Trump investigations set a dangerous precedent. Do liberals really want to blaze this trail?

Conservatives despised Barack Obama. Liberals detested George W. Bush. Similarly, the right villainized Bill Clinton and the left demonized Ronald Reagan. (Poor George H. W. Bush was so lukewarm that he didn't really generate hard feelings among anyone).

But all of those former presidents had something in common. Once they left office, they were pretty much left alone. They and their families were free to live their lives as peacefully as is possible for ex-presidents and their kinfolks.

That certainly isn't the case with Donald Trump. He hasn't been able to enjoy his post-presidency pursuits. His detractors have come after him with all sorts of investigations. And since Trump is neither a liberal Democrat nor an establishment swamp-dwelling Republican, he's angered both sides.

On everything from his company's employment benefits to outrageous allegations that he orchestrated a riot through the mere act of giving a political speech, he hasn't seen a minute's peace since leaving office. He's been unable to pursue his interests, be they running his corporation to campaigning for his preferred candidates, without having to deal with speculation about what legal troubles might be coming his way.

Democrats are like rats smelling cheese. They can't contain themselves at the thoughts of investigating Trump, putting him and his organization and his children on trial, and taking their revenge on him. But they really need to ask themselves if this is a precedent they want to set. It could come back to bite them.

There's a fervor in Congress now surrounding proposals for the Senate to end the filibuster. Only a handful of long-term thinkers on that side of the aisle are urging Democrats to proceed with caution. If Republicans take back control of both chambers next year, which is very likely, do they want to have established that protocol to allow the GOP to ram through any legislation it wants with simple majority votes? Sure, they will still have the presidency for two more years and legislation can be vetoed, but other acts -- such as launching investigations, holding hearings, etc. -- wouldn't be subject to a veto.

But, there are more ramifications to consider. Republicans are notorious for staying above the fray in political disputes and not stooping to the left's tactics. Maybe, finally, they will have had enough and will use liberals' precedents against them.

When the GOP takes back control of Congress, there can be all sorts of hearings about various misdeeds within the Biden administration. Republicans might even find the courage to impeach Biden for something; possibly even over his actions in compelling the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor when he was vice president. And by January 2023, when the next Congress takes office, Joe Biden will have an entire litany of screwups from which to choose. After all, the Democrats impeached Trump twice on absolutely ridiculous terms and for totally flimsy reasons.

And when the Republicans regain the White House, perhaps the Justice Department can launch a proper investigation into Hunter Biden and his questionable business activities.

(Speaking of Biden's wayward son, a lot of liberals on Twitter -- including blue-checks who should know better -- continue to post speculation that Donald Trump Jr. is a cocaine user without any proof or credible allegations. Who was it who was photographed with a crack pipe? Oh, wait, it was Hunter Biden.)

It's a feel-good point for conservatives to say they aren't willing to engage in activities that they think are beneath them, but when their enemies are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their grievance efforts, it's time for us to take off the gloves. If the left is going to set the rules, it's time the right play by those rules. Just doing that infuriates liberals. After all, they told us in 1992 and again in 1996 that sexual misbehavior in a presidential candidate is not a disqualifying factor, but they forgot in 2016 when the less-than-pure Trump was running.

So, if the Democrats succeed in doing away with the Senate's filibuster rule, they will have no room to moan and cry if the Republicans ram through legislation the next time they're in control of Congress. And if liberals insist on investigating and pursuing criminal charges against Trump and his relatives and associates, they'll just have to sit silently when it happens to Biden.

This is the world liberals want to create. It's only fair that they be forced to live in it too.

From virtue signal to scarlet letter: The evolution of masks' symbolism

As a writer by trade and training, and as a staunch defender of the First Amendment, I'm hesitant to ever recommend the banishment of a word or phrase from the language. But there's one phrase I wouldn't mind to see disappear from the lexicon and never be used again: Virtue signaling.

It's not the concept -- the outward expression of values or principles -- to which I object. Indeed, I think that's something we should all strive to do. We should always demonstrate our closely-held beliefs and those standards in which we believe through our words and deeds. "Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words," is a quote often attributed (erroneously, some say) to St. Francis of Assisi. But the phrase "virtue signaling" itself has taken on a negative connotation, and those on both the right and the left use it derisively.

Last week, when federal guidelines on mask-wearing in public changed, and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear announced more rollbacks in the Wuhan Chinese virus restrictions as a result, it led some to ponder just how those on the left could demonstrate their moral superiority now that masks would no longer be required in most settings.  Since the mask-backers had long said they were wearing masks to protect others and show how much they care about the public's health, what would they do after this tool was taken away from them?

Then, the illegitimate president, Dementia Joe Biden, tweeted that people basically have two choices. "Either take the Wu-Flu vaccine, or wear a mask. The choice is yours" was the essence of the statement.

And suddenly, it became clear. No longer would masks become a symbol for those who care about others. Instead, they would be a mark of shame for people who don't care enough about society to take the shot. A mask doesn't mean, "I care." As of late last week, it means, "I don't care."

Last Saturday, I went to a grocery store. For the first time since last summer, the majority of shoppers weren't wearing masks. There were three or four customers who were still masked, and the checkout clerks were wearing masks, but most customers were maskless. It felt good. It felt free. It felt right. It felt normal.

There has been a spectrum of reaction to the announcement that fully vaccinated people -- and for the record, I identify as vaccinated -- don't have to wear masks in most public settings anymore. Many have said "It's about time." Others say they will continue to wear masks despite the lack of a requirement. But the oddest response came from Rachel Maddow, who proved herself worthy of her "Madcow" nickname. She said it would take her a while to deprogram herself from seeing unmasked people as threats.

Seriously? I never viewed any unmasked person I encountered in a store as a threat. If anything, I respected their desire to be civilly disobedient. Going maskless in the dollar store is certainly less harmful and disruptive to society than blocking traffic, destroying monuments and statues, looting, and rioting. The misguided idea that everyone has COVID and every unmasked person is spreading COVID is absolutely ridiculous, but people like Maddow bought into it. The amount of fear that the government and its partners in the press have spread over the last 15 months is shameful. Hopefully, if nothing else, we as a society have learned never to repeat so many of the mistakes that have been made in the overreaction to this situation.

In all honestly, it was refreshing to see so many people without masks at the store. More major retailers are dropping their mask requirements each day, and hopefully most if not all businesses will follow suit. People are still free to wear masks if they feel the masks offer them protection, or if they feel like they have something from which they need to protect others, but they're no longer a symbol of self-superiority. Mask advocates can drop their pretentiousness, as we are hopefully on track to a return to the way life was in January of 2020, when people lived normally without fear and panic dominating their lives.

They still just don't get it

As the left and the RINO Republicans -- that means you, Congressman Adam Kinzinger and Lincoln Project frauds, among others -- continue to melt down over the removal of Liz Cheney from her leadership position, they keep on demonstrating that they simply don't understand the amount of frustration American conservatives have with the political process.

"Party of Trump" and "Trump cult" are two phrases that are being thrown around by the same loud leftist social media voices that can always be counted on to get it wrong. And unsurprisingly, they're getting this wrong as well.

What they don't realize is that conservatives have years of pent-up anger and dissatisfaction with the establishment leaders of the Republican Party who haven't yet had a principle they wouldn't toss aside in order to try to get along with the Democrats, who are never going to approve of the GOP or its policies.

John McCain tried it, and all it got him was some bipartisan praise when he died. Mitt Romney seems more interested in getting liberals to say nice things about him than in standing for the ideals of the party he represents, and bore its standard in the 2012 presidential election.

If it hadn't been Donald Trump leading the charge against liberals and establishment Republicans, then it would have been someone else. Trump just happened to be the candidate to was able to harness the outrage. (Myself, I would have preferred Ted Cruz, but was not disappointed in the least with the way Trump governed.)

Grassroots voters are hungry for someone who will stand up to the left. They thirst for a leader who will make Republicans live up to the ideals they profess to hold. They crave officials who will put American interests and the American people above foreign governments and citizens. They lust for executives who are less concerned with precedent and tradition and more worried about results. And that was Trump's appeal. His candidacy offered those promises. Trump wasn't interested in caving in to the left. He wanted to defeat their policies. And he didn't feel obliged to do things the way they'd always been done in political campaigns.

It's fitting that the last two serious candidates left in the 2016 GOP nomination were Trump and Cruz, the two most unconventional contestants in the race. Establishment favorites like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie had fallen by the wayside as Republican primary voters and caucus-goers rejected the old way of doing things. The party of Reagan had strayed far from its moorings before the tea party movement took the GOP by storm in response to the Barack Obama presidency, and then the populist surge led by Trump won the nomination and eventually the presidency.

Today's GOP isn't "the party of Trump." It's the party of "we're tired of business as usual, we're tired of losing to Democrats, we're tired of liberal policies ruining this nation, and we don't care if we hurt a few feelings or step on a few establishment toes to score some policy victories so we can fix this nation." It just so happened that Trump was the recipient of the votes from the disaffected electorate. If the results of the nomination process had been different, it could have been "the party of Cruz" or "the party of Rand Paul" or "the party of Marco Rubio."

Liz Cheney wasn't ousted because she wouldn't side with Trump. She was exorcised because she sided with liberals who are opposed to the things for which she says she stands. Like many of Trump's GOP detractors, she has put personality above policy. She'd rather go to battle alongside people who stand against her ideology than to stand with someone who shares her policy positions.

But the left and the liberals in the Republican establishment will continue to get it wrong. They'll keep on confusing loyalty to one man with the disdain for a political society that pushes aside American autonomy for global interests, and would rather acquiesce to liberal desires than stand strong on their beliefs. They underestimate us at their peril.

No Gov. Trump in 2023 after all -- Kentucky's residency requirements stand in the way

Some eyebrows were raised a couple of weeks ago when the name of Donald Trump, Jr., came up in discussions about who might be running for Kentucky governor in 2023.

One of the key combatants in the various legal battles against Gov. Andy Beshear and the state's executive orders regarding the Wuhan Chinese virus mentioned in an online discussion that he'd heard Trump's name brought up as a possible candidate. This person has his finger squarely on the pulse of Kentucky politics, and he'd be in a position to know the names of the players, the contenders, and the pretenders.

But there is absolutely no chance that the namesake son of the 45th president will be governor of Kentucky in two years. And unless Trump establishes residency in Kentucky by the end of this year, he can categorically be ruled out as a candidate in 2027.

Kentucky's constitution requires someone to be a resident of the state for six years before becoming eligible to run for or serve as governor. That means anyone planning on running in two years needed to be living here by 2017, thereby ruling Trump out.

This has to be a relief to any Republicans who were considering the race to be nominated to oppose Beshear. Trump would have brought money and a vast wealth of name recognition to the race, and judging from the amount of enthusiasm the mention of his name as a potential candidate generated, he would automatically have had the support of a majority of those who supported his father's presidential runs in 2016 and 2020.

So, where does that leave us when pondering the possible field of candidates? Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles seems to be getting the most attention as a potential candidate, even as criticism mounts against him as an establishment candidate. There's still considerable speculation that Kelly Craft will run, and talk of her possible candidacy became louder when she recently accompanied Congressman Hal Rogers on a tour of flood-ravaged communities in eastern Kentucky. Former Gov. Matt Bevin seems to be leaning toward another run, and he'd be a formidable foe because of the money he could bring to the race, plus the fact that he already has a statewide network in place from his previous term as governor. The "Draft Savannah Maddox" movement continues to gain steam, and it doesn't take a genius to suspect that she has to be paying them at least a modicum of attention. Some are mentioning Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Secretary of State Michael Adams as possible candidates, but they've given no indication they're interested in the race. And Congressman Jamie Comer continues to be the X-factor in the race. He really hasn't signaled an interest in running, but he hasn't ruled it out, either.

Meanwhile, on the other side, there's a bit of possible intrigue. There are some loud voices on the left who are encouraging Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman to mount a run against her boss. They point to the way she and her staff have handled Kentucky's unemployment fiasco and compare it to Beshear's treatment of the matter, and they use that to surmise that she'd be a better governor than he is. This isn't likely to happen, as no Democrat governor who's been eligible to succeed himself (Paul Patton and Steve Beshear) has faced credible, legitimate opposition for renomination in the primary. Unless...

An even more interesting rumor making the rounds is that Beshear is considering dropping Coleman from his re-election ticket in favor of Rocky Adkins, the former legislative leader who now serves as one of the governor's senior advisers. It's not clear from where this speculation  is originating, but there's been no media coverage of it. Keep in mind, though, that it was rumored for months that Bevin would boot Lt. Gov. Jenean Hampton from his slate with no replacement mentioned before Sen. Ralph Alvarado's name finally surfaced. Perhaps some inquisitive media sleuth should get Beshear on the record about this rumor. If Beshear did replace Coleman on his ticket, might she run against him as revenge?

Although some note has been paid to next year's U.S. senate race, when Rand Paul stands for re-election and is expected to face a challenge from former state Rep. Charles Booker, the 2023 governor's race continues to be the main political attention-grabber in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The ongoing virus situation and the current governor's handling (or, if you ask many mishandling) of the matter continues to gain and hold the public's concern. State politics are infinitely more intriguing than are national politics, especially since there are more favors to be doled out on the state executive level than there are at the federal legislative level. So even as Paul continues to be a lightning rod for national attention due to his continuing scrutiny of Dr. Anthony Fauci, state political observers are going to be looking past next year to 2023.

The race will definitely be less interesting without the possibility of Donald Trump, Jr., in it, but it's still going to be a crowded and expensive GOP primary. There will be clear choices between establishment RINOs and conservative champions, with the possibility of several from each category in the race. It will be a spirited sprint to the nomination, but there will be races within the races. Will the establishment go for Quarles or Craft? Will the conservatives support Bevin or Maddox? Will someone surprise everyone the way Bevin did against Comer and Hal Heiner in 2015?

And keep an eye out for 2027 should Don Jr. move to the Bluegrass State this year.

Press again shows its bias, favoritism in coverage of Beshear-related incidents

On a day ironically promoted by the Washington Post as "World Press Freedom Day," Kentucky's leading media outlets have once again proven why they aren't worthy of the constitutional liberties they're granted, and why all those who criticize them as biased and "fake news" have valid points.

Both incidents involved newspapers and television stations, and the leading personalities who run social media accounts linked to their employers, failing to report or acknowledge two weekend events involving Gov. Andy Beshear, especially when compared to their past behavior in similar instances.

At the last Kentucky Derby that was open to the public, in 2019, Matt Bevin was governor and was involved in a re-election campaign. He was booed during his remarks as he presented the trophy to the Derby winner. Media outlets lapped that up, breathlessly tweeting about it from Churchill Downs and filing numerous reports that made their way onto broadcasts and into print.

Last year's Derby was delayed several months and not attended by crowds, but a limited number of spectators were present for this year's running this past Saturday. When Beshear appeared to present the trophy, he was met by a chorus of boos and jeers. Yet the press failed to report that and the reporters failed to tweet about it. Unless you follow various of the anti-Beshear activist accounts on social media, you wouldn't know it happened.

Now, why would the press hide the fact that Beshear got booed and not report it as gleefully as they did when it happened to Bevin? Surely it wouldn't be because all these journalists are in the tank for Beshear and his agenda, would it?

But that incident on Saturday was just an indication of a much more frightening incidence of the media being in Beshear's pocket. The day after the Derby, another in a series of protests against the government mandates concerning the Wuhan Chinese virus was held in Frankfort, outside the Capitol and Governor's Mansion. This time, a number of Beshear fans announced their plans to hold a counterprotest to show support for the executive orders.

Rewind to Memorial Day weekend 2020, when a huge rally took place there. Someone set up a display of Beshear being hung in effigy, and the condemnation of the symbolism was fast and loud and lengthy. Keep in mind that no actual threats were made by the display, and effigies have been used as political speech for centuries. Anyone who supported any of the "reopen Kentucky" protests that took place at the time was cast as some sort of domestic terrorist, worthy only of condemnation.

Fast forward back to this weekend. The governor and his wife came out from the mansion to visit with some of their supporters. Among those with whom they talked, and posed for a picture, was a woman identified as Karen Clark Ellis. Photos of Ellis talking to the Beshears have been shared on social media, and Ellis herself shared the photo of her with the Beshears on her own Facebook page before she took her page down,  for reasons that will become apparent later.

Sometime after her meeting with the Beshears, Ellis pulled a knife on one of the anti-Andy protestors. There are photos and videos of this incident freely available for public consumption. Although this happened in front of police, no arrests were made, and the person on whom she pulled the knife is said to be seeking criminal charges through the Franklin County Attorney's office.

As for Karen Ellis, the rest of us are lucky that screenshots last forever. She bragged about her act on her Facebook page, only later to pull her social media presence back to the point that you can't even find her profile if you search for it. She probably got tired of hearing from people telling her what they thought about her actions.

With all the physical proof of the incident, and with all the social media play it got, doesn't it seem odd that as of this writing, no Kentucky media outlet has covered the story? Especially since so many reporters seem to base their news stories on social media postings and use tweets and Facebook posts as sources for information? And also especially since a symbolic gesture (a hanging in effigy) generated so much coverage while an actual physical threat goes ignored?

Journalists constantly wonder why members of the public don't trust them, consider them to be biased and unreliable, and call them "fake news." There are none so blind as those who will not see. Until they cover the Derby booing of Andy Beshear with the same fervor they used with Matt Bevin, and until they give the same weight to actions of Beshear supporters as they do Beshear opponents, they just simply will never get it.

Governor Trump? Kentucky's 2023 gubernatorial race is getting interesting

As early as that night in November of 2019 when Andy Beshear thwarted Matt Bevin's bid to win re-election as Kentucky's governor, speculation began on which Republicans might decide to run in four years to unseat Beshear, and which candidate might be the front-runner.

And that was before Beshear's bungling of the state's Wuhan Chinese virus response, the resulting unemployment fiasco, and all the other missteps his administration has made since he took office 17 months ago.

The three term-limited state Republican officials -- Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles, Auditor Mike Harmon, and Treasurer Allison Ball, have all used the duties of their offices to hold Beshear accountable and responsible for all the mistakes that have been made on his watch.

Quarles continues to be most frequently mentioned as a 2023 GOP candidate, and was declared the front-runner on KET on Election Night 2019. Harmon's name comes up more and more often in the speculation, but not much is said about Ball.

As for the other two statewide officeholders, Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Secretary of State Michael Adams, they aren't frequently mentioned as possible candidates. Conventional wisdom still has it that Cameron has his eye on Mitch McConnell's Senate seat (as McConnell's handpicked successor), and Adams has alienated a number of Republicans over his acquiescence to Beshear's temporary election changes last year and the permanent changes passed by the General Assembly this year.

The other name that came up immediately after Bevin's loss to Beshear was that of U.S. Rep. Jamie Comer. Comer lost the 2015 GOP nomination to Bevin by a mere 83 votes and toyed with the idea of running against him in the 2019 primary. He has a set of loyal backers and is said to still be bitter over his 2015 loss despite having settled into a relatively safe congressional seat.

But as we get deeper into Beshear's four-year term, and as dissatisfaction grows with the slow pace of Kentucky's return to normalcy, the speculative list of possible challengers grows longer and more interesting.

The leading legislative opponent to Beshear's agenda has been Rep. Savannah Maddox. Early on as panic ensued last spring, she saw what was going on and knew it would get worse. She tried without success to get the General Assembly to curb Beshear's executive abuses as the abbreviated 2020 session wound down, and has continued to be his most vocal critic. There's been a growing contingent of people calling for her to run for governor, and "Draft Savannah Maddox" sites showed up on social media earlier this week. She enjoys the support of much of the anti-Beshear faction of the GOP and the leading voices for freedom and liberty.

The establishment wing of the party would probably fall in line behind Kelly Craft should she choose to run, as has been rumored. The former U.S. ambassador to Canada and the United Nations, and the wife of coal operator Joe Craft, is said to have an interest in the race. She recently showed up at some flood relief efforts in the upper Kentucky River valley, which raised a lot of eyebrows.

Brad Barron, who ran as a Libertarian against McConnell and Amy McGrath in the 2020 U.S. Senate race, is openly pondering a possible gubernatorial run as a Republican.  He's earned a lot of goodwill among Kentucky Republicans who have voiced "voter's remorse" at having chosen McConnell, only to see him turn against President Trump as his term wound down.

In a bit of a surprise, Bevin has been making some noise about running again. He has been mostly silent on issues the past year, and his social media presence has been mainly dedicated to promoting his son's fledgling auto racing career. But he recently made a public appearance with an eye on the political ramifications, according to Nick Storm's new Kentucky Fried Politics site, and has been actively discussing a run for his old seat.

Storm also reports that first-term Somerset Mayor Alan Keck is thinking about filing, but he'd be an also-ran and his candidacy would be inconsequential.

But it was in a social media discussion of another afterthought candidate that a bombshell was dropped.

An unknown named Johnny Rice is already promoting his own candidacy. As the crowded nature of the field was discussed on a post about Rice's qualifications, an attorney who is very active in and knowledgeable about politics (and is leading many of the legal battles against Beshear's executive edicts) stated that Donald Trump Jr. is thinking about moving to Kentucky and running for governor.

Yes, THAT Donald Trump Jr. Son of the 45th president and a popular surrogate for his father on the 2016 and 2020 campaign trails. His entry into the race would turn it on its head.

Don Jr. is no stranger to Kentucky. Even outside of campaign appearances for his dad, he's been a frequent visitor to the state. He made waves a few years ago when he was spotted dining at Applebee's in Hazard. He would, of course, have to establish residence here ahead of statutory deadlines. And there would be the inevitable "he's not a Kentucky native" outcry, most often uttered by critics of Bevin who conveniently forgot that former Go. Brereton Jones wasn't born in this state either.

Without a doubt, the GOP field will be crowded. The race will be expensive, especially if the wealthy Bevin and Craft enter. The presence of Trump would exponentially increase the costs. Beshear has given his prospective opponents plenty of ammunition and will continue to do so. The longer the Wuhan Chinese virus restrictions and the unemployment system woes linger, the weaker Beshear's re-election chances become. Republicans are already anxiously awaiting the race, and attention will only intensify as November 2023 approaches.

Since Rand Paul is in no real danger of losing his Senate seat next year, look for the focus on the gubernatorial race to get even sharper. And if Donald Trump Jr. buys a home in the Bluegrass State in the next few months, it's going to get very entertaining in a hurry.

Time to reform public pensions in Kentucky

The issue on which former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin was strongest is probably the issue that caused his loss in his 2019 re-election campaign.

Bevin constantly talked about how Kentucky's chronically underfunded public pension plans for government employees and public educators were a ticking time bomb in the state's financial well being. For years, the state failed to adequately fund pensions to meet their obligations. Not only did he stress the need to provide adequate funds, but he pointed out that the current system was unsustainable and needed to be reformed, as a dwindling number of current employees could not continue to keep the pensions of a growing number of retirees afloat.

One on one or in small groups, Bevin was meticulous and eloquent in explaining the situation. He noted how prior governors (dating back to Paul Patton) had failed to include full pension funding in their budgets they submitted to the legislature, and how the General Assembly had failed to add in adequate funding. He constantly stressed that government has a legal, financial, and moral obligation to pay retirees and current employees what they're owed. And he also pointed out that something is going to have to be done if future employees are to have a retirement plan.

The state manages several different pension systems, all with varying degrees of financial health. But there's a key difference between one of them -- the retirement system for teachers -- and the rest.

When Social Security was established, for whatever reason, the teachers retirement system declined to participate. Teachers don't pay into Social Security, and thus are unable to draw when they retire. And unless they have worked other jobs where they do pay into Social Security for a substantial period of time, they aren't entitled to draw. Even then, there are limitations on how much they're eligible for.

As previously noted, Bevin was great at explaining the pension situation on a small scale or individualized basis. But, facing a hostile press corps, his public statements on the matter were twisted and misinterpreted by reporters, and his remarks and proposals were savaged by teachers who didn't understand the problem.

Most current state employees -- think those who drive snowplows, patch potholes, process unemployment claims, investigate child abuse, etc. -- will draw not only their defined benefit pension, but Social Security. Since teachers don't get Social Security, they're adamant about future hires not being moved from their current system to a 401(k)-like defined contribution plan the way newly-hired state workers were a few years ago.

Word has it that when a pension reform plan was being formulated a few years ago, it would have moved future teachers into the same type of system as now exists for the new tier of state workers. Teachers would have become eligible for Social Security, and their state pension plan would be a defined contribution plan. But for whatever reason, that proposal was rejected by the Kentucky Education Association.

Since then, Kentucky may have changed governors, but Republicans have strengthened their hold on the legislature. They passed a pension reform bill two years ago, but it was overturned on a legal technicality, not on the merits of the bill itself. The General Assembly hoped to readdress the matter last year, but the session was cut short by the emergence of the Wuhan Chinese virus and legislation ground to a halt.

Now, when the legislature comes back into session in February, they're said to be again looking at pension reform. Bevin's not around to be the villain anymore, and the legislature can definitely override any veto Gov. Andy Beshear may issue. This may be the best time to enact real, meaningful reform that preserves and protects the existing system while ensuring stability and availability for all future employees.

At a minimum, here's what needs to happen.

• Fully fund the existing systems for current employees and retirees. Under Bevin, pensions were fully funded by the state for the first time in years. The state must continue to provide the actuarially-required contribution to keep the funds solvent, especially since the various pension funds' investments may not survive a stock market crash.
• Fund those systems using existing revenue streams. Various education groups, including KEA and "120 Wrong," like to shout, "Find Funding First!" In other words, they're advocating for tax increases to fund the pensions. But taxpayers balk, and rightly so, when their tax dollars go to provide retirements for others that are better than their own retirement plans are or will be. If you're going to have to get by on Social Security or what you've managed to save, why would you want to prop up someone else's retirement plan? In addition, the economy is fragile enough now as it is due to the goverment's response to the virus. People are out of work and businesses are closing. They certainly can't afford tax increases, especially when that money will go directly into the pockets of those who really haven't been impacted by the government-ordered closures or limitations.
• Move future teachers into a Social Security plan. There is no reason not to do this. And it would prove beneficial to them if they come from, or move to, jobs where they do pay into Social Security. It makes no sense for teachers to be treated differently than social workers -- or, for that matter, teachers and other certified school staff and the classified employees, such as janitors, cooks, and bus drivers, who participate in the County Employees Retirement System (an offshoot of the state employees system) and thus pay into and draw Social Security. If this is done, then future hires can be enrolled in a defined contribution plan since they'll have Social Security as a backup, just as newly hired state employees do.
  
• Increase the retirement age and/or years of service requirement for eligibility to draw full retirement benefits. The current levels are ridiculously low. As of now, a state employee or teacher can retire after 27 years of service with full benefits. That means, if you start work when you're 23 years old, you can work 27 years and retire when you're 50. If you live until you're 80, you'll have drawn benefits longer than you worked. This contributes greatly to the system's unsustainability. And there are a large number of employees who work that minimum, or buy time and work even less, and then retire with full benefits and go to work in the private sector, often making more money than they did on the public payroll. Requiring 30 years of service before retirement is entirely reasonable. A 35-year requirement is even more so. Requiring that same 23-year-old to work 35 years means they'd retire at 58, which is still a lot younger than the retirement age for many private-sector employees.

It will be interesting to see how any reform efforts play out in this legislative session. It's a short 30-day session, and the General Assembly has to tackle a one-year budget because last year's biennial session got cut short. There are a number of other matters that need addressing, and the body may have to take up impeachment of the governor after a citizens' petition was filed. And they will have to get all this done quickly enough to leave time to come back to override any gubernatorial vetoes that may be issued.

But pension changes need to come sooner, rather than later. Politicians kicked that can down the road far too many times. Bevin was prescient on the issue, but his inability to get the point across to the general populace just delayed what must be inevitable. If Bevin had enjoyed the chance to make the case for reform on a smaller scale, without the hostility from the press and those who willfully misrepresented his goals, it could have been done by now. But the opportunity is now before the legislature, and they need to take advantage of that chance before any more damage is done.

Donald Trump's greatest accomplishment

 Out of all of President Trump's achievements -- and despite what his detractors say, he had a large number of them -- the greatest one of all was not in policy. It was a political accomplishment, and it's one that will loom large even after he is out of office, especially as the fallout from last week's rushed second impeachment continues.

If nothing else, Donald Trump has exposed all the faux conservatives and "in name only" Republicans that infest and plague the Republican Party. He is forcing the GOP to have a reckoning. Will Republicans stand strong and fight for what's right, or will they acquiesce and fold and surrender to the liberals in the name of getting along or preserving decorum?

I admit being a late comer to the Trump train. Ted Cruz was my first choice among all the candidates who sought the presidency in 2016. Trump certainly wasn't in my list of favorites, but he was infinitely preferable to weak candidates like Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and other squishy pretend conservatives. I agreed with most of Trump's policy positions, but his demeanor on the campaign trail -- especially during the nomination process -- was a bit off-putting. But Trump's straightforward approach won over a majority of Republican voters in the primaries and caucuses, and he improbably ended up with the nomination.

Up until the last few days of the general election campaign, I intended to write someone in. (Former Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher is my go-to write-in choice for just about every race where I can't stomach those on the ballot). But since Kentucky doesn't count write-in votes unless that person has officially filed to be a write-in candidate, and none of the third-party candidates appealed to me, I decided to vote for Trump because casting my ballot for him was the only way to express my contempt for Hillary Clinton.

I warmed to Trump as his campaign wound down and he rallied his supporters, but like most Americans, I was astonished that he won. Astonished, but pleased. I was thrilled that Hillary wasn't going to be president, but I was also glad to see Trump win because I was on board with most of his policies.

And that's the thing with most of his RINO (Republican in name only) or COIN (conservative only in name) detractors. Those people have little to nothing in common politically with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. But their "never-Trumpism" led them to sell out their beliefs. Bill Kristol has become a laughing stock. The con artists at the Lincoln Project can't even pretend to be Republicans or conservatives anymore. And the so-called conservative pundits (think David Brooks, David Frum, etc.) are anything but conservative. If Bush, Kasich, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or any of the other Republicans who ran in 2016 had won and implemented the exact same policies as Trump, those same folks would have been drooling all over themselves chanting "four more years!"

I've long maintained that while Donald Trump isn't a conservative, he's governed as a conservative. His wins during his four years in office read like a conservative's letter to Santa Claus. Sure, Trump wasn't conventional, but look what doing things the way they've always been done got accomplished.

And then there's Mitch McConnell. Kentucky's senior senator has long frustrated the base of his party. His hostility to conservatives and his willingness to cave in to liberal demands has long aggravated those who don't want Republicans to be Democrat-lite. McConnell's move away from Trump has prompted an unheard-of movement within many in the Republican Party of Kentucky to censure him. Conservative local party leaders may force a statewide vote to call McConnell out.

The base wants Republicans to have spines. They want them to stand on principle and not surrender. McConnell stands for nothing but himself.

McConnell swept to victory in easier than anticipated fashion last fall. Challenger Amy McGrath was one of the most qualified opponents McConnell has ever faced, yet McConnell steamrolled her in November. Part of that can be attributed to McGrath failing to inspire her base, and also to "candidate fatigue." A good chunk of the state had grown tired of her during her failed run for Congress two years prior, and her message of being a retired Marine and a mother just didn't resonate. But the biggest reason McConnell, who remains deeply unpopular among members of his own party, was able to win so convincingly is that he rode Trump's coattails to victory. Had Trump not topped the ticket, McConnell's margin would have been much smaller.

But once McConnell's new term was secured, he had no need for Trump, with whom he'd always had a tenuous relationship. McConnell cautioned Senate Republicans against challenging the presidential election results. McConnell also falsely blamed Trump for losses in the two Georgia runoff elections that handed Democrats control of the Senate by virtue of Vice President Kamala Harris' tiebreaking vote. (Remember, McConnell himself is the one who bears the blame, as his opposition to $2,000 stimulus payments to Americans was the key issue in the Georgia races.)

Now, McConnell is signaling that he's open to voting to convict Trump on the spurious impeachment charges. Even though Trump will be out of office and unable to be removed, the theory is that the ultimate goal is to prevent Trump from running again for another term in 2024. There's already open speculation on how well McConnell and President Biden will work togehter to broker deals, showing that McConnell will be more interested in giving in than standing strong.

The establishment types are rushing to say that the party needs to purge itself of Trump and his supporters. Of course they are. Grassroots movements such as the tea party or "Make America Great Again" threaten the establishment's grip on power. McConnell will find it easier to deal with Biden, a longtime Senate colleague, than with Trump. The RINOs and COINs only want the GOP base when it comes time for elections. Once they've used the rank-and-file voters, they discard them.

Trump was effective because he was unconventional. Since he didn't come from a political background, he wasn't beholden to the establishment. The party elites weren't able to keep him from getting the nomination. In fact, the 2016 process was novel because the last two Republicans standing, Trump and Cruz, were far from the leaders' top choices. Some unlikely Trump allies emerged, including Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul and, to a lesser extent, Sen. Lindsey Graham. But on the flip side, some of Trump's early allies, like Christie, have become opponents.

Trump's post-presidency shadow will loom large over the GOP. The base has already shown it's no longer willing to be led around by the nose and be force-fed candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain. Trump will no doubt campaign against politicians who turned against him, including Georgia's governor and secretary of state, the 10 Republicans in the House who voted for his second impeachment, and any senators who vote to remove him from an office he will no longer occupy.

Frauds like the pretend conservatives in the Lincoln Project and others will continue to promote liberal candidates and ideology in their zeal to punish anyone who backed Trump, but they'll find themselves up against increasing backlash from grassroots conservatives, and even their newfound liberal friends will eventually turn on them once they're no longer of any use.

The incoming Biden administration is already indicating it will reverse some of Trump's greatest policy accomplishments. Biden wants the United States back in the Paris climate accord, back in the Iran nuclear deal, and out of any guidelines that restrict those from nations that sponsor terrorism from entering the country.

Policies come and go. But Trump's enduring accomplishment -- exposing the pretenders among Republicans -- can't be taken away. In fact, it will continue as the "Make America Great Again" movement itself continues. Among all those things for which we should be grateful to Trump, shining a light on those snakes and swamp dwellers may be what those of us who care about conservatism appreciate most.

UK basketball protest: The left continues to steal our joy

I had been a fan of the University of Kentucky basketball team all my life. It's one of many things I inherited from my father.

As far back as I can recall, my dad followed the fortunes of the Wildcats. He remembered when Claude Sullivan, not Cawood Ledford, was the radio voice of the team. He had an old battery-powered Channel Master AM radio we called "Coach Rupp" that he took along if we went on overnight trips during basketball season so he could tune to clear-channel WHAS-AM to listen to the games. He was especially interested in the fortunes of Larry Stamper, a Lee County native who went on to play for Rupp and started for the Cats in his junior year, Rupp's final season. (I think Stamper may have been a former student of my dad's in elementary school in Lee County, but I'm not positive.)

Dad didn't get too outwardly emotional during the games, but one notable exception was the 1975 Mideast Region finals when UK knocked off Indiana. Earlier that year, on its way to an unbeaten regular season, Indiana had drilled UK in a game marked by their coach, the volatile Bob Knight, whacking his up-until-then friend and fishing buddy Joe B. Hall in the back of the head. As the rematch game wound down, Dad would clap his hands at every UK basket or defensive stop. Even my mother, who was not at all a sports fan, got in on the excitement. For all the big games the Cats played in their lives (my mom died in 1986; my dad in 2010), I never saw either of them get as worked up as they did over that UK win.

My dad was a disabled veteran. He lost a leg and suffered other life-altering injuries in Korea in service to the United States. I hesitate to ponder on what he would have thought about what happened Saturday in Gainesville, Fla., when the UK basketball team knelt in protest during the playing of the national anthem.

When someone says or does something that others find offensive, they're frequently told to look at it from the other person's perspective. What matters is not how it was meant, but how it was viewed. Yet that doesn't seem to apply anytime there is a national anthem protest. Those who see it as a slight against this country and its veterans are told that it really isn't, that it means something else, and they're wrong for perceiving it in that manner.

But beyond that, there is a time and a place to make an opinion known. During the national anthem prior to a public event is not one of those places.

UK has defended the protest as a player-initiated action. Coach John Calipari gave it his approval and even participated, and it was later lauded by Athletic Director Mitch Barnhart and UK President Eli Capilouto. College basketball players, as tall and muscular and talented as they are, are still basically kids. What they needed in this time was adult guidance, not acquiescence and encouragement.

Each of the players has an outsized voice that can be used to make a point. They all have social media accounts which they often use to break news about their futures. Look how many UK football players, in the past week, used social media to announce they're staying at UK for another season, transferring to another school, or declaring for the NFL draft. Nothing is stopping the players from posting their thoughts on social media, or other online outlets -- maybe even a blog, like this one. They are constantly being interviewed by press outlets. Why not offer opinions and speak quotable quotes during those sessions?

When kneeling during the national anthem first became a hot topic a few years ago when Colin Kaepernick did it before an NFL game, I've often wondered what would happen if a regular person did it. I occasionally attend work functions at which "The Star-Spangled Banner" is played. How long would I have a job if I knelt? Yet the UK players are being praised in some quarters, and those who speak out in disgust automatically get falsely labeled as "racist."

The backlash to what happened Saturday came quickly. I learned of it during the first half and confirmed it just before halftime. I changed channels on the TV, switched my social media profile pics to anti-UK images, and washed my hands of the Wildcats.

 

The disdain has gone farther. The jailer and sheriff in Laurel County staged a public burning of their UK apparel, and initiated a drive in which they're collecting UK clothing items to donate to a homeless shelter in exchange for a shirt expressing support for law enforcement. The fiscal court of Knox County in southeastern Kentucky passed a resolution condemning the action. And Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers gave an impassioned speech denouncing the act on the Senate floor.

The United States has its faults, but we're still the greatest country in the world. I had hopes that this anti-American poison would escape Kentucky, but I was sadly wrong. Now I'm left with no sports to watch. I was never athletic enough to play sports, but I've always been a fan. The left has snuffed out that joy.

I acknowledge that most celebrities (entertainers and pro athletes) are liberals, although I don't know why. You'd think they'd oppose high taxes and would prefer to make their own decisions on what causes are worthy of their support, instead of the government taking their money and spending it. And most college students these days also lean left. We all know this, yet we continue to be fans and support their work. But sometimes, a line is crossed.

As much as my dad enjoyed the Wildcats, he was also a Cincinnati Reds fan. That trait, too, is something I inherited from him. I used to stay up at night to listen to the West Coast games. I gave up major league baseball after the 1994 players' strike. The greed of those players just was too much for me to take. At the time, the minimum major league salary was around $110,000 a year and the average salary was close to $1 million. For that kind of money, I would stand knee-deep in manure eight hours a day. I couldn't -- and still can't -- fathom a work stoppage by people who made that much income.

My interest in the NFL waned over the years, replaced by NASCAR. My dad had become a NASCAR fan and I'd spend Sunday afternoons with him, and the races were usually on. Kaepernick, and the NFL's refusal to sanction him for his actions, ended my interest in pro football. Given its southern roots and the feelings of its fan base, I figured NASCAR would be immune from any national anthem protests. But when the sanctioning body gave its blessing to kneeling last spring when racing resumed after its Wuhan Chinese virus hiatus, that was it. I gave up being a NASCAR fan and quit watching the races.

So now, sports fandom is gone. I'm definitely not a fan of hockey or soccer, nor of golf -- and if I was a golf fan, I'd give that up after the PGA's politically-based decision to pull its 2022 championship from a Donald Trump-owned course.

It will be interesting to see what happens as the backlash from Saturday continues. Will attendance drop (once Rupp Arena's capacity is back to normal)? Will merchandise sales fall? Will television ratings for the games plummet? Indications are that more Kentuckians are opposed to the protest than support it.

As for me, the NASCAR thing was tough, but this is harder. This is the loss of something I've enjoyed my entire life. I have lots of fond memories of UK basketball. Larry Stamper representing Beattyville as a Wildcat. The aforementioned 1975 Indiana game. The 1978 national championship. Jeff Ginnan, another Lee County player, walking on and getting a start during his final home game. The Unforgettables. The improbable 1998 national championship.

Kentucky basketball died for me at approximately 6 p.m. EST on Saturday,  Jan. 9, 2021. I'm left with a lot of good memories -- and a few pieces of clothing which will never be worn again, and an incredible sense of loss.

Mitch McConnell's greatest political miscalculation cost him his leadership job

Friends and political foes alike of U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky's longest-serving senator who is -- for now, anyway -- the majority leader of the upper chamber have long noted and praised his political acumen and wily ways.

From the time he first burst upon the statewide political scene in 1984, unleashing bloodhounds in his television advertisements in his successful effort to unseat incumbent Walter "Dee" Huddleston, the native of Alabama who became a Louisvillian has been regarded as a political genius. He was always able to predict the changing tides and adapt to them, picking campaign themes and using various aspects of Senate rules and procedures to win elections and move into a leadership position.

In fact, last year, McConnell campaigned for re-election by emphasizing his leadership position and the benefits of that clout to the people of Kentucky. He won by a wider than expected margin over his challenger, Amy McGrath, due in no small part to the coattails of President Trump (and McGrath's own unlikeability, along with voter fatigue from her 2018 congressional run against Andy Barr.) McConnell frequently could be heard saying how much he enjoyed being Senate majority leader; that it was his lifelong dream to hold that position. He seemed to relish the job and the power it conveyed.

But McConnell's political prowess failed him when it came time to hold on to the Republicans' razor-thin majority in the Senate. The so-called political genius cut his own throat when he opposed increased direct stimulus payments to Americans while at the same time supporting outlandish sums of money going to foreign countries for dubious purposes. "$10 million for gender studies in Pakistan" became the source of information for memes aplenty. A review of the spending included in the omnibus funding bill, passed in tandem with the Wuhan Chinese virus relief legislation, led to outrage over the spending allocated to foreign aid while giving Americans crumbs.

As a direct result of McConnell's stance against $2,000 stimulus checks, the Republicans lost both runoff Georgia Senate races earlier this week. While there were other factors, including Republicans staying home because they were suspicious of the same types of vote fraud they saw in the November election in which Joe Biden won over Trump, it's been noted that the stimulus checks were the main reason independent and undecided voters went for the Democrats over the incumbent Republicans in what were very close races.

The increased stimulus payments had bipartisan support from voters and senators, including Georgia Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler. President Trump was an enthusiastic backer of the plan. Yet as Senate majority leader, McConnell steadfastly opposed the higher amounts and the foreign aid cuts Trump wanted. He refused to allow a direct vote on the $2,000 stimulus, instead tying the matter to two unrelated subjects favored by Trump but stridently opposed by Democrats. He shut down efforts by members of his own party to get a standalone vote on the higher payments.

McConnell singlehandedly killed the upgraded stimulus payments. Democrats campaigning in Georgia seized on that act. And it cost McConnell his leadership position. All McConnell had to do was go along with his party's president and a bipartisan coalition of legislators from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the Senate would have remained in Republican hands. The GOP would most likely have won at least one of the races, if not both of them. Even a split in the runoffs would have given Republicans a 51-49 advantage -- not enough to withstand any defections from RINOs like Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and others, on specific votes; but definitely enough to keep McConnell as leader.

Instead, the Senate is now at 50-50. Kamala Harris, as vice president, will break any ties. A Democrat from California has already been tabbed as her replacement when she resigns her Senate seat to assume the vice presidency. So if the leadership vote is 50 apiece for McConnell and the utterly disgusting Chuck Schumer, there's no question how Harris will vote. Schumer will gain control of the Senate's reins and McConnell will have his political power neutered and he'll be rendered impotent.

There's little doubt the Senate majority will work to reduce the outsized power the minority has in that body. Unlike the House, where a simple majority is all that's required for most decisions, the Senate's rules grant the minority much more ability to block or influence legislation. Cloture rules require 60 votes to end debate on a measure and bring it up for a vote. Since rules changes can be determined by a simple minority, it's conceivable that the Democrats will eliminate the filibuster. Under current rules, McConnell could potentially still throw blocks, but if the new leadership wants, it can cut his legs out from under him.

It didn't have to be this way. But for all his talk about how he relished being the Senate's leader, he took that position away from himself. He hasn't really said why, and no one has really asked him. Surely he knows that the simple act of moving spending away from wasteful, laughable foreign destinations to the bank accounts of Americans who have suffered from government decisions made in response to the virus, would have preserved his majority.

Could it be that he didn't want to provide Trump with a policy victory? Even though McConnell's popularity in Kentucky is nowhere near that of Trump's, and the president's presence at the top of the ticket benefitted McConnell's re-election, it's widely thought that McConnell has never been as supportive of Trump as Kentucky Republicans would prefer. McConnell used Trump to get elected to what will likely be his last term in the Senate, but after that achievement, he cast Trump aside.

There's a reason McConnell isn't a Republican favorite in his home state. Many regard him as too liberal and not in touch with the party's base. His hostility to conservatives and tea party principles is evident. That's why many conservatives, although they fear the country's direction under a Biden presidency and with the liberals in control of both chambers of Congress, will enjoy seeing McConnell's fall from power. Especially since it was of his own doing.

The American people will likely get those $2,000 stimulus payments after all, although they may have to wait a few weeks for the additional $1,400 to drop into their accounts or mailboxes on top of the $600 they got this week. But McConnell lost his leadership position, and for no good purpose. The act he opposed, and the opposition to which cost him his job, is going to happen anyway.

Mitch McConnell could have remained Senate majority leader, and Americans' bank accounts could have been made a little healthier. That would be a win-win for everyone. Instead, McConnell lost, Americans will still probably get the increased payments, but the country will suffer long-term damage at the hands of the new majority.

Forgive some of us if we take delight in watching McConnell's fall from power.