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.

Democrats Panic Over Arizona Election Audit

Even questioning the results of the 2020 presidential election invites derision and risks of being branded a tin-hatted kook.  The Arizona State Senate understands this better than anyone. When they voted to conduct an election audit, Democrats and the media banded together to blaspheme Republicans. 

The high-stakes ballot audit is the most extensive in the aftermath of a tightly-contested presidential national election determined by the narrowest of margins.  Four states, including Arizona, were decided by 34,000 votes or less.  Biden won them all.  He needed every one to reach 270 electoral votes.

Democrats have concocted a 2020 election soufflé' with ingredients of outrage, contempt and censorship for any claims of election fraud.  If the Arizona audit uncovers any election breach, it would let all the air out of Democrats lightly baked thesis that allegations of fraud are baseless and irresponsible. 

However, Democrats have never had any qualms about accusing Republicans of election chicanery.         

Democrats labeled Trump an illegitimate president after 2016, citing Russian collusion, a thoroughly discredited charge. The last thing Democrats want is to have that sobriquet hung around the neck of Joe Biden.  They will spare no costs and employ every legal tactic to quash the process.

The Republican-controlled Senate took 2 1/2 months to slog through the courts, battling the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors,  before it was granted the right to issue subpoenas for election materials n Arizona's largest county, which includes Phoenix.   

Each step of the way, Maricopa has fought to sabotage the recount, abetted by Democrat heavyweights in Arizona.  Republicans forced the issue by taking the matter to court after the supervisors ignored requests for ballots and tabulators.  Officials refused to budge even after they were held in contempt.  

A judge's decision paves the way for a "detailed" review of the country's ballots to include "testing the machines, scanning ballots, performing a full hand count, and checking any IT breaches."  All of Maricopa County's 2.1 million ballots cast in the election will be recounted.

In a last ditch effort to curtail the recount, Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo, the lone Democrat on the board, and the Arizona Democrat Party filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing it was a violation of state law.  A ruling is expected this week.  

For perspective, the total ballots cast in the presidential election in Arizona was 3.3 million. Thus Maricopa County accounted for 63% of the votes.  Joe Biden won Maricopa County by 45,109 votes, enabling him to take Arizona by the thinnest of margins, 10,457 votes.

Arizona was one of several states in 2020 that experienced long, puzzling delays in counting ballots.  On the Friday after the Tuesday election, the state still had 300,000 ballots outstanding.  At that time, Biden enjoyed a 29,861-vote lead in Arizona after Trump held an early advantage for in-person ballots.

In 2016, Trump carried Maricopa by 44,454 votes and racked up larger margins in rural Arizona.  Democrats marshaled their forces in Maricopa for an all out push for mail-in balloting in 2020, an effort that produced a Biden victory, only the second Democrat to win the state since 1948.

More than 2.6 million votes were cast in early balloting, the majority of those were mail-in ballots.  Maricopa saw records for both mail-in ballots and early voting.  The counting of those ballots did not begin until October 31, just days before the November 3 in-person voting.

Now that the Arizona Senate recount is underway, Democrats have trained their biggest legal guns on the auditors, a Florida-based firm Cyber Ninjas, hired by Senate President Karen Fann and Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett.

The Democrat lawyers claim the CEO of the cyber security firm appeared to have promoted election conspiracy theories from a now-deleted Twitter account. The CEO, Doug Logan, has reportedly been an active supporter of the "Stop The Steal" movement, according to the recently filed suit. 

The credibility of Cyber Ninjas may just be a canard for Democrats, who have engaged Hillary Clinton's consigliere, Perkins Coie, a high-powered Washington, D.C. firm. This is the outfit responsible for the discredited Steele Dossier used in an ill-fated attempt to remove Trump from office.

The Democratic Party funding vehicle for the legal attack on the auditors is a "charitable" organization, Protect Democracy Project (PDP), which has employed three law firms to derail the recount, including Perkins Coie.  With a $12.4 million war chest and 72 staff members, PDP can afford the legal muscle.

Although charitable organizations are supposed to be "non-partisan," PDP was founded to oppose the policies of President Trump.  The outfit's president and executive director is Ian Bassin, who served as associate White House counsel for President Obama from 2009-2011. 

The New York Times and its ideological twin The Washington Post began debunking any suggestion of election fraud with frothy indignation the moment Biden was declared the winner.  The papers huffed that any fraud would have been on such a small scale, it wouldn't have effected the outcome.

Former Attorney General William Barr echoed the same theme, declaring last year that the Justice Department had uncovered no evidence of "widespread" voter fraud. Democrats have consistently pointed to the Republican AG's statement to buttress their arguments and silence critics.

There is just one obvious problem with these assurances.  They concede a little election fraud is nothing to sweat.  No one should care. Shouldn't American elections be free of any tomfoolery?  Or does it only matter if a Republican wins the presidency?  This is the stuff of banana republics.  

That's why the Arizona effort should be supported by Democrats as well as Republicans.  If the election was pure as the driven snow, then the recount will give Democrats the perfect weapon to bludgeon GOP claims about fraud.  It makes one wonder why Democrats are so opposed to the recount.  

A Reflection: The America I Knew No Longer Exists

One evening I dozed off, comforted in the fact I was part of a majority of citizens who held our country in high esteem.  We were proud of our identity as Americans.  The next morning I found to my chagrin that Americans were ashamed of our country, our flag, our anthem, our history and our shared values.  

The timeframe may be exaggerated, but the mutation evolved in a single generation, a mere nano-second in the prolonged history of our country.  Previous generations felt this way, too, about change. Unlike past attitudinal shifts, this seems a permanent.

My angst isn't about whatever Woke means.  When the gender of a plastic toy, Mr. Potato Head, earns a headline, I shake my head and laugh about the sad lives of those who give a rats about such nonsense.  No this is more sinister, scarier and strikes at the root of what it is to be an American. 

Pride in country is the glue that binds Americans.  People of all ethnicities, colors, religious beliefs and genders once found common ground in American symbols and values, even if we disagreed on everything else. In famines, world wars, pandemics, political crisis, Americans rallied together. 

Nothing remotely like that exists today.  Disunity is stoked daily by the news media, politicians, activists, movies, television and educators.  We are a nation at war with ourselves because we have nothing in common.  Our values, history and social norms are vilified instead of celebrated.  

Take American history as a prime example.  The New York Times, a sower of discord and disinformation, is fronting a new version of American history, named The 1619 Project.  This distorted account of the country's history frames slavery and white supremacy as the founder's goal.  

This deceptive trope, dismissed by historians as misleading and chocked with unverifiable claims, is being made available to public schools in the form of curriculums.  Kids are being spoon fed a narrative that America's defining moment was the arrival of slaves in 1619 at Jamestown, Virginia.

In the Times alternative version of history, America's current institutions, attitudes, economic and social structures are the result of slavery.  It even blames slavery for suburban traffic congestion and for the prevalence of obesity and diabetes.  White folks are villains through the Times' prism.  

This theme was echoed recently by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield, a Biden appointee.  In a speech delivered to the U.S. General Assembly, she told delegates "the original sin of slavery weaved white supremacy into our founding documents and principles." 

This narrative about a racist-founded America has been simmering for decades, long before Project 1619.  What is different is that it has metastasized into accepted mainstream doctrine.  Historical scholarship is an inconvenient truth, disregarded in favor of a new, darker American catechism.   

Rewriting history is not unique to present day America.  One of the Nazi regime's first strategies was to contort the country's history after German suffered a humiliating defeat in World War I. Hitler's propaganda exploited the ordinary German's post-war, self-loathing to write a false reality of history.  

The essence of the Nazi propaganda method was repetition. This anti-American theme oozes through every communications form: books, speeches, social media, slogans, graffiti. The result is dethronement of reason and the elevation of emotion.  Feelings, not facts, matter.  

Daily pervasive misinterpretation of American history is not benign.  It engenders a seething hatred of America, which manifests itself in many ways. Those who refuse to stand for the national anthem, preferring to take a knee, are embolden because blasphemy of country carries no economic penalty.   

There are other manifestations of this poisonous paradigm.  College professors teach America's history is replete with killing people (wars), colonialism and white supremacy.  Rioters, Capitol insurrectionists and looters address their grievances with America through violence, chillingly similar to Nazism.        

Patriotism is no longer fashionable.  The latest Gallup Poll found that 63% of Americans are either extremely or very proud of their country, the lowest level of patriotism since the research group began asking the questions in 2001.  Among 18-to-34-year-olds, only four in 10 are proud of America.

Even American exceptionalism, once a banner of national pride, is ridiculed by elitists and politicians. New York Magazine labeled it a "dangerous myth," thus disparaging our unique form of government, national credo, history, promotion of democratic ideals and willingness to die for those precepts.

America, like every country, has its imperfections.  But anyone who has traveled the world can attest Americans are blessed to live in the world's most free, multi-racial, prosperous society.  Since most Americans never venture outside the country, they lack perspective on how the rest of the world lives.  

That fact helps explain this American alienation. Nevertheless, it does not justify it.

Americans no longer cherish their freedoms, including religious worship.  When a government can shut down churches and limit attendance, it violates a core principle enshrined in our Constitution. Even in a pandemic, it is unAmerican.  Issuing health advice is the role of democratic governments. 

Shuttering churches is right out of the playbook of the Communist Party in China.  Yet few flinched when it was mandated.  Religious freedom also means people should not be forced to change their core values or beliefs to conform to the prevailing cultural norms or government policies.     

Most worrisome is how many Americans remain silent. They are lulled by their belief the pendulum of history will inevitably swing the opposite way to restore values, customs and traditions that have defined America.  That is the optimistic view, a hallmark of being American.  But is it realistic today?

America is suffering from truth decay.  Major influencers are aligned behind an orchestrated effort to denigrate the country by blurring the line between facts and opinion, between right and wrong.  To what end, you ask?  Nothing less than the destruction of American institutions and transcendent ideals.

Once those crumble, the country itself implodes.  People no longer trust any institution, including the police.  An atmosphere of distrust creates a tinderbox  environment, ripe for exploitation by anarchists and political despots.  Citizens willing surrender their rights in hopes of stability and safety.  

I make no apologies for the somber, pessimistic tone.  However, I refuse to allow this to happen without raising the alarm.  America is on the brink, teetering between authoritarian socialism and democracy. Those who want to stifle dissent and reorder our democracy are counting on your silence.

How will you answer the call when America desperately needs voices of freedom?

Mr. President: Jim Crow Does Not Live In Georgia

The most powerful word in the English language is racist.  Tag a new law with that epithet and watch the stampede to convict.  Forget defending the legislation or relying on facts to spare supporters from a public pillorying.  A thunder clap of outrage will drown-out fair analysis in favor of political pandering.  

President Joe Biden cratered to a tiny minority of divisive racial activists and hurled a charge of Jim Crowism after Georgia's legislature approved changes in the state's election laws.  The offensive term Jim Crow refers to racial segregation policies of decades past, promulgated by Southern Democrats. 

"This is Jim Crow in the 21st Century.  It must end," Mr. Biden huffed in a statement.  He added the Georgia election changes are "an atrocity" and warned the Department of Justice is "taking a look" at the measure.  His condemnation inflamed racial division and was a thinly veiled threat to Georgia.

Corporations piled on after they were bullied by well organized activist groups.  Coca Cola, Delta, American Airlines and Apple are just a few of the business behemoths who upbraided the legislature for daring to alter election laws in their own state.  These limousine liberals are cowardly Woke lackeys.    

The complicit media, paced by that paragon of journalistic pugilism CBS News, lobbied companies to punish Georgia for caring about election integrity.  Faux writers at CBS tweeted an article citing "three ways companies can help fight Georgia's new voting law." Today this passes for unbiased reporting.

The coup-de-gras was applied when Major League Baseball jerked the All-Star Game from Atlanta to punish those mean racists. Commissioner Rob Manfred, a dunderhead of a leader, harrumphed that his millionaire owners oppose "restrictions at the ballot box." That'll show those dumb crackers.

The kerfuffle was stoked by lies, deliberate misinformation and media malfeasance.  Few if any of the participants in the finger-wagging, self-righteousness executive suites actually read the bill.  How can you tell?  Their responses and public-posturing were detached from the reality of the Georgia law.

At the eye of this racial hurricane is the media anointed Uinifier-in-Chief. Perhaps, someone should suggest Mr. Biden read the 98-page Election Protection Act before leveling salacious accusations. That might be asking too much, since he rarely engages publicly except to parrot a prepared script. 

The president butchered the facts so badly even the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post winced. The paper's fact-checkers awarded Mr. Biden "four pinnochios" for this remarks about the legislation. The Post reserves four long-noses for what it claims "whoppers." Translation: big fat lies.   

"One could understand a flub in a news conference," the Post noted. "But then this same claim popped up in an official presidential statements.  Not a single expert we consulted who has studied the law understood why Biden made this claim" the newspaper's fact-checkers wrote.  

Here's a summary of The Washington Post's assessment of election law changes approved by the Republican-dominated Georgia legislature:

• Nothing in the new law changes early voting hours.  The law did make changes to expand the opportunities for early voting, not limit them.
• The bill does not limit in-person voting, but the new law gives election officials the opportunity to extend the hours longer than regular business hours.
• The bill prohibits people from soliciting votes of those in line by offering money or gifts, including but not limited to food and water.  It does not prohibit a poll worker from making available, self-service water.
• The law does not eliminate absentee ballot drop boxes for ballots.  Last election, drop boxes were set up in unsecured, outdoor locations.  Ballot boxes now must be secured inside buildings.  

In the bill, there are provisions to shrink the period for early voting from 78 days before an election, instead of 180-days instated last year as a concession to Coronavirus. But the act expands both the hours and the days on which polls are open for early voting, including Saturdays.  

The law also creates a hotline where Georgians can report illegal election activities and voter suppression. Other changes include around-the-clock surveillance of drop boxes; ballots printed on security paper; and, verification of voter identities.

That last item, voter identification, always throws Democratic Party partisans into a tizzy. However, the new law allows voters to use driver's licenses, state issued identifications or the last four digits of their Social Security number.  There is no legitimate way to claim that suppresses voting.

To do so, requires reverse racial discrimination. Americans are required to have an ID to  rent an apartment, open a bank account, enter a federal building, drive a car, apply for food stamps, purchase alcohol or cigarettes, apply for unemployment, receive Medicaid, fly on an airplane or get married.

Are activists suggesting African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities don't need an ID because they do none of those things? Talk about racial profiling. Georgia, like many states including Texas, issues free identifications to those without driver's licenses.  Voting is as easy as buying beer.

That raises the question: Why is the president so upset if the new law actually makes voting more accessible in many respects?  The answer should be obvious.  Mr. Biden and his Democrat cronies do not want states mucking around with voter integrity.  They prefer the chaos of the last election.   

That's why Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her gaggle of Democrat bobbleheads have teed up new federally mandated voting rules as their top priority.  Democrats' agenda is to dictate balloting laws, despite the Elections Clause in the Constitution, which delegates primary authority to states.

The racial ruckus in Georgia is a warning to states.  Don't monkey with election laws.  Democrats and their media puppets will segregate you from the rest of the country and trump up racial charges to smear your state and inflict economic harm.  Jim Crow is alive and well and living in Washington.