Politicization of a tragedy hits close to home

Never let a crisis go to waste.

-- First attributed to Winston Churchill, later popularized by Rahm Emanuel

Tragedy recently struck the small community where I grew up and still live. A well-loved school employee, an instructional aide who had long been a volunteer in the school system, died while suffering from the Chinese virus.

I did not know the young lady -- something that's happening with increasing and surprising frequency in my town of 1,000 and county of 7,000 that's always been a tight-knit place where everybody knows everybody else (and everyone else's business) -- but a whole lot of people did. The outpouring of love for her and sympathy for her family was astounding when her death was announced by the local school district and word spread. Her passing was the lead story in both local newspapers.

It probably should come as a shock to no one that her family had not even had time to process their loss and make funeral arrangements until the usual suspects on the left had taken to social media (mostly Twitter) to politicize her death. Scant hours after her death was announced, they were using the tragedy to push an agenda and try to cast blame for her death on those who don't share their beliefs.

In the days that followed, politicians jumped on that train. There's no need to publicly identify them here, as their names are readily apparent to Kentuckians, but their statements and social media posts are a matter of public record.

A family's privacy is always something that should be respected, and it's likely the family gave the school system permission to announce their loved one's death, but there were lots of unreported facts surrounding her illness and death. Was she vaccinated? Did she have any pre-existing conditions (formally known as "comorbidities") that may have been enhanced by the virus? Did she die of the virus or did she die with the virus? (They are two separate and distinct things.) And finally, would she have approved of her death being used to further an agenda? Was she in agreement with those who hitched their advocacy to her passing, or did she oppose what they believe? Would she want her death used in that manner, or would she be appalled at the thoughts of it?

(It should be noted that on the day this is written, a 15-year-old Kentucky student's death was announced, and those same loud liberal voices on Twitter started before lunch trying to blame the other side for the kid's death. One has to wonder how that child's family feels about that happening so quickly).

No question, the pandemic has been politicized, but far more of that has occurred on one side. With every surge in cases and with every death, there are calls for more restrictions on individuals and businesses, for closures and cancellations, and for mandatory vaccinations. It's been disgusting to watch, but it's even more painful when it hits close to home.

Our community could certainly continue to use prayers, not only for the loss suffered by this family and by those who knew and loved her, but for other well-liked people who are ill. What we don't need is out-of-towners who probably couldn't find us on a map using our grief for political purposes.

Noem more is South Dakota's governor a champion of freedom

Since governments starting issuing edicts to private businesses and citizens last spring at the onset of the Wuhan Chinese virus surge, most discussions among conservatives as to which state governor handled things best included South Dakota's Kristi Noem.

Noem, Florida's Ron DeSantis, and Texas' Greg Abbott are consistently mentioned as the executives who handed down the fewest orders and dictates, and let people make their own decisions as to how to best protect their health.

Abbott and DeSantis were initially overrated, because they ended up issuing some closure orders and restrictions before relaxing or repealing them, but Noem was consistent in her opposition to a heavy-handed approach. She basically trusted her constituents to do what was in their best interests.

The obvious common denominator for all three is that they're Republicans. Those in this area who were chafing under the mandates issued by Gov. Andy Beshear initially looked with envy to some of our neighbors, but even they ended up caving in to the fear and panic.

Republican Gov. Mike DeWine was a disaster from the start. In fact, Beshear often took his cues from DeWine as to what to close and when. It was commonplace for DeWine to issue some order one day, and Beshear to duplicate it the next day.

Other neighbors, such as West Virginia's Jim Justice and Tennessee's Bill Lee, stood strong at first. Beshear even took to criticizing Lee for not doing unto Tennessee what he was doing to Kentucky. Eventually, Justice and Lee both relented and took steps such as ordering restaurants closed.

And when things began to open back up, Beshear publicly called out Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb of Indiana for his decision to repeal some of the restrictions, prompting Holcomb to retort that Beshear had his cell phone number if he wanted to call him in person to discuss his concerns.

Meanwhile, Abbott and DeSantis saw the error of their ways and took steps to reopen their states and to make sure that future lockdowns would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Part of DeSantis' motivation may be that he has presidential aspirations and is frequently mentioned as the GOP frontrunner in 2024 should Donald Trump not run.

All the while, Noem's fans pointed out that unlike DeSantis and Abbott, she had never shut her state down. They had flip-flopped on their stances, while she had never had a need to reverse course. She had come under criticism by some conservatives for her stance on not allowing biological males who identify as females to participate in women's sports, but her position on virus restrictions had been rock solid.

That all changed last week, when Noem made a statement that angered those who are opposed to any forced vaccination requirements.

A number of private employers are making their workers take the shots, as have some government agencies, and the federal government has mandated it for its workers and contractors. One establishment GOP big shot even proposed mandatory shots for public employees in Kentucky. There's growing pushback among people who have valid reasons for being skeptical of the vaccine's long-term safety.

This is something that Republicans, who present themselves as champions of individual rights, should oppose. The great state Rep. Savannah Maddox is pushing legislation in next year's General Assembly session that would restrict the ability of employers to require their workers to get the shot, and U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie is fighting against a military plan to require the Kung Flu vaccine for American service members.

But what did Noem do? She told people whose employers mandate the shot to find another job.

That's not always possible, for a variety of reasons. One is that there's incredible pressure being brought to bear on businesses to require their employees to take the shot. The federal government's edict extends to contractors as well as federal employees. What if it becomes required for any company who does business with the federal government? That would extend to all vendors, such as car manufacturers, office supply stores, and any other type of business you can think of. In addition to health care settings such as hospitals, there have already been reports in Kentucky of private employers requiring the vaccination. Churchill Downs is one.

But beyond that, not everyone can easily change jobs. It might be a job-seeker's market right now, but not in every field. It's difficult for some people to find jobs requiring similar skill sets to what they have, at a similar rate of pay, without being terribly inconvenienced by either having to move or by enduring a long commute.

Noem had an opportunity to establish herself as a true champion of individual freedom. The proper response would have been for her to say she'd be pushing for legislation to prohibit vaccine passports or required immunizations in her state. But she failed that simple test.

DeSantis may have fumbled early, but he's recovered nicely. He's worked against vaccine passports, even opposing the federal government's attempts to institute vaccine requirements for cruise ship passengers. With Noem taking a giant step backwards, DeSantis has established himself as the country's foremost champion of individual freedoms among the nation's governors.

So, while Noem may have once looked good, her recent gaffe leads me to say, "Noem more." No longer can she be looked at as a leader in the fight against overreaction. She's certainly taken herself out of consideration for any higher office. When Trump or DeSantis go looking for running mates should either of them get the presidential nomination in 2024, Noem's name shouldn't even come up in discussions.

Conservatives expect their elected officials to be freedom fighters. Time and time again, they let us down. Why is it so hard for Republicans to comprehend that their constituency expects them to act like Republicans and not RINOs or liberals?

Requiring Kung Flu shots is a liberal viewpoint. All we ask of our Republican leaders is that they don't act like liberals. Noem failed bigly in her latest test.

Math for covidiots

 To paraphrase Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, "I'm a writer, not a mathematician!"

I got A's in math when I was in school, but I never really had an aptitude for it, nor was it one of my favorite subjects. I was blessed with a great teacher in high school, a gentleman by the name of Russell Stamper, who made learning easy and fun through five classes in four years, but I knew early on that math wasn't going to be my strong suit. I performed well in spelling bees, but not in math bees, which were basically speed-computation contests.

Indeed, as I've gotten older, I find that calculations I could easily do in my head now require pen and paper. And computations that I could quickly solve in writing now call for the use of a calculator.

But I've still retained enough of the knowledge I gleaned under the expert tutelage of the man I still respectfully call Mr. Stamper to know the concepts behind current common societal concerns that are easily explained by math just don't add up.

Years ago, there was a series of books called Something for Dummies, where "Something" was some topic that might be hard to understand or comprehend. The books used simple language to make the complex understandable. So call this lesson "math for covidiots."

I've always been suspicious of the way the threat level of the Wuhan Chinese virus was determined. The metric used to determine a county's color code, number of cases per 100,000 residents, seems skewed to produce panic-inducing results in smaller counties, while downplaying the threat in larger cities. It doesn't reflect reality, nor does it provide a really accurate measure of just how much a community is being impacted by the virus.

The nice, easily-rounded numbers associated with one recent result show that if you take an in-depth look at the figures, using common math concepts I learned more than four decades ago, things aren't as dire as they appear.

One day last week, it was announced that Clay County in southeastern Kentucky was the state's leader, with 73.9 cases per 100,000 residents. For the sake of rounding, let's bump that rate up to 75.

The latest population figures from the United States Census Bureau, from 2019, show Clay County with a population of 19,901. That rounds easily to 20,000.

Now, it's time to do a little math. Both 20,000 and 100,000 are evenly divisible by 5, as is our rounded-up rate of 75. So an incidence rate of 75 translates to an actual number of 15. That means there were, on that day, 15 Kung Flu cases in Clay County out of 20,000 residents.

Next comes figuring of percentages. You determine percentages by cross-multiplying by 100 and then dividing. Divide 1,500 (15 x 100) by 20,000 and you get 0.075 percent.

You read that right. A fraction of 1 percent of the people who live in Clay County have the Kung Flu. Or put another way, only one out of every 1,300 people in the county are positive for what one friend has taken to calling "batfluenza."

When you look at it that way, is there any reason to panic? Does the county's threat level need to be elevated to red, with the potential of again restricting public activities?

We're constantly reminded to "follow the science" on everything from business and event shutdowns to wearing masks to getting the vaccine. Last time I checked, mathematics is a science too. And this particular science suggests that there is much panic over nothing.

I've long maintained that actual percentages would be a much more accurate accounting of just exactly how prevalent the virus is. But those numbers, when examined closely, don't justify the heavy-handed dictatorial measures that have been taken in response. Maybe if 10 percent of a county's population was sick, then there might be a need to panic -- remember that the most liberal estimates indicate that only about 20 percent of the American population has tested positive for the virus, and testing positive doesn't mean you're ill -- but less than one-tenth of 1 percent certainly doesn't warrant it.

"Discernment" is a word I've used with increasing frequency the past 18 months. People really need to take a discerning look at what the government is telling them, and question the information accordingly.

Liberals undermine their credibility with their lies

 Sometimes it seems like there's a race to see which entity is the least-trusted: Congress or the news media.

When putative members of the media spread outright falsehoods and make crazy untrue accusations against people they don't even know merely because they disagree with an opinion someone expresses, it doesn't help their credibility at all. It calls into question everything they say and every allegation they make.

Enter Jacob "Jake" Payne. Payne, a native of Morgan County who now appears to live in Louisville, is best known as the proprietor of the now-defunct blog and news aggregator site PageOne Kentucky, and a companion site focused on Louisville called The 'Ville Voice. His major claim to fame is going after Joshua Powell, former school superintendent in Montgomery County. For some reason, he's taken his Web sites offline, but he still maintains an active Twitter presence, which he uses to attack conservatives and fellow liberals alike. He's just as likely to go after Gov. Andy Beshear for what he calls a timid Wuhan Chinese flu response (seriously?), or Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer just for breathing, as he is U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie or Sen. Rand Paul, two of his favorite targets on the right. He markets himself as a political consultant, opposition researcher, and "journo."

Payne seems especially sensitive to topics involving the Kung Flu, as he has stated on Twitter that he caught the virus early on last spring. He rails against "misinformation" and claims that anyone who suggests publicly that people should make their own decisions on whether or not to take the shot is putting people's lives in danger.

And that's where this tale takes us. As noted here last week, GOP bigwig Tres Watson publicly advocated forced vaccinations of public employees, and he was called out for that anti-freedom stance here. And then after that, liberal Lexington Herald-Leader columnist Linda Blackford made mention of Watson's suggestion that schools be financially rewarded when their employees reach certain immunization goals. Payne is a big fan of Blackford's, so that's what kicked this saga off.

From my personal Facebook account, I commented on Blackford's column that Watson showed his RINO credentials by suggesting forced vaccinations. That comment set Payne off.

On his Twitter account, he launched into a series of bizarre and utterly untrue accusations against me. The only things he got right in his screed were that I'm fat and I disagree with him politically. Everything else he alleged was undeniably false.

I have never met Jake Payne. I probably wouldn't recognize him if I met him on the street. It's highly doubtful I have ever been in the same room with him. We don't move in the same circles. I avoid Louisville like the plague and only go there occasionally for work-related conferences. I also don't go to Frankfort unless it's for work purposes, and I don't stick around town when those meetings are over. I don't attend political fundraisers, especially not the ones for liberal candidates he'd be likely to attend, nor do I go to functions like Lincoln Day dinners or meet-and-greets. And I don't think he would have ever attended or been interested in any of the work-related meetings I've had in his hometown of West Liberty over the years. I certainly have never run from a room screaming in any instance, much less after encountering him face-to-face.

I have never seen photos of his deceased mother, much less distributed any in an attempt to harm or discredit him. I don't even know what her name was. The only autopsy photos I've ever seen were of Dale Earnhardt and Neil Bonnett, and that's only because they were shoved in my face 20 years ago in a NASCAR group I was in. (Something like how I couldn't avoid seeing garish photos and videos of Louisville basketball player Kevin Ware's gruesome leg injury years later).

Payne blocked me on Twitter months ago when I corrected an error he made in one of his tweets, when he mistook former Kentucky basketball player Fred Cowan with the former Kentucky attorney general of the same name, but I have sources who informed me of his tweet. Because I was unable to respond directly to him, I created a backup Twitter account and posted a reply. He blocked it, too, but not before doubling down on his crazy allegations. He claimed to have screenshots where I had distributed photos of his mother, and claimed he had sued me over it. Funny, I never got served with that lawsuit.

Think about it. If he can so easily and falsely accuse me of doing that, who else has he falsely accused? He's frequently made that claim, and not too long ago accused a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives of doing so. He even went so far as to call her a particularly vile name that rhymes with hunt.

I don't agree with Payne's world view at all. He seems to be one of the most liberal pundits the Bluegrass State has to offer. But we don't disagree on everything. Neither he nor I have any use for Jamie Comer, who now represents Kentucky's First District in Congress.

But if he can lie so easily and loudly about me, what else is he being untruthful about? How can he be expected to have any credibility when he got those accusations about me all wrong?

At least I made my point -- to him, directly, on Twitter through a backup account, and to the public here. He obviously has me confused with someone else. Spreading autopsy photos of a political opponent's relatives isn't something I'd do. Attack the message, sure, but in general, it's not cool to attack the messenger with something unrelated to the topic at hand. I don't believe in cancel culture. I don't want liberal viewpoints silenced. The way to combat free speech is with more free speech. I want liberals to have a voice. They let us conservatives know what we're up against, and the vast majority of the time they validate our positions and prove us right.

And proving our point becomes easier when the loud liberal voices tell outrageous lies for the world to view.

RINOs on the rampage and COINs aplenty

Rhinos may be an endangered species, but RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are multiplying at record rates.

There may have been a coin shortage last year during the height of the Wuhan Chinese virus pandemic, but there's definitely no shortage of COINs (Conservatives Only In Name).

At a time when the Republican Party's grassroots is staying true to and standing firm on conservative principles, the party's establishment moves more and more to the left. The party's core voters and activists grow angrier by the day as they watch this shift and the betrayal of their values.

Indeed, for a short period earlier this year, I changed my registration from the Republican Party to the Constitution Party, mostly out of anger with Mitch McConnell for his failure to stand strong for conservative ideals and against the Democrats. McConnell is the classic RINO. He embraces the big-government policies of the left and has opposed both the tea party conservative and Donald Trump populist movements within the GOP; the movements that have fueled the party's meteoric rise in Kentucky to the point where Republicans are about to overtake Democrats in voter registration, something that was unthinkable even a decade ago. But I ended up changing back so I could have a say in choosing GOP nominees during the primary election process.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of smaller government, lower taxes, and individual rights. But you wouldn't know it from the way many Kentucky Republican officials conduct themselves, no doubt inspired by their leader McConnell.

Constitutional lawyer, best-selling author, and conservative radio and television host Mark Levin calls these charlatans "Repubicans" and he's definitely on-target where many Bluegrass GOPers are concerned.

Kentucky Republican legislators and other elected officials continue to beat the drum for a gasoline tax increase. The new General Assembly majority inflicted Kentuckians with a sales tax on services such as auto repairs and veterinary services a few years ago. They turned down a chance to impeach Gov. Andy Beshear and remove him from office earlier this  year despite his blatant violations of the United States Constitution. (Remember that Beshear has lost every federal court case brought against him over the constitutionality of his Kung Flu mandates).

And now into the fray comes Tres Watson, former communications director for the Republican Party of Kentucky and still someone who moves in the upper echelon of the GOP establishment.

Via his Twitter account, earlier this week Watson declared his support for forcing all public employees to take the Kung Flu vaccine.

You read that right. A bigwig in the party that purports to champion individual freedoms and liberties is advocating that those liberties be taken away from a certain segment of the population. That's a pretty liberal position to take. With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats? You'd  expect Beshear or Dementia Joe Biden or Andrew Cuomo to push forced vaccinations. Not a prominent Republican.

Truth be told, Republicans are often the lesser of two evils. There's nothing really conservative about Kentucky's legislative leaders. During the past two General Assembly sessions, with the specter of Kung Flu hanging over the chambers, they failed to promote legislation that would have preserved individual freedoms and limit action by government executives to restrict those liberties.

And then there's the whiff the impeachment committee, dominated by Republicans, took earlier this year. One committee member basically admitted that Beshear had committed impeachable offenses, but they didn't think it appropriate to remove him from office since he was put there through the will of the electorate.

Is it any wonder that the grassroots activists and voters want to pull their hair out when the party leaders acquiesce to liberals and don't stand strong?

It's definitely not a Kentucky phenomenon. RINOs are running rampant at the national level, and COINs are plentiful. From Rep. Liz Cheney to noted and once-respected pundit Bill Kristol to the frauds at the Lincoln Project, there's a significant wing of the GOP who would rather side with liberals than stand true to their values and principles.

When we finally get Republicans with a backbone who will stand up to the left, these pretend conservatives undercut them at every opportunity. Matt Bevin had already angered the Kentucky establishment when he dared to challenge McConnell in the 2014 Senate race, so he had to battle opposition from within the party as well as the Democrats during his term as governor. And we're all painfully aware of how Donald Trump, the consummate outsider, was treated by the GOP bigwigs because he pushed back against the status quo and the "go along to get along" mentality.

It's hard for the party's base to make the claim that the GOP stands for certain things when the party's leaders and elected officials act differently. Can we legitimately claim we're against higher taxes when our legislature raises them? How can we say we support individual freedoms when influential voices advocate forced vaccinations?

There's a severe disconnect between the party's rank and file voters, and those who are in elected positions or within the party's hierarchy. At some point, this is going to cause problems. The Democrats are horribly bad, but in too many cases, Republicans aren't much better. It doesn't give the grassroots activists the warm fuzzies to see folks like Tres Watson pushing positions that would seem more at home coming out of Andy Beshear's mouth. Indeed, Beshear has been so focused on playing politics while claiming he's not playing politics, that let's hope he doesn't get any bad ideas from a Republican Party mouthpiece like Watson.

The Mitch McConnell Building that houses the RPK headquarters in downtown Frankfort should be designated as a RINO sanctuary and a COIN museum.

And they're off: Harmon's entry into 2023 gubernatorial race is just the beginning

The announcement that Mike Harmon plans to run for Kentucky governor in 2023 wasn't really a surprise, but the timing caught most Bluegrass political observers off-guard.

Harmon, who's in his second term as state auditor and cannot run again due to Kentucky's term limits on statewide offices, had been widely mentioned as a potential gubernatorial candidate. But no one anticipated him being the first to announce his candidacy, which was done via a press release instead of a live event.

The low-key nature of Harmon's declaration is in keeping with his performance as auditor. He hasn't been a headline-grabber. He's brought a quiet, methodical approach to his duties, seizing on a slogan of "Follow the Data" as his office goes about its mandated functions.

As of this writing, his early announcement hasn't moved any of the other possible or rumored candidates to publicly say they're in the running for the Republican nomination to try to unseat Andy Beshear in two years. Whether his official announcement will be of any benefit to him, or possibly ward off other potential challengers, remains to be seen. He's already picked up some early public support from some voters who probably would have looked at other alternatives if he wasn't running.

The most frequently mentioned possible candidates include former Gov. Matt Bevin, current Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles, Congressman Jamie Comer, and Kelly Knight Craft, former U.S. ambassador to Canada.

There are a number of other potential candidates, including Treasurer Allison Ball, who, like Harmon and Quarles, is term-limited from seeking re-election. Even Congressman Andy Barr, who once served as an aide to former Gov. Ernie Fletcher, has been mentioned in some news stories as considering joining the race. Somerset Mayor Alan Keck has expressed some interest in running. And without giving away any inside information, it can be accurately stated that state Rep. Savannah Maddox has heard the voices encouraging her to run.

Although we don't know exactly who all will be running for the GOP nomination in 2023, save for Harmon, it can safely be predicted that the ballot will be crowded and the race will be expensive. There's no clear front-runner among speculative candidates, although press coverage would give one the impression that Quarles occupies that spot.

This much is certain: Beshear is deeply unpopular among Kentucky Republicans for the way he's handled the Wuhan Chinese virus and a number of other related and unrelated issues. But how will that unpopularity affect the GOP electorate? There's a clear divide among establishment Republicans (the RINOs) and the conservative grassroots (the tea party and MAGA groups.)

Of the possible candidates, Craft would definitely be an establishment favorite. Many consider Quarles to fit in that category as well. Some place Comer in that group, too, and to a lesser extent, Barr.

On the conservative side? Bevin, Maddox, and Ball are definitely on that team.

As for Harmon (who was introduced as "Mark Harmon," the NCIS actor, by President Trump at the Rupp Arena 2019 election eve rally), it's hard to tell where he belongs. He's more or less avoided a lot of ideological statements or acts during his tenure as auditor. He certainly hasn't been as outspoken in his opposition to Beshear policies and orders as either Quarles or Ball.

The Kentucky GOP electorate is angry. They're upset with Beshear and his business- and job-killing restrictions. They're unhappy with the way the Republican establishment, led by the likes of Mitch McConnell and Liz Cheney, have turned on Trump. Some of that anger will play out at the polls next year, when all of the state representatives and half of the state senate seats are up for election. Expect a number of incumbent Republicans to be primaried, especially if their politics have drifted to the left over the years. A perfect example is Sen. Alice Forgy Kerr, who's drawn a primary challenge from Lexington business owner and conservative activist Andrew Cooperrider.

Will establishment support carry a Quarles or a Craft to victory? Would a perception as McConnell's choice be a blessing or a curse? In past years, it was an asset. Now, not so much. A scant few years ago, it would have been unthinkable for a county party committee to issue a formal censure of the party's top statewide elected official with a position of national prominence. McConnell is said to be smarting over the defiance that was shown by several county GOP organizations. His support -- tacit or vocal -- of one of the Republican candidates might be the kiss of death for their chances.

Harmon, and the other candidates who come out for the race, will be running under a new set of rules. No longer will primary voters have to choose slates of candidates for governor and lieutenant governor. Gubernatorial candidates will run solo in the primary, and the winner will choose their running mate after being nominated and before the general election.

It's a rule Dan Mongiardo probably wishes had been in place for the 2011 election. Mongiardo was elected lieutenant governor on a slate with Steve Beshear in 2007, but it was widely known that Mongiardo was eyeing the 2010 Senate race for a rematch with Jim Bunning. Beshear wanted to get an early start on fundraising for his re-election campaign, so he had to have a slate in place and he had no way of knowing if Mongiardo would still be lieutenant governor, or if he would be in the U.S. Senate, so he dropped Mongiardo from the ticket in favor of Jerry Abramson.

So, Harmon's formal filing makes him the first candidate to be able to raise funds for the 2023 campaign. It really hasn't garnered him a lot of "earned media" press coverage other than for his announcement. It's also gotten him some proclamations of support from some voters, but no early endorsements to speak of.

Harmon's a qualified candidate, and has done a credible job as auditor, but is he the person best suited to carry the fight to Andy Beshear in two years? Will he inspire the passion that some other candidates will? Can he stay in the race until May 2023, or as the field grows, will he find support lagging and have to pull out and endorse someone else?

We all expected a drama-filled Republican primary race, but this wasn't the first act we anticipated at all.

Charles Booker's fool's errand

Ever since former state Rep. Charles Booker of Louisville lost his bid last year to be the latest Democrat to try and fail to unseat Mitch McConnell from the United States Senate, he's teased a potential run against Rand Paul for the junior senator's seat next year.

Today, Booker looked reality in the eye and pretended it doesn't exist. In the political equivalent of driving a fully loaded coal truck across a bridge marked with a three-ton weight limit, Booker embarked on his fool's errand to try to defeat Paul. It's a contest he has no chance of winning. If he is the Democrats' nominee for the Senate race next year, his loss to Paul will make Amy McGrath's defeat at the hands of McConnell look like a razor-thin margin.

McConnell didn't cruise to victory over McGrath last year because he's popular in Kentucky. Most Republicans merely tolerate McConnell, and many despise him. He won because Donald Trump had long coattails, and because the electorate was suffering voter fatigue from McGrath. She had just come off a loss in a congressional race where her television ads were omnipresent in a large area of Kentucky, and people were sick of hearing about her. "How many missions did she fly?" was a question often derisively asked because McGrath had harped on her record as a fighter pilot during her campaign loss to Rep. Andy Barr.

On the other hand, Paul is immensely popular with Kentucky Republicans, and he's cemented that popularity over the last year and a half. He's been a consistent voice for freedom, and withering in his criticisms of Gov. Andy Beshear and Dr. Anthony Fauci for the way they've responded to the Wuhan Chinese virus outbreak. He's even earning the respect of conservatives who had previously been skeptical of some of his more liberal-leaning libertarian views. If you polled Kentucky Republicans to ask their favorite Bluegrass politician or official, Paul would win easily. McConnell, who routed McGrath last year to win re-election, would finish behind several obscure state representatives.

And that brings us to voting patterns and party registration numbers. When I was growing up, Democrats had a lock on Kentucky politics. Republicans would occasionally win a Senate race, but they were a distinct statewide minority. Democrats held an advantage in registered voters of more than 2:1. Republicans outnumbered them only in the "old 5th" congressional district of south-central Kentucky.

Slowly but surely, voting numbers changed. McConnell defeated incumbent Dee Huddleston in 1984. Bill Clinton won Kentucky twice, but Al Gore from neighboring Tennessee did not. Republicans took Wendell Ford's old Senate seat when he retired. After a 32-year drought, a GOP governor was elected in 2003, along with two other statewide officials. The trend has continued over the past 18 years, with Republicans picking up a majority of the state's congressional seats and winning supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly despite those districts having been drawn by Democrats to provide their candidates advantages.

The state has trended more conservative in election results and attitudes, and voter registration numbers are finally catching up. The state Republican Party tracks the statistics, and they're mind-boggling. Since Barack Obama took office in 2009, Democrats have hemorrhaged registered voters while the GOP has racked up incredible gains. Not only are voters switching parties, but new voters are registering as Republicans. Trump's election brought a surge of new voters to the Republicans, as did Beshear's election.

That 2:1 advantage the Democrats held in my youth is gone. Republicans are now within two percentage points of taking the lead in registered voters. It's entirely possible that by the 2024 presidential election, the Republicans will have a majority of party registrations and Kentucy will truly become a red state. The numbers don't lie, and here they are:

So, this is the political environment into which Charles Booker enters. At a time when Kentucky is moving more to the right, the most liberal politician in the state thinks he can unseat a conservative hero. There's even talk that Booker is too liberal for Kentucky Democrats. So far, he's drawn no credible opposition. Ruth Gao, an unknown from Louisville, declared her candidacy first, but she is an unknown and doesn't have Booker's advantages of having used his run against McGrath last year to develop a statewide following. No other Democrats are even being mentioned as possible candidates.

If Booker wants to be realistic about his political future, a more appropriate race for him would be mayor of Louisville. His radical liberal politics are more in line with Jefferson County, and a significant portion of the electorate there, than they are the rest of the state. Booker's race-baiting, which he's doubled down on the past year, coupled with many of his extreme liberal policies, simply won't play in rural and small-town Kentucky except with the small pockets of ultra-leftists that are present in even the most conservative places.

Despite his unpopularity, McConnell embarrassed McGrath last year. Despite the left's wet dreams that Booker would have fared better, the truth is McConnell would have beaten him worse than he did McGrath. His defeat at the hands of Paul will be legendary.

Democrats really have no chance of unseating Paul next year. The incumbent has already been endorsed by Trump, who remains extremely popular in the Bluegrass State. Party leaders would be well-served to try to find a candidate who will fare better than Booker so at least they will be able to maintain some small amount of pride; to try to keep the margin of defeat respectable.

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.