Making the messenger the message: The left's new tactic to avoid scrutiny

Until impeachment hearings became the flavor of the day, earlier in the week you couldn't avoid Greta Thunberg even if you wanted to.

The 16-year-old Swedish girl became the left's latest new hero when she gave a speech on the "impending climate crisis" (quotes intentional) at the United Nations. She sounded the usual Chicken Little sky-is-falling alarms about how we are all doomed unless we go back to an 18th Century way of life, and kill all the evil old people -- especially the white male power structure -- who are intentionally trying to kill her and all the young people because they're greedy and uncaring.

She is the perfect person for the global warming freak-outers to put on display as their mouthpiece. You can't dare challenge her, because if you do, you're attacking an autistic child. It doesn't matter that her ideas are nuttier than the proverbial squirrel droppings. We're big, bad bullies because we dare to disagree with her.

Seems like the left has found the perfect way to marry the message and the messenger. Send sympathetic personalities, preferably young people, front and center to spread their gospel and then attack the motives of their critics and accuse them of bullying children.

Although Thunberg is the most recent example of this, she is by no means the first. She's following in the footsteps of David Hogg, the Florida student whose school was the site of a mass shooting, who became a gun control advocate after that tragedy.

No one disputes that Hogg grieves over the loss of his schoolmates, that he was impacted tremendously by what happened, and that no one wants to ever see that event repeated. But many of us disagree with the solutions he's put forth. And when we say that, we're labeled as insensitive and uncaring adults with no compassion for a kid's grief.

Funny how that didn't work for Kyle Kashuv, isn't it? Kashuv was equally impacted by the Parkland massacre, yet he didn't become a vocal anti-Second Amendment advocate. He championed sensible, constitutional changes to ensure school safety while preserving a vital God-given right enshrined in the Constitution. But since Kashuv's narrative doesn't mesh with the left's priorities, he became fair game for criticism.

And this whole "you shouldn't be critical of children" narrative? It's also funny how that went out the window when Nick Sandmann and his fellow Covington Catholic students were unfairly and untruthfully maligned for something they didn't do. Liberals wasted no time calling Sandmann a racist and a bully merely because one photograph, captured at a moment in time when a certain look appeared on his face for the fraction of a second it took for the camera shutter to open and close. And even when the subsequent facts proved the young northern Kentucky kids did absolutely nothing wrong, the falsehoods continued, even from some of the nation's biggest media outlets.

When the difference between the reactions to Thunberg and Sandmann is pointed out, the left shrieks, "false equivalency." Oh really? How so? Was Sandmann criticized merely because he's white, male, and Catholic? Yes, he was. Is Thunberg being criticized for being young, female, and autistic? Nope.

Maybe there is a false equivalency there, but not the way liberals would like to proclaim.

Expect more of this to continue. Anytime liberalism needs to make a public point, be it climate change or gun control or whatever, expect a sympathetic young spokesperson to be paraded in front of the cameras, and then anyone who criticizes their message will be accused of hating the messenger.

In the meantime, conservatives must continue to make their points known, even if we take heat for it. We have to challenge the left's policy proposals to preserve our republic and our way of life.

Truth becomes a victim in Kentucky governor's race

It's often said that truth becomes the first casualty in a political contest. That's certainly been the case in this year's gubernatorial race in Kentucky. And unsurprisingly, most of the untruths are coming from one side.

The recent ad put forth by Democrat Andy Beshear claiming that Gov. Matt Bevin's budgeting puts Kentucky schools in danger of closing was an outrageous over-the-top untruth. No serious person can believe that scare tactic, but it panders to much of Beshear's teacher union support.

And it's from them that one of the biggest falsehoods of the political season has generated and spread.

Many Bevin opponents like to say that he called teachers "thugs," and that's just one of many insults he's tossed their way as they protest state pension reform measures that are actually designed to preserve the retirement benefits of Kentucky teachers. It makes for a nice soundbite, but the fact of that matter is that it's not really what happened. The allegation has a hint of the truth in it, but it's the full story that's not being told.

It's time to tell it.

When pension reform was first brought up, prior to a never-called special General Assembly session in 2017, and again during the regular 2018 session, some teachers protested. The Kentucky Education Association steadfastly opposed some of the recommendations.

One of the leading proponents of the reform measure, and one of its strongest backers in the legislature, was now-retired Sen. Joe Bowen from Owensboro. Bowen is the former owner -- emphasis on former -- of the Bowen Tire stores in Daviess County and other locations in that area of the state.

When the pension reform proposal was up for consideration in the legislature, a number of teachers picketed and protested outside Bowen Tire. When that happened, Bevin rightly called it a "thug mentality."

Let that sink in. Teachers -- educated people responsible for educating our children -- were picketing the actions of a legislator at a business he didn't even own.

The KEA has long done a disservice to its members. It promotes positions to preserve its own organizational power at the expense of education improvements in this state. By perpetuating this exaggerated falsehood, they do themselves no favors.

To its credit, the Beshear campaign isn't including that statement Bevin made about the "thug mentality" in its ad that seeks to use some of Bevin's own statements against him. Someone there must be aware of the reality of the situation to know the truth behind the matter.

But the ad does use another statement Bevin made about comparing those protesting efforts to save public pensions to those who are drowning but fight their would-be rescuers.

Long before he made that statement, I made a different but equally fitting analogy. I compared the resistance to pension reform to trying to give a cat a pill. The cat may be sick, and it may need medicine, but it will fight, bite, and scratch you if you try to medicate it. The cat doesn't know that you're trying to help it. It just doesn't want you to give it the pill.

(Full disclosure: As a state employee, I am impacted by decisions on pension reform, and I appreciate the efforts to ensure that the pension I was promised when I started my job will be there should I ever be able to retire.)

There are legitimate reasons for which one can criticize Bevin. I don't agree with the administration on every issue. But a blanket statement that the governor called all teachers "thugs" is not one of them. That didn't happen. His statement was targeted at a specific group of people who couldn't even be bothered to find out if the person they were mad at actually owned the business where they were protesting. And he didn't call them "thugs," he said they were displaying a "thug mentality."

This may be the first time some people have ever heard this truth. It's doubtful they'll change their beliefs or behavior or statements, but at least now they know. If they continue to repeat an untruth, it's on them.

The swamp won't let itself be drained

There's a reason crowds chanted "Drain the Swamp!" as Donald Trump was campaigning for president in 2016. It's the same reason Trump's supporters broke into shouts of "Lock Her Up!" when he referenced Hillary Clinton.

Trump voters were, and remain, tired of so many blatant violations of law and policy going unpunished. Hillary's use of a private unsecured email server for sensitive communications when she was secretary of state was an egregious no-no, yet the FBI had only paid lip service to prosecuting her while in reality giving her a pass.

Everything that has come out on the conduct of so many officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice continues to spark outrage among those who are looking for real justice to be done, yet so far, no progress has been made. There's a rogue's gallery a mile wide here -- Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, etc. -- yet other than for some of them losing their jobs, none have suffered any real punishment for their misdeeds.

Even the modest efforts to move forward with inquiries by the current administration have been met with criticism. "You just don't investigate your political opponents," liberals admonished Trump.

Well, you do if they've done something wrong.

That's what's so amazing about the Trump-Ukraine deal. This isn't a case of Trump trying to take down a potential political rival. It's a perfect example of him trying to discover and punish corruption in his predecessor's administration.

Anyone notice that as soon as Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry into Trump, the press quit talking about Biden's dirty dealings with Ukraine by holding American aid hostage until the prosecutor got fired? This is the real scandal, but impeaching Trump is the shiny object that catches the attention of the media that will be completely in the tank next year for Biden, Bernie, Fauxahontas, or whomever the Democrats nominate.

Truth be told, the media had never given the Biden matter the attention it deserved. It didn't fit their agenda. And now the impeachment inquiry has given the press all the cover it needs to ignore the story. How many people have heard that the "whistleblower" whose turned hearsay into a five-alarm fire is a "never Trumper" liberal with a political vendetta against the president? That's certainly relevant to the discussion, yet there's been barely a mention of it in the media.

Had this story broken when Biden was vice president, would there have been calls for his impeachment? Wait, don't answer. That's a rhetorical question.

Barack Obama continues to make the laughable claim that his administration was scandal-free. For all the criticism of Trump playing fast and loose with the facts, this one's a real doozy. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Lois Lerner/IRS, overlooking Hillary's security violations, and now Biden strongarming Ukraine to protect his son. Here's an undisputable fact: Obama's presidency makes Trump appear to be living at the foot of the cross.

Jim Comey and Andrew McCabe aren't criminally charged with anything yet. Joe Biden faces no fallout from his acts. Here, folks, is evidence that the swamp protects itself. It doesn't want to be drained. That's why the entrenched interests so bitterly opposed Trump's candidacy. It's why establishment Republicans work so hard against conservative tea party types. Swamp dwellers crave power. They want to be the kings of their playground and don't want to relinquish control. Biden's the quintessential swamp creature. Of course, his fellow swampers are going to rally to his side, distract, deflect, obstruct, and do whatever else they can to turn attention away to him and reflect it back on those who are trying to drain the swamp.

It's why Trump's presidency makes so many in both parties so uncomfortable. There's a new way of doing things and they feel threatened by it. They're used to tradition and convention and precedent and getting their own way. Trump brought a new playbook and a fresh set of rules to Washington. He's not beholden to the old methods. And it frightens them to the point they'll do anything to hang on.

We can't allow the swamp to turn this into a Trump problem. It is first, foremost, and solely, a Biden issue. It's vital we remind the world of this at every opportunity.

Dems' latest Trump "gotcha" backfires, could torpedo their best chance of winning in 2020

The Democrats, and their allies in the mainstream media, were breathless. After many failures, they finally had the smoking gun; the evidence that would finally take down Donald Trump's presidency. Where the Russian collusion allegations and claims of racism had not succeeded, this controversy would do the trick.

Ironic, isn't it, that this big "gotcha" moment is backfiring, and instead may shoot down the candidate in the best position to defeat Trump next year?

The big event, of course, is the laughable "whistleblower" affair regarding Trump's conversation with a foreign leader, now identified as the president of Ukraine, that was such a hot topic last week.

This is the point where certain government employees need to be reminded, once again, that just because they disagree with their organization's policies or procedures, or the officials in charge, they don't get the privilege of sabotaging things from within. Even if you except true whistleblowers from this, this event still doesn't qualify. Nothing that's been reported about Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky even rises to illegality. This episode might someday be "Exhibit A" when it comes time to repeal civil service protections for government workers.

Now, it's been learned that the so-called whistleblower didn't even have firsthand knowledge of the information contained in the phone call. "Heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another you'd been messing around." Isn't there a song that says that?

The real scandal here isn't Trump's interaction with Ukraine leaders, but with what happened when Joe Biden was vice president and interacted with them.

A little research will turn up details of the involvement of Biden's son, Hunter, with the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Now, a tape has emerged of Biden bragging at a 2018 Council on Foreign Relations panel discussion about how he threatened to withhold United States loan guarantees unless the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son's activities was fired. "Well son of a b---h, he got fired," Biden proclaims in the video.

Funny how that works, isn't it? Biden, who obviously doesn't know when to shut up, admits in a public event with the cameras rolling that he leveraged American finances -- and with the blessing of President Obama, he also said -- to achieve a result that most likely benefitted his notoriously wayward son. Yet Trump is the one who needs to be investigated, impeached, and hung by his neck until dead from the top of the Washington Monument because a likely member of the Deep State who's opposed to Trump's policies heard something that had been passed through several channels and decided to play hero?

Does anyone remember the old childhood playground game where a bunch of people would sit in a circle, one person would whisper something into the ear of the person next to them, that person would repeat what they heard -- or thought they heard -- to their neighbor, and so on until they got back around to the originator? Most times, what came back to the first person was nothing at all close to what they first said. There's a reason that hearsay isn't admissible in legal cases.

Things have a way of working out, though. This controversy may end up taking out Biden, not Trump, and help ensure the incumbent's re-election next year.

Biden, along with Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" (or "Lieawatha," take your pick) Warren, are the three front-runners for the Democrats' nomination. Democrats may not want to admit it, but for all his faults, Biden represents their best chance for defeating Trump. America is not ready to embrace the radical economic policies that Sanders and the "Pretendian" support. And none of the other candidates have much to recommend them. Casting Couch Kamala, Mayor Pete, Beto? They aren't serious candidates. They aren't really much removed from nuts like Yang or the woman who was talking about spirits and crystals.

It's not really odd that while Democrats may be calling for Trump's impeachment over this matter, they're strangely silent on investigating Biden's role in what started it, or even in calling for him to drop out of the race.

The mainstream media, as should have been expected, continues to focus on Trump instead of Biden in this matter. And hard-left outlets like Vox, The Intercept, Media Matters, and of course MSNBC continue to insist there's no "there" there with Biden but Trump needs to be tarred and feathered.

As with all these laughable scandals before it, this one will blow over. The real Russian collusion was the fake Steele dossier that formed the basis of the entire investigation. Some questionable Ukrainian documents of questionable authenticity formed the basis of much of the complaint against Paul Manafort (that fact hasn't gotten much play in the media, surprise surprise.) And now, anyone with any intellectual honesty can see that this current matter is much more of a threat to Biden's continued viability as a candidate than it is to Trump's conduct while in office.

And if the Democrats pursue impeachment, that almost guarantees Trump's re-election. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, and even if the House impeaches him, there's no way the Senate will convict him and remove him from office. It didn't work when Bill Clinton was impeached when the Republicans held both houses of Congress, despite undisputable evidence of the charges against him. It generated sympathy for Clinton and the Democrats.

So, when the taint from this, combined with all his other gaffes, chases Biden from the race, and the Democrats nominate an unelectable candidate to face Trump next year, Trump's opponents can blame themselves for what happened. The rest of us will thank them, but not before enjoying a hearty laugh at their expense.

Kentucky press commits journalistic malpractice once again

How can you tell an election is forthcoming in Kentucky? The mainstream media shows its biases once again by either trying to impact public perception of a candidate or officeholder, or by omitting pertinent information from a story.

It happened twice in one day in the pages of the Lexington Herald-Leader this week.

First, a reporter named Daniel Desrochers penned a hit piece about Gov. Matt Bevin's use of state-owned aircraft for travel. Six paragraphs into the story, this appears:

"Bevin's use of the state plane -- and his refusal to disclose where he's going and why -- has become an issue as he campaigns for a second term as governor."

Nonsense. No one was making this an issue until the press brought it up. Members of the public were talking about the economy, abortion, education, and pensions. They weren't discussing Bevin's use of the state plane.

Nothing in the story even comes close to implying that Bevin is improperly using state aircraft. The story points out that non-official travel has been reimbursed by a number of parties, including the Republican Party, Republican Governors Association, and the governor himself.

If the press really wants to know where the governor is going, there are plenty of ways to find out before rushing a story into print. Did Desrochers file open records requests for all flight records? If so, that detail was overlooked. Those records should be available upon request. If the request is denied, then appeal. Attorney General Andy Beshear would be more than happy to rule against his November opponent.

The story cites court precedent that the governor's schedule is not a public record. Why hasn't the Herald-Leader filed suit to overturn that prior ruling and seek to make the schedule available? The decision cited was from the Court of Appeals, meaning that the original parties didn't see fit to appeal up the ladder to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Of course, that would not serve the paper's purpose, which is to make a Republican governor look bad. And the final two paragraphs of the story illustrate that. They mention delays in getting records from the Kentucky State Police. No mention is made of filing official challenges to those delays. And then the governor's communications director, obviously aware of what was going on, said:

"The communications office has been working with you for over a year now to answer your questions and provide detailed records showing that all flights have been properly reimbursed and to explain to you how this process works. It's clear to us that you are more interested in trying to prove that we have somehow failed to follow this process rather than writing a fair story. This is the last request for information that we will be responding to related to this topic."

In true Herald-Leader fashion, the paper used its own story as the basis for a negative opinion piece. The paper hasn't published editorials in quite some time, but opinion columnist Linda Blackford weighed in, using only Desrochers' story as a basis for her anti-Bevin screed.

The second piece of journalistic malpractice came from not what was reported, but what was not reported, in a story about a lawsuit challenging the eligibility of attorney general candidate Daniel Cameron.

Greg Stumbo and his cronies have long been complaining about Cameron's relative youth and whispering that because of that, he's not qualified to be attorney general. (At least he's never fathered a child out of wedlock, failed to pay child support, and then countersued the mother of the child when she finally did go to court to get the arrearage; and he never abused his office for partisan purposes to take down a political opponent as he did during his prior term as attorney general. I would think those are much more disqualifying factors, but that's just me).

On Tuesday, John Cheves, another Herald-Leader reporter with a demonstrated bias against conservatives, wrote a story about a lawsuit filed by someone named Joseph Leon Jackson Sr. of Louisville, that seeks to have Cameron removed from the November ballot. It alleges that he has not practiced law for the required eight years that's necessary to be eligible to be attorney general. Nevermind that there is court precedent in Kentucky that it's only required to have been admitted to the bar for eight years prior, and not necessarily to have met some arbitrary definition of "practicing law."

The story identifies Jackson only as a retired union worker and someone described by his lawyer as a "concerned citizen."

Why did the story not delve deeper into Jackson's motives and connections? Is he a registered Democrat? Is he politically active? To whom has he contributed? Does he have some sort of link to Stumbo, the Beshear family, Amy McGrath (Cameron is a protege of Mitch McConnell, after all), or any other partisan opponents to Republicans? Isn't that important? One would certainly think so.

Of course, the same publication that didn't find it relevant to report on the conflicts of interest by the members of that Stumbo-led grand jury that investigated Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration couldn't be bothered to dig a little and answer the questions that any person with common sense might have.

In a week where "journalistic malpractice" has been a commonly used phrase because of the way the New York Times' latest attack on Brett Kavanaugh crashed and burned once the truth came out, it's important to note that it's alive and well in the Bluegrass State as well. It's vital to realize that anything you read about Bevin or any of the other Republican candidates for statewide office is being presented to you through a biased filter.

A man of God's final words for a nation that needs to hear them

My family recently said farewell to one of its cornerstones. My cousin, Marvin Farmer, was 98 years old and had lived a long, rich, full life. Although he had lived in Berea since before I was born, he was a larger-than-life presence on my dad's side of the family. He and my grandmother were first cousins; his father and my great-grandmother were brothers and sisters. He and his wife, and one of my dad's sisters and her husband, were married at the same time and honeymooned together.

My fondest memories of Marvin are the "Decoration Day" services at Stone Coal Cemetery in Lee County, where many of my ancestors are buried. Each year, he would bring the message at the memorial service held on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend, then the family would adjourn to my grandmother's place for a huge meal and time of fellowship. Given the opportunity to speak a few words at his funeral, I mentioned that Memorial Day, not Christmas, was my favorite holiday when I was growing up because of this.

Unbeknownst to me until recently, two years ago Marvin wrote an autobiography, covering his life from his childhood on Farmers Ridge in the area where Lee, Owsley, Jackson, and Estill counties all converge; through his World War II service in the Marine Corps; to his career at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Madison County; and finally to his retirement and his civic involvement and volunteerism in his adopted hometown of Berea and his love for and pride in his family.

I was fortunate enough to have been sent a copy of Marvin's Story several weeks ago, shortly after I joined with most of my grandmother's remaining family in visiting with Marvin, his wife Virginia, and one of their sons in Berea back in the spring. Marvin was in declining health, but his mind was as sharp as ever, and we learned during that visit that he was working on another book.

Sometime between that visit and his recent death, that book was published. It's entitled One Knee is Not Enough and is a Biblical look at the state of our nation today. It's a short booklet, but it's filled with much wisdom.

Begun the week of Marvin's 98th birthday back in February, the book addresses a number of current issues and applies Biblical verses to their resolution. Health care, the national debt, global warming, illegal immigration -- all are looked at through a spiritual microscope. (Surprisingly, despite what the name of the book might lead one to believe, disrespect of the American flag by athletes and celebrities is not touched upon). He themes the book as a conversation he's having with governmental leaders from the comfort of his den as they've come to pay him a visit.

Throughout the book, Marvin never lets on as to his own views on these subjects, save for an admonishment to the press to report the truth and to apologize for and correct errors. Through his experiences as a longtime Sunday school teacher and someone who probably knew the Bible more thoroughly than some ordained, seminary-educated ministers, he urges decision-makers to seek God's will as they govern.

Although the book gives no clues as to Marvin's political leanings, that visit our family paid him and Virginia provided a tell-tale clue. The family home, on a quiet street corner in Berea, was expanded many times as the family grew. An office filled with mementos from a long life, and an immaculate shop with many tools from his family's connections to the sawmills and oilfields of Lee County on display, will stand as testament to his interests and wisdom and the changes he saw in society and technology in more than 98 years. But near their front door, on a hat rack that held some of his favorite headgear, were a couple of Donald Trump hats.

Most of the Farmers from Lee County are conservatives -- we're still trying to figure out where Tracy Farmer went wrong -- and given Marvin's life experiences and his very real faith in God, it's not surprising that he'd have Trump apparel on display. We certainly didn't get into an in-depth discussion of politics during that final visit, but it's probably safe to say that like many of us, he supported the president's overall policies while being turned off by certain aspects of his life.

At any rate, there's a lot of wisdom and wise counsel in 13 short pages in One Knee is Not Enough. The closing paragraph sums it up: "As you return from your visit with me, please take with you the reminder that returning to God is the only hope for this wayward, struggling nation. Looking to God for leadership, guidance and direction as we pray on both knees, may, very well, bring back the wisdom needed. Thank you for your visit and may God bless you in your life and work."

Marvin Farmer was one of the most respected, most Godly men I've ever known. It was a privilege to call him a relative. May all who are in positions of power heed his counsel and wisdom, as expressed in his final written work.

You can't read this blog. It has no content

Not too long ago, I noted that my efforts to have ads placed on this blog through the Google AdSense program were being rebuffed. First I was told that there's no content, then that the content was prohibited. Unless Google considers conservative thought to be offensive, which they probably do, there's nothing here that violates any of Google's prohibitions.

Each time I've gotten a rejection notice, I dutifully click the "I certify I have fixed the problems" box and resubmit the application.

Well, we've again gone to getting "no content" rejections. The latest:

WarningYou need to fix some things to use AdSense

We've found policy violations on http://kentuckyvalleyviews.blogspot.com that are preventing your site from being approved:

• Valuable Inventory: No content

  As stated in our Program policies, we may not show Google ads on pages or apps with little to no value and/or excessive advertising until changes are made. This includes hosted ad pages or pages or apps without content.
  

So it would appear now that Google again considers conservative blogs to have no content or no value.

But I will keep on fighting the good fight in an attempt to make a little extra money. So again, in the meantime, if you have any freelance writing or editing needs, give me a shout.

Too many people have forgotten for whom they work

Something happened during my tenure with the communications office in the agency formerly known as the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet that I have carried with me for two decades. Once simple event has proven to be instructive in a variety of situations. It may never be more applicable than it is today.

Shortly after I started working there, Paul Patton was elected governor. One of his initiatives was called EMPOWER Kentucky, which was an effort to streamline and modernize governmental services. In Revenue, that project took the form of an effort to consolidate all tax collection services into one interconnected computer network, and an endeavor to increase revenue collection by closing the gap between what was being paid and what was actually owed.

As is customary with such projects, the state hired outside consultants at inflated prices to work with the various state agencies involved in the process. I can't remember exactly which consultant was working with Revenue -- I tend to think it was Deloitte & Touche, but it may have been the Gartner Group -- but we were overrun with them as EMPOWER Kentucky got started.

Being the chief writer in the public information office, who was responsible for communicating the project to employees and the general public, I attended numerous meetings and briefings about what became known as the Integrated Tax System (ITS). It was during one of those meetings that my memorable moment happened.

One of the consultants was speaking in a small gathering in the cabinet secretary's conference room, and he kept telling us all the things that we in Revenue needed to do for the benefit of the consultants. Finally, someone had had enough. That someone was Margaret Handmaker, the Revenue secretary herself. She looked squarely at the consultant, and uttered these fateful words:

"Are we working for you, or are you working for us?"

Properly chastened, the consultant promptly piped down, and began listening to the ideas the Revenue employees in the room were presenting, rather than pushing his own proposals. The state had hired the consulting firm to do a job for us, but instead, it was treating the state as if we were all there to do what they told us.

The circumstances are a bit different, but the gist remains the same, when today's situation with the government is examined. A lot of people are forgetting for whom they work. Their job is to carry out management's directives, not oppose them from within.

I spent eight years working for a governor I despised, Steve Beshear. I also was no fan of my agency's management. Yet I didn't try to throw wrenches into the works. I expressed my disagreement when appropriate, or when honest feedback was sought, but at the end of the day, I did my job. I didn't substitute my judgment for that of my superiors.

We have a whole lot of people in the federal government who need to be reminded of that. It's no secret that much of the bureaucracy is liberal, and thus isn't inclined to support President Trump and his policies and initiatives. But those bureaucrats aren't entitled to sabotage policies, oppose proposals, fail to comply with directives, or work from within to undermine the administration's goals and objectives. What would public outcry have been if there had been so much resistance to President Obama's agenda from within the federal government?

Government employees are free to express their disapproval with what's being done. I spent eight years in state government doing just that. But in the end, I did my job, whether it was personally palatable to me or not.

Elected officials and politically-appointed managers usually listen to the thoughts and opinions of career employees, and most take those views under serious consideration when making decisions. But once those decisions are made, government workers have one job: Carrying out those directives.

You may hate Donald Trump and what he's trying to accomplish. You may disagree with what he says and what he does. God knows I did with Steve Beshear. And I don't agree with everything Matt Bevin does. But I did, and continue to do, my job. If you work for the federal government, you should too. Your job is not to oppose or resist the Trump administration. Your job is to do what the administration tells you to.

It's no longer possible to politely disagree in America

You can't go very long these days without hearing how polarized the country is.

I will freely admit my role in that. I'm a staunch, unwavering conservative. If I had my way, we'd never elect another liberal politician and we would repeal liberal policies. I'm outspoken in my beliefs, and one of my guilty pleasures is trolling liberals on social media. Truth be told, I probably enjoy that more than I should.

But having said that, I don't mind a good, honest, civil debate on the issues of the day. I think it's important to discuss what's going on. At the end of the day, I still believe my side has the best answers, but it's important to know what the other side thinks, and why.

We're getting to the point where that's not possible. Post a pro-Trump comment, and you're a Russian bot. Speak up in defense of Hillary, or Bernie, and you're a libtard. While some of that is in good fun, sometimes it crosses the line.

Since when did it become acceptable to try to get someone fired because you disagree with them?

Read the comments on social media posts of news stories, and sooner or later you'll see it. "I see you work for so-and-so. What if your boss knew what you think?"

Translated: "Nice job you have there. It's be a shame if something happened to it."

I'm not talking about racism here, nor threats against anyone's safety or welfare. Just the simple expression of an opinion with which someone else disagrees. The anger in our society is so palpable that there are actually people who think someone should lose their job because someone has an opinion that runs counter to their own.

Last time I checked, we all have the freedom to hold different political opinions, and the freedom to express them. And while I realize this is strictly not a First Amendment matter, the core principle of that doctrine is to encourage discussion and dissent. You shouldn't have to pay a price just because you believe in something that someone else doesn't.

I had something like this happen to me recently. Someone unhappy with my opinion on a subject in the news let me know they just might feel led to let my employers know I'd weighed in on something and they disagreed with it. The details are unimportant, but the gist of the matter is that someone was not happy when I noted some hypocrisy being expressed in public by a member of the media.

Why anyone feels that when someone else posts something related to a current event when they're sitting in the comfort of their living room on a Friday evening, it merits such a reaction, is beyond me. But that's where we are now.

Not too long ago, I saw a liberal post what I felt was an outrageous take on some issue. A conservative followed up with, "Maybe I should tell your employer what you posted." I quickly chided them, saying something like, "We're better than they are. That's how they operate. They're entitled to their opinion, too, but we're different than they are. We don't threaten people's jobs just because they disagree with us."

We may never heal the divisions within this country. In fact, if the liberals ever take power again, I hope conservatives will be louder and stronger than ever in their opposition. But we have to be able to agree without being disagreeable. No matter how much I may oppose your viewpoints, I won't try to get you fired for expressing them. You should show the same courtesy.

What happens when everyone hates you? Walmart may find out

For years, liberals have vilified Walmart. The Arkansas-based retailer's employment practices, its business practices, the quality of the merchandise it sells -- all have come under withering criticism from people who think the company should pay its employees more, sell its wares for higher prices so as not to undercut locally-owned businesses, and not import goods from China or other countries.

It's fair to say that many liberals hate Walmart. You'll frequently hear them proclaim they prefer Target over Walmart, or Costco over Sam's Club. Even though Sam Walton's empire is the quintessential American business success story, many see that as a bad thing.

Now, scores of conservatives have joined liberals as being boisterous critics of Walmart. "Wally World" has gradually been cutting back on the sales of firearms and ammunition in the face of leftist pressure in the wake of some well-publicized shootings. This past week, Walmart announced another cutback, and also said that it would ask customers not to openly carry weapons in its stores.

(You may have heard this practice referred to as "constitutional carry," given the Second Amendment's acknowledgement of the right to bear arms as one of the same God-given rights on par with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Anytime you hear the term "constitutional carry," what's really being described is the right to carry a weapon in full view, as opposed to carrying a concealed weapon, which is illegal or allowable only under permit in many states.)

So, after years of alienating liberals, Walmart has now angered and offended conservatives who are unhappy with yet another assault on their rights.

What happens now? This certainly isn't going to appease the "living wage" and "union yes" and "no self-checkouts" and "support your local retailer" crowds. They're not going to magically love Walmart all of a sudden and start flocking there to spend money. They'll still prefer Target or Meijer or some other store. Pandering to those folks on this matter is not going to earn Walmart any goodwill whatsoever. But in the meantime, constitutional conservatives are now turned off as well and are looking for other options.

One business that stepped up is Rural King, which offers many of the same products as does Walmart and is rapidly expanding from its Illinois base. After Walmart's announcement, Rural King came out with a statement saying they respect America's history of firearms usage and its constitutional rights.

Walmart's decision prompted a bizarre rant from Fox News' Tucker Carlson the other night. The conservative commentator rightly criticized Walmart's decision as pandering to the left, but then he launched an odd rant against the company that repeated some of the classic liberal anti-Walmart talking points.

If liberals have shown us anything, it's that nothing is ever good enough for them. Walmart could completely cave on every issue its critics raise, and people with that mindset still wouldn't shop there. Now, Walmart's managed to tick off folks on the other side. If they keep going, they may end up at the point where everyone hates them.

Just this past week, the final nail may have been pounded into Kmart's coffin. Another round of store closures was announced, including a couple of the last remaining stores in Kentucky. Kmart was never able to compete with Walmart once Walmart gained prominence. Kmart was more expensive, had a smaller selection of products, and its stores weren't appealing. Once a leading national general merchandise retailer, it wasn't able to keep up with the changing times. There might be a lesson there for Walmart. If they continue to tick off various segments of the populace, Kmart's present might be Walmart's future.