Political Correctness


Kathy Lee Griffin, terrorist? Probably not, but nice shot. A good one for Radical Islamist’s and their propaganda machine.

Above is obviously everything everyone has been either listening to or trying to avoid, and somehow I have unabashedly been watching the drama unfold. I, myself, couldn’t afford to not watch the victim-to-apologetic to victim-again press conference held by her and her entourage of high-influence attorneys.

In an age of almost absolute political correctness, the line seems to blur when these PC advocates are the ones distorting the lines. Which, as a result, leads to complete confusion on behalf of those, like myself, who try to stay abreast of societal norms and trends. During the press conference I painfully watched a comedian, who in my opinion is in the waning years of her career, take the stage to invite jokes, tears, self-promotion, fear and advocacy; a very successful event to aggrandize oneself through such an act of public contempt. I unequivocally believe in the Constitution and the First Amendment right to free speech. What would a free society be without free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion or freedom of the press? It would be one under tyrannical rule, surely. However, when should absolute free speech be restricted? There are caveats to this freedom. One caveat to any of our rights is that upholding one person’s rights shall not violate another’s rights. This has led to many conundrums in the courts regarding religious beliefs and religious rights; especially those pertaining to same-sex marriage and the ordaining of these nuptial agreements. Nevertheless, the question here is not one of whether or not Kathy Griffin violated the First Amendment…………………..

OR IS IT??????????

Hate speech is not necessarily a violation of the First Amendment right of free speech (or freedom of expression for the purposes of this article). There are a few exceptions that fall under the category of ‘unprotected acts/behaviors’ that involve speech or expression. One such exception is fighting words. Fighting words are something that would provoke an individual to a strong likelihood to react with aggression or violence. It would be a provocation and usually something that had some type of racial epithet or religious defamation. An individual is not protected under the First Amendment in such a situation. There is also, and this is the point I’d like to make, another exception to the 1st Amendment. A person is, additionally, not protected if they choose to conduct in an action that results in a true threat of illegal conduct or complicit in the behavior would perceptibly result in the incitement to produce illegal acts or conduct. I would, therefore, conclude posting an image of a decapitated head of any individual on a scale that reaches a very large population of viewers could theoretically be deemed as incitement. It’s a promotion of violence against such an individual.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [emphasis added].

Personally, I would not advocate the prosecution of Kathy Lee Griffin. I am not even close to being an expert on Constitutional law. I am pragmatic, and simple. The world and its purveyors are drawing gray lines all the time. So, my opinion about this latest hot button item is one of a realist’s approach. I opine that Ms. Kathy Lee Griffin made a terrible error in judgment. Although her career is dwindling, she is yet a potential prominent figure (e.g. the latest turmoil). Her responsibility as an American citizen is to promote America and to protect America. Criticism is always acceptable. Disdain and discontent are also perfectly acceptable sentiments to express. However, as a public figure whose reach far surpasses that of my own handful of followers, a certain level of respect should be upheld for those who govern and those that are governed. What does a picture like that say to our enemies? Yes, Ms. Griffin, we have enemies.

As politically correct as everyone wants or needs to be, Radical Islamic Terrorism exists and it is thriving. It, in my opinion, is a war. A long and arduous one, a war that may persist for many more years to come. It is a war that they can fight. It is not one that we are commonly used to where battalions line up against each other while firing guns and rockets, or hand to hand combat. This is a type of war waged by people who have developed a strategy of long-winded attrition. It is similar to that of our forefathers who could not win against the British army in traditional military combat. The Colonists conducted guerrilla warfare, and proceeded to wage different tactics of war to their strength and, ultimately, to our benefit.

Whether you support a particular President or not shouldn’t matter. The President of the United States is the representation of the United States. We either disagree with them or we agree, but we should always support their safety and well-being as a human, an elected official, and citizen of the world. Kathy Lee Griffin and her attorney, Lisa Bloom, repeatedly mentioned, in one way or another, that this was simply an expression of art. Well, it’s an incredible expression of art that will be celebrated by our enemies, foreign and domestic.

Propaganda is a very powerful form of persuasion used by governments, the media and whoever else that has reach. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels used propaganda during Nazi-Germany’s reign in the 1930’s. Every government uses it and I don’t believe that this one under this President is any exception. However, much of the perceived propaganda perpetrated by government is subjective. And when something is subjective, opinion has no bounds. The type of image given by Kathy can now be propagandized by profligate terrorists always looking to diminish and demean the United States by inspiring others, usually inside our borders. This image is NOT subjective. It is a bold declaration of death towards another. Subjectivity is surely not a subject for the portrayal of a bloody head without a body. If, by chance, someone can give me another explanation of the imagery, I am all ears and two eyes.

Imagine, for a second, the outrage that would ensue from a picture published by Donald Trump holding the ‘image’ of a decapitated head of Ms. Griffin. What would be the result? What kind of scandal would follow after a person of such stature created such a violent image? I couldn’t even imagine, as a son, looking at an image of someone who is trying to portray the execution of my father. I would be scared. Of course, our President has much more to lose, more responsibility and, surprisingly, more class than that of Kathy. As a consequence to attract a little more attention to himself, the President or his staff created a Tweet that included a typo and —-POOF—- the world went mad with #covfefe.

The World We Should Know

Between iPhones and Androids, tablets, laptops, smart watches and the nearly antiquated, yet ever present, PC, we have come to understand the world in an intimate and instantaneous relationship. Hardly is this a new idea, nor are the realities lost on anyone living in the 21st century. The world has already begun its big change, but the big change will have its progress impeded by people who will inevitably lose at the result of the changing climate. Denzel Washington may not have been the first person to say this, but certainly the most famous, “To not watch the news is to be uniformed. To watch the news is to be misinformed.”


The message is succinct in that it subtly conveys the proliferation of deceit through profiteering. It was quickly realized that providing a medium to distribute local and national news to people allowed somebody else to make a lot of money. In fact, this idea is anything but novel. Napoleon Bonaparte is considered one of the relatively recent great conquerors; albeit a failed one, but infamous nonetheless. In June of 1815, the pivotal battle at Waterloo commenced. The Duke of Wellington had been defeated and retreated to Waterloo. There another stand by the Seventh Coalition, with numbers that exceeded those of Napoleon’s by almost 2:1, effectively ended the First French Rule and Napoleon’s triumphant preceding victories. In fact, Napoleon’s army was crushed, and with that many countries stood to retain their sovereignty. As a consequence of some good news for the coalition that included The United Kingdom, the news that would reach Britain would be approached with glee. As such, one could expect stock prices and other various assets to go up, then as now, where euphoria is a very strong catalyst for asset price appreciation. Unfortunately, in 1815, there was no fiber optic cable nor were there satellites; just horse, buggy, and plain old fashioned walking (steam locomotives were such new inventions barely scaling the landscape). Instant gratification was delayed. We, Millennials, do not understand this. However, Nathan Rothschild understood very well the opportunity for speed.

Nathan Rothschild was a Jewish-German banker who started his career as a textile merchant. Surely after acquiring larger amounts of wealth, he decided to extend and expand that growing wealth over different asset classes. He invested in government bonds and made loans to institutions and businesses. So, the story goes on about the battle at Waterloo. Nathan had large amounts of money invested in the Seventh Coalition, and more importantly, the British government. As the battle ended, news of the victory would be on its way back to Britain. Couriers for the Rothschild’s apparently had routes, established during his success as a merchant, that were much faster than that of anyone else. The good news broke to Nathan first, who subsequently purchased large quantities of British bonds. Obviously, the purchase would indicate to everyone that Nathan Rothschild somehow knew before anyone else the outcome of the battle was positive for Britain and they began to buy as well. This leads to price appreciation: higher demand equals higher bids for the same thing. If everybody wants your lemonade and you only made a little, you can start charging more and more for that same lemonade. Economics prevails at the basic level similarly with complex financial instruments.


Nevertheless, the Rothschild’s supposed timely investments isn’t one of deceit or distractions, yet it is a clear example of a person or persons’ ability to make substantial capital gains with the dissemination of ‘information’. The information was true, no doubt, and in this case no evidence suggests dissuasion. It was opportunistic, pure and simple. However, it has undoubtedly led to the development of using, or now creating, public deliverance or disdain.

I chose to use Nathan Rothschild as a great example because of his family’s reputation and subsequent participation in the creation of the Federal Reserve, its coercive and deceitful development, and that is something that has evolved to polarize political parties, break down congressional discourse, and distinguish our differences down to the most common denominator known: the Almighty Dollar.

The idea that I have writing this blog is to write about some of the disparities that I see, as an average American, pervasive in this modern society of information dissemination. I am no expert. Certainly no Rush Limbaugh nor Barack Obama with vivid imaginations of the ramifications of current conflict. I just use simple visual and audible dexterity to determine that news that has been fed to me has, in sometimes carefully and other times carelessly, been presented in ways that promote the agenda of the deliverer. Hence, refer to the picture below:


I am neither Democrat nor Republican. To most of us severely marginalized Millennials, I am one of those self-proclaimed Independents. So I read and interpret the news with an open mind. Fox News, as some know, is the Right-leaning major news source. Many of their views I find myself agreeing, however, just like many of the other news outlets, they perpetually let me down. Note the picture. A seemingly innocuous report on the approval rating of President Trump, and his past rival, Hillary Clinton, attempted, by the author, to show a difference that does not exist. Using large, clear numbers, the author basically wrote that 97% of Trump voters approved of him. The article mitigated Hillary Clinton by stating that only 3% of Clinton voters disapproved of her. Well, that seems the same to me. I guess it’s like going to the grocery store and seeing an item for $9.99. It’s not 10 dollars…it’s 9.99. Instead of listing the price at a big, two-digit number, they’ll stick with 9.99, although it’s the same.

Discontent is a great motivator. When we experience unhappiness with an aspect of our lives, we find a way to express it and/or change it. That is how this great country evolved, as an expression of discontent. Representative government. Taxation with representation. Limited government. Unbiased media.


As long as discontent prevails, I will not rest. The past election definitely demonstrated the discourse of government and media disdain; a disdain held by the very individuals that are supposed to be represented. But how can we represent ourselves when our mediums of information exchange are controlled by the few that fail to represent us? Each week I intend to highlight my view on the political and economic discussion going on in our country, one that is not biased nor ideologically slanted. I stand for sound monetary policy and limited government.