Obama Goes “Pogo” in Orlando: “We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us.”

Old-Trick-600-LI

Pogo was a popular 20th-century American comic-strip character. He was a cartoon possum in an often politically-centered daily newspaper strip of the same name.

thGRILZWDFPogo Possum represented Everyman, even though he was a classic comedic straight man living among the denizens of Okefenokee Swamp, a community outside of Waycross, Georgia. Harmless and mild mannered, he could not avoid being drawn into the hare-brained schemes of his cigar-smoking friend, Albert Alligator; the swamp’s self-proclaimed bespectacled intellectual, Dr. Howland Owl; and others.

Most importantly, he was constantly pressured by his friends to run for president of the United States.

Created by cartoonist Walt Kelly, Pogo first appeared in 1941 in the Dell Comics’ anthology. Originally designed  to be clever but gentle “funny animals” storytelling, the newspaper strip eventually became one of political satire from a Liberal point-of-view.

In a slanted editorial, CNN.com “reports” that

In Orlando on Thursday, Obama vowed that the United States would do whatever it took to pursue ISIS abroad, but said it was not just the military that had to be involved. He quickly turned from terrorism to focus on gun control, issuing a fresh demand for Congress to take action to keep the most lethal weapons from being used in mass killings that have occurred over and over during his presidency.

His remarks, betraying his frustration at the failure of lawmakers to act, had more in common with his response to gun massacres than his more intellectual approach to talking about terrorism.

“Our politics have conspired to make it as easy as possible for a terrorist or even just a disturbed individual to buy extraordinarily powerful weapons, and they can do so legally,” Obama said after meeting families of the 49 victims of the shooting.

“Today, once again, as has been true too many times before, I held and hugged grieving family members and parents, and they asked, ‘Why does this keep happening?’ And they pleaded that we do more to stop the carnage. They don’t care about the politics. Neither do I.”

Vice President Joe Biden joined Obama in Orlando, as did Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio in a show of bipartisan unity.

In Obama’s mind, the logical reaction to terrorism is to deprive the terrorists of what they want, to stay firm to American values and not to indulge in theatrical vows for vengeance and bloodthirsty rhetoric.

“We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us,” Obama said in the seminal speech of his administration about terrorism at the National Defense University in 2013.
Terrorism, as he sees it, is by definition is a tactic designed to create the maximum fear, emotion and panic in the populace, to lure the target into taking irrational responses that highlight the terrorists’ cause, impugn its own values and lead to a spiral of chaos and ruin.

At times, as with Orlando Sunday, after the Paris attacks last year, or after the Boston bombings, Obama has seemed to do a better job explaining the reasons for the attacks and the concept of terrorism itself than empathizing with Americans suddenly confronting the prospect of death and destruction being unleashed on the homeland.

It’s an approach that lacks the cathartic emotion that a politician like Trump can summon among supporters with claims that America is “weak” and needs to start getting “very tough” with terrorists.

And Trump reacted to the roasting he received from Obama Tuesday by noting that the President seemed “more angry at me than he was at the shooter.”

Moreover, his rhetorical style is mirrored by a policy approach that is designed to ensure the United States does not overreact to the terror threat — by waging new foreign ground wars of compromising its own values in balancing liberty and security.

But that has also offered an opening to critics who say he has played down the terror threat and, while still on a victory lap after the killing of Osama bin Laden, failed to anticipate the rise of ISIS.

His comment in 2014 that ISIS was a “JV” team will haunt his legacy, and his frequent comment that ISIS is not an “existential threat to us” — though perhaps factually correct — plays into critiques that he has minimized the group’s reach.

What Stephen Collinson, the author of this unapologetic piece of Presidential Propaganda is saying is that the intelligence of average Americans pales in comparison to that our President Barack Hussein Obama.

We, along with Presumptive Republican Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump, simply do not understand the “Big Picture” like King Barack the First does.

What a crock of …well, you know.

Indeed, we (myself included) do not have access to all of the information regarding ISIS (not ISIL) that Obama does.

However, we do have access to Cable News…24 hours a day.

And, we are able to still learn from history…until Liberals succeed in their quest to rewrite it.

“Peace in Our Time” was delivered by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938, in defense of the Munich Agreement, which he made with those infamous barbarians, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party, or as the world came to call them, the Nazis, and Hitler’s good buddy, the Italian Fascist, Benito Mussolini.

The following is an excerpt:

…I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.

In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

We all know what happened next:  World War II.

That’s what happens when you negotiate with barbarians.

While we are on the subject of history, another Historical Leader said the following:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

Back on January 13, 2013 while researching another post on the subject of Gun Control, I found some truth from a very unexpected source: Pravda.

(That’s pretty bad when Pravda is telling the truth and America’s Main Stream Media is not. But, I digress…)h

Before the Revolution in 1918, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on Earth.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

The difference between Trump’s proposal to try to limit Terrorists’ access to military-grade weaponry and Obama’s desire to take away those things which he said that we “bitterly cling to”, our guns, is the difference between prudence and tyranny.

Just as he did in the case of the San Bernadino Massacre, Obama’s first reaction is to blame Americans’ Second Amendment Right to Bare Arms, instead of the Radical Islamic Terrorists who pulled the trigger.

Obama’s quest to take away our guns is not only tyrannical, but a blatant example of hypocritical political expediency.

If you notice, the Secret Service Agents who guard him and his family are always visibly armed as a deterrent to anyone seeking to harm the President and First Family.

And, if you come down to Mississippi, you will find average Americans with their firearms holstered at their sides, thanks to the passage of an Open Carry Law.

Those who would seek to take away our Constitutional Rights and subjugate us through fear and intimidation don’t like Open Carry Laws and the Second Amendment to our nation’s Constitution very much.

In fact, they seek to do away with them.

Why?

It’s a deterrent.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

  

Obama’s Gun Control EO: A Matter of Distraction and Control

guncontrolAccording to the pollsters over at gallup.com, Gun Control is only considered an Important National Issue by 2% of America’s Population.

Unfortunately for the continuation of our Second Amendment Rights, one of those individuals in that 2% is Barack Hussein Obama, the President of the United States of America.

CNN.com reports that

The Obama administration will announce a series of executive actions on Tuesday to combat gun violence in the U.S.Among other things, the actions would expand mandatory background checks for some private sales. The administration would also provide more funding for mental health treatment, FBI staff and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives agents.

“These are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch,” Obama told reporters gathered Monday in the Oval Office. “But they are also ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support and believe in.”

With Attorney General Loretta Lynch by his side, the President said he planned to roll out the new restrictions, aimed at combating a wave of recent shootings, in the coming days. He will hold a town hall on the topic Thursday that will air on CNN and is expected to make it a focus next week during his final State of the Union address.

Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail have blasted any attempt by the White House to crack down on gun rules.

 “Pretty soon you won’t be able to get guns,” Donald Trump told CNN’s Chris Cuomo Monday during an interview on “New Day.” “It’s another step in the way of not getting guns.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan called out the President’s “dismissiveness” toward the Second Amendment as well as Congress.

“While we don’t yet know the details of the plan, the President is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will,” Ryan said in a statement Monday. “His proposals to restrict gun rights were debated by the United States Senate, and they were rejected. No President should be able to reverse legislative failure by executive fiat, not even incrementally.”

Over the weekend, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton told Radio Iowa she applauded the President’s new push, but warned any executive action was likely to fall short the comprehensive reform favored by most in her party.

“We’ve got to act,” she said, “but I don’t think that’s enough and I think we’re going to have to keep pushing forward on the political front and I intend to do that, to take on the gun lobby and to work with responsible gun owners.”

On the trail Monday, Clinton again said she backed the President’s efforts, but warned that voting a Republican into office in 2017 would effectively undo any progress that followed.

The most sweeping action currently being considered, an executive order defining who’s “engaged in the business” of selling guns, would immediately require some private dealers to obtain a license and begin conducting background checks.

But efforts to even partially close the so-called “gun show loophole” are sure to prompt a rash of challenges in court. The resulting rulings and subsequent appeals are likely to drag on well beyond the end of this administration.

Obama’s plan has already drawn heated criticism from Republicans, especially among the party’s presidential candidates.

Gun “Control” (i.e., confiscation) has been a priority of Obama’s since he took office.

And, of course, as Sir Isaac Newton observed,

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that

The FBI processed a record number of firearms-related background checks last year, indicating that more guns were sold in 2015 than in any previous year in American history.

More than 23 million checks were processed through the National Instant Background Check System in 2015, an all-time record.

The all-time record for yearly sales comes after May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December 2015 each set sales records for their respective months. In December the FBI conducted 3,314,594 checks, an increase of more than half a million checks over the previous single-month record set in December 2012.

The number of FBI background checks is widely considered to be the most reliable gauge of how many firearms were sold in a given month because background checks are required on all sales made through federally licensed firearms dealers. However, the checks do not provide an exhaustive representation of gun sales. Checks are not required on sales between private parties in most states, and a single background check may cover the purchase of multiple firearms by the same person at once.

Additionally, some states perform the checks on those who apply for gun-carry permits.

The record gun sales came as Democrats moved to implement new gun control measures at the federal, state, and local levels. Hillary Clinton, the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said that the Supreme Court’s decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller gun rights case was “wrong” and she and President Barack Obama praised Australian-style gun confiscation.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (D.) issued an executive order imposing new gun control measures and the Democrat-controlled city council of Seattle imposed a new tax on guns and ammunition.

Gun rights activists say that Democrats’ new aggressive posture on gun control contributed to 2015’s record sales.

“A day has not gone by without a major media assault on gun rights or an Obama administration call for new additional restrictions on gun ownership,” said Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation. “Americans have voted with their dollars and bought record levels of guns and ammunition.”

In the second half of the year, terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California drove gun and ammunition sales even higher. Some dealers reported seeing their business triple in the wake of the attacks, cautioning that the spike was drying up supply in some areas.

Gun rights activists believe that sales will continue to set records in the new year.

In Obama’s zeal to grab our guns, there is an “inconvenient truth” that he and his minions always fail to mention:

A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts revealed the truth:

• 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member
• 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source
• 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show
• 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market
• 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop
• 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets

This fact remains unchanged to this day.

And, Obama and his Administration are quite aware of these numbers.

So, why attempt to restrict the gun ownership of law-abiding Americans?

As I observed yesterday,

Have you ever watched a mother, when their toddler bumps their head on a table, attempt to distract their child, by pretending to spank the table, while saying, “Bad Table”?

That, in a nutshell, is what President Barack Hussein Obama is attempting to do by writing Executive Orders, in an attempt to limit the Constitutional Right of American Citizens to own guns.

By creating new restrictions, instead of enforcing gun laws which are already in place, Obama is shifting the blame from the Radical Islamic Terrorists and those who operate outside of the law to America and her citizens.

Restricting private ownership of firearms by a country’s citizens is nothing new.

Back on January 13, 2013 while researching another post on the subject of Gun Control, I found some truth from a very unexpected source: Pravda.

(That’s pretty bad when Pravda is telling the truth and America’s Main Stream Media is not. But, I digress…)

Before the Revolution in 1918, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on Earth.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

Russian Marxist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin said:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

Obama’s Gun Control Executive Order which he will issue today is not about the safety of American Citizens.

It is about distraction and control.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

The New Pravda

I remember growing up in the 1960s, during the Cold War. Every news story that came out of Russia, through their state-controlled News Service, Pravda, was a lie. Lie after lie, told in such a brazen fashion, that if you did not have access to other news sources, you would have sworn it was the truth.

Every lie that was told, was told with the express purpose of masking the inner corruption of the Politboro, or Government, of the Soviet Union, which in turn was designed to reinforce the pablum that they fed their working-class citizens, or the Proletariat.

Since the ascent to the presidency of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, thanks to the New Media, it has become more and more apparent that the United States of America has a Pravda of its own: The Main Stream Media.

Self-identified “Broadcast and Print Journalists” foresook the ideology of objectivity for subjectivity a long time ago. The main reason Americans began to notice was the advent of cable and satellite television, and, later, the World Wide Web.

In the past, the MSM would only interject themselves overtly, every now and then, as in the case of Dan Rather’s blatant falsification of George W. Bush’s National Guard Service Records.

Heck, ol’ Dan was a novice compared to this generation of journalists...propagandists.

From the very beginnings of Barack Hussein Obama’s collegiate career, on through his entry into Illinois state Politics, and on up to his re-election as President of the United States, these journalists have turned a blind eye to every shady deal the Manchurian President was ever involved in.

The questions remain, though.

How did Obama come up with the money to attend Columbia, Occidental, and fergoshsake’s Hahvahd? Why did he make an undocumented trip to Pock-ee-stahn during these years? How did a mediocre student at best become the Editor of the Harvard Law Review, without writing one paper?

Then there’s his Illinois Senate career. Why did all of his Democrat opponents have to drop out of the race? Why did he vote present so many times? Who was behind his push to prominence? What was the full extent of his relationship to “Bomber” Bill Ayers, ‘just a guy from the neighborhood”, who wrote “Dreams of My Father” for him?

When he ran for the US Senate, why did George Soros provide his finances? How did the “personal scandals” of his opponents Blair Hull and Jack Ryan get leaked to the MSM, and what did David Axlerod have to do with it? Why did Obama miss 24% of 1,300 roll call votes?

After 1 1/2 years in the Senate, Obama declared his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. Who financed him before and after he received the nomination? What did ACORN/SEIU have to do with it? Who and where did all those unaccounted for small foreign donations come from?

When he was inaugurated, why did he screw up the Oath of Office to the extent that he had to re-take it that evening? Why was his first major speech in a foreign venue an address to the Muslim World? Why is it like pulling teeth to get him to refer to Muslim Terrorists as Muslim Terrorists?

Fast forward to BenghaziGate…Why did he place an openly gay Ambassador in a Muslim country , where they behead people for that? What was Amb. Steven’s doing in Benghazi that day? Why didn’t Obama save those 4 Americans? Why is he continuing to lie about the cause of the attacks of 9/11/12, still insisting that an un-watched video caused the attacks?

Why is the MSM not investigating BenghaziGate? For that matter why did we just find out about this?

Two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed U.S. Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf on November 1, the Pentagon disclosed on Thursday.

The incident, reported first by CNN, raised fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes.

The drone was on routine maritime surveillance in international airspace east of Kuwait, 16 miles off the coast of Iran, U.S. officials said. The Predator was not hit.

“Our aircraft was never in Iranian airspace. It was always flying in international air space. The recognized limit is 12 nautical miles off the coast and we never entered the 12 nautical mile limit,” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in responding to questions from reporters after CNN reported the incident.

Little said the United States believed this was the first time an unmanned aircraft was shot at by the Iranians in international waters over the Gulf. In December of 2011, a U.S. surveillance drone crashed in eastern Iran. Iranians claimed to have shot it down, and created a toy model of the drone to celebrate its capture.

Little stopped short of calling the incident an act of war although the Pentagon was concerned.

Gosh. Do you think that the MSM held onto the story until after the election?

Is Michelle Obama proud of her country…again?

Oh, about that re-election, it now being reported in several states, that more people voted than were on the Voters’ Registration Rolls.

Don’t hold your breath waiting on an in-depth investigation of this.

The MSM have an Inauguration to cover.

Until He comes,

KJ