Beshear's gas tax reduction idea gets roundly ridiculed

When Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear recently announced his idea for helping the state's residents get some relief from skyrocketing gas prices, his laughable suggestion was properly met with scorn and ridicule.

Beshear's proposal is to suspend a scheduled two-cent-per-gallon tax increase that is set to go into effect on July 1. That idea went over about as well as could be expected -- that is to say, it wasn't well-received at all.

A price reduction that minimal wouldn't even be noticed by consumers who've seen prices at the pump more than double since President Biden took office in January 2021. Indeed, prices have risen 20 to 30 cents a gallon in the week since Beshear offered up his idea.

It's questionable, in fact, if the governor even has the legal authority to suspend the tax hike. The two-cent increase was passed by the General Assembly as part of a sliding scale measure a few years ago to set a floor on the gas tax rate to shore up the state's Road Fund, which pays for construction and maintenance of state highways and also funds maintenance of county roads and city streets. Since the legislature approved the tax structure, the legislature would have to alter it.

Beshear also rightfully was ridiculed when he said he was going to consult with Attorney General Daniel Cameron about declaring a state of emergency so the state's price gouging prohibitions could be enacted. This little bit of political grandstanding came about because the legislature limited the governor's powers to declare emergencies after Beshear abused his authority in dealing with the Wuhan Chinese virus.

To the average Kentuckian, the price of gas -- and inflation in general -- is more of an emergency than the Kung Flu ever was. Unlike the pandemic, where people could make their own decisions as to how they were going to protect themselves, the economy is something over which they have no control. They're helpless as prices continue to rise to the point that they have to make tough decisions on which bills to pay. For many, who have to drive long distances to work because jobs are unavailable in their small towns and rural communities, their paycheck is being consumed by the fuel it takes to get to their place of employment.

Meanwhile Cameron, like the Democrats who preceded him in office, sits idly by while gasoline retailers collude to set prices in their individual neighborhoods or communities. Ever wonder why when one station in a town raises its price, everyone else does too? Big news was made a few years ago when a gas station/convenience store/restaurant in Clay County refused to join the collusion game and instead consistently priced its gas well below other stations in the Manchester area. Other retailers began threatening the station, but it didn't back down. Although the station wasn't identified in the news story, it later became known that the business was Alvin's, which also defied many of Beshear's Kung Flu orders regarding masks.

The sad truth is, the Democrats in charge of Kentucky and the United States want these high prices. They want gasoline to be unaffordable. It gives them a chance to push their "Green New Deal" agenda and assert even more control over the populace.

If Andy Beshear was serious about helping Kentuckians with these rising costs, he wouldn't propose a laughable delay of an implementation of a two-cent-per-gallon tax increase. He would, instead, go ahead and declare the state of emergency to invoke the anti-price gouging legislation, then call the legislature into special session to extend that emergency order for as long as gas prices remain exorbitant and at record high levels.

During that special session, Beshear could also ask the legislature to suspend the state's 28-cents-per-gallon gas tax until pump prices fall below a reasonable level, such as $2.50 a gallon. He could also ask the General Assembly to reconsider the proposed income tax rebate that was considered in the regular session earlier this year but became a victim of the reconciliation process between the House and Senate. A tax rebate of $500 for individual filers and $1,000 for joint filers was proposed by the Senate. Offering that tax rebate could help Kentuckians offset inflationary pressures.

Likewise, Biden could do more to help relieve the economic pain by asking Congress to suspend the federal gas tax, repealing all the executive orders he's issued since taking office that have driven up oil and gas prices, and reverse the embargo on Russian oil. He could also ask Congress to provide a tax rebate to assist working Americans.

Believe it or not, Biden still has defenders out there who agree with him that Vladimir Putin caused all this grief when Russia invaded Ukraine. Unfortunately for the Delaware Dummy and his fan club, there's an easily verifiable timeline that shows how Biden's actions have driven up prices before and after the invasion. Read it and weep, Biden sycophants:

 

Anytime someone makes the claim that the president is not responsible for gas prices, find this chart and show them. Each executive decision Biden has made regarding oil production, starting on his first day in office when he canceled construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that would deliver Canadian oil to Gulf of Mexico refineries, has made the price of gas go up. There's a definite cause and effect relationship here. Should a Republican take office in 2025 and immediately reverse these decisions, you'd see an immediate resulting reduction in prices.

There are definite steps that liberal politicians like Beshear and Biden could take to provide consumers with some relief, but they aren't inclined to do so. It will take more than the clueless Biden's "Putin caused this" feeble and helpless claims for him to escape responsibility for the economic destruction his energy policies have caused. And it will certainly take more than Beshear's politically pandering but worthless promise to stop a minuscule impending gas tax hike to protect the working class from runaway price increases.

In Beshear's case, relief depends on him trusting the GOP-controlled state legislature and allowing it to do its job. A narrow special session call designed to address the gas price crisis is all it would take. Beshear should be on the phone immediately with House Speaker David Osborne and Senate President David Williams to hammer out a consensus for a legislative agenda. The Republicans are anxious and ready to provide relief to consumers. Beshear needs to relinquish his need to control everything and work in a spirit of cooperation to help the state.

The Democrats are going to take beatings in the Kentucky state legislative races and in the national congressional elections this fall unless they take bold measures to protect the people from these unaffordable price increases. Silly reductions in scheduled tax increases won't get the job done, and most will see through that idea for the ineffective political ploy it is. Leaders' words ring hollow unless they are willing to take real, decisive action and not just practice performative politics that accomplish nothing.

Kentucky needs some trickle-down conservatism

The capital of Kentucky is Frankfort. The geographical center of the state is in Marion County, near Lebanon. And some say the economic and commercial center of the state is Louisville.

But it's very obvious that the political capital and epicenter of the Bluegrass State is in northern Kentucky, where true conservatism is alive and thriving. The Cincinnati suburbs are the hotbed of what's called the liberty movement. The loss of three powerful establishment GOP General Assembly members just proves how strong the party's base is becoming.

Each of the three defeated legislators had a particular weakness that their opponent exploited. C. Ed Massey was an opponent of school choice, which is increasingly becoming a key issue for the GOP grassroots. Sal Santoro was a consistent advocate for increasing the gasoline tax, a terribly bad idea anytime but especially now as pump prices have reached record levels. And Adam Koenig has been a critic of Donald Trump and a vocal proponent of expanded gambling, something that social conservatives don't favor. (Plus, Koenig had a problem that crossed the boundaries of personal and political when his use of his official state government e-mail address on an Internet sex site for married people seeking extramarital affairs became a campaign issue.)

Beyond the three high-profile legislative losses, establishment forces are ceding vital ground in the party hierarchy. Conservatives are taking over local party leadership positions and, with varying degrees of success, are running for local elective offices against GOP incumbents.

Grassroots conservatives have been saying for years that they're tired of the party being run by a bunch of liberals who'd rather capitulate to the Democrats on key issues than stand on principles and oppose Democrats' proposals and policies.

If northern Kentucky is the hotbed of conservatism, some of that philosophy needs to trickle down to the rest of the state, where establishment Republican incumbents won renomination in primary battles against liberty-minded challengers.

Each of the three petitioners who sought to impeach Gov. Andy Beshear over his unconstitutional executive orders in reaction to the Wuhan Chinese virus pandemic ran for the legislature. Each lost, to the detriment of liberty-lovers in Kentucky.

In west-central Kentucky, Jacob Clark ran against Rep. Samara Heavrin, who was a Santoro ally in advocating for a gas tax increase. In the Bluegrass region, Tony Wheatley tried to unseat Kim King, who supported vaccination mandates. And also in that region, Sen. Donald Douglas' supporters in the Senate leadership spent thousands of dollars to help him fend off a challenge from Andrew Cooperrider, a small business owner who was one of the most vocal critics of the Beshear lockdowns because they directly and negatively impacted him.

Kentucky's Democrats had some off-the-wall takes concerning the GOP incumbents' losses. Since Congressman Thomas Massie had supported the challengers' campaigns, the official KDP Twitter account said the Kentucky GOP had lost control of Massie, who was in open rebellion against the party.

If Democrats want to function in a party that's controlled from the top down, with leadership dictating things, they can feel free. Republicans don't want to operate that way. They want the party's leaders reflecting their views, not telling them how to vote. Massie was reflecting the views of the majority of his Republican constituents in supporting Marianne Proctor, Steve Rawlings, and Steven Doan over the incumbents who lost.

But perhaps the craziest comment came from radical lefty Jacob Payne, former Page One Kentucky blogger who's still active in promoting liberal causes on Twitter. He said the reason the incumbents lost to the challengers was because he and a group of Democrats had worked against the sitting legislators and were trying to handicap the Republicans by sending the most conservative representatives possible to Frankfort.

Seriously? If he and his imaginary friends think that's harmful, they're missing a few screws. Sending conservatives to the General Assembly is one of those "please don't throw us in that briar patch" moments. Having more freedom-minded legislators in Frankfort works to our benefit, not to our detriment. With a few more voices from the right around, existing conservatives may be more emboldened to stake out and support positions backed by the base.

Voter registration in Kentucky is close to 50-50 now, as Democrats are changing parties and new voters are flocking to the GOP. These new voters fleeing liberal ideology don't want their new political home to be a haven for the beliefs they reject. They will demand that Republicans uphold conservative values to include opposing elective abortion, cutting taxes, reducing the size and scope of government, preserving and protecting individual rights, and other basic planks of a constitutional agenda. If Republican officials and leaderss don't act differently than Democrats, these new voters will desert the GOP as fast as they've joined. Republicans aren't poised to become the majority party in Kentucky because of a great love of Mitch McConnell or Damon Thayer or Michael Adams. The appeal is because of the Rand Pauls, Tom Massies, Matt Bevins, Savannah Maddoxes, and others who carry the conservative banner.

Can the conservatism that's becoming the dominant political mindset drip down the map to the rest of Kentucky? If this state is to escape the ravages of Democrat rule that has plagued it for decades, it's vital that it does. The GOP-supermajority legislature disappointed conservatives in the 2022 session by taking baby steps. While legislative leaders will pat themselves on the back for standing up to Beshear's agenda, the reality is they approved and enabled far too much of it.

As much as the GOP establishment and the Democrats would like to think that this explosion of conservatism is confined to northern Kentucky, and Boone County specifically, they may be in for a surprise. The Republican revolution is not being fought by moderates and backers of the status quo. The soldiers in this battle are the party's activists and the grassroots voters. This movement needs to trickle down from the Ohio River border counties to the rest of the state.

Establishment Republicans are enemies of conservatism

I've long said that I have more respect for radical liberals like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than I do for most Republicans.

At least Bernie, AOC, and others on that side are honest about who and what they are. On the other hand, there's very little conservative about establishment Republicans such as Mitch McConnell.

McConnell will brag on his record of confirming conservative judges to the federal bench, and he has to be given credit for that, but what else is conservative in his record? How many times has he opposed continuing government spending resolutions? How often has he voted to increase the federal debt ceiling? Why does he oppose government shutdowns and support expansion of government programs? McConnell has pretended to be a conservative at election time, but his record over the last several years is anything but conservative. His consistent opposition to tea party and MAGA concepts and candidates has rightfully earned him a "RINO" label and the disdain of his party's grassroots voters. He seems to favor process and tradition over results and outcomes.

The entire nation knows of McConnell and those cut from a similar cloth such as Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and others who'd rather capitulate to the left than stand on conservative principles, but Kentucky has a RINO infestation within the Republican Party that goes far beyond the senior senator.

Elected Republicans in the General Assembly have had lots to say about Gov. Andy Beshear the last couple of years, but when it comes right down to it, they have taken very little action to back up their comments.

As early as March 2020, when Kung Flu hysteria was racing across the state, Republicans had an opportunity to take some bold steps to rein in Beshear's authoritarian executive edicts. State Rep. Savannah Maddox was sounding the alarm on what could happen if the legislature didn't act. Unfortunately for the state, legislative leaders didn't listen. Instead, they hastily passed a one-year stopgap budget and got out of town. Everything Maddox predicted came true, and then some.

When the General Assembly returned in 2021 for its 30-day session, it was presented with a unique opportunity to right the ship. A citizen petition to impeach Beshear had been filed. At the time, the governor had lost every lawsuit filed against him in federal court alleging he had violated Kentuckians' rights with various Wuhan Chinese virus edicts, including an order shutting down churches and using the state police to record license plates of vehicles in parking lots of churches that held Easter Sunday services anyway. If his blatant constitutional violations didn't warrant impeachment and removal from office, what did? The GOP-dominated House impeachment committee failed to seize the moment and in the process, failed the people of Kentucky.

One of the individuals who filed the impeachment petition was Andrew Cooperrider, owner of the Brewed coffee shop in Lexington. Cooperrider became a crusader against the government-ordered closures that were destroying small businesses and their owners and employees; so much so that he decided to launch a campaign for state senator.

Cooperrider originally filed to run in the Senate district represented by Alice Forgy Kerr, a Republican who is decidedly more liberal than was her noted brother, Larry Forgy. She's staked out a number of positions that can hardly be called conservative over the years. But two things happened. First, Kerr decided to retire from the Senate and not run for re-election. Then, redistricting put Cooperrider into a district represented by Donald Douglas. Douglas, who happens to be black, won his seat in a special election to replace the late Tom Buford, who died while in office.

Undeterred, Cooperrider has continued his campaign in his new district. And his candidacy has the Republican establishment terrified.

The Republican Senate Caucus Campaign Committee is the political arm of Kentucky's Senate leadership. Those senators are Robert Stivers, David Givens, Damon Thayer, Julie Raque Adams, and Mike Wilson. They are the faces of the establishment. And they have fallen in line for Douglas and against Cooperrider, going so far as to let Douglas sponsor a resolution to end the Kung Flu state of emergency in Kentucky a month before it was scheduled to expire, when Cooperrider had been working against it almost since it began. The move couldn't have been more transparent.

The RSCCC has been doing most of the heavy lifting in Douglas' campaign. They're attacking Cooperrider as some sort of radical and his views and those of his supporters as unhinged.

Seriously? Standing up for individual rights and personal responsibility is radical and unhinged? A Republican working for smaller government is something for a fellow Republican to criticize?

Legislative leaders had an opportunity to do something with bold action, but they paid lip service and took half measures while they were in session.

The two other petitioners who stuck with the impeachment effort all the way until the end, Jacob Clark and Tony Wheatley, have launched bids for House seats. In both cases, they're seeking to oust Republican incumbents who have behaved more like liberals than conservatives.

Clark is running against Samara Heavin, who has supported gasoline tax increases in the past and opposed legislation requiring school boards to allow citizen comment during regular meetings. Establishment figures in that part of west-central Kentucky seem to be supporting Heavrin.

Wheatley's race is especially intriguing. He's running against Kim King, who claims to be a staunch conservative but has a track record proving the opposite.

King was on the House committee that voted not to impeach Beshear. She was also a very vocal opponent of House Bill 28, the legislation proposed by Maddox and co-sponsored by nearly one-fourth of the House that would have prohibited employers from requiring the vaccine. She voted against school choice legislation, calling it "a slush fund for rich parents to send their children to private school." That's a line that sounds like it could come from the group non-lovingly called 120 Wrong, except that they don't like her very much, so it does her little good to curry favor with them. And she's been very condescending to members of the public who have attempted to call her out for her decidedly unconservative positions. She's been perhaps the biggest disappointment of all the Republican legislators.

The epicenter of the conservative movement in Kentucky may be in the north, where these anti-RINO leaders have assumed control of the local parties in some counties and are taking on establishment incumbents. This, of course, has the entrenched interests furious and they've been quite vocal about it. There's been a decent amount of news coverage in the northern Kentucky and Cincinnati media markets, with the takeaway that the old guard is losing its grip on the party in favor of doers, not talkers.

I've long said that conservatives' biggest battle is not with the Democrats, but with the liberals within our own ranks. You can claim to be a constitutional conservative all day long, but if your record while in office says something different, your words ring hollow.

Conservatives must continue to stand strong and battle the elements within their own party that seek to water down and dilute their values, and capitulate to Democrats and other liberals. Some of next week's primary election races provide a great opportunity to let liberal Republicans know that they'd fit in better with the Democrats like which they behave. The establishment needs to be sent a message that it's time to listen to the rank and file within the party, and to answer to the voters and not to the donor class.

A third senator for Kentucky? Vance's Breathitt County ties may be a benefit to the Bluegrass State

In 1984, I was fresh out of college and had just started a job that took me to Breathitt County and its county seat of Jackson three days a week.

That same year, a son was born to an Ohio family with deep Breathitt County roots. You may have heard of him. His name is J.D. Vance, and he's a best selling author, and as of last week, the Republican nominee for the United States Senate from the Buckeye State.

Vance upset liberals with Hillbilly Elegy, his tale of growing up in the Rust Belt community of Middletown, Ohio, a city located between Dayton and Cincinnati and full of Appalachian expatriates, many from eastern Kentucky, who left the hills in search of a better economic future but took their culture -- the good parts and the bad -- with them. They call the book, and its author, "garbage" but have never really been able to articulate a cogent reason why. Vance's biggest sin seems to be his belief that the government can't solve the problems of the poor and the middle class in the industrial midwest or the Appalachian Mountains.

I'm extremely familiar with the Breathitt County of which Vance wrote when he mentions his relatives there and his trips to his grandparents' ancestral home. Nothing he wrote is inaccurate. Many of those cultures and customs persist today in the region.

His grandparents may have left Breathitt County, but they didn't leave rural mountain culture on the south side of the Ohio River. The environment in which he grew up in the late 1980s and 1990s is not dissimilar to the way things were in eastern Kentucky. His mother, who is probably around my age, brought a parade of men into her life through a series of failed relationships, then fell into the black hole of drug abuse. His grandparents basically raised him and his sister, and they hadn't truly left the mountains behind when they migrated north.

It would be inaccurate to say that Vance "escaped" the Rust Belt, as there are many people who love their working class towns and cities, the same way many of us love the rural areas and mountains and would rather stay and try to make life better here instead of leaving, but he did eventually move away. First to the Marines, then to Ohio State University, then to Yale's law school, and then to California, before returning to Ohio a few years ago.

Vance openly considered a political campaign before deciding to run for the Senate to replace the retiring Rob Portman. It was a crowded Republican field with a number of prominent Buckeye Republicans in the race. Vance seemed to be languishing in second or third place before he garnered the endorsement of President Trump. Trump was reported to be undecided between endorsing Vance, who had been critical of him in the past, and Josh Mandel, who had been a Trump fan of long standing. He eventually threw his support to Vance, and it seems the endorsement pushed Vance over the top.

Of course, various Trump-haters have tried to spin the results as something negative for the 45th president, notwithstanding the fact than no candidate he's endorsed has lost yet in this primary election cycle. Some made the case that with Vance only winning the primary with a plurality of around 33 percent, that means Trump doesn't have the endorsement power he once did. The counter argument is that Vance was behind in the polls until Trump endorsed him, and Mandel had the endorsements of conservative heavyweights such as Sen. Ted Cruz and constitutional scholar/attorney/author/talk show host Mark Levin. The truth is, without Trump, Vance probably would have lost.

Democrats are scared of Vance. His working class upbringing makes him a "nightmare" for Tim Ryan's chances, according to no less than a New York Times reporter.  His roots and his successes appeal to two widely different segments of the electorate that Rep. Ryan, who seeks to move up to the Senate, needs to win.

And it's that background that might make Vance not only an effective senator for Ohio, but for Kentucky as well.

It's a safe bet that Vance has more relatives in Breathitt County alone than both Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul combined have in the entire state of Kentucky. I can't say that I personally know someone who knows or is related to Vance, but I probably do. Vance owns his family's homestead in Breathitt County -- which, if I interpreted the book correctly, is somewhere up around Frozen -- and his beloved Mamaw and Papaw are buried in Breathitt. He certainly knows the area and its issues.

Political fortunes can change in six months, but right now it looks as if a red wave is coming to Congress. As long as the economy remains in the toilet and inflation runs wild, anyone associated with President Biden or his party is in trouble in a competitive race. Vance stands an excellent chance of being elected to the Senate from Ohio in November. That might be a good thing for Kentucky, especially the eastern mountains and the folks there who think no one in power understands their issues and strugges.

J.D. Vance understands. He lived with those issues growing up, and was able to overcome them. He can bring a unique perspective to governing that needs to be heard.

Michael Adams in the middle as two of his associates are at odds

 It's no secret that Secretary of State Michael Adams and Attorney General Daniel Cameron are Mitch McConnell's men in Frankfort. McConnell's intervention pushed them to victories in the 2019 Republican primaries, shoving aside candidates who had proven their worth four years prior.

In 2015, two relatively unknown Republican candidates with limited funding came within whiskers of defeating members of two iconic Democrat families in races for those two offices. Stephen Knipper narrowly lost to Jerry Lundergan's daughter, Alison Lundergan Grimes, for secretary of state. And state Sen. Whitney Westerfield fell in a close contest to Gov. Steve Beshear's son, Andy Beshear.

The fact that these two underdog candidates came so close to toppling Democrats from dynastic families in 2015 automatically made them the front-runners for the 2019 races. And indeed, both Knipper and Westerfield launched campaigns for a second shot at the positions that had barely eluded them.

That's when McConnell got involved. He backed Cameron and Adams for their positions. It was generally an unspoken truth among Kentucky Republicans that the GOP leader in the United States Senate was throwing his support and his clout behind those two. Westerfield eventually dropped out of the AG's race, but Knipper stayed in the race, finishing third out of four candidates.

Adams has come under fire from a number of Kentucky Republicans for his work with Gov. Andy Beshear, who served one term as attorney general before winning the gubernatorial race, to change election procedures for the 2020 primary and general elections. They believe Adams was too eager to work with Beshear to implement changes with which they didn't agree. They've also been critical of the way Adams has used his official trappings to attack critics.

Republicans hold all statewide offices except the governorship; Adams and Cameron are the only officials eligible to seek re-election next year due to term limits. Cameron has long thought to be McConnell's favored replacement when he leaves office, but there's been talk recently that Cameron may run for governor instead; preferring to keep his young family in Kentucky instead of making the move to DC. Adams, though, is thought to be planning to run for re-election as secretary of state, and he's sure to draw a primary opponent from the conservative/tea party/MAGA wing of Kentucky Republicans.

But Adams may get caught up in the middle of a feud between two of his closest associates.

Eric Greitens is the former governor of Missouri, who resigned in 2018 in the midst of personal and legal issues. He's now running for the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Roy Blunt. Greitens has been especially critical of McConnell while campaigning, saying he won't back McConnell's bid to be re-elected GOP Senate leader. McConnell, in his trademark way, has publicly denounced Greitens without explicitly doing so. He hasn't taken sides or made an endorsement in the crowded race, but his comments leave little doubt he's not a Greitens fan.

Adams was a board member and secretary/treasurer of the "dark money" nonprofit at the center of Greitens' campaign finance issues. He's also represented Greitens as his attorney in legal matters relating to Greitens' gubernatorial campaign. The Adams-Greitens association came up during Adams' 2019 secretary of state campaign, but never made huge headlines. The issue never got traction during the primary, nor was it a factor in the general election.

Some Republicans have referred to Adams as "slimy" or "slippery," so it's interesting to see how he might wiggle out of this one. No one in Kentucky media has asked him to address Greitens' current campaign, or to discuss the friction between Greitens and McConnell.

It's not just Adams who is caught in the middle of the Greitens campaign. When new domestic violence allegations were made against Greitens recently, one of the Republicans who called on him to drop out of the race was Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley. Hawley is one of the best-known Donald Trump supporters in Congress. Greitens has been courting Trump's endorsement and already has the support of a number of Trumpworld figures. Greitens' opposition to McConnell is said to be very appealing to Trump, who also has little use for him. Should Trump endorse Greitens, and Hawley in turn criticize Trump, the former president might turn on Hawley.

It's not often that political drama from another state spills over into Kentucky, but in this case it may. Adams is already the least-favorite GOP statewide officeholder. The party base runs hot and cold on Cameron, but if polled, the voters would probably give him higher marks than Adams. It will be interesting to see if Adams gets pushed into taking a side in the Greitens-McConnell feud. McConnell remains deeply unpopular in Kentucky, even with Republicans, while Trump is still widely liked. It may be that Adams has to decide where to hitch his wagon to remain politically viable. Does he stay with McConnell, the man who used his influence to get him onto office in the first place but who is extremely disliked in the state and is in the sunset of his political career? Or does he align with Trump's team and the anti-establishment warriors? Adams is establishment through and through, so it would likely be hard to break with them, but if he wants a political future in Kentucky, he may have to.

Either way, it's good to know that he has to be a little uncomfortable with two of his associates at odds. Adams has made Kentucky conservatives uncomfortable since he has been in office. It's time someone returned the favor.

Liberals aren't the only ones upset after Kentucky legislature adjourns. Conservatives are equally unhappy

If you've paid attention to the news and commentary after the conclusion of the 2022 Kentucky General Assembly biennial session, you know that liberals are extremely unhappy.

The actions taken by the Republican majority legislature have upset the left in this state almost beyond consolation. From abortion restrictions to education and tax reform to protecting women's scholastic sports, the legislation passed by the House and Senate and then confirmed through overrides of Gov. Andy Beshear's vetoes have left liberals wounded and downtrodden. They fail to realize that Kentucky was under control of the Democrats for decades, and their preferred party has caused all of this state's woes, and now the Republicans are trying to fix those mistakes.

Go visit the Lexington Herald-Leader's Web site and read some of columnist Linda Blackford's lamentations during the last days of the session and immediately afterwards. Her distress is evident. She's representative of many who are decrying the legislature's accomplishments as steps backwards for the state, when the reality is we're trying to move forward after years of Democrat rule.

But as unhappy as the liberals are over what the legislature did, conservatives are equally displeased, if not more, over what the General Assembly did not do.

For the majority of Kentucky conservatives, the biggest issue that faced the legislature this year was medical freedom and the end of restrictions on individual freedoms as a response to the Wuhan Chinese virus. The way the majority handled the issue has left a bad taste in the mouths of the grassroots, and the fallout could cause some incumbent GOP legislators to lose their re-election bids in this month's primaries.

In the months leading up to the start of the session in January, the buzz was about something called Bill Request 106. This was a bill prefiled by Rep. Savannah Maddox, who is establishing herself as the best member of the General Assembly. It would have banned Kung Flu vaccination requirements as a condition of employment or service at a business. It had the support of thousands of Kentuckians and ended up with nearly one-fourth of the House membership as co-sponsors.

When the session started, BR 106 became House Bill 28. And then it languished. It was no secret that a number of establishment groups, such as the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, opposed the bill. Some Republican representatives, including Kim King, spoke out against the bill, saying it was not a conservative proposal. (Since when is supporting individual freedoms not a conservative position?)

When the bill finally moved through the committee system, it was gutted. The restrictions on private employers were removed, leaving only a prohibition on public employers requiring the shot. Making that change was the only way House leadership would allow the bill to advance. Sponsors, including Maddox, reluctantly voted for it even though it didn't go far enough.

And then it went to the Senate, where there was even more opposition from the establishment leadership. Damon Thayer and Ralph Alvarado got most of the blame, but those who kept up with the legislative session knew that the Senate's leaders were not in favor of the bill. After the bill finally got a committee vote, the shenanigans pulled to ensure it wouldn't pass out of committee to the Senate floor were shameful. Testimony was skewed in the direction of those who opposed the legislation.

Conservatives were already unhappy with the legislature for not reining in the executive orders when it first had the opportunity, as the 2020 session came to an abrupt halt. The failure of the House to impeach Beshear was another black mark -- indeed, all three of the in-it-to-win-it petitioners are running for office this year, including a challenger to King, who was on the impeachment committee.

The legislators, especially party leaders in both chambers, have been busy congratulating themselves on a momentous legislative session. And they did do some good things to move Kentucky forward. The sore tails of Bluegrass liberals are evidence of that. But conservatives feel let down. They're frustrated at seeing the GOP's veto-proof majorities in both houses not do enough to reduce the power of government and protect individual freedoms. And they're ready to take their frustrations out on the RINOs who have challengers for their seats in the upcoming primary.

It's not often that conservatives and the radical left agree on anything, but they've found common ground in their disdain for the Republican-majority General Assembly as it's currently constituted. If things go well, conservatives will have reason to celebrate, but the Democrats will have even more triggers to wallow in grief and sadness as they continue to lose their grip on control of Kentucky and the state finally advances from the dark years when their party ran things.

Once upon a time, when free speech ruled the Internet

The liberal meltdown over Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter and his move to make it a privately-held company is enough to make Spock's pointy ears go smooth and turn his green blood red. The illogic of the thought that permitting open and uncensored dialogue is a danger to freedom and democracy would probably go over with Spock the way one of Dr. Leonard McCoy's emotional rants did on "Star Trek."

The left doesn't want to engage those who disagree with their beliefs and policies. They want to silence them. Why don't they want to put the time and effort into debating? Are their positions indefensible? Is it easier to just silence the opposition instead of attempting to correct what's said?

It's mind-boggling. "How dare anyone want there to be free speech? Don't they realize how harmful it is? Musk is doing us all a grave disservice!"

It's obvious some of these folks have either forgotten, or have never learned, when true free speech ruled cyberspace. The world didn't end and democracy didn't collapse because people were able to state their positions as they saw fit. And it wasn't that long ago, either, when people weren't constrained by arbitrary rules or terms of service when they wanted to express themselves.

Before cellular data networks, before mobile devices and apps, before streaming services, before HTTP and the World Wide Web, there was an Internet. It was much simpler than the online experience we know today, but in many cases, it was much better even with very limited content.

There were three major components of the Internet in its infancy. One was electronic mail. People were able to send messages to one another without the need to put pen to paper. E-mail has stuck around and is now the preferred contact method of many.

Another component was a method of transferring large computer files from one user to another. The system and the process shared a name, File Transfer Protocol, or FTP for short. Using special software, individuals could share data that didn't fit on the portable storage media in use at that time. FTP is still used, although the methods have evolved and services like Dropbox or Google Drive are now prominent.

But the final piece of the puzzle was something that raised few eyebrows back then, but would give the censorship crowd fits if it was prevalent and popular today.

Usenet was, and remains, a decentralized system of various discussion groups. Imagine the old America Online message boards, or the bulletin board systems provided by local Internet service providers. Multiply that by a factor of 100, and you have Usenet. It originated at Duke University and access was primarily limited to scholastic and other institutional settings before the Internet went mainstream.

The various topic-specific categories were known as newsgroups. And if there was a certain topic of interest, there was probably a Usenet group dedicated to it. Were you a college basketball fan? There was a newsgroup to discuss it: rec.sport.basketball.college. Were you a fan of a particular music group; say, Rush or Chicago or Kiss? Interested in camping? Fishing? Cats or dogs? Did you want to discuss politics? A devotee, or a detractor, of Rush Limbaugh? A few keystrokes in a search box, and you could find a place to talk about nearly any subject.

When AOL opened its closed system up to the Internet at large in the mid-1990s, a number of new users discovered Usenet. Dialup ISPs provided Usenet access as part of their service package, along with an e-mail address and possibly some file storage so customers could host their own small Web sites or file servers. When the Web became the primary attraction for online users, a whole new audience discovered the wonders of Usenet as well. If you had access to a Usenet server, you could discuss whatever struck your fancy with like-minded folks.

What made Usenet stand apart from today's online discussion offerings, be they topic-specific forums, or social media sites like Twitter or Facebook, was the total lack of content control. Outside of a few specially-noted moderated groups, you could say whatever you liked without fear of censorship. Once something was posted, it couldn't be deleted unless the original poster initiated a "cancel" request, which wasn't always successful. If you didn't like what a particular individual posted, you could place the subject or the person in a killfile and never see their posts, or posts in that particular subject thread, ever again. The action even got its own name; "plonking," after the imaginary "plonk" sound a piece of garbage would make when dropped into a trash can.

As a decentralized system with no owner, there were no rules. If you didn't like something, you removed yourself from it instead of removing it from the realm of discussion. No one fretted that Usenet discussions could lead to the end of the free world. It was a simpler and better time for public discourse.

One would think that in a censorious period like we're now experiencing, Usenet would be flourishing as the place for free discussion. But circumstances have taken a toll.

Usenet is, at its core, a text-based service. Network News Transfer Protocol, or NNTP, was designed to distribute text messages. As technology involved, knowledgeable experts figured out how to convert non-text files into text, and then how to reassemble them. This allowed Usenet to become a place where users could post and download pictures, videos, music files, and even complete installers for software. It boosted Usenet's popularity and brought about the rise of paid Usenet providers, selling access to the system above and beyond what ISPs offered.

It's been said that the boom in both consumer home video systems and Internet access was fueled by pornography. People bought VCRs so they could watch porn movies at home, and then got Internet service at home for the same reason. So naturally, pornography started being distributed in newsgroups set up for sharing files. So it's not surprising that child porn became readily available on Usenet.

Since Usenet isn't a centralized service like Facebook or Twitter, and user anonymity is readily available, someone had to pay the price for the accessibility of child porn. Former New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer and his successor, the now-disgraced Andrew Cuomo, began a very public push against Internet providers who made Usenet newsgroups available. Spitzer managed to get convictions against two local upstate New York ISPs, and this spooked major providers into either severely curtailing Usenet access, or eliminating it altogether. Verizon, Comcast, Time-Warner, AT&T, and other big national ISPs got scared and discontinued Usenet. Even AOL, which introduced Usenet to the masses, dropped access before it finally shuttered its online service.

Usenet is still around today, although in a vastly scaled-back form. There are some free NNTP services that allow access to text-based newsgroups, as well as several pay services that provide all the groups, including the "binary" groups where files can be encoded and downloaded. Google Groups also offers access to text groups. But it has waned in popularity to the point where new Internet users may not even know what Usenet is or how to access it.

Why hasn't a fully free and open discussion system flourished in this era of account suspensions, heavy-handed moderation, and biased "fact-checkers?" One of my favorite newsgroups has been supplanted by a forum where moderators have to approve accounts and rule with an iron fist. Posts are frequently deleted, threads locked, and users banned, and personal biases frequently come into play in those decisions. I'm amazed that a number of people actually prefer that setup instead of doing their own work to filter spammers, topics, and posters they don't want to see.

I miss Usenet and have frequently lamented its current status and wished for its return. Perhaps Musk can convert Twitter into a similar outlet, although the 280-character limit for tweets is extremely limiting. But the fears about how Musk will manage the platform are unfounded. White supremacists, neo-Nazis, or Antifa activists didn't take over the world when Usenet was king. And society isn't going to collapse if Donald Trump is allowed to get back on Twitter and take shots at Liz Cheney or Mitch McConnell or Joe Biden. (For the record, Trump has indicated that even if his Twitter account is restored, he doesn't plan to return and he'll keep using the Truth Social service he founded.)

Relax, liberals. The end of the world isn't imminent just because someday soon, people may be able to practice free speech and tweet what's actually on their minds without fear of running afoul of some arbitrary rule. We survived Usenet. We'll survive a more unrestricted Twitter. That's a conclusion that Spock would find entirely logical.

We don't have a democracy to defend -- how the left is fighting against true freedom and democratic ideals

Every time I see some liberal complaining about how conservatives, Republicans, and Trump supporters are putting our American democracy in danger, I don't know whether to laugh or to cringe.

If these people had any sense, they would realize that the United States of America is not a democracy. This nation is organized as a constitutional representative republic. The founders realized the dangers of a true democracy, so they set the nation up as a conglomeration of states that can institute various systems of elective government.

You see it in the way some states have unique procedures. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, while every other state has a bicameral one. Some states allow ballot initiatives or referendums on proposed legislation, which is about as close to a true democracy as we get in America. Some states allow for the recall of elected officials. Each state has its own constitution and a means for amending it. But it's obvious in the way the federal government was established that a democracy was not wanted. The president isn't chosen in a single election wherein the person who receives the most votes wins. The presidential election is actually the aggregate of individual elections in each of the states and territories, with the results weighted by population. The Senate was originally envisioned as a body that was chosen by and representative of the individual state governments, but the 17th Amendment changed that to take the selection of senators away from the state legislators and give it to individuals.

But if we did have a true democracy, it's not the American right that poses a danger to it. In issue after issue, the leftists have been the ones who have complained the most about the influence of individuals in the political process.

A number of public policy issues have risen to the forefront and angered and motivated members of the electorate. From the Wuhan Chinese virus to educational policy and curriculum, members of the public have grown sick and tired of the government's actions and are vowing to effect change.

This scares liberals. They don't want the public to have any influence over government policy. The government -- a big, nameless, faceless, entity that was created to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people" but has become a self-sustaining institution -- knows best. The people shouldn't control the government. The government should rule the people.

As parents and taxpayers organize to win school board seats and take control of school policy, the left is aghast. They don't want anyone else to have a say in what students are taught. Parents are rightfully concerned over the sexualization of their kids in the classroom, and the teaching of a flawed theory on race that pushes the false notion that America is an inherently racist country, decades after the Civil Rights Act was passed and nearly two centuries after slavery was abolished.

Much of the current wave of ground-level activism started when parents complained about various public school responses to the Kung Flu. They were angry about mask mandates and the closure of classrooms to in-person learning. Many of these educational issues were at the forefront of last  year's Virginia gubernatorial election, where Glenn Youngkin ran on a platform of turning control back to the parents and taxpayers and he defeated Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe.

If liberals really support democracy, then why don't they want the majority to control how tax dollars are spent? If they are the defenders of freedom, shouldn't they act like it?

An even more glaring example of this whole thing at play is how the left is reacting to what looks to be the imminent takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk. There have actually been commentaries written that say allowing free speech to flourish on Twitter or other online sources is a detriment to democracy.  And people take some of these buffoons seriously. Robert Reich, the former Clinton administration official whose intellect is roughly equal to his physical size, was one of the first to weigh in. He was roundly roasted for his opinion, as have been most people who think that actually allowing more free speech is somehow harmful to freedom.

The marketplace of ideas is a cornerstone of a democratic society. The answer to free speech with which you disagree isn't censorship. It's not less speech. The answer is more speech. If someone says something with which you disagree, no matter how outrageous it might be, the solution is not to silence them. The proper response is to counter them. Point out what they're wrong about and why. Let the truth prevail.

In a true democracy -- or even in a representative republic, which is the actual form of government under which we operate -- the voices of the people are supposed to prevail. Those who actually support freedom and democracy want the people to dictate how government works, not the government telling the people how to live, and they want a robust exchange of ideas from which the truth emerges.

In today's "up is down and down is up" world, it's those on the right -- the ones the left think are trying to destroy democracy -- who are fighting for our freedoms. And those on the left, who claim that conservatives are the enemies of democracy, are the true enemies of it.

A glaring double standard in Kentucky politics

During my time as a newspaper editor in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we didn't have the Internet -- much less data-enabled mobile devices -- to provide reams of real-time data at our fingertips. We relied on printed directories for vital information about many of the governmental agencies we covered.

Each year, my newspaper invested in a thick book offered by Clark Publishing called The Kentucky Gold Book. It was an invaluable resource for information on who was who in Kentucky politics. We referred to it often if we needed to call someone in Frankfort for details on a story.

I always perused each new edition of the Gold Book to learn my way around the labyrinth of state government, and one thing that always amazed me was the number of school teachers and principals who served in the General Assembly.

I had questions, such as, "How can these people leave their jobs for 60 days every two years to go serve in Frankfort? Doesn't it do a disservice to the students to have long-term teacher absences? How can these school districts justify paying these employees when they have these scheduled absences?"

Obviously, I knew that everyone who serves in the General Assembly has to leave work during a legislative session. My own representative worked for the railroad. But I figured that educators serving in the legislature was a different scenario, especially since tax dollars were involved. Were the needs of the students being served?

When I left the field of journalism to take a merit system job in state government in 1995, I had to learn an entirely new set of operating rules.  One eye-opening thing was the legal prohibition of civil service employees from holding partisan political office. Classified state workers under the merit system have to resign before they can even file to run for a partisan office. The only elective offices state employees can run for or hold are non-partisan positions such as school board, city councils, soil conservation boards, and other such offices.

In fact, state employees chafe under a number of restrictions on political activity that don't apply to other individuals on the public payroll.

Compare what state workers can do while engaging in the political process to the activities in which public school employees can participate. It's a glaring double standard. State workers can't organize fundraisers or bundle campaign contributions. They can't take part in certain campaign events or political organizations. They can't be local party officials. And even within the limits of what is allowed, a double standard exists. My hometown of Beattyville elects its mayor and city council members on a non-partisan ballot, so state workers are allowed to run for municipal office. One county seat west, in Irvine, the mayor and council candidates run under partisan ballots, so state workers can't run for or hold office there. There's no logic in that discrepancy.

Teachers? They can do all those things and more. There are really no restriction on what they can do politically. They can chair political campaigns or local party organizations. They can raise funds and pass out campaign literature. And they can hold partisan political office. After this year's redistricting takes effect for the 2023 General Assembly session, my representative will be someone who's a school principal in Jackson County.

This is hypocrisy codified. Teachers are one of the biggest politically active groups out there. They're loud and they're influential. But are they more important than social workers, corrections officers, state troopers, snowplow drivers, or others who are paid with tax dollars and perform vital public services? Why should they have privileges that other public employees don't?

Not all that long ago, Harry Moberly was one of the most influential members of the House of Representatives. He was the longtime chairman of the Appropriations and Revenue Committee when Democrats controlled state government. He was also a high-ranking administrator at Eastern Kentucky University, meaning he was able to use his legislative position to funnel state funds to EKU. Wasn't this an obvious conflict of interest? If an employee of a state university can serve in the legislature, why can't an engineer with the Transportation Cabinet or a Kentucky State Police detective or an auditor with the Department of Revenue?

There's an obvious fairness solution here. Much of KRS 18A needs to be repealed to give state employees the same political and First Amendment rights as other public employees. There's absolutely no common-sense reason that state merit system workers can't do the same things in the political process as a tenured school teacher.

Failing that, public school employees who serve in the legislature should be prohibited from voting on matters pertaining to education. There are ethics laws and policies that prevent the state from awarding contracts to businesses connected to certain officials. Shouldn't that extend to legislators voting to fund their employers? Should a public school employee be allowed to funnel money to his or her school district via the Department of Education?

Don't look for this statutory hypocrisy to be corrected anytime soon. Teachers wield a lot of political clout in Kentucky, and they don't want their influence to be curtailed, eliminated, or diluted. So expect the state to have to endure this double standard from now on, when certain voices are amplified and others are muted.

Did Beshear accidentally trip over his own two feet over redistricting flap?

It's no secret that Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has a toxic relationship with the Kentucky General Assembly. Beshear is the only Democrat of any prominence in state government, as all other statewide offices are held by Republicans, and both chambers of the legislature are overwhelmingly Republican, so it's in his best interests to try to work with the GOP. Instead, he's chosen the opposite route. He's been combative and uncooperative. Over the past two years, as the governor has made executive decisions impacting the lives and livelihoods of all Kentuckians, he's gone at it alone. He's failed to try to seek common ground with legislative leaders, or to even give them a heads-up as to what he's going to announce, as he's taken a wrecking ball to the state's economy and many of its small businesses under the flag of keeping us safe.

Whether it's arrogance, envy, stubbornness, or some other unknown and unseen reason, the governor has been absolutely unwilling to work with the majority to find common ground on policy issues. Yes, the governor is largely irrelevant, because if he vetoes anything the House and Senate pass decisively, the veto will be overridden. But he's still the top executive in the state and he needs to face political reality and deal with it.

One of his most recent fits of pique, however, may come back to bite him harder than anything else, given the state's current political mood.

The General Assembly is required to do only two things in its current session, which began last month and will last for 60 working days. The first task is to write a biennial budget. The second chore is to draw new federal and state legislative district boundaries using data from the 2020 Census. The two may be related this year, as you'll see later.

Because budget discussions usually dominate the biennial 60-day legislative sessions, General Assembly leaders hoped to have the new district boundaries in place prior to the start of the session. They asked Beshear to call a special legislative session late last year, but he declined. For reasons known only to him, he wanted to see the maps that legislative leaders had drawn up before he brought the General Assembly back into session.

There was no reason for the governor to see the maps prior to a special session. Legislative redistricting is the purview of the legislature in Kentucky. Yes, the governor can veto the redistricting bills, but that veto would have been moot because the GOP holds veto-proof majorities in both chambers. This year is the first time that Republicans have had complete control over the redistricting process. The chambers draw their own boundaries and the other chamber usually approves them as a formality, and they come to an agreement on federal congressional lines. For the past two redistrictings, Republicans held the Senate and Democrats controlled the House. In fact, the switch in control of the House came in districts the Democrats had drawn in 2012 in an attempt to protect their dwindling majority. This time, the GOP had unfettered access to setting the district lines.

So, because the governor refused to call a special session to get the new legislative districts in place prior to the start of the regular session, redistricting became the first order of business.

Two years ago, the legislature moved the filing deadline for the May primary election up from late January to the first week of January. That meant that the new district boundaries wouldn't be in place by this year's Jan. 7 deadline. So the legislature moved this year's deadline back to later in the month to allow candidates to know in which district they lived and where they were eligible to file.

Beshear vetoed the Kentucky House and federal congressional district maps, and let the Senate map become law without his signature. As expected, the legislature overrode his vetoes and the new districts became law, along with the extended filing deadline.

So far, no problems, right? Beshear knew he couldn't win the battle, but he prolonged it as long as he could. First, he didn't call a special session to allow the legislature to get the redistricting out of the way. Then, he vetoed two of the bills.

But the fight's not over. A group of Democrats sued in state court to block implementation of the state and federal House districts. To date, no challenge has been filed to the Senate district map, nor has a federal suit been filed. Both are still possible. So far, there's been no movement in the state court case.

The Republicans have made provisions for an extended court battle. The legislature is proposing that the primary election, this year only, be moved from May to August, with an accompanying extension of the filing deadline, should the legal fight drag on.

How might this come back to bite Beshear? And how does the redistricting brouhaha tie in to the budgetary process? They're related.

Conservatives in Kentucky are unhappy with the Republican establishment leadership in the General Assembly. They're angry that the House didn't move to impeach Beshear last year over his repeated federal constitutional violations. They're upset that legislation to end the Wuhan Chinese virus "emergency" declaration didn't go far enough. They're displeased that legislation to prohibit Kung Flu vaccination requirements as a basis for employment failed to move during last year's special session and hasn't even been assigned to a committee in the current session. A number of House Republicans who didn't act with enough vigor have drawn challengers for this year's primary. The possible delay in the primary and an extension of the filing date may bring more opposition.

In most 60-day biennial sessions,  action on the budget usually comes very late in the calendar, often in the last days. This year is different. The House has already approved its budget, with the stated goal of moving on to tax reform now that the budget's out of the way. This ought to scare the dickens out of every Kentuckian. The last time the GOP-controlled General Assembly addressed tax reform, we got a broad expansion of the sales tax to cover services such as auto repairs and veterinarian fees. Both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats were opposed to that move, but it didn't matter. It's also widely expected that another gas tax increase, similar to ones that have been proposed in past sessions, will be brought up again. At a time when fuel prices are surging to levels not seen in nearly a decade, that's a burden Kentuckians can't afford.

So how does all of this tie together? Republicans may think the primary field is already set, and they can levy new taxes and increase existing ones with impunity, but if the state redistricting court case isn't decided soon -- it's likely that it will end up at the Kentucky Supreme Court -- or if it goes to federal court or if new challenges are filed, the window will be open once again for challengers to less-than-conservative Republicans. Those same GOP challengers will be even more hostile to Andy Beshear. If the GOP legislators currently serving open themselves up to potentially more challengers, a number of them could end up losing their seats to Republicans who not only will hold the line on new taxes, but will go after Beshear anew. He could even end up being impeached, this time by an effort led by House members instead of private citizens.

Beshear may have been better off just calling a special session last fall. That would have given any potential court challenges more time to play out and would have put a rest to any possibility of an extended filing period. Instead, he's opened the door to even more resistance from the legislature by making it possible that Republicans angry at the establishment will take power. He would have no chance to have any of his initiatives considered and would face an even more hostile General Assembly in 2023 as he enters his re-election year. Through his own hubris in not working with the legislature to get new district boundaries in place in a timely fashion, he may have done himself even more damage, and emboldened Kentucky conservatives who are already restless from how they're being ignored by their party's leadership.

A grand case of political grandstanding in Louisville

Democrats have become the masters of identity politics. They don't try to unite us as a community, state, or nation, and address issues that affect all of us. Instead, they seek to divide us and exploit our differences, turning us against each other. They pit black vs. white, rich vs. poor vs. middle class, urban vs. rural, devoutly religious vs. faithless, young vs. old vs. middle age, native-born American vs. immigrant, male vs. female, heterosexual vs. homosexual, homeowner vs. renter, employed vs. unemployed, and so on. You get the point. They want us fighting amongst ourselves so we don't unite to fight them and their bad ideas.

Liberals have also given rise to the notion that a government official can't represent someone unless they have the same pigmentation, genitalia,  or other similarities. They think a white female cannot represent a black male's interests. Diversity above all else seems to be a major goal for the left. Look at the furor over the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy. Not just any liberal will do; President Biden must nominate a minority female to make the court "look more like America."

This isn't just a national phenomenon. Kentuckians got a good dose of it last week in some machinations involving a state House of Representatives race.

Over the past decade or so, Kentucky has gone from the Democrats having a substantial majority in the lower chamber to facing a Republican supermajority. The transformation has been remarkable. Given voting trends, it was probably inevitable, as the GOP was gradually picking up seats, but 2016 was successful beyond the party's wildest dreams. Even some Democrats thought to be unbeatable, like House Speaker Greg Stumbo, went down to defeat. No doubt President Trump had long coattails on the 2016 ballot, but the flip in the majority was going to happen eventually.

This year is the first time that Republicans have been in charge of the decennial redistricting required as a result of census data. In Louisville's 44th District, the new boundaries mean that it is a "majority-minority" district; meaning that the majority of the population belongs to a racial minority.

The 44th District is represented by Joni Jenkins, who serves as the head of the Democrats' dwindling caucus numbers in the House. As the minority floor leader, she is the top-ranking member of only 25 Democrats. Jenkins is a white female who has served in the House since 1995 and as her party's leader for the last two years. But that won't be the case after this year.

Jenkins filed for re-election, but due to delays in passing the redistricting bill, the filing deadline was extended from Jan. 7 to Jan. 25. During that time, Beverly Chester-Burton, the black female mayor of Shively, also filed to run for the seat. And that paved the way for Jenkins to do a bit of political grandstanding.

Jenkins withdrew from the race after Chester-Burton's entry on the filing deadline day, touting the Democrats' line that pigmentation matters. "I have long advocated for a General Assembly that looks like Kentucky, so when minorities became the majority in the newly redrawn 44th House District, I did not want to be a person of color joining the Kentucky House of Representatives," Jenkins said in her withdrawal announcement.

Neither Jenkins' decision, nor the all-but-assured new representative, are without controversy. Accusations quickly came that Jenkins had tipped Chester-Burton off to her decision and recruited her into the race, thus hand-picking her successor in a district in which no Republicans filed. And Mayor Chester-Burton was charged with driving under the influence in December 2020 when she crashed her vehicle into a utility pole after allegedly passing out in a White Castle drive-through line. (No resolution of that charge came up via an Internet search). So the residents of the newly-created 44th District will be getting a representative with some personal and political baggage that may hamper her effectiveness.

What better example of identity politics could one ask for? Give Jenkins credit; she put her money where her mouth is. But is it possible that the real reason she's decided not to run for another term is that she sees her party becoming even more of an irrelevant minority after the 2022 elections? The consensus among political observers is that the GOP legislature drew GOP-friendly districts, even though it pitted two sets of incumbent Republican representatives against each other. (It also pit two sets of Democrats against each other, but in one of the districts, one of the incumbents decided to run for a judicial position instead of seeking re-election to the House.) There is a very real possibility that there could be fewer than 20 Democrats in the House of Representatives when it convenes in 2023 for its organizational and 30-day session. The caucus would be powerless, and trying to lead to lead it would be an exercise in futility. It makes sense that Jenkins would want no part of that.

We as a community, state, and nation, are more alike than we are different. We have common goals that are worth attaining and common enemies that wish to destroy us. It's pointless for us to fight among ourselves; we need to channel our energies to point in the same direction. But the left wishes to separate and divide us, while our goal is to unite as Americans and as residents of our states and communities. Identity politics is an obstacle to that goal, and political grandstanding in its name like that Joni Jenkins engaged in last week is harmful to our progress and does nothing to elevate the discourse.

A tribute to Coach Joe B. Hall

It was the spring of 1984. I was just three months out of college and starting my career at my hometown newspaper, where I'd worked during school breaks since I graduated from high school. I was young and ambitious and had high hopes of becoming a regional correspondent for the Lexington Herald-Leader as a career goal.

I had planned to start a job search upon my graduation from Morehead State University in December 1983, and had asked my hometown editor-publisher to help me and let me know of any job vacancies. But she had other ideas. She was familiar with my work, having been my boss for summers and Christmas vacations for several years. She was looking to expand coverage in both my hometown and in the neighboring county where she also owned and published the newspaper.

At the time, the local high school's basketball team was one of the best in the state. On top of that, the local school system wasn't getting the same level of coverage as were the city and county governments. My task was to cover sports, school board meetings, and educational issues in my hometown, help with general news coverage in the adjoining county, and take over layout and design of the front pages of both papers.

One of the things I did was to resurrect a sports opinion column that I'd written for a while in the college newspaper, for which I'd won a Kentucky Intercollegiate Press Association award.

So it was in that atmosphere that the University of Kentucky Wildcats completely and utterly collapsed in their 1984 NCAA Tournament national semifinal game against Georgetown.

The game remains a nightmare for longtime UK fans. The Cats led by seven points at halftime, but the Hoyas completely dominated the second half. UK didn't score a point until nearly midway through the final period, and scored only 11 points and made three of 33 field goal attempts in the second half of what became a 53-40 loss.

The Cats languished while the school's all-time leader in field goal percentage, Melvin Turpin, mostly sat on the bench in the second half. Turpin and oft-injured Sam Bowie made up the team's vaunted "Twin Towers" lineup that flailed against Patrick Ewing and "Hoya Paranoia."

Georgetown was the villain of college basketball that year. The team was coached by John Thompson, who seemed to carry a chip on his shoulder as if he was mad at the world. To have them beat my Wildcats was embarrassing, especially when the team squandered the halftime lead and floundered while their best-ever shooter rode the pine for much of the decisive period.

In my mind, only one person was to blame -- the head coach, Joe B. Hall, who died over the weekend at age 93. Hall was the one who failed to make adjustments to the offense. Hall was the one who kept Turpin riding the pine. I was livid.

My sports column the following week was a screed demanding the ouster of Hall as UK's coach. Someone needed to pay for that debacle, and Hall was responsible.

It didn't help Hall's standing with me that in his first season as UK's head coach, he had benched local star Larry Stamper. Stamper, the best player ever to suit up for the Lee County Bobcats, had been a key reserve as a sophomore, and then a starter as a junior on Adolph Rupp's last team. But when Hall took over, he played a number of younger players and Stamper was reduced to mop-up duty.

So I wrote my poison pen column and put it on the page. Back in those days, production for the Beattyville paper was basically finished on Tuesdays except for breaking news, and then Wednesdays were reserved for the Jackson paper. Both papers were taken to the printer at the same time.

My boss' brother was probably the most loyal UK fan I've ever met. If ever anyone bled blue, it was him. His affection for the Big Blue was unmatched by anyone I've ever met. He worked there at the newspaper in retirement as a way to keep busy, and as therapy as he recovered from a number of health issues. He and I became great friends in the years I worked there. But here was one instance where I let him down.

After I left the office that Tuesday, he read my column. To say he was unhappy with me was putting it mildly. He showed it to his sister, the editor and publisher. On Wednesday, when she came in, she told me I needed to reword my column to take some of the sharpness out of it. She originally wanted to pull it entirely, but I convinced her to let me run it with a milder tone. But at that moment, with the disappointment of a crushing season-ending loss still fresh, I wasn't over my anger at Coach Hall for the way he allowed the mighty Cats to go down to the upstart Georgetown Hoyas. And I wasn't disappointed in the least when Hall decided to retire the following year, although none of us could foresee what was coming during the reign of his successor, Eddie Sutton.

But like many other things, including my views on Kentucky Republican legend Larry Forgy, my thoughts evolved over the years. Instead of being angry at Hall over his treatment of Larry Stamper, or frustrated with how he couldn't stop the 1984 Final Four collapse, I began to appreciate his style of basketball and his love for the UK program. Hall remains the only native Kentuckian and former Wildcat to coach the team in the modern era. Watching how Rick Pitino, Billy Gillispie, and now John Calipari approached the job made me respect Hall that much more. I went from not thinking very highly of him to admiring him in a number of ways.

In retrospect, Hall did as good of a job as anyone could in succeeding the legend Rupp, who built the UK basketball program. He won an NCAA championship in 1978, won the NIT in 1976 when it still meant something, and engineered one of the greatest Wildcat wins ever, a regional final victory over the unbeaten Indiana Hoosiers in 1975. Many of us who underappreciated Hall grew to respect him, especially given some of the pitfalls his successors had. Sutton began a battle with the bottle and suffered the wrath of the NCAA due to a couple of unproven recruiting violation allegations. Pitino wasn't satisfied being the UK coach and thought the Boston Celtics had greener pastures. Tubby Smith, probably the coach most like Hall in terms of demeanor, began to wilt under the weight of the program and fan expectations, and left for Minnesota in a move remarkably similar to what happened when UK lured Bill Curry away from Alabama to be football coach. Gillispie proved he just wasn't up to the task and the 24-7 nature of the job. And Calipari has alienated fans through his penchant to bring in short-term mercenaries to gain the required one year of collegiate experience before bolting for the pros.

Hall gets credit for fully integrating the basketball program, starting with in-state players like Merion Haskins (younger brother of Western Kentucky great Clem Haskins) from Campbellsville, Larry Johnson and Dwane Casey from Union County, and finally hometown players James Lee and Jack Givens from Lexington. His selection of Leonard Hamilton as an assistant coach was also seen as a watershed moment in integrating the team, and it proved to be a wise decision, as Hamilton was an ace recruiter for Hall who went on to have a storied head coaching career.

After Hall's death, tributes poured in from his former players. One described him as "everybody's grandfather" and they nearly universally noted how much affection they had for him, and how the feeling was mutual. The retired coach became a beloved figure in the state, a start contrast from his coaching days when armchair critics like me pounced on his every misstep.

One of my current work colleagues played a key role in organizing a ceremony a few years ago to dedicate a bridge in Hall's native Cynthiana in his honor. She got to know the elderly coach and they became great friends. I've seen a number of pictures of the two of them together. When I heard the news of his death, she was the first person who came to my mind.

For all of Calipari's faults in the way he's managed the Kentucky basketball program, he's shown the proper respect for the past. His involvement in the recent ceremony in Rupp Arena honoring Smith is a prime example. But Calipari also reached out to Hall, having gotten the sense that the school had not paid proper homage to Hall's contributions. He became friends with his predecessor and made sure he knew just how much regard the state and fan base had for him.

In retrospect, I was definitely too hard on Hall. I was back in 1984 when UK lost to Georgetown, and I was back in the early 1970s when he drastically cut the playing time of our local Wildcat. Like many others, I've come to appreciate his accomplishments and his stewardship and guidance of the program. He brought a perspective to the coach's position -- native Kentuckian, former player, lifelong fan -- that has proven unique. No one could have possibly cared more about Kentucky basketball than Joe Beasman Hall.

Our state mourns his death, and I join thousands of others in offering sympathy and prayers for all those who knew him.

Mourning the passing of a Kentucky political legend

Over the years, I've had changes of heart about a number of local, state, and national political figures. I've gone from admiring them to loathing them, and in some cases circling back to feelings of respect and admiration.

One of those individuals who earned, lost, and then regained my regard was Larry Forgy, the prominent Kentucky Republican who died Thursday after being in declining health for several years.

Forgy was an enigma to many in the state, myself included. His positions and viewpoints were sometimes hard to figure out, but he was loyal to himself and his ideology up until the end.

Long a player behind the scenes in Bluegrass politics in a party that seemed to be stuck in permanent minority status, Forgy suddenly took the spotlight as a "can't-miss" candidate for governor in 1987. The Democrats were engaged in a brutal primary, eventually won by businessman and political outsider Wallace Wilkinson, and Forgy was thought to have a great chance to win statewide and become the first GOP governor in 20 years.

Instead, Forgy shocked the political world by opting against a run for governor, citing a distaste for the fundraising required to win a position of that stature. Without a viable candidate, Republicans ended up nominating John Harper, a relatively-unknown Bullitt Countians, who lost in a landslide to Wilkinson.

Four years later, Congressman Larry Hopkins was the party's top choice to run for governor. He was envisioned to face Lt. Gov. Brereton Jones, who had feuded with Wilkinson during their term. (Back in those days, Kentucky governors were term-limited, and the governor and lieutenant governor were elected separately and not as a slate). Suddenly, inexplicably, at the last minute Forgy threw his hat into the ring, making political contribution and spending limits a central part of his campaign.

His entry into the race left a lot of Republicans scratching their heads. "Why did he do this?" they asked. "He was a shoo-in to win the nomination and stood an excellent chance of winning statewide four years ago, but he decided not to. Now we have a strong candidate poised to run, and he jumps into the race? Why?"

Forgy's presence in the race hampered the Republican efforts. Hopkins eked out a victory in a hard-fought primary against Forgy, but that race drained him of resources he needed to compete against Jones. He lost badly, and many Republicans (myself included) blamed Forgy.

Fast-forward another four years, and Forgy decided once again to run for governor. This time, he had the party's backing in his effort. He ran a close race, but ended up losing to Paul Patton in an election marked with allegations of vote fraud. Without some shenanigans in Louisville that were later verified, Forgy may have finally become governor.

I voted for Patton -- one of the few Democrats for whom I've cast a vote in a federal or statewide election -- for several reasons. One was because Patton was from eastern Kentucky and I truly thought he'd be beneficial for the entire region. (He really wasn't; his hometown of Pikeville fared pretty well, but the rest of the mountains didn't). But the biggest reason was my anger with Forgy. He'd sabotaged the party twice; once by not running for governor when he could have won, and again when he helped tank the candidacy of a candidate who could have won.

For years, I held this bitterness toward Forgy, whom I'd met only once. To be viewed as such a fine upstanding conservative, he'd done the movement two major disservices. But when the Republican establishment showed its true colors during Ernie Fletcher's gubernatorial term, the lawyer and orator from Logan County won back my admiration.

Fletcher's story is well-known. He finally broke the drought for Republican governors in Kentucky, but found himself battling partisan attacks from the Democrats by himself when the GOP leadership turned its back on him, and in some cases sided with the opposition. Forgy became one of the most vocal and prominent defenders of Fletcher, clashing with party bigwigs who had abandoned their governor.

Forgy continued to be a voice for true conservatism over establishmentarianism. He was publicly critical of Mitch McConnell and backed Matt Bevin in his 2014 primary run against McConnell. Even though the two had feuded publicly in latter years, McConnell was gracious in his comments about Forgy after news of his death spread.

As I mentioned, I only met Forgy once. It was in the spring of 1991 when he was campaigning for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, and I was editing a newspaper in Estill County. Forgy came to pay a call on the newspaper's publisher, who himself had been active in Republican politics, and they invited me in for a portion of the conversation. Forgy was warm, engaging, well-spoken, and articulate. He and Gatewood Galbraith were probably two of the best political orators I've ever met. But Forgy, as gifted and witty of a speaker as he was, couldn't win me over. I'd already thrown in for Hopkins, had his stickers on my vehicles, and was actively campaigning for him.

I don't regret supporting Hopkins over Forgy. I do regret voting for Patton, because he ended up being such a disappointment in so many ways. But that vote was really more of an anti-Forgy expression than one of support for Patton. And while I'm still disappointed over how things turned out in 1991, I respect Forgy's accomplishments and have come to understand his positions and his integrity with regards to conservatism and Republican politics.

Kentucky's conservative movement lost another giant earlier this week with the death of Scott Hofstra, who was a strong voice for freedom and a leader of various tea party groups. His passing drew warm comments of remembrance and sympathy and appreciation for his efforts. I never met Hofstra, but was certainly aware of his presence. (And unsurprisingly, certain liberal goons were quick to rejoice over the deaths of both Hofstra and Forgy, but that's become the norm these days.)

Rest well, Lawrence Eugene Forgy. You earned the respect of thousands -- and regained my regards for your loyalty in your golden years.

Several people are in need of a civics lesson

It's already been proven that many non-Kentuckians know nothing about the political history of this state, and that became apparent once again earlier this week when liberal author and political activist Don Winslow tweeted a series of anti-Bluegrass State slurs aimed at the voters of the commonwealth for electing Mitch McConnell to seven terms in the United States Senate.

But another controversy that brewed up in recent days shows that a number of Kentuckians need a refresher course in civics and how the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government works.

Vast outrage spread across the state when a Jan. 6 memo, from a high-ranking property taxation official in the Department of Revenue to locally-elected property valuation administrators, was made public. In Kentucky, property valuation administrator (PVA) is the official term for tax assessor. The memo notified PVAs that due to an increase in the "blue book" value of vehicles, tax assessments would be going up on average of 40 percent statewide.

No one -- other than perhaps government bureaucrats salivating at the opportunity to have more tax dollars to spend -- was pleased with the news. Quite predictably, those ultimately responsible this decision have backed away from it.

The memo came from the director of the Division of State Valuation in the Office of Property Taxation within the Department of Revenue. Revenue used to be a cabinet-level agency in Kentucky, but has since been reformed as a department within the Finance and Administration Cabinet. In Kentucky, division directors are political appointees. They are hired by the governor and serve at the governor's pleasure. Administrators at this level are chosen to carry out the governor's wishes, directives, and policy initiatives. An edict of this magnitude would not come out of Frankfort without the blessing and knowledge of the governor or his highest lieutenants.

So naturally, Gov. Andy Beshear wants no blame for the fallout from this financial blow, which will, if not reversed or altered, add monetary burden to a citizenry already reeling from rampant inflation and high taxes. And his sycophants in the social media world are doing all they can to protect him and deflect the darts rightly being thrown at his administration.

Property tax amounts are derived from two components. The first part is the value of the property. That's assessed by an executive branch administrator and is supposed to be based on fair cash value, defined as what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in a voluntary transaction. The second part is the tax rate. That is set by taxing agencies, be they elected legislative bodies like legislatures, city councils, school boards, or fiscal courts, or appointed bodies like health and library boards.

Beshear was quick to avoid any responsibility for the increased assessments. "We didn't raise them," he basically said. "Inflation did. Your car is simply worth more now than it was last year." And his fanboys and fangirls on social media quickly chimed in. "Don't blame our beloved Andy and his administration. Blame the legislature. It's their fault."

Well, no. It's not the General Assembly's fault, although many legislators -- even some Democrats -- were quick to say they would clean up the mess during their current session. A couple of bills have already been filed to take care of the matter, and it's possible more will be forthcoming. It's quite likely that there will be no impact to the taxpayers from this decision.

But the idea that the governor's administration bears no blame for this debacle is asinine. If a political appointee saw information that would have a drastic negative effect on the constituency, the logical and astute thing to do would be discuss options with the higher-ups -- the department commissioner, the cabinet secretary, executive assistants in the governor's office, maybe even the governor himself -- before issuing a memo. The Beshear administration had options. One of them was to declare that the inflated vehicle values are a temporary phenomenon caused by Bidenflation, and to decide to base 2022 assessments on last year's values. That would still a windfall for taxing districts, though, because vehicles are a depreciating asset and their value goes down every year they're in service.

Why, then, did Beshear's "govern me harder, daddy" fan club try to say this whole mess was the legislature's fault? Were they trying to defend their king and savior? Or are they totally unaware of the separation of powers, and which governmental branch is responsible for assessing value and which branch has the role of setting tax rates? The answer is both. They've blindly followed Beshear on every possible issue while ignoring constitutional restraints that have resulted in a number of federal court rulings against the governor's executive orders. They'll defend him right or wrong.

The General Assembly will fix this problem. Public pressure and outrage is demanding it. But the legislature shouldn't have to deal with this issue at all. The governor's administration could have stopped this in the beginning. The executive branch had the ability and the power to nip the controversy in the bud. It chose not to. Those who want to shift the blame for this disaster away from the governor's office onto the legislature are guilty of civic ignorance. They need a lesson in how government works, which branch has which role, and how separation of powers is established and how it operates. It's a scary thought that these people are politically active, have loud and influential voices, and they vote. Their mindset is what we're up against as we try to make this state better.