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


Pot Stirrings

Other Pot
Stirring Sites

"Contact" Me
Please



What's Not Worked Still Isn't Working

First appeared at American Thinker on 6 Nov 24

Richard Baehr wrote an AT article, "Pollsters join Democrats as big losers" on 5 Nov 14. It is an article about how wrong specific polls can be. Baehr, in the article, writes:

On average, GOP candidates beat polling average by 5 points in close Senate races, and by 3 in close governors' races ...[.]

In another AT article by Rick Moran, "MSNBC: 'Old white people who vote Republican will die someday'." It is an article about one liberal's reaction to the Republican victory. Moran features a quote by MSNBC "host Krystal Ball, a former failed Democratic congressional candidate"Ě:

[Ball] asked [Liberal MSNBC contributor Jimmy] Williams whether white Southerners should just be written off by the party, but Williams said NEVER, ...[.]   [emphasis mine]

The observations by Baehr and Moran set the stage for what has to be among the most telling results of this election. The following tables, based upon exit polling, say it all:

 

Ethnic Group (% of voters)

Voted Democrat

Voted Republican

White (75%)

38%

60%

Black (12%)

89%

10%

Latino (8%)

62%

39%

 

Ideology (% of voters)

Voted Democrat

Voted Republican

Liberal (23%)

87%

11%

Moderate (40%)

53%

45%

Conservative (37%)

13%

85%

 

How much credence can we place in tables based upon polls? According to Baehr, none. But we must begin somewhere. And, they may be incorrect specifically, but polls do more-or-less accurately reflect the general national mood.

Republicans, just one quick look at these tables illustrate that what has been tried in the past isn't working. The first table shows that Blacks and Latinos STILL vote Democrat. This article outlines what Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and the Republican party are doing vis-a-vis Americans of Latino heritage. And this article documents what the Republican party is doing vis-a-vis Americans of African heritage. Same old same old!

I agree with Williams: never write off ANY group. But... Republicans, don't try to out-Democrat the Democrats. Don't form national policy based upon what y'all think the Americans of African or Latino heritage want. You'll never get the majority of their votes regardless of polices you may enact. That message should by now be obvious.

And I agree with Baehr: never form national policy based upon specific poll results. But that doesn't mean ignore them completely.

So where are we now? What should we do? Republicans, focus upon the second table. Almost as many voters (37% vs. 40%) self-identified themselves as conservative as moderate. There is an opportunity. Unify behind a CONSERVATIVE policy agenda. Get rid of RINOs. Try to grow the 37% figure.

But at the same time follow Williams' advice. Go after those Americans of African or Latino heritage in a conservative way. They may just surprise you.

Christie, Paul, Walker, Republican party, are y'all watching? We are watching what y'all do.

But that's just my opinion.


Vote Buying 101

I was talking with a friend the other day and she volunteered, "My personal philosophy is very liberal, and I overwhelmingly vote that way." She continued, "I hate anything that let's people avoid bad decisions they have made."

"Really?" I said. "How do you reconcile those two positions? Opposing 'anything that let's people avoid bad decisions they have made' is a central conviction of most conservatives."

She had no answer for my question.

Then I started thinking (yes, it hurt). Being opposed to 'anything that let's people avoid bad decisions they have made' is not a view exclusive to most conservatives alone. Many liberals I've met, both in person and via the WWW hold that same belief. There must be another reason why liberals consistently vote Democrat.

So, in the 'How can we fool 'em this week' vein, I began looking around, and I discovered this. It's not new, but President Barack Hussein Obama, on February 27, 2014, signed "Presidential Memorandum - Creating and Expanding Ladders of Opportunity for Boys and Young Men of Color."

By focusing on the critical challenges, risk factors, and opportunities for boys and young men of color at key life stages, we can improve their long-term outcomes and ability to contribute to the Nation's competiveness, economic mobility and growth, and civil society. Unlocking their full potential will benefit not only them, but all Americans.

Therefore, I am establishing the My Brother's Keeper initiative, ...[.]   (emphasis mine)

Sounds great. This program will certainly appeal to my liberal friend. What could be better? The memorandum continues:

... an interagency effort to improve measurably the expected educational and life outcomes for and address the persistent opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color. The initiative will help us determine the public and private efforts that are working and how to expand upon them, how the Federal Government's own policies and programs can better support these efforts, and how to better involve State and local officials, the private sector, and the philanthropic community.

"... improve measurably ...", "...persistent opportunity gaps ...", "...how the Federal Government's own policies and programs can better support these efforts ...". "...how to better involve ...". Yep, all the catch phrases are present. Great job, Mr. memorandum writer. You once again made Obama look good by fooling liberals, Democrats, the MSM, and a majority of the voting public. How do you sleep at night?

 

Then it hit me. This is just another 'anything that let's people avoid bad decisions they have made' scheme. We conservatives are not against the objectives of the "My Brother's Keeper" program. They are fine, admirable in fact. What we object to is being forced, via taxes, to have to PAY for the program. Nowhere in the memorandum can I find anything about how the government (that's a falling percentage of us taxpayers) will finance this program. When Obama ran for president in 2008, he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. Remember? He failed. In fact, under Obama, the deficit rose by 237% from 2008 to 2012. And here's yet another program.

Sure, there is no provision for federal funding - NOW. But if history repeats itself, if Obama's idea doesn't perform as expected, can federal funding be far behind? Are we being set-up for another Obama failure? The liberal mantra, after all, is "Throw money at the problem."

 

Then another thought occurred to me: "This is naked vote buying!" Funneling money to "disadvantaged" youth, giving them something for nothing, buying their votes. This is just like Lyndon Johnson who, in 1964, said:

Iíll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years. (personal note: sorry about the offensive language, but Lyndon Johnson was an offensive man)

These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now weíve got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.

But what happens when there's no more money to give to the program?

This is yet another scheme to fool the public. And it has worked. The "My Brother's Keeper" program was lauded:

NBA great Magic Johnson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, civil rights leader and MSNBC host Al Sharpton and New Jersey senator Corey Booker were just a handful of the marquee names in attendance, all there to witness and many of them to participate in the launch of the first White House-initiated program specifically designed to help save what is easily the most socioeconomically challenged group in the United States -- Black and Brown boys and men.

And, in the 'fooling the public' department, the program's name sounds good. Straight from the Bible. Anything named from a Bible verse must be good. Well, that may be true. But the "My Brother's Keeper" name is misguided, fradulent, intended to fool those unfamiliar with the Bible. The name is in keeping with the fooling concept. In Genesis 4:9, Cain, after killing Abel and being questioned by God about Abel's location, said, "... I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?" Cain was trying to fool God. Just like this program fools most of the public.

Finally, to add the final insult, consider what the report, in its executive summary states. On pages 5 and 6, the report treats us to a litany of "facts" designed to illustrate how disadvantaged persons of color are when compared to whites. The report then makes six specific recommendations, begining on page eight. All of them describe ways to alleviate the disadvantage experienced by boys and young men of color. But wait! I thought it was against federal law to discriminate - period. Yet that is exactly what this report calls for. And that's exactly what the program calls for. As Todd Starnes tweeted, "Obama announces government initiative to help young men of color. Caucasian is not one of the colors getting helped." And as Roger Clegg at National Review wrote, "This is just another kind of 'profiling'."

But that's just my opinion.


Obama, The Imperial President

It's quite rare that legislation is so popular that it passes unanimously, and even rarer when it happens in BOTH the Senate and House of Representatives. Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama signed such legislation on Friday, April 18, 2014. But, even though the legislation is popular, Obama says he will treat it as a "suggestion."

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.


US Constitution, Bible, Influence

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:

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:

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.