus of scientists who blotted out even the possibility of a leak being the origin for the pandemic.

A recently-released trove of emails from Dr. Fauci, the government's top specialist during COVID, revealed at the time he was pooh-poohing the leak publicly, he and his associates and colleagues privately discussed the possibility that the virus had indeed escaped from the Wuhan lab.

As early as last January, Dr. Fauci was alerted about the suspicious characteristics of COVID samples.  Kristian Anderson and five virologists, noted "unusual features" in the virus and added "one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered." 

Anderson also noted in his email to Dr. Fauci that he and his team "all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from an evolutionary theory."  The team's initial impression later flip-flopped, but they offered no evidence to support their new claim the laboratory scenario was no longer plausible.

The emails were publicly disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Judicial Watch.  The duplicity of Dr. Fauci was further exposed when another FOIA request uncovered U.S. tax-payer funding of the Wuhan lab, in spite of the virologist's earlier denials in a Senate hearing.

Pressed  again on the matter, Dr. Fauci told lawmakers the government granted $600,000 in funding over a five year period.  But documents furnished by the Health and Human Services divulged that between 2014 and 2019, the U.S. provided $826,277 in taxpayer funds. 

The money came from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) directed by Dr. Fauci.  Documents show the funds were provided over a six-year period for "Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence." NIAID funneled the money through a third party, EcoHealth Alliance.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that the Wuhan lab was conducting studies on bats and Coronavirus at the time of the outbreak.  The U.S. State Department raised eyebrows in January when it released a bombshell fact sheet that was generally ignored by a partisan media.

The fact sheet confirmed Wuhan was conducting experiments on a bat virus, including "gain of function" research on the engineering of "chimeric viruses" or man-made pathogens.

Gain of function is used to describe a process that alters an organism or a disease in a way that increases its pathogenesis, transmission or the types of hosts it can infect. Done ethically, this type of research is useful because it allows scientists to develop vaccines and medicines for treatment.

In the wrong hands, this research could be used to engineer an existing virus for rapid transmission or to cause a pandemic pathogen to replicate more quickly, increasing the spread to humans.  Research groups in the EU and US both regulate the oversight of this process in most labs to ensure safety.

In its document, the State Department insisted it had "reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV (Wuhan lab) became sick in the autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses."

Vanity Fair reported some officials at the State Department were explicitly told not to explore the Wuhan lab's "gain of function" research because it would bring what the publication described as "unwelcome" attention on U.S. government funding of the research. It would open "a can of worms" the outlet said.

The State Department claims triggered questions about the credibility of Wuhan lab's senior researcher Shi Zhengli who said there were "zero infections" among the WIV staff.  Denials from Chinese officials escalated in the face of a Wall Street Journal investigative report that fueled renewed speculation.

NBC News, quoting U.S. intelligence officials, followed with a broadcast revealing that a database of more than 22,000 virus samples at the Wuhan lab were removed from public view for so-called security reasons.  The disclosure cast a shadow over the probe by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Peter B. Embark, the head of the WHO group that investigated the origins, admitted in late February that his group "didn't do an audit of any of these labs, so we don't really have hard facts or detailed data done at the Wuhan lab." Yet he still contended it was "extremely unlikely" the virus originated at the lab.

That explanation did not satisfy some virologists.  Last month, 18 virologists published a letter in Science criticizing WHO 's joint investigation with China.  "Although there were no finding in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident...the two theories were not given balanced consideration."

Even the WHO director general conceded the joint investigation's report lacked data to support its findings. The State Department backed by 13 countries said the WHO probe was "significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data samples."  

With interest heating up, Republicans are calling for President Biden to declassify all U.S. intelligence related to the Wuhan lab and the COVID-19 pandemic, so the American people can get answers they deserve.  Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan initially balked at releasing the intel.

This is the moment for politicians to put aside their differences and use the full resources of the government  to investigate the lab leak theory.  There has been too much government foot-dragging, failed probes derailed by China and a lack of transparency on this critical matter. 

What's maddening is why it has taken so long for the country's chief pandemic expert Dr. Fauci to unequivocally determine the origin of a deadly virus that killed nearly 600,000 Americans. The media has been complicit by its lazy reporting of the standard, approved version of the origin.

Why was it so critical for Dr. Fauci and other scientist to cling to the wet market theory?  Why did it take 18 months for the circumstantial evidence to appear in the public domain?  Was scientific curiosity shelved until after a presidential election because Coronavirus was the Democrats' campaign gift?

Don't expect answers to those questions from the administration, the media or the party in power. The opinion here is the wet market thesis will never be overturned.  The lab leak scenario will be swept under the Oval Office carpet after a "show" investigation.  There is no appetite to rattle relations with China.

Green Energy: Take A Fresh Look At Nuclear

Plans to expand nuclear power usually trigger fears of Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Nightmarish accidents occurred at those three nuclear plants, designed in the 1960's and built in the 1970's, fueling a public climate of jitters about the safety of this energy source.

However, misgivings about nuclear's safety are at odds with the facts. At the end of 2019, there were 98 operating nuclear reactors at 58 power plants in 29 states in the U.S. with no incidents since the Three Mile Island radiation leak of 1979.  That was more than two decades ago. That plant is 38-years-old.

Primarily due to the escalating costs of regulation, construction and maintenance, the total number of operational nuclear reactors has shrunk from its pinnacle of 108 in 2000.  The price tag for today's traditional nuclear power plant, depending on capacity, runs anywhere from $6 billion to $9 billion.  

Although the country has fewer nuclear reactors, those power plants still produce 20% of all electricity. Natural gas accounts for 38% of power generation; coal, 23%; hydroelectric, 7%, and wind and solar output equals 12%.  Those sources combined churned out 4.1 billion mega-watt hours of power.  

Those figures are from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which published the data this year. According to an EIA report, the U.S. has the most nuclear generation capacity of any nation, but France's nuclear plants account for a larger share of the country's total electricity output, 71.5%.   

As the world searches for ways to reduce carbon emissions, there is increasing interest in small modular nuclear reactors (SMR).  These advanced reactors are envisioned as power sources for electricity, desalination and other industrial uses.  U.S., Canada and China are pursuing the technology.

In 2020, the Energy Department awarded $210 million to ten projects to develop technologies for SMR's as part of an Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.  Scores of SMR initiatives are underway at private firms, including General Electric, a pioneer in nuclear power.  

Although still in the development stage, these small, modular reactors will prospectively be designed to develop 300 mega watts of power, compared with more than 1,000 megawatts for larger plants operating in the country.  

What makes these smaller reactors different? The footprint is reduced.  In fact, one SMR could fit into an area the size of a microbrewery.  The light water-cooled reactors are modular, which means the plants could be built faster and cheaper, saving billions of dollars. 

These innovative reactors could be shipped by rail to power sites, reducing the time to erect a new plant and making nuclear more cost effective.  A few nascent SMR designs are contemplating incorporating the use of a coolant other than light water, such as gas, liquid metal or even molten salt.   

Proponents are not calling for abandoning green energy sources such as wind and solar, but suggest these innovative reactors could replace larger, outdated nuclear or coal facilities. They insist the mini-reactors are inherently safer than the older designs, offering added protection from nuclear meltdowns. 

The ingenious nuclear plant would work the same as today power facilities, heating water to produce steam.  The steam is used to spin large turbines that generate the electricity.  The process requires fission to split atoms inside the reactor.  The reactor core contains uranium fuel. 

In September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a safety evaluation report on an SMR, a critical step before the final design can be approved.  The firm,  NuScale, based in Portland, is developing the first commercial SMR for utilities in Utah, slated for launch by the end of the decade.

One drawback for nuclear energy has always been the issue of nuclear waste, which remains highly radioactive for longer than a human lifespan. The new downsized reactors will produce waste, but there will be less of it because of its diminished power capacity. 

Concerns about nuclear waste are legitimate, but often exaggerated by the media.  All the waste from 60 years of America's nuclear reactors would take up less space than one average-size Walmart store. Compare that to the toxic waste from a single, large coal plant. It dwarfs nuclear waste.

Nuclear emits no carbon.  It can supplement renewables.  When clouds blot out the sun or the winds are calm, those two sources of energy are dormant.  Without a reliable backup source, homes and businesses would be plunged into darkness.  Today coal plants often are the backup.

As a practical matter, the more solar and wind populate a country's energy grid, the more backup power is needed.  Take Denmark for example.  On windy days, the country's offshore wind farms supply 100% of its power.  Over a full year, wind output accounts for only 50% of electricity generation.

On windless days, Denmark purchases backup power from other countries at premium prices. 

Germany has plowed $400 billion into its renewable program, yet carbon emissions have remained stubbornly high.  The reason? Backup power is often supplied by coal or gas burning plants. Closer to home, California has made billions in investments in renewables, but emissions remain essentially flat. 

A recent report by the National Renewable Energy Lab, an advocate for green energy, issued a green energy projection it cautiously labels as "theoretically" possible:

"Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in  2050."  Even under this optimistic scenario, there's a 20% power shortage.

This by no means diminishes renewables.  Wind and solar are excellent sources of clean, carbon-free power.  However, addressing the power-gap should be the top concern of any country or environmentalist interested in achieving a carbon neutral goal. Ignoring it is foolhardy. 

There is no technology on the horizon that offers the scale of nuclear power as an immediate backup. Hydrogen and batteries are often discussed as green alternatives, but any development of a working plant remains decades away, if ever.

Solar panels and wind farms may offer the best hope of reducing carbon emissions, but neither can overcome intermittency when nature interrupts their source for generating power.  Future electric grids will need clean backup power.  That's why it's urgent to take a fresh look at nuclear.

District of Columbia: Why Statehood Is A Bad Idea

Anyone whose traveled to the District of Columbia has spotted license plates with the slogan: "Taxation Without Representation." That has been a rallying cry by the district's politicians who seek statehood for the 68.3-square mile stretch of concrete that's 17 times smaller than Rhode Island.

After decades of lobbying, the District of Columbia's Democrats may get their wish.  The House of Representatives, under the iron thumb of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, approved a bill (HR 51) to make the district the nation's 51st state.  The legislation will now proceed to the Senate for a make-or-break vote.

Pelosi's political strategy is clear: permanent Democrat control of the Senate. Statehood would grant the district two senators and one representative.  That would be tantamount to giving Democrats control of the Senate because less than 7% of all registered voters in D.C. are Republicans.

No Republican has ever been elected mayor of the District of Columbia since home rule began in 1975. The GOP has no representation on the D.C. council.  The last Republican to serve left office in 2009.  This is the deepest blue area in the entire country.

If approved, this wouldn't be the first time politics played a role in statehood.  Eight days before the 1864 presidential election, Nevada was admitted to the union.  The newly minted state cast its electoral votes for Abraham Lincoln, whose re-election was anything but certain in the midst of the Civil War.

However, that's where the similarities end between 1864 and today's drive for 51.  The district's founding in 1790 was a compromise ironed out between Northern and Southern states to set aside a federal district to serve as the seat of government. The founders never intended to operate the capital as a state.

The founding leaders felt so passionate about giving the district freedom-from-state-influence that they enshrined its unique status in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:

"The Congress shall have power to....exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and acceptance of Congress, become the state of the Government of the United States."   

For good reason, the founders feared that if the capital was a state, members of the state government would be indebted  to federal power. James Madison believed that if the District of Columbia was a state, it would also disrupt the proceeding of the federal government because of the influence of state politics.

In 1961, three-fourths of the states ratified the 23rd Amendment, which allows citizens residing in the district to send representatives to vote in the Electoral College for president and Vice President.  Prior to the amendment, district citizens could not vote for those offices, unless registered in a state. 

That background should be a factor in legislators debate over the statehood proposal, which would shrink the federal district to a two-mile square consisting of the White House, Capitol, Supreme Court and the Mall.  The remainder of the area would encompass a new state, home to 700,000 people.

Democrats consider the path to statehood straight forward.  Under the Constitution, the party contends Congress has the authority to approve the district's request to become a state.  In support of the proposal, they claim a new state can be carved from one that already exists, which is a contradiction in terms.

That's the problem for Democrats.  The District of Columbia is not a state territory. The Democrats' bill would divvy up an area that was never intended to become a state.  But that matters little to the partisans who consider the founders racists and the Constitution a quaint, outdated document.

Republicans argue that states historically have been admitted to the union under the Admission Clause of Article IV of the Constitution.  It is not applicable since the district doesn't qualify as a territory, contend Constitutional experts.  Others disagree, focusing on the original "ten-miles square" wording.

Since the district clearly has expanded, Democrats have seized on that fact to claim the founders did not set a minimum size for the district, so shriveling the capital to two-miles should pass Constitutional muster.  If the bill is rubber stamped, the issue will likely wind up before the Supreme Court.   

For 200 years, the seat of America's government has been D.C. Arbitrarily constricting the capital to a tiny plot of buildings does not meet the test of a reasonable interpretation of the founders' intent, Republicans point out.  A Constitutional Amendment should be required to grant D.C. statehood.

Granting the District of Columbia statehood is a naked political ploy that should be given short shrift by the Senate.  But with Democrats holding the deciding vote in cases of a tie, don't discount the party's will power on this issue.  If successful, the founders worst fears with be realized. 

Cartels Rake In Billions From Illegal Immigration

The grisly image is seared into our conscious.  Two girls, aged three and five, dangling over a 14-foot wall at the Mexican border. A male drops the girls one-by-one, their tiny bodies thudding on U.S. soil in the dead of night.  The video image was captured by border patrol agents who rescued the girls.

Two males scampered into Mexico after they dumped their human cargo.  They are smugglers for Mexican drug kingpins, likely members of either Los Zetas or the Gulf cartel, which control yawning swaths of territory along the U.S. border.  No one crosses without paying the cartel.  No one.

The media shuns the subject of human trafficking at the border, preferring to shape Americans views with coverage that focuses only on the dreadful plight of the illegal immigrants.  Their shabby clothes, the frightened mothers clutching babies in their arms and the hollow faces of innocent children.

That message resonates with most people, naturally arousing sympathy. Politicians tread on this empathy, opening the border to a flood of immigrants.  Lifting restrictions, however, exposes the underbelly of the exploitation of immigrants by vicious Mexican cartels.

The media and politicians ignore this aspect because it tarnishes the image of the humanitarian narrative of open borders. Unrestricted access at the souther border is good news for the Mexican cartels because it ensures they will have a steady flow of "loads" (human cargo) to smuggle into the U.S.

These immigrants are often physically and sexually abused, extorted and sometimes murdered on the journey through Mexico by savage cartels thugs.  The criminals charge anywhere from $10,000 for a family to $3,000-to $6,000 per person to sneak immigrants across the 375-mile Mexican-U.S. border.

Smuggling is a hugely profitable enterprise for the drug lords.  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates the Mexican cartels rake in $4 billion annually.  The Mexican government has calculated the take could be as high as $6 billion.  Smuggling is almost as lucrative as drugs

Illegals are increasingly from Central American countries Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.  Mexican immigrants have been declining, estimates the Pew Research Center. From 2007 to 2017, the number of unauthorized Mexicans crossing the border fell from 52% to 20% of the total.

An Associated Press (AP) investigation reported most Central American immigrants are promised a care-free journey to the U.S. border in luxury buses with meals included when they leave home.  It is a rude awakening later to be sardined into oppressively hot trailer trucks without food and little water. 

Those fleeing their countries must first pay a local smuggler to travel to the Mexican border. When the arrive, they fork over thousands of dollars to cartel coyotes.  The arrivals are packed into windowless semi-trailers trucks operated by the cartel for the rugged journey north. 

As the crowded trailers trundle across Mexico, National Guard members stop the truck operators and demand more money, the AP reported. On one trip, five agents from the Attorney General's Office halted a truck and forced each immigrant to hand over $35 each.  

Immigrants are forced to pay smugglers for so-called options, such as helping the individual cross the Arizona desert or find shelter. Some immigrants eschew the trailers, traveling illegally on trains or on foot, where they are prey for bandits and dishonest police.  The cost is less, but the risks are higher.  

Danger lurks even for those in the trailers. In April, nineteen migrants were shot and burned in Camargo, Mexico, apparently as a cartel warning that travelers must pay to enter their territory.  Not long ago in San Antonio, ten immigrants died in transit after being assured the trailer had refrigeration.

"They (cartel smugglers) have no concern for humanity, none; it's a money business," says Jack Staton, acting special agent in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigations in El Paso. "They look at people as merchandise, as a way to make money."  

ICE agents have targeted cartel trucking because of the brazen nature of the smuggling operation.  Often the trucks are emblazoned with the logos of well-known companies to disguise their nefarious operation. Although many arrests have been made, the cartels view it as a cost of doing business.

The Mexican government's claims that it is clamping down on smuggling are a hollow assertion.  The tide of humans from Central America continue to be transported with impunity across the sprawling country without interference. Bribes are the currency that paves the way in corrupt Mexico.  

During April, more than 177,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended by the U.S, Border Patrol, according to preliminary reports from Customs and Border Protection.  An additional 42,620 undocumented immigrants escaped arrest.  Each month the numbers are mushrooming. 

As the immigrant tide rises, the cartels remain one step ahead of Mexican and U.S. law enforcement. The sophistication of their operation is improving, most recently with the introduction of wristbands that help cartels track migrants and payments.  

Bands of different colors are given each migrant to indicate the price they paid and the number of border crossing attempts.  For instance, first time crossers receive red bracelets.  Those with purple bracelets have been sent back twice and are paying more for one last attempt.

Each bracelet has wording signifying whether they have paid the cartel or still owe money.  Some colors represent the cartel smuggling the immigrant.  Border experts say the cartels have high-tech data collection methods and know where to reach family members of those they traffic.  

The information on wristbands was provided by the office of Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas.  Cuellar is vice chairman of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee. Cuellar says most migrants are now crossing near the Texas towns of Del Rio, Mission, McAllen and La Joya. 

This is a crisis, no matter how the Biden Administration tries to sugarcoat the border chaos. The Biden plan of  dispatching millions of dollars to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador to stanch the inflow of migrants is senseless and shortsighted. It has been tried before and failed miserably.  

The money winds up in the pockets of corrupt politicians in those Central American countries, who have no incentive to do anything about the human wave heading to the U.S.  Local smugglers pay off the politicians. Local economies benefit when immigrants wire U.S. dollars to their home countries.

The most effective solution is to finish the border wall, double enforcement and threaten retribution if Mexico doesn't slam shut the revolving door from its country to the U.S.  Then the U.S. should increase the quota for legal entry of Central Americans seeking asylum or permanent residency.

This is also the most compassionate way to treat immigrants who dream of security in America. The current border situation enriches the Mexican cartels, who use the trafficking cash to fund their other criminal enterprises at the expense of the poor who seek a better life.

Subjecting immigrants to the inhumane treatment of cartels is cruel, not humanitarian. If Americans are moved by the media images of the mistreatment of children, then they should support legal ways for immigrants to safely enter the U.S. That is far better than allowing cartels to abuse immigrants.

Police Shootings: Data Rebukes False Narrative

Another police killing.  A male viciously beaten to death.  But this murder went unreported by the media.  That's because the victim was a white police officer.  The alleged assailant is African-American. Skin color should not matter, however, in today's politically-charged environment race is paramount.

Delaware Police Officer Corporal Keith Heacook responded last week to a call for help in the assault of an elderly couple.  After he arrived on the scene, he was brutally beaten and left unconscious. You couldn't find ten Americans who know Heacook's name.  

You can bet most American recognize the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade and Rayshard Brooks.  The shootings of these African-Americans have become symbols of the narrative of racist police killings.  There are no excuses for the horrific murders of these victims. 

However, the actions of a few policeman cannot justify demonizing and condemning all law enforcement officers. The false narrative, perpetuated by the media and politicians, portrays an African-American community under siege by racist police officers deliberately gunning for blacks.

President Biden joined the chorus after police officer Derek Chauvin's conviction, contending the verdict "ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see systemic racism" of police.  A specious claim since the prosecution in the case never introduced a scintilla of evidence Chauvin was a racist.

Chauvin was guilty, but not of personal racism. He made an indefensible decision to use excessive force.

Biden is not alone in race-baiting.  NBA basketball player LeBron James, the self-appointed, unofficial African-American spokesman for the league, tweeted the following after the recent murder of Ahmoud Arbery in Georgia.  The alleged killers were two white males.  

"We're literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME we step foot outside the comfort of our homes! Can't even go for a damn jog man! Like WTF man are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!

In light of such prejudicial rhetoric, it is time to set the record straight.  It is a rarity for a police officer to shoot anyone.  White or black.  

In fact, a black male is more likely to be struck by lightning than to be shot by a police officer.  The latest data from 2019 shows that police shot and killed 1,003 people in the United States.  Of those, 405 were white and 250 were African-American.  Fifty-five were unarmed suspects: 25 whites, 14 blacks.

Since 2015, law enforcement officers have shot and killed 6,211 people: 46% of them (2,883) were white, while 24% (1,496) were black.  According to the most recent Census data African-Americans constitute 13.4% of the population, while whites make up 60.1%.  

One of the stubborn myths about police shootings is the fact officers shoot unarmed black men at an alarming rate, compared to whites. There have been about 7,300 black homicide victims a year.  The 14 unarmed victims in fatal police shootings would comprise 0.2% of that total.            

Since 2015, the data finds 91% of black males killed by police officers were armed: 75% were armed with a gun or knife; the remainder used other weapons, including automobiles.  

The data cited above is from The Washington Post's Fatal Force database. That is significant because The Post is certainly not conservative or a pro-police news outlet.  Often politicians and the media falsely claim law enforcement under reports shootings of victims, especially African-Americans.

The FBI compiles data from reports voluntarily sent to its offices from police departments.  Since all police departments are not compelled to provide the figures, there is cynicism about the FBI data. The Post uses news accounts, social media postings and police reports to build its database.  

Scientific studies have proven that racial bias is not a factor in the disparity between whites and blacks killed by police.  A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2019 found "no significant evidence of a racial disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police."

For perspective, blacks accounted for 53% of the murder and non-negligent manslaughter arrests in 2018 according to FBI data.  Blacks represented 54% of all robbery arrests and 37% of all violent crime arrests versus whites' percentages of 44%, 43%, and 59%, respectively, for those same categories.

In other words, police are more likely to encounter a black person in investigating violent crimes. More than 1.8 million blacks were arrested in 2019 for all crimes, the FBI reports.  Based 2019 FBI data, a minuscule 0.0099% of the 10.08 million people arrested by police were shot and killed by an officer. 

African-Americans made up 27.4% of the police arrests in the latest data.  That means one out of every 6,762 black offenders were shot and killed by police.  The ratio of unarmed black males shot and killed was one out of every 67,334 African-American men who were arrested. 

The statistic no media or politician dares to mention is this: 88.9% of all murders of African-Americans are committed by blacks.  By comparison 80% of white victims were murdered by other whites. Blacks kill far more of their own citizens than white policemen.  

Those figures hardly justify headlines screaming police shootings of blacks are an epidemic. Given the sheer volumes of contacts law enforcement has in a single year, the number of people killed by police stands as evidence most police act responsibly and use proper judgement. 

As further proof, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) for 2015 revealed that 53.5 million people had at least one contact with police. The majority (95%) of those contacts involved traffic stops.  Only 2% of all citizens involved with police experienced force or the threat of force, the BJS reports.  

The facts haven't stopped politicians from asserting policing is an "indefensible system that grants impunity for state violence."  That is a quote from Brooklyn Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the outspoken leaders of the national effort to dismantle policing in America. 

The anti-police campaign has been built on lies, myths and the media's biased reporting of officer shootings.  Yet if anyone armed with facts tries to unravel the narrative, that individual is branded a racist for refusing to bow to the established presumption of police targeting blacks.

Unless the country begins to examine the facts, racial divisions will become a chasm too wide to repair.  That prospect is tragically becoming a reality because politicians and the media are invested in criminalizing police protection in our communities.  

Ironically, a Gallup poll found African-American respondents were twice as likely as their white counterparts to want stepped up policing in their communities.  Activists who want to defund police would do more harm to black communities by their insistence on weakening police protection.    

If the anarchists have their way, the real epidemic will be runaway crime in black communities.