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.

Pogo 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