Legislature of Nomenclature

What’s in a name? Plenty, in some cases. None in others. We’ve all heard them – the ridiculous names some parents burden their children with, like a heavy yoke upon their shoulders. They have been around for generations. Many such burdensome names today are ethnically themed, so some will see this article as an act of prejudice, even discrimination. This could not be further from the truth. I am looking out for the future well-being of as yet unborn children, trying to protect them from the foolish choices of their parents. And besides, horrid naming decisions span racial, ethnic, socio-economic, gender and all other barriers of our diverse society. It is for this reason that I, a small government Conservative, propose a new government agency – The Legislature of Nomenclature.

It is a sad reality that such a body has become necessary. But thumb through a child’s yearbook, a company’s email database a phone book (if you can find one), or better yet, your local jail bookings,  and you will see why the Legislature of Nomenclature (LON) must indeed be established.

Names such as Shacresia, Moesha, Bertha, Tonderier, Dontarius, Mathildagarde and Elquinton are placing a permanent disability upon their owner. Such names will limit future earnings, reduce marriage options, increase the likelihood of depression and in some cases incarceration, and cause permanent loss of self-esteem via the fact that nobody will know how to spell or pronounce these names. Nakeydia, LaDerrick and Wilbur will not have many friends. They will be forced into a life of crime and/or poverty. Nobody will hire them. What could motivate someone to name their child Quintasia, Shenethea or Homer?

The great societal commentators, Key and Peele have humorously captured this crisis  in their “East-West Bowl” skits, and other hilarious bits. Many of the names they use are not that far off from reality.

Equally offensive are the intrinsically female names that parents sometimes regrettably assign to male children. Examples of this are Kim, June, Leslie and Carroll. One can only ask, “WHY?”

The LON would put a stop to all of these injustices. This would be governing body, run by the state and formed at the local level. Duly elected county commissioners would appoint LON members to four or six year terms. Boards would consist of seven members, and should be loosely representative of the local population …. as it stood in 1950. A state board would have oversight and could overrule or handle any appeals. The state level LON would have the final word. In order to be appointed to the Legislature of Nomenclature, a thorough background check would be conducted, including a full criminal check. Minimum educational requirement would include a Bachelors degree. Names of prospective board members, their children, grandchildren and their parents would be considered and objectionable names would disqualify a candidate.

State LON members would be appointed by a duly elected, and reasonably named, governor and would serve 10-year terms. Members could be removed by a two-thirds majority of the state legislature.

Once the LON approves a name, that name would be added to the local Naming Roster and would then be eligible for all parents to use. The LON would confer once per week and stamp all recent birth certificates with their approval, thus making the name official. The work of the LON would serve the valuable purpose of preserving – in many places restoring – the dignity of the “naming pool” – the commonly accepted list of names to choose from when giving birth to a human child. The LON would also act upon the behalf of newborn or unborn children, protecting their future safety and pride from the harsh physical and mental cruelties that would inevitably accompany a ridiculous name.

I finally side with many liberals who think more government is the answer! In this case, someone has to take a stand and introduce some regulation. I therefore nominate myself for the inaugural position on my local Legislature of Nomenclature! Do I hear a second?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jeffrey Toobin is Wrong, As Usual


CNN’s “senior legal analyst,” Jeffrey Toobin has once again proven his arrogance and ignorance in this latest rant.

His title says it all: “Decision to announce grand jury verdict at night devastating.” Toobin says the fact that it was dark outside when the verdict was announced made this a foolish decision, which prompted a violent response.


Does Toobin really believe that if this verdict were announced at high noon, the protestors and villainous thugs would NOT have acted the same way they did in Ferguson last night? That is ludicrous. These people were prepared to burn the town, and would have done so immediately, and all night, no matter what time the announcement came. Heck, they didn’t even wait until Prosecuting Attorney, Robert McCullough, had finished laying out the evidence. They didn’t care about the evidence or the facts, just that Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted.

In fact, it was critically important that authorities waited until evening to make this announcement, so that children could be home from school and out of the war zone (despite the fact that some horrible parents brought their children to the riots) and that businesses could be closed and people generally out of the business districts and out of harm’s way. If the announcement had come at 4, 5 or 6 pm, there would have been school traffic, rush hour traffic and people still in some of those businesses that were looted and burned to the groud.

It seems that everyone who disagrees with the verdict wants to shoot holes in it and the legal, judicious process that took place. Anyone who listened to prosecutor can understand that the grand jury had a wealth of information, most of which the general public – and the media – were not privy to. Now we are privy to these facts, because all of them have been released. But closed minded, racist people, who portray Michael Brown as an angelic martyr, will not allow themselves to accept the facts. And then buffoons like Toobin want to fan the flames by criticizing the process, right down to the timing of the announcement. On the air on CNN, Toobin also described McCullough as “undignified,” while criticizing his delivery of the facts and the grand jury decision.

It is sad that so many in the media have exacerbated this situation and used it to project their own twisted views on race. I pray for the fabric and future of our nation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

KKK OK, But Not Redskins

Calls for the Washington Redskins to change their name have reached new heights of absurdity.

Liberal politicians, in efforts they believe will appease and appeal to a new voting bloc, have piled on this movement in recent months, maintaining the strategy of finding minority groups and telling them why they should be offended.

The preceding video indicates this is a non-issue to many in the Native American community. And remember, the name and logo were designed by Native Americans and the term “Redskins” is a badge of honor to many in this population.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office broke new ground in June when they canceled six trademarks registered by the football franchise. This was clearly a case of politics – and political correctness (in this case, incorrectness) – reversing legal, and decades old, government recognition of this brand. Yet, the Ku Klux Klan, an avowed racial hate group, still holds United States trademark number 73120161. Imagine that. A football team, with a logo designed by a Native American, and supported by many Native Americans, has been stripped of its trademarks, while a white supremacy group, which has killed countless blacks, retains legally registered trademarks. Let that sink in for a minute.

Since we have no more important issues facing our country, let’s examine a few other professional sports franchises that surely cause offense.

In keeping with the Indian theme, we have the Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians and Chicago Blackhaws, the latter of which has a logo strikingly similar to the Washington Redskins. If the Redskins name must go, so must these mascots, as well as the countless minor league and college mascots of similar nomenclature.

Then we have the religious mascots: the New Orleans Saints, San Diego Padres and Los Angeles Angels. For the sake of extremist Islamists everywhere, let’s please change these names immediately so we do not offend and prompt our own beheading.

Likewise with the patriotic mascots: New England Patriots, Philadelphia 76ers, New York Yankees and Washington Nationals. They must all be changed to unpatriotic mascots so as not to offend the rapidly increasing illegal immigrant population in this country.

For the vertically challenged population, the Giants of New York (football) and San Francisco (baseball), and the Tennessee Titans must all change their names to something like the “Aggressive Athletes of Average Stature.”

For those who are offended by the practice of witchcraft, black magic, etc, the Orlando Magic and Washington Wizards will have to be renamed as the “Tricksters” or the “Illusionists.”

I personally am terrified by the thuggish image portrayed by the Oakland Raiders mascot and am planning a media campaign to change their name to the “Urban Aggressors.” That should modify and accurately describe their image and fan base appropriately.

Perhaps most offensive of all are the Vancouver Canucks of the NHL. Who in Canada wants to be called a Canuck? Sounds pretty offensive to me. Are all Canadians Canucks? Are all Americans Yankees? What an awful stereotype!

Finally, we have the generally offensive mascots: the Golden State Warriors (why must they advocate war?) and the Milwaukee Brewers (promotes alcohol consumption and the general decay of society). These too must change or people will drink in excess and start needless wars.

Maybe once we resolve these pressing issues, we can move on to less important matters like ISIS, Russia/Ukraine and the many failings of President Obama’s appointed leaders of departments like the VA, the IRS and the Justice Department.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ebola Not Immune to Race Baiters

It was just a matter of time. Really, I’m surprised it didn’t happen before now. With Ebola primarily impacting three African nations, which are predominantly black, someone was bound to cry racism. Well, it’s happened. In the Opinion section of CNN.com. Hard to believe, I know. Read it here.

Harriet A. Washington

Harriet A. Washington, a fellow at the Black Mountain Institute at the University of Nevada, according to CNN, wrote an editorial prominantly featured on CNN.com, in which she ever so subtly protests the fact that the three known doses of the potential Ebola antidote, ZMapp, were given to white Westerners. I say “ever so subtly” because the article is written in a way that plants this seed, as well as that of racial discrimination in the medicine distribution process, while the link to the article is more blunt. It says “Ebola drug: For whites only?” Granted, that’s the link CNN gave the article, and Washington may have had nothing to do with it, but a thorough read would indicate she agrees.

Washington questions why we didn’t hear about ZMapp until Americans, Dr. Kent Brantley and nurse Nancy Writebol, became infected. Well, as she goes on to acknowledge, there are only three known doses, and this drug has not passed FDA scrutiny for widespread distribution. Imagine if the United States unleashed an unproven drug on the masses of infected Ebola patients in Africa, and something went wrong. Maybe they all die from some side effect that may be more likely to affect subjects with their genetic makeup. Imagine the cries of racism then. The CDC and the United States would be vilified for field testing an unproven drug on a vulnerable class of people in the middle of an epidemic. Imagine the headlines! Harriet A. Washington herself would likely condemn such a move!

But instead, the U.S. and the CDC chose to offer this unproven serum to two Americans, who had the medical knowledge required for informed consent. They could understand and appreciate the risks and were able to knowledgeably sign the requisite release forms. Oh, and don’t forget one important fact: These are Americans. And the drug was created in America, by an American firm. Why would we hand out the only three doses to anyone other than Americans?

I was against bringing these Ebola-infected healthcare professionals into the U.S. I believe (and this may be due to some ignorance) that this was a huge and unnecessary risk. They received the serum in Africa and could receive adequate, therapeutic, isolationist care where they were. In fact, Brantley was already improving before he boarded the plane, and was able to walk into the Emory hospital for continued treatment. But this (so far) has worked out okay (it’s still early) and the ZMapp seems to be having a positive effect. I hope they survive and can continue providing needed healthcare.

Washington asks the question, “Why didn’t Dr. Sheik Umar Khan, the chief Sierra Leone physician who died while treating Ebola patients, receive this medication?” She immediately answers her own question: “Because another method of determining who gets medications is at work here – the drearily familiar stratification of access to a drug based on economic resources and being a Westerner rather than a resident of the global South.”


This drug, ZMapp, was created in the United States. There were three known doses. It stands to reason that missionary medical professionals from the United States would be the first to receive the trial doses. Had there been a few dozen doses, then yes, other medical professionals from other nations should have been considered.

Washington, both in the article, and in her on-air interview, insists that nobody intends to withhold the drug from Africans, but that it just happens as a result of “economic and historic reasons.”

Again I say B.S.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, this drug was developed in the United States. It has not been approved by the FDA and it has not been mass produced. If some experimental doses exist, they should absolutely be given to U.S. citizens, fighting on the front lines of the Ebola epidemic. No nation has given more to poor African nations in their quest to defeat disease and starvation. Under President George W. Bush, this nation gave about $6 billion per year to Africa for disease and starvation relief – more than any other U.S. President, including Obama.

So before American “intellectuals” start crying racism over the drug distribution process or the manner in which our medical professionals volunteer to help sick Africans, maybe Ms. Washington ought to do a little more research and maybe some soul searching as well. We are both the most advanced and the most generous nation on earth. But if we don’t take care of our own, as they fight on the front lines of disease on a foreign continenet, we will have no warriors left and the health crises of the third world will become crises we all must face each day.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Real Perspective on Israel-Hamas Conflict

The title, “Satan Supports Hamas” first caught my attention. The authort, Jack Kelly, of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, certainly makes that point, but don’t let the title mislead you. This article is not solely about Satanic sponsorship of the terrorist organization, Hamas. Kelly makes a number of other astute observations that really can’t be disputed, though no doubt many will try. I can’t offer any comment on this piece that would improve on it in any way. It’s a great read. See for yourself.

Satan Supports Hamas


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Little Common Courtesy (and Sense) Please


Pollution. Vandalism. Littering. These are all crimes against society and nature. Yet these transgressions are committed multiple times each day in every city in America.

Think your town is exempt? Take a ride down mainstreet, or just sit on your front porch and watch your neighbors one Saturday morning.

I’m talking about irresponsible landscapers and homeowners armed with leaf blowers. No, I’m not one of those people who whine about the noise of leafblowers or decry the laziness they breed. I own a leafblower and use it frequently. The difference between me and most other users of this common tool is that when I fire up the wind machine, it’s to blow grass clippings, dirt, etc back INTO my yard!

So often, I see my neighbors, and more often, commercial landscapers, using leafblowers to blow clippings, dirt, debris, etc into the street. On multiple occasions, I have feared a genuine sandblasting as I drive down a city street. One day, I might just run one of these fellows down. Or at least send them diving for the ditches.

I’ve seen homeowners blow grass clippings right out into the middle of the street. From there, the clippings are only going to blow back into their yard, or into their neighbor’s yard. Or, they will clog up the city drain next time a storm comes and the street will flood.

I’m certain there’s a law, statute, city ordinance or quite possibly a commandment carved in stone against such atrocities. Yet, I have never seen a landscaper ticketed for obstructing the public right of way or vandalizing motor vehicles.

If I ever mount a municipal political campaign, this will be my number one issue. I’m taking suggestions for slogans. So far, the best I’ve got is” “Don’t blow it!”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Some Beach Somewhere

Not here by accident

I’ve just returned home after a week at a beautiful beach on the North Carolina coast. Every time I visit the beach, I’m reminded of the truth of God’s creation and of his incredible creativity and power.

Having grown up around mountains, I have always had a keen sense of God’s handiwork. Nothing inspires awe, wonder and appreciation of an artful God more than looking out over the Blue Ridge Mountains. There may be more beautiful sites on earth, but I’m not sure I have seen them.

Blue Ridge Mountains

Also not here by accident

Likewise, gazing out across the vast, blue-green ocean and watching waves rhythmically crash onto the shore, prompts moments of quiet reflection and appreciation of our Creator for the beautiful world he created. I have to steal these moments when I can, because our family vacation is often anything but serene. But the good times my family experiences on the beach are further cause for gratitude.

My first argument with anyone who doubts that our world was created intentionally by God, and instead appeared randomly through some explosion of universal gasses (how did they get here anyway?) is to point to some of nature’s most beautiful scenery. How can a beautiful beach, a calm sea, animals of all shapes, colors and sizes, a pristine mountain range or an ever-flowing Hawaiian waterfall occur by accident?

Consider the innumerable miracles that occur each hour to keep you alive. Your heart must pump. Your lungs must expand and contract. Your brain – the most intricate “computer” on earth – must complete countless functions per second to interact with nerves, muscles and organs. This does not happen by accident, nor does it occur by evolving from jelly fish.

I don’t claim to understand all the mysteries of life. Why do children die horrible deaths from disease or tragedy? Why do violent dictators rise to power and remain there for decades, oppressing innocent citizens? Why do mothers die and leave behind young children who need them? Does God cause these things or allow them to happen? Are they part of a larger plan? I don’t know. There are many things I don’t comprehend. But more than any of these, I don’t comprehend how anyone could NOT believe in creation from a single, all powerful Creator, when they observe the wonders of nature. These miracles of science don’t occur randomly.

I’m thankful for the opportunity to be reminded of our God’s power and majesty once again. I’m also thankful to be home again. This too is a blessing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Texas vs. Illinois – You Decide

Texas Governor Rick Perry attends the second Annual Champions of Jewish Values International Awards Gala in New York CT-MET-AJ-2-GOVERNOR-RACE-0520.jpg_CTBroadsheet_05-20-2014_ALL_

Yesterday, the governors of Texas and Illinois squared off in a duel of words, both featured in the Chicago Tribune. Both men threw various claims against the wall, but in the end, just one set of numbers stuck: state employment now versus 2008. This was a first round knockout.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas threw the first punch with his editorial in the Tribune. Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois responded immediately (in fact, both were dated July 9 – go figure).

Now before I proceed with my objective analysis of these two well-written editorials, let me acknowledge my bias. I’m a Republican. If these two men were my choices for President in a general election, I would vote Perry 100 times out of 100. That said, Rick Perry was an awful candidate in 2012. I wanted to like this guy. I really did. Texas has been an economic success story for years and Rick Perry has that Texas bravado that you either love or hate. I love it. He entered the campaign unprepared (first mistake) and late (second mistake). As soon as he announced his candidacy, Governor Perry was leading in a number of polls. That was the climax of his campaign. He looked like a bumbling fool in his first few debates. By then, he had lost any chance he had even though he did improve, and this damage will carry over to 2016, should he decide to run again (he will).

But, Governor Perry gives a strong one-two punch to Illinois and other blue states in his Tribune editorial. Maybe he employed a ghost writer.

Perry first sets the stage in 2011, and describes how Texas and Illinois responded differently to economic challenges. He describes Texas’s plan as that of priorities, tough choices, a balanced budget and zero tax increases. They tightened their belts and moved forward with fiscal responsibility. In contrast, his next paragraph is all of three words: “Illinois raised taxes.”

Powerful stuff.

Illinois governor, Pat Quinn, in rebuttal to Governor Perry, begins his piece with nonsence about Perry’s repeat tourism to Illinois. Governor Quinn then makes the accusation that Governor Perry is “gallavanting around the country to poach jobs.” Excuse me, but this is exactly the type of behavior I want from my state’s governor (Pat McCrory of North Carolina), and all citizens should expect from their own governor. There should be friendly competition for jobs and business-friendly climates among the states.

Governor Quinn then throws out a damning statistic: “More than 99% of job growth in Illinois comes from companies already here.” WOW. Did you really mean to say that? I get that you would expect a majority of job growth to come from existing employers. Maybe even 75%. But this 99% statistic means that Illinois is essentially attracting NO new employers. That is shameful, and not something the state’s governor ought to be drawing attention to. He should stop right there.

Meanwhile, back in Governor Perry’s editorial, the punches keep on coming.

“Texas was able to restore in 2013 what was trimmed in 2011, provide major tax cuts to employers, and still have money left on the table. Our rainy day fund is projected to hold roughly $8 billion, even after deductions to fund water projects and beef up our transportation infrastructure. Illinois still has a budget that’s far from balanced, with billions in unpaid bills.”


Governor Quinn responds with nebulous claims like, “In Illinois, we know about getting the job done.” He cites a “small company (Pegasus MGF Inc) that moved from California” – a known land of opportunity for businesses – NOT.

Governor Perry boasts that Toyota moved its world headquarters from California to Texas this year. Toyota versus Pegasus MFG. You decide.

Then, Perry delivers the knockout blow.

“Most important, by December of 2011, Texas had replaced all the jobs it lost during the recession. As of May, we had 880,000 more jobs than we had at the peak level before the downturn. Illinois still needs to add 190,000 jobs just to reach the level it had in 2008.”

To which Governor Quinn respondes: “More people are working today in Illinois than there were in the first month of my administration.” Talk about spin.

Perry piles on with “Over the past decade, Texas has added more than 2 million jobs. During that span, Illinois has lost 7,000. Texas grew jobs at a rate of 3.4 percent over the past year — fastest among the biggest states. Illinois’ rate of job growth was just .3 percent — slowest among the biggest states.”

At this point, the referee gives Quinn a standing eight count (someone throw in the towel please).

Quinn’s last, desperate claim is that Texas’s job growth is from oil and gas, so therefore the state is guilty of pollution. The fictitious global warming debate is fodder for another day, but see one of my favorite blogs for the BS that that is becoming clear in that arena. If each state would embrace, in an environmentally responsibly fashion, it’s own opportunities for our nation’s energy independence and job growth, we could re-establish our nation as an economic power and energy pioneer.

I could go on, but you can read the two editorials for yourself and see which is full of statistics and which is full of, well, bull.

Rick Perry, on his record, could be a formidable Presidential candidate in 2016. If he can stay out of his own way and let his record speak for itself, he can ride his record of job growth and economic posperity into a tight race for the nomination. At the very least, his model of getting out of the way of growth and prosperity is to be commended and followed by anyone seeking to replace the current, failed administration. Pat Quinn will have the fight of his life for re-election in Illinois.

Wake up, America.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Dick Cheney Missed His Calling


Few public servants in our nation’s history evoke stronger feelings than Dick Cheney. Those who like, admire and respect him do so passionately. Those who hate him REALLY hate him.

Opinions and favorability ratings aside, rarely has a politician had a more impressive resume and record of public service. For a deep dive into Cheney’s life and political career, I highly recommend reading his autobiography, “In My Time.” Cheney fans and haters alike will enjoy his fascinating life story. Much of the book chronicles his life before politics, and his earlier political career. Fewer than half the pages are dedicated to his more polarizing years as Vice President. The book would take a totally different path, or might not be written at all if Dick Cheney had met his true calling.

Richard Bruce Cheney was born in Nebraska in 1941 and grew up in Nebraska and Wyoming. He earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Wyoming, married Lynne, his high school sweetheart, and began his career in 1969 as an intern for Wiconsin Congressman, William Steiger. He then went to work for Donald Rumsfeld, who was a member of President Nixon’s cabinet. Cheney progressed in the ranks of the White House staff under Presidents Nixon and Ford, ultimately succeeding Rumsfeld as Gerald Ford’s White House Chief of Staff. After managing Ford’s failed campaign in 1976, Cheney moved back to Wyoming, where he was elected to the United States Congress in 1978. He served six terms as a Congressman, ascending to House Minority Whip in 1988.

Cheney had a promising Congressional future ahead of him when George H. W. Bush was elected as the 41st President. Bush 41 nominated former Texas Senator, John Tower as Secretary of Defense, but in a surprising vote, Tower failed to be confirmed and the President nominated Cheney for the post. He was quickly confirmed with a vote of 92-0. Think about that for a moment. The United States Senate gave unanimous approval of Dick Cheney for Secretary of Defense in 1989. My how times have changed.

Most are familiar with Cheney’s record from that point. He successfully executed two major military operations as Secretary of Defense: the U.S. invasion of Panama and Operation Desert Storm. Ironically, Cheney and Bush 41 were criticized by many Republicans for not removing Saddam Hussein from power and not “finishing the job” in Iraq. They kept to the stated objective, which was to liberate Kuwait and drive Iraqi troops back into Iraq.

Cheney left office with bi-partisan popularity and moved into the private sector, including 5 years as chairman and CEO of Haliburton. Cheney’s two terms as Vice President are well chronicled, and are the only portion of his political career that are considered divisive. He has been accused of being the “puppet master,” pulling the strings of the Bush 43 Administration. Clearly, he was one of the most involved and powerful Vice Presidents in our nation’s history. Arguments can be convincingly made that he was absolutely the right or the wrong man for this particular period of American history.


But I can envision Dick Cheney playing an entirely different role in American government – a role that would not place him on any ballot or in any campaign. Imagine Dick Cheney, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Who is a more perfect CIA Director than Dick Cheney? This is the guy you want behind the scenes, locked away in a basement bunker somewhere, doing whatever it takes to keep America safe.

Before you howl in disagreement, just picture it. Picture Dick Cheney, with that devious half-grin, ruthlessly devising plans to thwart terrorist activities and execute clandestine missions in the dead of night on the other side of the world. Don’t kid yourselves. Every CIA Director has authorized activities that more transparent law enforcement or military agencies could never get away with. They’ve broken laws. They’ve made dirty deals. They’ve illegally tapped phones. They’ve killed people. They’ve done things that no President can afford to know about. We want the CIA executing its mission at any and all costs. We don’t want to know how they do it. We just want assurances that their actions are in the best interests of the safety of the American public. With Dick Cheney, I’m confident we would have that.

Envision for a moment a lifetime appointment for “Director Cheney.” As he grows old and his body begins to fail, his mind continues churning. His days are spent rolling about the secretive bunker network of the CIA underworld, in his wheelchair, with a blanket draped across his lap. He remains the most respected and feared man in Washington, having served four Presidents and thwarted countless attacks on the country. How does he remain in place through multiple adminstrations of different parties? That’s just another part of what makes him the perfect choice – he’s able to use whatever means necessary to ensure his own survival. He has outlasted, if not orchestrated the downfall of, all his political rivals.

This is an easy trip for the imagination. Cheney could do this job and do it well. He truly missed his calling. Presidents Bush, both father and son, and perhaps even Bill Clinton, are to blame. They could have appointed him to this most perfect of roles. In particular, Bush 43 had the opportunity. He inherited President Clinton’s CIA Director, George Tenet. It would have been natural to replace him. And W could have chosen a less polarizing VP. Clearly, hindsight is 20/20. At the time, I fully supported Cheney as VP and still think he was a good choice. But imagine if W had chosen Colin Powell or former Florida senator, Connie Mack, or perhaps Tom Ridge. All could have made the ticket electable, and also could have freed up Cheney to take the top spy job.

Give Dick Cheney the CIA post and no handcuffs in executing his duties, and you have to wonder if September 11 would be just another date. That’s a huge stretch, I realize, but this whole article is an excercise in “what if?”

Though it would appear that Cheney never gave a damn about public opinion, especially while he was Vice President, he clearly had to juggle the tasks he thought were necessary, with the proper rules and regulations and the public perception and expectations of an elected executive official. As CIA Director, that stuff goes out the window. And who would better ensure that the position’s duties were executed without regard to outside influence or perception than Dick Cheney?

Cheney was a valued member of the White House staff, an excellent Congressman, an effective and measured Secretary of Defense, a strong private sector CEO and a strong-willed, divisive Vice President. He would have been a near perfect CIA Director. We’ll never know for sure just how good he would have been, and our country is probably a little less safe because of it.



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Voter ID Protects the Right to Vote

On a recent Tuesday, I started my day off at the drugstore, purchasing some Claritin D. I then renewed my fishing license, voted in the primary election, boarded a plane, rented a car, picked up a bottle of fine bourbon, checked into a hotel room, stopped by a casino and paid for dinner with my unsigned credit card. At every stop along the way, I had to produce my photo ID – every stop but one. The one action I took that day that didn’t require an ID was, you could argue, the most important and most secretive thing I did. Yet, I was able to stroll into the local church where I faithfully vote in every election, give my name and address, sign the roll and proceed to cast my ballot.

I easily could have given the name of my neighbor, who I know is registered, but never votes. In fact, I could have visited the polling place several times that day, giving various names and addresses, perhaps wearing different clothes each time, to dispel suspicions of the sleepy retirees staffing the polling place. If I were an unscrupulous political operative, I could recruit a small army to carry out such a plan, altering the outcome of an election. But if I wanted to celebrate by taking them all for a drink, many would have to produce a photo ID before they could toast their election rigging. The right to vote has been proclaimed by many to be the most basic and precious right afforded all citizens. If that’s true, shouldn’t we protect it at least as much as we protect someone’s library card or hunting license?


In a society where identify theft is so prevalent, elections have become so closely contested, and it’s easier than ever before to obtain a photo ID, why would any objectively minded person reject the idea of a voter identification requirement. The answer is: no objectively minded person would do any such thing. Only those who want to patronize and continue to repress certain voting blocs would take issue with voter ID.

When voter ID is debated, it’s always the old, the young, the unemployed and the poor who are put up as the poster children “victims” of voter ID laws. Elderly people generally have a number of things that they must show ID for: doctor visits, prescriptions, many of them drive, cash checks, and so on. Young people, who are old enough to vote, generally have a driver’s license, are employed or seeking work (which requires ID), pursue higher education, buy alcohol or tobacco and participate in other activities requiring identification. The unemployed are almost assuredly seeking employment (or should be). They may be receiving benefits, for which many states require ID. Likewise with poor people. In fact, these groups are at least as likely to have or need a photo ID as most other demographics. And if anyone doesn’t have a photo ID, is it really too much to ask for them to get one and better assimilate into society?

Yet, these groups are continually kept under the thumb of liberals who exploit them for their vote, while claiming to look out for their rights. Issues like voter ID, unemployment benefits, taxes and free health care are used by liberals to shield, protect and repress in order to maintain the loyalty of these voters. It’s a self-serving cycle: create a sense of dependency among these voters, then feed them what you’ve told them they need. It’s a brilliant strategy that has served Democrats well for decades.

But I digress. Are airlines oppressive for requiring identification? Are stores racist for demanding ID to buy prescription drugs, alcohol or tobacco? Is the DMV a bigoted organization for requiring a photo ID of all drivers? Are banks committing class warfare when they require ID to take out a loan or buy a home? Are citizens oppressed when they must show ID for these things and others? No? Then why is the standard any different when we go to the polls and vote?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment