Fact Check: Is Mount McKinley’s name change part of a ‘bigger plan?’

When we learned this week that President Barack Obama’s administration opted to change the name of Mount McKinley to Mount Denali, there was a chorus of collected phony outrage from his political detractors (the ones outside of Ohio, at least). On the Ron and Don Show, Ron offered a theory that this is part of a larger plan to change the names of other places, such as cities or bases.

“I think he went to his advisers who said [they] can’t come out of the gate and change the name of an Army base,” Ron said as an example. “Let’s do a test project.”

Well, let’s do a Jason Rantz Show Fact Check, first.

Ron asked on air this week, “Do you think that this is Barack Obama opening the door to renaming things in the South?” He went on to suggest this may be a precursor to change the names of bases in the south named after Confederate figures.

This certainly may be a precursor to more changes (and it’s a valid concern), but the president can’t change the name of military installations. Individual military services change the names of their bases, not the Office of the President.

For example, the Army naming policy can be traced back to 1832 in War Department General Order Number 11 which vested the power with the War Department. You can trace this power through multiple iterations up until 2006, but the power has almost always remained the same: it’s up to the Department of the Army.

For what it’s worth, the Pentagon said not a single military base is even considering a change in name over the Confederate flag controversy.

Fact Check: Are marijuana edibles really poisoning our kids?

It’s also important to note that the president didn’t officially change the name from McKinley to Denali; the Secretary of the Interior did. Using 43 U.S. Code §§ 364-364f, Secretary Sally Jewell changed the name. Geographical renaming is left up to both Congress and the United States Board on Geographic Names. The McKinley-Denali conversation has been underway since the 1970s. The Board on Geographic Names have a policy not to get involved when Congress is considering the name change, but the law allows the Secretary of Interior to make the change if the Board hasn’t made a decision within a reasonable amount of time. It’s fair to say the president wanted this, but he wasn’t the person who made this official.

“Paying tribute to the people who were here before us is going to be the new political correctness,” Ron said.

Now, I can’t exactly Fact Check this statement, but Ron is absolutely correct in my opinion. It’s part of a national trend where Progressive guilt is pushing them to enact change where they can be seen as helping the purported victim (even if the victim is victimized by the policies they’re pushing).

But should this name change be controversial?

I understand some folks are angry but, let’s be honest, it’s contrived. I’m not a fan of many of the president’s policies, so I’ll focus my ire on important issues. This isn’t one of them.

When was the last time any of you upset even thought about Mount McKinley. Do you even know anything about President McKinley? You can’t say you knew he was assassinated; talk to me about a policy of his you found to be historically important. My guess is, if you’re being honest, you didn’t even really know Mount McKinley was named after a president. If you don’t like the president, fine – do something meaningful like focus on policies that actually impact you and your family.