Conservatives Need to Choose Their Words More Carefully

I just read this article and its fantastic and I definitely agree. While getting angry and calling others by select names makes us feel better in the moment — it does NOTHING to help the Conservative cause. And I’m so tired of hearing “the liberals do it all the time”. So what? Let’s make the effort to following a higher path – its easy to sink into the name calling and divisiveness Obama illustrates so well. But there is way too much of that in our country now. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did…


Co-authored by FJ Rocca and Dana R. Casey

flag day CONSERVATIVES, WE SHOULD WATCH OUR LANGUAGEOn the surface, it may seem a superficial concern, but expressing anger in a critical article must be kept under control. It is one thing to call someone out for being a liar or for being corrupt.

It is another thing to refer to Obama as “President Lucifer” and to refer toMuslims as “Camel Jockeys” which may be cathartic, but such epithets divert attention from crucial issues and make the name calling the central focus of the articles that contain them. It is vitally important to speak not merely with truth, but with clarity, dignity and precision.

The word “liar” has specific meaning and act of corruption can be verified. But the terms “liar” and “demagogue” are not labels. They are descriptive terms that can be demonstrated and verified. Likewise, when a politician or other public figure is a hypocrite he should be called a hypocrite. When a politician has violated our rights or is abrogating those rights by a vote, we should shout about it loudly. When Eric Holder refuses to prosecute Black Panthers for waving truncheons to intimidate white voters, it is within reason to call him a racist, and when Al Sharpton commits fraud on the court, slander and libel in the Tawana Brawley case, which was legally found to be a hoax, he is a criminal and a fraud and should be call out for his disgraceful actions. He is certainly a demagogue and has proven to be.

This does not mean that we should soften our expression on the positions we take on issues. A writer can be clear and to the point without using clever epithets that actually detract from the purpose of an otherwise perfectly good article, which should be to spread correct ideas. Such epithets cause readers to think, as the Left always asserts, that we on the Right are inarticulate and ill-educated, therefore, must resort to name calling in place of logic. It gives their argument plausibility and robs our argument of legitimacy. I am all for expressing anger, and to call John Kerry duplicitous is right. In fact it is something that should be repeated again and again because it can be demonstrated by facts. Calling Kerry “Snake Tongue” is entertaining and clever, but it can also make the author of an article appear clownish rather than precise.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not want to soften the approach and many of the articles I have read that use such language often contain excellent and revealing analysis. But to call someone an inflammatory name can diminish the sharpness of the author’s salient points.Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are racists and hate mongers. That can be documented through their actions and words. But we have to be careful that the words we use are precise. Insulting epithets make us appear adolescent, overly emotional and ignorant. Language has consequences and its effects are felt. It is through language that a clear point is made or obscured in an article. If we are to convince anyone that we know what we are talking about, it is vital that we stick to the issues and make our words count!

FJ Rocca and Dana R. Casey

FJ Rocca is an independent, conservative writer/blogger of fiction and non-fiction, most interested in the philosophy of American Conservatism.  Clarity is more important than eloquence, but truth is vital in human discourse.

Dana R. Casey is a veteran High School English teacher of more than two decades in an East-coast urban system.  She is a life-long student of theology, philosophy, and politics, dedicated to the true Liberalism of the Enlightenment, as defined by our Founders and enshrined in our Declaration of IndependenceConstitution and Bill of Rights.

Article originally posted at


More Employers Cut Jobs and Hours for Obamacare

Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) is keeping track of changes in the workplace that are being made in response to Obamacare. This is their updates this week… if you would like the Excel file of employers changing their hours and/or number of jobs, click here ObamaCare_092513.

ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs

ObamaCare’s impact on jobs is hotly debated by politicians and economists. Critics say the Affordable Care Act, with its employer mandate to provide health insurance, gives businesses an incentive to cut workers’ hours. This year, report after report has rolled in about employers restricting work hours to fewer than 30 per week — the point where the mandate kicks in. Data also point to a record low workweek in low-wage industries.

In the interest of an informed debate, we’ve compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare’s employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels. As of Sept. 25, our ObamaCare scorecard included 313 employers. Here’s our latest analysis, focusing on cuts to adjunct hours at nearly 200 college campuses. The ObamaCare list methodology is explained further in our initial coverage; click on the employer names in the list below for links to supporting records, mostly news accounts or official documents.

We’ll continue to update the list, which we encourage you to share and download into a spreadsheet to sort and analyze. If you know of an employer that should be on the list and can provide supporting evidence, please contact IBD at

See the Full List To Date and Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:

Resources –




House Vote Saturday Evening – Breaking News


The House of Representatives will vote later today on two amendments to a government funding bill that would delay President Barack Obama’s signature health care law for a year and repeal a tax on medical devices that helps fund Obamacare, according to a statement from House Speaker John Boehner’s office.

Senate Democrats have said they would reject any changes to the funding bill they sent back to the House on Friday which stripped out a House provision that defunded Obamacare. Obama said on Friday that he was open to specific ideas that might improve the law “through the normal democratic processes. But that will not happen under the threat of a shutdown.”

If the House and Senate cannot reconcile their differences in the funding bill, it could force a partial government shutdown when the fiscal year ends at midnight Monday.

The House bill would also fund the government through mid-December, rather than mid-November as the Senate version calls for. Boehner’s office also said the House would vote on a measure that would ensure members of the military are paid if a funding bill is not passed.

Petition to Put Sterilants in Public Water Supply

I’ve seen several videos by Mark Dice and every one is very disturbing. When part of the population gets to the point where they have no concern or just can’t be bothered to take a minute to understand what they are supporting – we end up with a President Obama and his dismally failed administration – elected not only once but TWICE.

Dice is near a beach in California and asks people who pass by to sign a petition to have sterilants (free birth control) added to the public water supply. He explains this is a plan being pushed by Obama’s Science Czar and that it is a modern form of eugenics. He also tells one person that there will be racially specific sterilants so the white population will be kept at its current levels.

There are many things about Dice’s video that are beyond disturbing. But something I think should be very effective is that he uses words that people likely don’t understand – for example: sterilants, eugenics etc – but not one person makes the effort to ask what he is talking about. However, he also says “birth control” very clearly – so each person should be some clue what they are signing.

Take a look at the video – you simply won’t believe this stupidity. I checked the comments on YouTube and couldn’t believe one guy was cheering for Obama after watching this. All I could think was WTH…

Nancy Pelosi is More Out of Touch Than Usual

Since I started paying attention to politics and politicians, I’ve never doubted that Nancy Pelosi is very out of touch with many people in this country and out of touch with reality at times. But her comments about the “end” of the 40 hour work week just drove that fact home for me even more.

Its frightening when you realize the people in charge of making the laws we live by and spending our tax dollars – are so delusional that they would likely never get a job at McDonalds… even when you factor in that she has made a fortune several times over during her time in Congress, it is still painfully clear that she’s just out of touch with reality for the majority of Americans. Although, her “philosophy”, if you can call it that, does create even more people on the dole from the government which works into her “plans” for the US.

Nancy Pelosi: Death of 40 Hour Week Means More Freedom & Liberation

From the land of fruits and nuts comes Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) with a timely comment about the destructive nature of Obamacare that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) spent nearly 22 hours informing the American people about on Tuesday and Wednesday. Cruz made mention not only of jobs lost because of Obamacare but also hours lost for those who are able to keep their jobs. However, House Minority Leader Pelosi says there’s nothing to worry about because everything is sunshine and rainbows. These things will only mean you are not chained to a job and have more freedom to “follow your passion.”

She appeared on CNN’s State of the Union and host Candy Crowley read part of a letter from union thug James Hoffa Jr., which Senator Cruz also mentioned, in which he described the impact of Obamacare on employers as a way to “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week.”

“That’s pretty tough from a loyal Democratic constituency,” said Crowley.

Pelosi didn’t even bat an eyelash as she merrily talked about how she and her colleagues will “find a path” to satisfy unions in Obamacare.

Not to worry though, as Pelosi says that people shouldn’t be concerned about losing the 40-hour work week (and with it a 40-hour paycheck) because it will free Americans to “pursue your happiness … follow your passion.”

“Overwhelmingly, for the American people, this is a liberation, this is life, healthy life, liberty, the freedom to pursue your happiness” the San Francisco multi-millionaire said. Perhaps Pelosi was confusing “the American people,” who have to earn a living with her fellow guests at George Soros’s wedding.

“It’s about wellness, it’s about prevention, it’s about a healthy America,” she added.

Actually it’s about one law for you Nancy and another law for everyone else. It’s about a power and control trip. Obamacare has nothing to do with affordability, better health coverage or better health care. It is a massive time bomb that will destroy the United States economically, as well as ruin the developments the US has advanced in medicine and healthcare.

Somehow, I think Nancy Pelosi has been ready for the Funny Farm for quite a while. These comments just verify my assumptions.

To further give credence to my claim, watch this little introduction to the interview and notice how Pelosi says the “anti-government” (really those of us who believe in limited government) ideology is the reason for all the mess. Take note that she also refers to her political opponents in the House as “Legislative Arsonists.”

Ummmm – what about those of us who live paycheck to paycheck and need to earn a living in order to have a home??


My Understanding of the Obamacare Navigators and Enrollment

I keep an eye on the news and stay pretty up to date on what’s happening, but I must have misunderstood some things. Here is my understanding – so please let me know where I’m wrong. But please include a link to the “right” info. I’ve checked the government sites and not finding much…

Okay –

The way I understand it – the signups for the ACA start October 1st, 2013. It seems the Obama administration are way behind getting things ready to go (not surprising) and so they are rushing to get people hired and trained to sign people up for the exchanges. For some reason – the administration who has been in office for the WikiLeaks scandal and the ongoing Snowden/NSA scandal – think they don’t need to do background checks on the people who will be gathering the private information from Americans for their ACA signup. This is one of my biggest issues with the things taking effect on Oct 1 and seems like sheer insanity to me – but I digress.

They have also decided to postpone some of the implementation  for employers. While that seems like a very good idea, they are not postponing implementation for individuals. So – have I got this right… the employers don’t need to sign up, but individuals do? Then the really questionable part of this is that individuals can go to the exchanges to sign up and tell people their employer doesn’t supply insurance – but no one is going to double check on that fact. Which could easily lead to abuse and fraud….

And one more thing – since employers aren’t forced to buy insurance for a year, doesn’t that basically mean that all individuals will have to sign up for their own insurance, or sign up for an exchange? How can people legally sign up for the exchanges – without the employer mandate – and how can any person imagine that the registrations won’t have lots of potential problems?

I’m the kind of business person who plans things through, forms a plan, and spends time to figure out the potential problems and tries to have plans in place to head off these problems. It would seem that wasn’t done for these things. Or am I missing the big picture??

This is one of MANY times in the last 5 years that I have hoped that I was wrong about what the government was doing to us – I mean…. for us….

Another perspective on no background checks for navigators –

Hillary: A Generation Too Late

121020115217-37-hillary-clinton-1020-horizontal-galleryHillary Clinton–a familiar name, an ofttimes battered name.  The woman is to be respected for her climb through the maze of politics.  I think we can all agree that it is still not easy for a woman, but Hillary has gained strides for all of us of the “weaker” sex.  For that I give her a nod of approval.

Does my approval extend to a Hillary Clinton presidency?  A resounding NO!  She is a lifetime politician, who will continue the progressive agenda of Barack Obama.  In my opinion she did not make a name for herself as Secretary of State.  Look at the condition of our foreign affairs.  Could it be any worse?  Look at Benghazi.  That event alone should keep her out of the White House.  The terrible events of that day in Benghazi rests heavily on Hillary’s shoulders, and no one should ever forget it.

As a Conservative/Republican, I have many reasons for not wanting Hillary Clinton to be elected to the office of the president in 2016.  Although I do not agree with all of the sentiments in the article I’m posting below, it adds a new dimension to the argument.

Hillary, don’t run for president

By James Moore, Special to CNN
updated 9:59 AM EDT, Wed September 25, 2013
James C. MooreEditor’s note:  James C. Moore, a Texan, is a business consultant and partner at Big Bend Strategies. He is co-author of “Bush’s Brain:  How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential” and a TV political analyst.
Nobody is saying the former secretary of state, New York senator, U.S. and Arkansas first lady, and Yale-trained attorney is not qualified for the White House.  In fact, she may have one of the most impressive resumes to ever be submitted for the job.  Clinton has a breadth of experience that indicates she has every capability needed to be president of the United States.
But it is time for America to move on.
The first argument against another Clinton candidacy is generational.  Baby boomers need to release their arthritic fingers from the torch of leadership and pass it off to another generation.  Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama will have accounted for 24 years of the presidency by 2016, which seems more than sufficient.  Clinton’s election potentially extends boomer influence in a manner that risks creating a generation gap that further increases political disaffection among young voters.
Age is another important consideration, regardless of howls of outrage on this question by her supporters.  Clinton would be 69 when she raised her right hand for the oath of office.  She would be the second-oldest person to become president — younger than Ronald Reagan by several months. 
The pressures of the White House amplify the afflictions of time.  Arguably, an optimal president combines an earned wisdom and natural intellect with the residual energy of youth.  No one does this by turning 70 during their first year as president, which would by Clinton’s status.
How long can Hillary Clinton wait?
Although doctors pronounced her perfectly healthy after a recent scare with a blood clot on the brain, the probabilities of geriatric disease in office are very real for someone who might be 77 at the end of a second term.
Reagan’s comportment during his last years suggests that he had already begun moving behind the veil of Alzheimer’s.  This is not ageism.  An accumulation of years defines our range of capabilities, physically and intellectually, and the Clintons as well as the nation need to confront the question of whether a person in their mid-70’s is the best to serve as president.  The obvious answer is no.
There is, nonetheless, no underestimating the cultural importance of the first female president and the glory it will bestow upon history’s grandest democracy.  The Democratic Party, too, will have an interest in being the political organization that gave the country its first female as well as African=American presidents.
Clinton, who is properly positioned with experience, has other challenges that impede her getting a chapter in future textbooks as the first woman in the Oval Office.
America is weary of limited political choices and dynasties.  A second Clinton presidency might culminate in 28 years of Clinton-Bush control.  We are, more than even, a nation that desperately needs to renew itself with what is different and hopeful and visionary.  Unfortunately, there is too much that is predictable with a second Clinton candidacy.
No one needs a time machine to look into the future and see the grainy video in TV attack ads with a baritone voice rattling on about Benghazi or mumblings about how her husband enriched himself by accumulating a net worth of $55 million since leaving office.
Hillary on possible presidency:  “I’m realistic.’
“Don’t the Clintons have enough?” the voice would ask.  “And hasn’t America had enough of the Clintons?”
In spite of the fact that Clinton’s accomplishments as secretary of state are significant, including diplomatic efforts that averted a war between Israel and Hamas, she is likely to be forced to endure campaign onslaughts accusing her of character flaws for forgiving her husband’s indiscretions, which means the electorate probably has to endure at least some painful flashbacks.
This is not, however, a recommendation to back away from a fight.  Clinton has proved that her political knuckles are toughened with gristle, and she can skillfully marginalize absurd allegations from her opponents.  Instead of running and winning a fierce campaign, there might be a more honorable endeavor for the former secretary of state.
There is always a right moment to leave the stage, and failing to recognize that timing can lead to a lingering image that, in the longer term, overwhelms the accomplishments of a person in the prime of their powers.
Hillary Clinton can make a gracious exit.  Yes, she has every right to run for president and is brilliantly qualified for the job.  That does not mean, however, she is the best person at this time in American’s narrative.
There is also nothing inexorable about anyone’s presidential candidacy, regardless of how vehemently it is argued by Clinton’s backers.  Presumptive candidacies, which appear initially like logical choices that are the consequence of devotion and hard politics, often tend toward failure.  The Dole, McCain and Romney nominations, presumed candidates with generationally disconnected politics, have sundered the GOP’s power for possibly decades.
Running for president because it is expected and seems like an obvious decision are clearly not the right motivations.
Clinton’s service to her country has already transcended even the starry-eyed youthful dreams she shared with her husband.  Beyond her time in office as U.S. senator, and as secretary of state, and as counsel to Bill during his presidency, the namesake foundation she leads with her husband and daughter is having a profound impact in this country and internationally, facilitating education, health care and nutritional programs.  That nonprofit needs her guidance and initiative.  America, though, is ready for different choices representing a new generation for president.
Don’t run, Hillary.