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
The legislation in question (S.2195), introduced by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), denies entry into the US to ANYONE who has engaged in espionage or terrorism, or who poses a threat to our national security. The legislation was is specifically directed at Hamid Aboutalebi, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations. Aboutalebi was one of the Muslim students who seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 during the Carter administration, then tortured 52 American hostages for 444 days.
Aboutalebi insist that his involvement in the Embassy seizure was limited to translation and negotiation. And Iran has accused the US of setting a dangerous precedent by violating the right of sovereign states to designate representatives to the United Nations. Iranian UN Mission spokesman Hamid Babaei said Iran had sent a delegation to meet with the UN office of Legal Affairs, after filing a letter of complaint to the UN and its General Assembly Committee on Relations with the Host Country. Iran's letter says that the US was breaching its obligations under the US-UN Host Country Agreement, which is a treaty and US law that generally requires the host country to allow access to diplomats and UN guest speakers. The 19-nation Host Country committee, chaired by Cyprus, can hold a hearing on the issue, but it cannot change the US decision.
Along with the legislation signing, Obama issued what is known as a signing statement. Presidents occasionally issue signing statements to assert that they believe part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or implement it in a way they see fit. Obama said he will treat the legislation as advisory out of concern it could interfere with his discretion to receive ambassadors. About the legislataion, he said, "Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress' concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our nation."
Of Obama's actions (included a caveat saying he would take the legislation as guidance - not necessarily as something he feels the need to enforce), Former Justice Department attorney J. Christopher Adams said that Obama's actions amounted to "totally embarrassing hypocrisy."
And, speaking of hypocrisy, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a chief supporter of the legislation, said Obama did the right thing by signing it into law. "This bill sends a loud and clear message to Iran, and to all others, that the United States will not allow people who harm Americans to come here and operate with diplomatic immunity."
Does Obama have the legal ability to ignore legislation he disfavors? Not according to the US Constitution. In Article II, section 3, there is this: "... he [the president] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed ...[.] The Constitution is very clear and unambiguous here. It says "the laws." It doesn't say "some laws," or "laws that I favor."
Obama, in his State of the Union speech in January, said "So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, thatís what I'm going to do." In January it was "without legislation," meaning Executive Orders. The situation has now progressed to treating legislation as a suggestion. Obama says he is concerned about the legislation's constitutionality. But recent actions suggest otherwise. The questions now are, "What's next? King-ship?"
But that's just my opinion.
Appearing on The Today Show on April 10, 2014, Bill O'Reilly said:
Bill O'Reilly: Kids need to know what Judeo-Christian Tradition is, because that's what all of our laws are based on, that's what this country's philosophy is.
Matt Lauer: ... you're surrounded by kids of four, five, six different faiths. Why should they sit there and listen to the story of Jesus Christ?
[note that Lauer's question has nothing to do with laws, but O'Reilly's response does]
Bill O'Reilly: If they are American children, because that's what forged the [US] Constitution.
Lauer's question is a classic example of what the MSM often does: "bait and switch," try to change the subject. Kudos to O'Reilly for staying on subject, for not falling into Lauer's trap. But few of us are media celebrities, so some research and facts will come in handy the next time some Progressive/Liberal/Democrat (P/L/D) starts this argument with you - and it will happen.
To provide a framework for this article, consider that Hrafnkell Haraldsson wrote a very funny article about how the US Constitution is NOT based upon the Bible. In his article, Haraldsson says:
Ancient Israel and Judah were kingdoms, ruled by kings. When the kings were gone, the Jews were ruled by corrupt high priests. Monarchy or theocracy. Some choice. I'm pretty sure that is not the fate the Founding Fathers had in mind for America when they penned the United States Constitution.
Haraldsson goes on, "No Religious Right figure ... has ever explained how the Constitution can be based on biblical principles without so much as mentioning God, Jesus, the Bible, or the Ten Commandments."
Well, I am not a "Religious Right figure," but I can READ. And I can assimilate what I've read. To wit:
One of the favorite claims of P/L/Ds is that the US Constitution was not based on The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). What P/L/Ds will never acknowledge, however, is that the US Constitution was influenced by them. The Ten Commandments certainly had an impact on the development of laws, and influenced the legal philosophy of our constitution framers. Here's what some famous Americans have said about this subject:
"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion" - John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
"The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus...[.] I don't think we emphasize that enough these days." - Harry S Truman.
"It is equally undeniable ... that the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World." - William Rehnquist.
Consider this statement: "The Ten Commandments have had an immeasurable effect on Anglo-American legal development" - U.S. District Court, Crockett v. Sorenson , W.D. Va. (1983).
Consider these facts:
There is only one lawgiver - God (Isaiah 33:22; James 4:12). Our Constitution is the "law of the land." And the concepts of God and laws come from the Bible.
God is the source of ALL rights. The purpose of civil government is to "secure" the Rights God gave us. The US Constitution was based on God's model of civil government as set forth in the Bible.
Isaiah 33:22 says: The Lord is our king, lawgiver, and judge. The US Constitution divides the federal government into three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Coincidence?
James Madison argued in Federalist #51 that government must be based upon a realistic view of human nature. A Biblical view of government is based upon a balanced view of human nature, recognizing both human dignity (we are all created in God's image) and human depravity (we are all sinful). So, the Constitution framers, trying to recognize human nature and achieve balance, constructed a Constitution with a profound sense of Biblical realism.
Then there's the matter of the US Constitution itself. In Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2 is this sentence: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law." Let's see, I believe that the concept of Sunday came from ... the Bible.
Consider the final paragraph. It contains the phrase "... in the Year of our Lord ...[.] Again, Biblical reference. The framers' reference to "our Lord" does not refer to a generic deity. It is an explicit reference to Jesus Christ. True, it is a specific reference, not a formal name.
Consider this fact. Dr. Mike Stallard states:
The Constitution is a pragmatic text which answers the "how" question [of governance]. It is intended simply to give the structure of how the government is to operate. On the other hand, the Declaration [of Independence] answers a "why" question. Consequently, it is more philosophical. Furthermore, the young nation is defending its decision for independence in the eyes of a Western world steeped in Judeo-Christian ethics during the Enlightenment with its own twists and turns. Legally and morally, the need to appeal to God should not be a surprise. [emphases mine]
The Declaration of Independence is replete with specific references to God. The first paragraph has this phrase: "... the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ...[.]" The second paragraph begins with, "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." Several Biblical references here. First, "their Creator" is a specific reference to God. Second, the phrase "all men are created equal" has its roots in Galatians 3:28 and Acts 10:34. Third, the phrase " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" refers to Deuteronomy 32:46,47; John 8:31,32; James 1:25; and Psalm 19:8. Further "[Thomas] Jefferson understood 'unalienable rights' as fixed rights given to us by our Creator rather than by government."
So, all you P/L/Ds (and Haraldsson), what say you now? Y'all are correct when saying that our US Constitution does not specifically mention God or reference the Bible. Do y'all have anything to say about the Declaration of Independence? Or the philosophy of what the Constitution framers were trying to accomplish? Speak up, we can't hear you.
Mr. Haraldsson, you are correct if you say that "based on" means "built on." But you say nothing about "influence," or about "bear upon," "contingent upon," "dependent on," "founded on," "grounded on," relying on," or "rested on." Our US Constitution may not be specifically based on the Bible, but it sure had an influence on our constitution. The Founding Fathers, when penning the US Constitution, tried to avoid the US becoming a kingdom. The US Constitution doesn't specifically mention God, Jesus, the Bible, or the Ten Commandments, but their influence is there! Just like a president who said "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is," you try to hide behind words' precise definitions.
But that's just my opinion.
fable (n.) – a short tale to teach a moral lesson, often with animals or inanimate objects as characters; apologue: the fable of the tortoise and the hare; Aesop’s fables.
The idea of moral tales in literature is, in terms of the current narrative in Hollywood, the programming offices of the major networks and the ivy covered halls of academia, a desiccated idea that has no sway over modern (i.e., liberal/Progressive approved) story telling.
Yet one moral tale is told again and again in modern culture. It is the story of the unfaithful spouse, usually a man, who is a serial betrayer of his long suffering wife. Yet in this day and age, the ending of the suffering of said spouse is relatively easy to achieve through divorce. Or, if the format is a crime drama, having hubby shot/stabbed/poisoned by the wife.
So why do our televised morality plays offer this as a solution? Because that would shift the plot of the story from one where retribution is inflicted on the wayward spouse, and the story becomes one of the struggles the wife faces as she tries bravely to enter a world that is unfamiliar territory. Now what could have been a true morality play (with, you know, an actual moral message) becomes just a mundane tale about a woman’s lack of coping skills.
The most pathetic part of these semi-morality plays is the fact that in all of them, the wife knows that her husband is cheating, she knows that he is unfaithful, and he invariable finds greater pleasure in the arms of a younger or more attractive woman, but for financial reasons, he refuses to seek a divorce because he knows that he won’t be faithful to any future spouse either.
They key to the pathos is that the wife always takes the husband back. He apologizes for not paying enough attention to her, he buys her flowers, takes her to dinner, tells her that he loves her, while we (the audience) has already seen him arrange another dalliance. We know he’s a serial liar.
Now, about this point you’re asking yourself “Hey, Yardley, what’s with all the literary criticism? Do you think all of us watch soap operas?”
The answer is of course not. I don’t think many people actually watch soaps. But I do think, politically speaking, that we all effectively live in a soap opera. A soap opera about those serially cheating spouses and how we keep taking those spouses back for nothing more than just a fist full of daisies.
But wait, you say, my spouse is faithful. Or my spouse has passed away, so there’s nothing applicable. Or I’m a single person, where is the commonality? Well, if you’ll recall, I did say that we were speaking in political terms, not actually spousal fidelity.
In political terms, the unfaithful spouse is the Senator, Congressman, President, well any elected official for that matter, who you “married” years ago and who has been serially unfaithful to you since then…except just before an election. That’s when he or she comes crawling back to you, promising on a stack of bibles (or at least their own campaign literature) that they will be true until the end of time.
And every two, four or six years the electorate falls for it again. And again. And again.
Until election time, the elected spouse is too busy to even attend too many town-hall type meetings because they have “prior commitments.” The commitments they’ve made to the very, very appealing special interest groups who have much bigger, let’s just say, assets. Assets such as bigger bank accounts for bigger campaign contributions. They will promise the special interests that they will introduce legislation to kill the coal industry, and they assure voters who work in the mines that they really, really love you, and don’t toss them out of the house (or Senate as the case may be).
They may even bring metaphorical flowers, in the form of special government freebees like grants, to prove how much they love the voters. And the voter’s hearts melt, and then they vote the lying, cheating, philandering scum back into office again.
Think it’s an exaggeration? Just look at the rate that sitting members of Congress get re-elected.
Tiger Woods doesn’t win this often! And it certainly doesn’t reflect the real (i.e. non-political) world. I mean, seriously, if that high a percentage of betrayed spouses were willing to take back their straying partners, wouldn’t the divorce rate be a lot lower?
And finally, as for those of you who vote for the same person again and again because they “bring home the bacon”, you are really selling yourselves out for less than Esau did in the Bible.
To refresh your memory, Esau was the lad who came in from working hard in the fields and was really, really hungry. His brother offered him a bowl of pottage, which doesn’t exactly sound appetizing no matter what it actually is, in exchange for his birthright. He gave up his inheritance for just a bowl of pottage. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer that fellow Esau, now was he?
Yet he is actually smarter than we are when we keep re-electing the same posse of criminals and incompetents election cycle after election cycle. Yes, Esau only got a bowl of pottage, while the voters get block grants. Except for one telling difference.
Esau’s brother actually paid for the pottage. Politicians first take your money from you, and when they return a small portion of it, they expect you to wriggle like puppies, voter for them again, and accept that they will be unfaithful – again.
Yep, it sure seems like Esau made out like a bandit by comparison. At least it’s something to think about when you pull the curtain behind you in the voting booth for the next primary or general election
The dust-up between Attorney General Eric Holder and Congressman Louie Gohmert during a congressional hearing was later that day followed by Mr. Holder addressing Al Sharpton’s National Action Network’s (NAN) conference in Washington.
It was during Holder’s address to a presumably friendly audience that the implication of racism raised its ugly head and Mr. Holder is quoted as saying:
“I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity,” he continued.
“If you don’t believe that, you look at the way, forget about me, you look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee … What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” (emphasis supplied, but we’ll come back to it later)
Accusations of racism are a staple of political discourse for any person of color if they are infected by the Democrat desire for totalitarian control. When “racism” doesn’t drive the nail home, other accusations, such as the ever popular “sexism” or (in the case of Harry Reid) the indictment of being wealthy and having a last name that sounds like a very popular carbonated cola.
And what better forum could Mr. Holder have used than an organization founded by the Rev. Al Sharpton who insisted that Tawana Brawley was raped by whites and who decided based on absolutely no evidence that George Zimmerman (a “white”-Hispanic) was guilty of murder.
Time and again accusations of racism have been hurled at those in opposition to the unhinged wish list of Democrat policies that do nothing but undermine and diminish the very country that these same Democrats want to rule. And time and again these same accusations have been proven to be utterly unfounded.
But apparently Democrats, who claim intellectual superiority over, well, everybody who isn’t a Kool-Aid drinking Progressive, are ignorant of a gentleman who is often cited as the source for the story “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” who is known today as Aesop. Aesop had a pretty clear idea of how human behavior actually works, which is to say, he certainly wasn’t a Progressive or a Democrat. He noted in “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” that telling a lie again and again when evidence indicates clearly that there actually was no basis for the lie is a self-defeating strategy. Even with the main stream media carrying water for the Democrats, the obviousness of the lie is apparent to anyone paying even a minimal amount of attention.
The same situation exists for Democrat/Progressives when it comes to accusations of “sexism”, waging a war on women, waging a war on the elderly/social security beneficiaries, “islamophobia” and on and on and on.
Every time we hear that type of thing from acquaintances, neighbors of even family members, it might be useful to counterattack with one simple phrase: Well, that’s just another “wolf-ism”!
By using the word “wolf-ism” it will initially beg the eloquently phrased question from your Democrat/Progressive listener: Huh? A quick recap of Aesop’s fable, and the explanation that it’s just a lie being repeated and repeated, will force your listener into defending the lie, not you defending the accusation. And using “wolf-ism” might become popular enough to not even need the explanation about Aesop. With a little luck it would become our generations equivalent to Ronald Reagan’s famous “There you go again” line in his debate with Walter Mondale.
As I promised at the beginning of this piece, getting back to Eric Holder’s comments at the NAN conference, it should be noted that Mr. Holder’s remarks are just chock-a-block full of “wolf-isms”. Just look at the way he describes his ordeal as “unprecedented”. If one looks at the word, it literally means that having a member of Congress question the veracity and character of a sitting Attorney General has never, ever happened before. I’d be willing to bet real money that Angelo Gonzales, Janet Reno and John Mitchell would all beg to differ, and I’ve a more extensive example if you wish to read it