Watch: Oregon Town Rocked By Shooting Sends Obama A Blistering Message

The publisher of a local paper in Roseburg, Oregon, where last Thursday’s Umpqua Community College mass shooting took place, said President Obama would not be welcome in their town.

David Jacques, publisher of the Roseburg Beacon, responded to the possibility of the president visiting the community in the wake of last week’s tragedy that left ten students dead, and several others wounded. The problem, the newsman said, is that Obama “has no connection with this community” and “no connection with any of the families.” Instead, he would be coming to town with a political agenda.

He noted that the very day of the shooting the president said the incident “needs politicizing.” Jacques continued, “I think that is very inappropriate and disrespectful to the families.”

In his remarks Thursday night, Obama said: “This is something we should politicize,” adding that it is “a political choice that we make to allow [these shootings] to happen every few months in America.”

Jacques said of the president’s statement: “We haven’t even identified bodies…and he’s holding a press conference three thousand miles from here telling us, almost implying, that he single-handedly could have prevented this if Congress would have listened to him.”

“It shows not only a total disdain and disregard for our Constitution, but our very citizens, and especially those of us right here in Douglas County,” he added. “We believe in the Second Amendment. We believe in the whole Constitution.”

The publisher also spoke highly of Douglas County Sheriff John Hamlin and the lawman’s commitment to the Second Amendment. “We’re very proud of our sheriff. He’s basically put the administration on notice, that if you pass any laws or edicts or executive orders that are either unconstitutional or extra-constitutional, they will not be enforced in Douglas County and we’re proud of that. That is the kind of sheriff we elected overwhelmingly.”

In his Thursday night remarks, the president called for “common-sense gun safety laws.” Presumably, he is referring to those laws that he advocated for in the aftermath of 2012’s Sandy Hook shooting, including universal background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

Federally licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks, but private individuals who sell guns to each other are not.

As reported by Western Journalism, Democrats passed an assault weapons ban in 1994, which President Bill Clinton signed into law. The bill had a 10-year sunset provision, which lifted the restrictions in 2004. The ban was not renewed.

According to the Justice Department, with or without assault weapons bans, gun violence in the United States dropped significantly between 1993 and 2011. Gun-related homicides fell nearly by 50 percent, and non-fatal crimes involving guns dropped by 70 percent.

National Review’s, Charles C.W. Cooke points out that during this time frame, the country was flooded with up to 180 million new weapons, meaning the presence of more or fewer weapons does not correlate with the way people use them.

h/t: BizpacReview

Oregon Politician Tells Whole Country What It Should Do After Shooting- Obama Didn’t Get The Message…

An Oregon state representative, who served over 29 years as a state police officer, is disappointed with the anti-gun rhetoric by President Obama and others following Thursday’s campus shooting in his state.

In remarks Thursday night after the shooting, Obama said: “This is something we should politicize,” adding that it is “a political choice that we make to allow [these shootings] to happen every few months in America.”

Republican Rep. Andy Olson, from central Oregon, disagrees with Obama. He told USA Headline News radio talk show host Russ Jones on Friday: “Let the community and let the state mourn. Don’t start with the politics immediately.”

Olson added: “There’ll come another day when we can take a look and evaluate and assess what has happened and what to do as a state here in Oregon to maybe better improve our gun rights, without infringing what we’re doing with the Second Amendment.”

He believes that the shooting at Umpqua Community College necessitates a review of the school’s policy of having an unarmed security guard and whether those students and others who have a conceal carry license should be allowed to bring their weapons on campus. “What is wrong with having a security guard carrying a firearm? We don’t know.”

The former president of UCC, Joe Olson, told the New York Times: “We talked about that over the last year because we were concerned about safety on campus,” he said. “The campus was split 50-50. We thought we were a very safe campus, and having armed security officers on campus might change the culture.”

“He added, though, that he did not believe a security guard could prevent a gunman determined to kill,” according to the Times.

“If you want to come on the campus and you want to shoot five people, you are going to do that before our security would arrive,” the former president said.

Rep. Olson commended Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin for vowing never to speak the shooter’s name in public, as to not give the shooter the notoriety he likely sought.

The former police officer told talk show host Jones that he was in no way a counselor, but wanted to pass on to people of Roseburg and UCC that the range of emotions they will feel in the upcoming days–guilt, depression, hatred, remorse, bewilderment–is normal. “It is okay to mourn, the nation is praying for you.”

You can listen to the interview below:

Western Journalism has made an editorial decision not to promote the name or image of the Oregon school shooter. If you would like to see his name and picture, you may click here: Orgegon Shooter Identity.

What Obama Did During Netanyahu’s UN Speech Is The Ultimate Slap In Israel’s Face

Even as President Obama has been working as hard as he can to make the Middle East a more dangerous place by arming Iran with nuclear weapons, he also just snubbed the only true ally we have in the region by refusing to allow the top members of the US delegation to the UN to attend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech earlier this week.

As Netanyahu fought for freedom, democracy, and liberty, Obama predictably turned away, refusing to allow our own officials to hear the Prime Minister’s speech.

To give our top officials an excuse to miss the speech, Breitbart News reports that Obama called Secretary of State John Kerry and the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, into a video conference only moments before the PM started his speech.

“Ambassador Power and Secretary Kerry were unable to attend Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before the General Assembly because they were called into a meeting with President Obama, which they participated in via video teleconference,” a State Department Official reported.

So, as Netanyahu represented the free world, Obama and his most senior foreign policy officials appeared to be absent.

The long-serving Israeli Prime Minister notably stared down those in attendance at the U.N. for a blistering 44 seconds of silence to symbolize the “utter silence, deafening silence” given to Iran’s constant threat that at some point, it intends to murder every Jew in the world.

Because of Iran’s constant boasts of genocide, Netanyahu noted, “Perhaps you can now understand why Israel is not joining you in celebrating this deal.”

It is no wonder that Obama and his top officials wanted to skip the speech. Since Obama is the biggest proponent of giving Iran the tools to carry out its threat of annihilating Israel, it isn’t likely that Obama was interested in being scolded over what Israel feels is his complicit part in Iran’s plans.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Obama Admin Is About To Get Shaken Up After The Resignation That Was Just Announced

One of the longest serving cabinet members in the Obama administration, Arne Duncan, is stepping down.

Duncan, who was appointed by President Obama in 2009 as the Secretary of Education, was previously the CEO of Chicago Public Schools.

In 2007, when Duncan was the CEO of the school system with some of the highest paid teachers, the Chicago Public School system could hardly brag about district achievements. Only 21 percent of the district’s 8th graders were proficient in reading, and only 13 percent were on grade level in math.

Those dismal statistics, many felt, disqualified Duncan as Secretary of the Department of Education. Nevertheless, the president appointed his long-time friend to the position.

The school children in the US, under Duncan’s leadership, have not fared much better; and some believe his policies have actually harmed the nation’s schoolchildren.

“The record will show these policies brought about minimum improvement…They also did considerable harm,” said Jack Jennings, founder of the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy

In typical administration fashion where, perceivably, the rules don’t seem to apply, Duncan began excusing US states from the requirements of the No Child Left Behind law of 2001. States were given exemptions, called “waivers,” from the requirements of the law.

One attempt by Duncan to use student test scores to identify poor teachers was rejected in some states. This created mistrust of the administration.  For states to get their waiver from the NCLB Act, they would have to comply with Duncan’s demands, in a sort of strong arm fashion.

While the Obama administration and Arne Duncan could not take direct responsibility for the Common Core Curriculum Standards, they were seen as using the standards to lord it over the states. Those demands and others resulted in a pushback by states seeing the CCCS as “Obamacore.”

“I’ve never seen both Democrats and Republicans want to curb the authority of the federal Department of Education the way they want to now,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.

While many state education leaders, districts, teachers and parents are likely glad to see Arne Duncan go, many more may be wondering how he got the job in the first place.

Do you think a CEO of a school system whose students cannot read and do math on grade-level should have ever gotten the nation’s highest position in education?

Government-Media Lies: Three Treasonous Presidential Cover-ups?

Although spanning nearly a century, these three apparent cover-ups have one main element in common, that despite massive evidence to the contrary, the government and media are still lying to us about them, one in real-time.

The power to make authoritative pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news by the release of false or misleading information, the power to interfere with an honest inquiry, or the power to ridicule and casually sacrifice patriotic citizens, are all tactics the government and media have brought to bear to suppress the truth or prevent justice from ever entering a courtroom.

In May 1934, William A. Wirt, a Gary, Indiana, schools superintendent, asserted before a Congressional committee that there was a plot among members of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal administration to overthrow the established social order in the United States and substitute a communist-style planned economy (see “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character” by Diana West).

For performing his patriotic duty, Wirt was branded a liar by committee Democrats, smeared by the press, and even ridiculed by Roosevelt himself, a fate that would likewise befall future anti-communists.

Although the extent and negative consequences of communist infiltration and influence within the US government and the American press have always been dismissed and derided by the left, experts estimate the number of Americans assisting Soviet intelligence agencies during the 1930s and 1940s as exceeding five hundred, including high-ranking government officials such as Alger Hiss (State Department), Lauchlin Currie (White House), Harry Dexter White (Treasury), and Roosevelt’s most intimate advisor, Harry Hopkins, who twice covertly passed vital secrets to the Soviets.

Likewise, anyone who has the temerity to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy is denounced as a conspiracy theorist or worse.

The Warren Commission unequivocally stated that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, who fired a total of three shots in 6.8 seconds from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building using a 6.5 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, even though, for example, the paraffin test of Oswald’s face indicated that he had not fired a rifle.

The flaws in the Warren Commission report are far too many to enumerate, and the evidence is far too flimsy to have resulted in a conviction. Nevertheless, the government and the media have persisted in granting it credence.

None of that matters, however, because the Warren Commission was not intended to conduct a serious investigation of the Kennedy assassination, but to prevent one, in order to conceal what could be considered a coup d’état.

Many people rightfully believe that Lyndon B. Johnson was installed as President of the United States at the behest of powerful politically- and financially-motivated people; that John F. Kennedy and the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald were executed under the supervision of rogue elements of the Central Intelligence Agency who were facilitated by organized crime and officials in Texas; and that Johnson and federal law enforcement, in particular J. Edgar Hoover, orchestrated a cover-up in which the media willingly participated, all of which continues to this day (see “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ” by Roger Stone and “Who Really Killed Kennedy” by Jerome R. Corsi).

Likewise, a conspiracy of silence and a blanket of disinformation has descended upon the public discourse, “taqiyya” or deception, if you will, regarding all questions related to Barack Obama’s legal eligibility for the Presidency, his personal history and the circumstances and associates surrounding his ascension to power.

Although considered the equivalent of blasphemy by the political-media establishment, sending them into fits of rage or a case of the vapors, it is no stretch of the imagination to mention – and history may prove – that the policies of the Obama administration could reflect his own proclivities, those being in particular Marxism and Islam. At this point, one can only speculate as to what might be driving the administration’s aggressive lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender agenda, especially in regard to the military.

I would like to know, for example: was American communist Frank Marshall Davis Obama’s real father; did Obama attend Occidental College as an Indonesian foreign exchange student; did he not register for Selective Service in 1980; did Middle East money facilitate and fund Obama’s graduate education; what is his real Social Security number; why claim a computer-generated forgery as a genuine birth certificate; did Nancy Pelosi create two Certifications of Nomination in 2008, compared to the 2000 and 2004 documents to disguise Obama’s ineligibility for the Presidency; and what is the extent of Republican complicity in an alleged cover-up ?

Such questions may never be answered accurately, not to guard national security or protect the American people, but to maintain the power of a privileged ruling class.

Our so-called “leaders” in Washington DC and our “distinguished” journalists would rather risk the survival of the republic than risk the truth.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by