Pot Stirrer: A person who feels it necessary to try and create more drama in regards to a situation/arguement/debate in which they are an outside observer. Usually by way of a comment or statement.
One who causes unrest; one who stirs the pot.
"She was a stirrer of the pot, a lover of intrigue and distress, a creature who seemed to draw oxygen from the spectacle of people at each other's throat,
everybody in a state of upset and talking about her." - David Gilmore
"Just keep stirring the pot, you never know what will come up." - Lee Atwater
"I like stirring the pot - I think it's part of my duty, to shake people up a bit - make them look at things in a different way." - Nina Bawden
"I like stirring things up. I'm on the side of the kids more than I am on the adults.
And occasionally I find some adults that have that same mischievous streak, so I don't get in too much trouble." - William Joyce
Some REAL Pot Stirrers
Observations I Wish I Had Made
Other Pot Stirring Sites
"Contact" Me - Please
Why was the Senate vote to not confirm Debo Adegbile a surprise? Because it was about politics, not about Adegbile. To be specific, 46 of 54 Democrats in the U.S. Senate voted politics, to confirm Adegbile. That means that 46 Democrats (and one independent who caucuses with Democrats) demonstrated where there real priorities lie. And it means that seven Democrats voted their consciences.
To be even more specific, if ever proof that Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) are political hacks was needed, this is it.
The Senate, by a 47-52 vote (8 Democrats joined 44 Republicans - Reid's eighth "no" vote, as you will see, doesn't count), rejected Adegbile for the position of head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Adegbile is the first Obama nominee to be rejected under the new Senate procedures approved in November 2013, that require only a majority of senators present agree to proceed to a vote on most presidential nominees. The decision by seven Democrat Senators to reject calls from the White House and Democrat party leadership caused a rare split in the Democrat caucus because Democrats normally follow party politics and votes in lockstep on Obama's nominees.
The fact that Adegbile was rejected is not surprising. An aide to one of the Democrat senators who voted against the nomination said that several Senators were very upset with Obama for moving ahead with the Adegbile nomination. What IS surprising is that seven Democrats actually let their consciences, rather than politics, be their guide when voting. Eight Democrats voted against confirmation. Reid initially voted in favor of confirmation, but later switched his vote to "no," giving him the right as Senate leader to bring up the nomination again. So Reid was playing politics rather than voting his conscience.
Debo Adegbile is a piece of human debris if there was one. While working for the NAACP, he served as the in-house voting rights expert for the Legal Defense Fund. While there, he filed a defense brief and became co-counsel in 2011, for Mumia Abu-Jamal, another piece of human debris, who was convicted in 1981 for the execution of Philadelphia policeman Daniel Faulkner. There were four witnesses to Abu-Jamal's murder of Faulkner, and he even confessed to/boasted about the shooting. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund helped Abu-Jamal get his death sentenced overturned and has represented him at various times since. And, the NAACP has said that Abu-Jamal is a "symbol of racial injustice."
Democrats like to say that Adegbile's involvement with the Abu-Jamal case was limited. But extent of involvement is not at question - motivation is.
Politics once again rears its ugly head. First, Obama (or someone in Obama's administration) nominated Odegbile. That was bad enough. Then 46 of 54 Senate Democrats (and one independent) voted to approve Adegbile. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) "the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, said he was 'very disappointed' that Adegbile's nomination was defeated even after direct appeals from Obama's administration to members of their own party." [emphasis mine, higlightting the role of politics]
It was a full-court press from the White House, and we worked with them in whipping this: I'm very disappointed.
Adegbile was "eminently well qualified" and should have been confirmed.
Then, when Adegbile was rejected, Obama "... blasted the senators who voted against Adegbile's nomination, saying they 'denied the American people an outstanding public servant'." Obama also said the main attack used against Adegbile "runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice." The main attack Obama refers to is recognition that Adegbile worked on behalf of convicted cop-killer Abu-Jamal.
The Senate's failure to confirm Debo Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice is a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant.
Mr. Adegbile's qualifications are impeccable.
But what else could Obama say? He had to support Adegbile. Durbin's statement about "... a full-court press from the White House ..." revealed Obama's true feelings - it's entirely about politics.
And here's what Harry Reid had to say about Adegbile's rejection:
They [Republicans] want fewer voting people. They don't want people to vote and they especially don't want poor people to vote.
Reid called Republican opposition to Adegbile "an affront to what it means to live in America," and that the Adegbile rejection "is part of a larger Republican strategy to disenfranchise minority and impoverished voters." It sure sounds as if Reid is trying to change the subject from politics to Adegbile's work at the NAACP as a voting rights advocate because he knew that Adegbile (and all the baggage he brought) was a loser from the start. And an aid for one of the Democrats who voted against Adegbile agrees. Regarding Adegbile, he said, "It's a vote you didn't have to take. It's a 30-second ad that writes itself."
Two Democrats spoke about their votes: Chris Coons (D-DE), and Joe Manchin (D-WV).
Manchin said, "I made a conscientious decision after talking to the wife of the victim. I made a conscientious decision." Coons was more forthcoming, even giving himself some wiggle-room:
At a time when the Civil Rights Division urgently needs better relations with the law enforcement community, I was troubled by the idea of voting for an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights who would face such visceral opposition from law enforcement on his first day on the job. The vote I cast today was one of the most difficult I have taken since joining the Senate, but I believe it to be right for the people I represent.
So Coons voted against Adegbile not because he supports a cop-killer, but because he is "troubled." Still, his "no" vote helped reject Adegbile.
One would like to think that the Republicans, none of whom voted to approve Adegbile, were voting there consciences rather than playing politics. We'll never know. The closest thing to a statement about Adegbile from a Republican was offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Everyone deserves a fair trial and a zealous legal defense, and lawyers aren't personally responsible for the actions of their clients. But lawyers [Adegbile] are responsible for their own actions.
In this case, the nominee [Adegbile] inserted his office in an effort to turn reality on its head, impugn honorable and selfless law enforcement officers, and glorify an unrepentant cop killer.
This is not required by our legal system. It is noxious to it.
Democrats were so certain that politics would win out that they didn't even bother to vet Adegbile's history. But conscience won in the end. I guess some people are so obnoxious that even politics can't overcome them.
But that's just my opinion.
Stephen E. Ambrose, in Citizen Soldier, wrote about how Americans' superior weapons were taken away by the unexpected Normandy hedgerows, and how the war subsequent to Operation Overlord became one not of generals and colonels to fight, but of captains, lieutenants, and NCOs. He wrote about how, in the past when faced with a new situation, the Army would take time, study the problem, figure ways to maximize weapons utilization, and develop new doctrine and training methods.
The primary problem then was time. The Army didn't have the luxury of time to develop a new doctrine to address hedgerow combat, nor to train soldiers accordingly. The Germans saw to it that time was not available. So WWII was taken out of the hands of doctrine writing generals and placed in the hands of company grade personnel who HAD to fight with the weapons, training, and doctrine provided. They developed new doctrine and training methods as they experimented and learned what worked. But the experimentation didn't always work as planned, causing many deaths and wounds. Few generals and colonels were killed or wounded, but many captains, lieutenants, and NCOs were.
That is EXACTLY what is currently happening today in the form of Pentagon budget cuts proposed by Secretary of Defense and chief RINO Chuck Hagel (an Obama appointee). Hagel continues to call for a smaller high-tech military. He says that a large military is no longer needed. Hagel says cuts are necessary "... in order to sustain our readiness and technological superiority and to protect critical capabilities like special operations forces and cyber resources."
And he says that his proposal is far better than sequestration cuts. Hagel, on February 24, 2014, said:
Our recommendations beyond fiscal year 2015 provide a realistic alternative to sequestration-level cuts, sustaining adequate readiness and modernization most relevant to strategic priorities over the long term.
Let's not forget whose idea sequestration originally was: Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama's.
To further underline the fact that Hagel is playing politics, consider this statement: “Our recommendations favor a smaller and more capable force - putting a premium on rapidly deployable, self-sustaining platforms that can defeat more technologically advanced adversaries.” [emphasis mine] Hagel calls for a rapidly deployable force, but nowhere does he mention the time such a force needs to train, nor does he mention the time required to develop the doctrine needed to deploy it.
But, in my (been there) opinion, what Hagel says is just to cover his ultimate intention, which is to make more money available for Democrats to buy more votes. And the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) agrees. A CBO report finds that mandatory spending, which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is projected to rise $85 billion, or 4 percent, to $2.1 trillion this year. To find that money, the military budget must be cut.
Senator John (RINO) McCain blasted Hagel's budget, saying:
I must say your timing is exquisite. Coming over here with a budget when the world is probably more unsettled since the end of World War II. The invasion of Crimea, Iran negotiations collapsed, China more aggressive in the South China Sea, North Korea fired more missiles in the last few days, Syria turning into a regional conflict.
I believe that, when we are sending the signal that we are cutting defense, I think in this very dangerous world that we live in, is a serious mistake.
There are savings that could be made in defense, but when we're making cuts this size, it concerns me a great deal, especially since we're increasing domestic spending. [emphasis mine]
Domestic spending up, military spending down. Coincidence? I don't think so! To reinforce that opinion, only two days after Hagel's announcement, Obama called for $300 billion to be spent on roads, bridges, and mass-transit. More vote buying.
And Hagel's budget cut proposal comes as (Communist) China expands their defense budget by 12.2 percent.
More history. Sgt. Eldridge Benefield, speaking about the complete destruction of Aachen, Germany, during WWII in 1944, said: "I hope I never live to see anything like this happen in America. But sometimes I wish people over there [in America] could at least see it. Sometimes I think they don't understand what it's like."
Ambrose quoted Benefield in 1997, so it's no surprise. Obama has had more than 15 years to ponder Benefield's quote. Yet he still places politics above historical facts. On September 11, 2001, America got a sample of what Benefield spoke of. America is at WAR! Yet Obama still doesn't admit terrorists want to destroy us. He, when confronted with the truth, tried to cover up his inactions. And he goes along with Hagel's proposals.
What's most ironic about Hagel is that he was an Army sergeant in Vietnam. He is the first enlisted man to become Secretary of Defense. He knows first hand what it means to serve on the front lines. He knows that the unexpected happens, and that time is required to react to it. But he seems to have forgotten that front line troops have to work and die or be wounded with weapons and doctrine and training provided.
Mr. Hagel, high-tech is fine, but it cannot buy time. There is absolutely no substitute for sound doctrine and training. Or have you forgotten that? I think George Santayana said it best: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Perhaps, Chuck Hagel, you should remember the past. But, hey, why should you remember? It's not your life or body.
Just what does Hagel, and therefore Obama, hope to achieve through Defense Budget cuts? Sure, more money will be available for Democrats to buy the votes of a majority of the low-information voters, but the price will be high. WHEN we get into another war, who will cry the loudest about sons dying, about our unpreparedness? My bet is that it will be the low-information voters who reelected the Hagel enabler Obama, who have themselves forgotten the past.
What's saddest is that the MSM will ignore lessons from the past and tell the world what a great thinker and money saver Chuck Hagel is.
But that's just my opinion
Politicians think they can make peace by negotiation. What hubris politicians have since history suggests otherwise.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in 2010, said, "We all know there is no alternative to peace through negotiations, so we have no alternative other than to continue these efforts." [emphasis mine]
At the same time, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered, "... committed and determined to work for a peace agreement through negotiations that leads to an independent, sovereign and viable Palestinian state that realizes the aspirations of the Palestinian people."
So, let's examine recent negotiation peace efforts in the Middle East:
September 1993: Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] sign a Declaration of Principles on autonomy after months of negotiations in Oslo, Norway
July 2000: Bill Clinton hosts talks with Yassar Arafat and Israeli premier Ehud Barak at Camp David that collapse over the issues of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees, causing a new Palestinian uprising, or intifada
June 2003: The launch of a "roadmap" for the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005 at a summit in Jordan with George W. Bush, Israeli premier Ariel Sharon, and Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas
February 2005: Sharon and Abbas meet in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, and declare an end to hostilities
September 2, 2010: Obama launches direct talks at a White House summit with Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
May 19, 2011: Obama calls for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, namely the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem
July 19, 2013: At the end of his sixth visit to the Middle East in as many months, John Kerry announces agreement has been reached on a basis for resuming final status negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis
August 19, 2013; Abbas calls for the US to step up its involvement in peace talks, saying its role should be proactive and not merely supervisory
September 26, 2013; Hamas and the Islamic Jihad called for a third intifada, and a spokesman for Hamas said that the current peace talks were "futile"
November 6, 2013; Israeli negotiators said there will not be a state based on the 1967 borders and that the Separation Wall will be a boundary
February 11, 2014; Palestinian Official Says "Armed Resistance" an option if peace talks fail
In a recent New Yorker interview:
That the Obama administration's continuing engagement in the Israeli Palestinian peace process seems to be driven more by the need to burnish Kerry's ego and and less by a consideration of core national interests became clear when President Obama told a New Yorker interviewer recently that there the chances of of Kerry brokering a peace deal was "less than fifty-fifty" (imagine President Kennedy telling the world that the chances of resolving the Cuban missile crisis was "less than fifty-fifty"). So it looked as though the time and effort that Kerry was putting in all this amounted to nothing more than going through the motions.
You would think that politicians (of all stripes) would have learned from the above long list of failures. Yet hope springs eternal for John Kerry in spite of Clinton's 2010 failure. On July 30, 2013, Kerry offered this:
We're here today because the Israeli people and the Palestinian people both have leaders willing to heed the call of history, leaders who will stand strong in the face of criticism and are right now for what they know is in their people's best interests. Their commitment to make tough choices, frankly, should give all of us hope that these negotiations actually have a chance to accomplish something.
Meanwhile, Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, was appointed in July 2013, by John Kerry as the special envoy for the peace process. At that time, Netanyahu and Abbas committed to a nine-month negotiating period during which they would try to forge a final peace treaty creating an independent Palestinian state. However, "The aggressive push by Mr. Indyk and Mr. Kerry to put in place the framework agreement has tested relations between Washington and the Israeli government."
But reality rears it's ugly head once again. Fatah central committee member Abbas Zaki, in a January 6, 2014, interview, said that the Palestinian Authority [PA] will agree to a treaty with Israel if a Palestinian state can established on the 1967 lines. Zaki continued that the 1967 lines are not the final borders to which he is looking, that the 1967 border is only be the beginning. The plan is to continue to other ends.
And, there is currently a search underway to replace Martin Indyk, suggesting that both Kerry and the Obama administration expect current negotiations between Israel and Palestine to extend well beyond the April 1, 2014, deadline initially set as a target date for an agreement.
I think Douglas Murray at the Gatestone Institute, best states what Obama and Kerry are missing.
For let us not forget that the premise upon which Mr. Kerry's peace plan, indeed anybody's peace plan, must [be] built, is the presumption that the talks are between two parties who are sincerely and demonstrably committed to peace and not on the determination of one to annihilate the other.
In Syria, the Obama and Kerry joke continues: With Syrian rebels ousted by al-Qaida-linked militants, Obama is seeking new ideas to end Syria's civil war. Further, the Israelis don't see any progress by Kerry. And the Israelis have more than a passing interest in Kerry's efforts.
In all of history, there has been only ONE way to even get close to lasting peace, and negotiations ain't it: make war so painful, so undesirable that the war-maker appeals for peace. The question, then, is how to make war painful? The concept of Peace Through Strength is it. Build an arsenal of weapons, be prepared to inflict pain, then be willing to use it. Key word: willing. Show the war maker that his efforts will be painful to him, more painful than what he can inflict on his enemy. Then, if he continues, inflict pain. Don't keep drawing red lines.
Ronald Reagan did it. His peace philosophy made the U.S.S.R. blink in 1986. And, the demise of the U.S.S.R. soon followed, eliminating one source of a threat to peace. The U.S.S.R. saw that Reagan was willing to use what the U.S. had built up.
Did you know that the phrase "Peace Through Strength" is the title of a book written by Bernard Baruch, a former World War II adviser to FDR? Though the book was published well after WWII, the concept was used effectively by FDR. After December 9, 1941, FDR built an arsenal that could inflict pain on the Japanese, then was willing to use it. He turned loose the Army and Navy, and they inflicted pain on the Japanese to the point that they ultimately surrendered, and have not made war since. We all know how effective negotiations with the Japanese were before December 9.
Neville Chamberlain tried to negotiate with Hitler. Negotiations ultimately didn't work: Hitler was only emboldened.
So, Mahmoud Abbas is correct. There is no alternative, from his perspective, to negotiations. They never work. They provide "cover" with Kerry and the MSM, while the PA pursues its real agenda, the one Zaki revealed.
Bottom line: Negotiations have NEVER achieved lasting peace. There IS an alternative to negotiations, one that actually works. Pursue a "peace through strength" policy and be willing to use it.
But that's just my opinion.