‘Enough Is Enough’: Obama Demands More Gun Control After Colorado Shooting

Breitbart ^

[fivecatsandadog]

“Enough is enough”, says Barky the ass clown.

Oh, oh - I think a spanking is in the future for all of us brats.

[tumblindice]

About all we can do in response to his cheap rhetoric—”Enough is enough”—is to tell him to either do something or don’t (but who is this man-girl talking to/making `demands’ of, himself?) but to stop his puling, whining and bitching and, when he/she is finally ready to ... come and get them.
Any time.

[RW_Whacko]

Obo can eat shat.

Barry is exempted from Michelle's school-lunch menu.

[Ahithophel]

Enough is enough

Yes, but guns wasn't what I was thinking

[RJS1950]

As long as our Negro Nazi Fuehrer gives up his armed protection, forever, then he might be taken seriously. Otherwise, the socialist wanker can piss off.

[Ronniesque]

And he knows he cannot really do anything that he truly wants to do in this matter. The people don’t support him on this, even more so in light of recent events.

That reminds me...I nee to make a small donation to NRA-ILA before I head out to get some ammo. Doing what I can.

[Vermont Lt]

I did not know those guys were black. That was horrible.

Someone needs to call Obama on that.

I use the NOLA example, even though no one was killed, there were about a dozen people shot.

In my local city, someone is shot almost every weekend. It is like a junior Chicago.

What I hardly ever hear about THOSE cases are where the perps got their guns. Specifically...where did they steal them, buy them, where they originated and how did they get into the hands of the perps.

No one ever answers those questions. I think it would be telling.

[Ahithophel]

Enough is enough

Yes, but guns wasn't what I was thinking

[trebb]

If Congress would do their Constitutional duty, and IMPEACH and CONVICT that ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF, we wouldn't have to put up with his LAWLESSNESS !

And if everyone that feels that way would actually invest in such an outcome, whether by donating to conservative candidates or to places like FR (preferably both) we might have a fighting chance.

Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
I prefer Cruz and my money goes to his campaign, hence the Cruz link. If you like someone else, donate to him/her (find your own link to do it) and if you use FR and don't donate, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches or those who have Obama Phones because, functionally, you are no different than any other FReeloader

PS - If you are one of those who cannot afford even a small donation to FR or a candidate, God Bless and happy FReeping!.....

GO CRUZ!! Keep it up Trump!!

Donate to FR

Donate to Cruz

Donate to FR

[Yosemitest]

"Official Washington and the Mainstream Media long ago pledged
that "The First Black President" MUST be wildly successful, incredibly capable and, indeed, almost superhuman
so future generations of little black boys and girls will be inspired!"

WHY IS IT ... that the LAME STREAM MEDIA MUST base their support of the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF almost totally of LIES ?

Free Republic has covered this issue before.

"Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab."

Read this:

"Warren G. Harding was the first President of the United States to have direct negro ancestry.

Thanks to Harding's glorious trailblazing in 1920, the current pretender to the same title, Barak Hussein Obama Jr., is eighty-eight years too late.
Genealogical evidence has revealed that the impostering "first black president" Barak Hussein Obama is
6.5% Negro and 48% Arabic,
the remainder 45% Caucasian.

Why 'imposter' ?
Because Obama is simply not the nation's first Negro President, the simple fact is that he is not Negro.
Barak Hussein is several times more Arabic by genetic percentages."

This disgusting Curse on our Nation named Barack Hussein Obama II, aka Barry Soetoro, has a real birth certificate, with his right footprint on it.
All you have to do is look for it.

The Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), ( the one guilty of TREASON ! ) has NO legitimate Social Security Number.
His father was NOT an immigrant to the United States.
Barack Obama Sr. was a "Transient Alien" because he did NOT intend on residing in the United States permanently.
Barack Obama Sr. was a dual citizen of Great Britain and Kenya, and NEVER a United States Citizen.

Read British National Archives Show Son Born To Obama Sr. In 1961 In Kenya!

His mother could NOT impart U.S. citizen to her son, Barack Obama II,
because she did NOT meet the legal requirements to do so,
at the time her son was born IN the Coast Provincial General Hospital, MOMBASA, KENYA at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961.
Democrats knew this and tried to eliminate the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement at least 8 times BEFORE Obama won his election in 2008.

Obama is NOT a United States Citizen, and is NOT a LEGAL IMMIGRANT.
He has no VISA allowing him into this country.
Barack Hussein Obama II IS ILLEGAL !
He should be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY, tried for TREASON, SENTENCED to death,
and then have his body deported back to Kenya.

Here are some articles to assist in defining "WHO" and "WHAT" Obama IS.

Obama, the African Colonial, June 25, 2009

PRAVDA SAYS 'AMERICAN DESCENT INTO MARXISM HAPPENING WITH BREATHTAKING SPEED'!

Here's the mind of Fascist Obama, from another poster LomanBill.
"Yuri Bezmenov on demoralization" Interview with Yuri Bezmenov (ex-KGB) by Edward Griffin - 1984

Hitler / Obama Comparisons: Is Barack Obama Like Adolf Hitler or The Nazis?

But I disagree.

"Black"

No.
CORRECTION: Barack Obama, the first black Arab-American -Kenyan pResident of the United States.



Try these:

http://www.cf-cia.org/obama_lineage.htm (Barack Hussein Obama - Arab-American, only 6.25% African)

http://www.arcadeathome.com/archive.phtml?2008-03 (Barack Hussein Obama - Arab-American, only 6.25% African)

http://africanpress.me/2008/10/03/barack-hussein-obama-will-be-if-elected-the-first-arab-american-president-not-black-american/ (Barack Hussein Obama will be, if elected, the first Arab-American President Not black American,by African Press International on October 3, 2008)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2942131/posts (Not exactly correct, Barry! 39 truths about "Obama" [Read Item number 6] )

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/137419 (Obama's Family Tree.)

"Official Washington and the Mainstream Media long ago pledged that “The First Black President” MUST bewildly successful, incredibly capable and, indeed, almost superhuman
so future generations of little black boys and girls will be inspired!"

WHY IS IT that EVERYTHING the LAME Stream Media has done in support of the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF is based upon LIES ?


Read Why did Youtube pull this video about Barack Obama?
and watch BREAKING NEWS! - Is Barack Obama Really A Saudi / Muslim "Plant" in the White House?.

[Yosemitest]

TED CRUZ OWNS MY Primary Vote !

BUT ... I'll take out (vote AGAINST) an "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" every time I get an opportunity to, and that INCLUDES the GENERAL ELECTION.

You got it?

"ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS"SHALL NOT PASS !


It's SIMPLE.

Vote AGAINST "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" !
Vote FOR REAL CONSERVATIVE "Tea Party Candidates" !

[trebb]

TED CRUZ OWNS MY Primary Vote !

BUT ... I'll take out (vote AGAINST) an "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" every time I get an opportunity to, and that INCLUDES the GENERAL ELECTION.

You got it?

Absolutely understood, but misses my point - if we don't invest ourselves in the conservative candidates, they don't end up getting through the primaries for us to have someone to vote for, vs. voting against establishment Repubs, which give us an Obama for two terms and which could give us a Hillary as a follow up - IOW, as a part and parcel game plan it is as stupid as it gets.

YOU GOT IT???

Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
I prefer Cruz and my money goes to his campaign, hence the Cruz link. If you like someone else, donate to him/her (find your own link to do it) and if you use FR and don't donate, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches or those who have Obama Phones because, functionally, you are no different than any other FReeloader

PS - If you are one of those who cannot afford even a small donation to FR or a candidate, God Bless and happy FReeping!.....

GO CRUZ!! Keep it up Trump!!

Donate to FR

Donate to Cruz

Donate to FR

[Yosemitest]

"but misses my point
- if we don't invest ourselves in the conservative candidates,
they don't end up getting through the primaries for us to have someone to vote for,
vs. voting against establishment Rvepubs,
which give us an Obama for two terms
and which could give us a Hillary as a follow ups
- IOW, as a part and parcel game plan
it is as stupid as it gets."

NO !
It's NOT !

"COMPROMISE": the Republicans WORST habit !
It's their Achilles Heel !

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ... AND TO DESTROY ANY "Establishment Republican" !
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2016 OR NOT?

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

[trebb]

My mistake, I thought I was talking to a sane person.

I never suggested compromise, I suggested that if one really wants a conservative choice, then it should be assumed that one will invest himself in supporting a conservative's campaign - if he won't do that, then one must assume he isn't really serious and it is his (and others like him) fault , at least in part, that we don't have a conservative to vote for.

Who did you like on the Republican side the last election cycle? How much did you donate to that person? If he had been really flush with cash and had a sense that he had a lot more support than was evident, might he have gone further?

How about now? Do you consider Cruz a compromise? If so, stop reading here because it's obvious you really have an attention disorder where your thoughts get taken over by replays of Glenn Beck (for crying out loud) telling us how "we might have been worse off if McCain got elected". Coulda-woulda-mighta - never know for sure but it's easy to use a non-proof as basis for a non-action rolling over and sweeping Hillary in because one "won't by damn compromise" even if one won't by damn invest himself in helping a conservative through the race..

And especially for you:

Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
I prefer Cruz and my money goes to his campaign, hence the Cruz link. If you like someone else, donate to him/her (find your own link to do it) and if you use FR and don't donate, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches or those who have Obama Phones because, functionally, you are no different than any other FReeloader

PS - If you are one of those who cannot afford even a small donation to FR or a candidate, God Bless and happy FReeping!.....

GO CRUZ!! Keep it up Trump!!

Donate to FR

Donate to Cruz

Donate to FR

[Yosemitest]

What's INSANE is .... IDIOTS or DUPES that continue to "buy" the BULL the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" have been "selling" for over 20 years !
And this "You gotta support OUR candidate, because your candidate is 'UNELECTABLE'" and "The DemocRATS are gonna' win if you don't !" CRAP,
is WHY we're in the horrible position we're in today!
But you IDIOTS keep buying it, DON'T YOU ! ? ! ?

"Who did you like on the Republican side the last election cycle?"

Herman Cain, but that doesn't matter.
I forget how many times I had to "pick another one" before I settled on Cain, because of the way the primaries are set up to weed out Conservatives FIRST !
And now I see that you're a Glenn Beck HATER !
Let me guess ; maybe you think Glenn's been wrong on the "Muslim Spring" !

You musta' been a McCain-iack to boot !

[tet68]

I have a clean conscience which is more than can be
said about the Imposter in chief or any of his minions.

[trebb]

You made it evident that I need to go back to college and get an advanced degree in psychoanalysis before I attempt to talk with you again - I'm simply not equipped/qualified to deal with whatever it is that burns through your thoughts.

Good Day

[Yosemitest]

Tell me:

HOW can I have a "good day" when there are voters out there
who give NO THOUGHT to supporting someone for President
who has THRIVED on "EMINENT DOMAIN" ?

[trebb]

Tell me:
HOW can I have a "good day" when there are voters out there who give NO THOUGHT to supporting someone for President who has THRIVED on "EMINENT DOMAIN" ?

Taking business advantage of what a town/city opts to do/help do, because they want the business there, in the past isn't my favorite aspect of him but it is minor compared to the positives, especially when compared to the options offered by the other side.

What do you have against Cruz as an option?

[Yosemitest]

TED CRUZ is who I support !
TED CRUZ OWNS MY PRIMARY VOTE, and is MY NUMBER 1 CHOICE.