Sign up to receive Alan's newsletter by email.

Speaking engagements

  • Invite Alan Korwin to speak at your event! Thought-provoking, entertaining, freedom-oriented topics -- your guests will thank you for the excitement -- long after the applause ends!


Congress Interviews Hillary Regarding Benghazi

Hillary gets caught, lying, Americans get caught, dying

She had to endure 11 hours of interviews in Congress,
"news" media universally expresses sympathy for her.

Americans attacked in Benghazi had to endure eight hours
of armed jihadi assaults and arson with help that never arrived.
Because she never sent any.

The lamestream media told you:

Hillary Clinton had made it perfectly clear to America, right after the Benghazi attacks, that they were a spontaneous reaction, based on a protest, over an insulting video tape made by a muslim, about Islam. After all the bluster about the Benghazi attacks, and marathon congressional hearings:

"No Smoking Gun Found" --USA Today Front Cover Headline

"The House Benghazi committee produced little if any new information" --L.A. Times

"Little was gleaned from the 11 hours of testimony... providing little insight." --NBC News

This sampling of news reports is perfectly typical of the national reporting on the subject. Republican troublemakers and obstructionists, inside and out of Congress, never believed Hillary.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Revealed for the first time at the Benghazi hearings, America learned that Hillary Clinton had lied all along, because she wrote to the Egyptian prime minister on the night of September 11, 2012: "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." This is a direct quote from her email, revealed for the first time at the congressional hearing. She said essentially the same thing to the Libyan prime minister, and even her daughter, in emails revealed at the hearings.

Previously, she claimed for weeks it was all caused spontaneously by a protest and a hysterically funny amateurish video tape on the web.

Why is this important?

Six weeks before the presidential election of 2012, when the Benghazi attacks occurred, Obama was campaigning on what turned out to be total myths -- he was strong, he had destroyed al Qaida, Libya was pacified and safe, and the attack in Benghazi was the result of a video on the Internet that sparked a demonstration, for which we would find and prosecute the troublesome film maker.

Hillary Clinton knowingly promoted this baloney. It turns out these were flat out lies, and she knew it.

If it turned out al Qaida was getting stronger, we had not beaten them at all, Libya was not pacified and was on the verge of collapse, about to become an islamist jihadi stronghold, that the video story was a total lie, it was fabricated to coverup the ineptitude and weakness of Obama, that there was no demonstration, and Obama was weaker than we ever imagined and lying about it all -- he would never get elected.

Obama was a fraud, the story was a fraud, the election was based on a fraud. That's why it mattered. Black lies matter.

The Benghazi hearings revealed the truth -- Obama was hopelessly weak, defeated no one, Libya was a basket case, the Benghazi assault was proof, and Hillary Clinton lied about it all.

She knew since the night of the attacks -- her three emails were the smoking gun hidden for years. Indirect proof was everywhere. Now direct physical proof of the truth was out. She had sent the truth to the prime minister of Egypt, Libya, even her own daughter. Her lies to Congress are subjects of interest to the FBI, who is investigating her on other charges.

In cooperation with Obama, to preserve his chances for his re-election, she flat out lied four days later when the bodies of our murdered Americans were returned and said we will hunt down the video stooge, knowing he had nothing to do with it, to preserve the false story.

She and Obama sent out Susan Rice to lie, bald faced, on five Sunday news shows that a funny video (it was funny, I watched it, no way people with an IQ above their shoe size could be bothered) had instigated the attacks. It was Obama's inability to cope and the lies he had fabricated to cover his inept handling of the situation.

It was a disgrace. She was a disgrace, along with him and all their cronies. This all came out, for the world to see, in the long hearing. Why did it run long?

It ran long because she only agreed to appear once -- she ran Congress instead of the other way around. She holds no office. She is a "former" this and that. The fact that she is running for office is superfluous. More than 200 people have filed to run for president (you didn't know that, did you).

So the truth came out. She lied. She helped Obama get elected under false pretenses (again I might add). The "news" media is complicit in the deception. In the presence of a smoking gun, they declared, no smoking gun. And no one gets fired or brought up on charges. Reporters' permits don't get cancelled -- because they don't have any.

With all the smoking guns for her destruction of government property, lying and obstruction of justice with the top-secret emails, if the FBI does indict her, who will run on the democrat ticket? Unlike the Republicans, they have no bench. Just one woman under investigation for multiple felonies, one socialist, and a few nobodies no one has heard of, who are dropping out like flies (and crazy uncle Joe, who has left the game).

Republicans have 9 governors, 5 senators, 2 Hispanics, 2 doctors, 1 CEO, 1 black man, 1 business mogul, and 1 woman running. And they call us the ones lacking diversity. The people calling names are the names they call.


Held in Phoenix, Arizona this year, it attracted more than 700 people and the leaders of the gun-rights movement. C-SPAN recorded and broadcast the events from Sunday (check their website for details). More amazing stuff than I have time to review, apologies. If you Google the subject, there are videos, blogs and reviews posted widely. Wish I could do everything, but dang, it's impossible.
My photographer Kevin Adams took great photos of GRPC

My speech at GRPC on Sunday is linked here:

Gun Bias Degrades Presidential Debate (

The other Clinton -- the one who already was president -- said gun owners were responsible for overthrowing Congress, and putting it in Republican hands. So why could interrogators, er, interviewers, only manage one gun-related question, to only one candidate, during the presidential debate? And why ask him about his permit of all things? And why was he caught unprepared and put on the defensive?

America's 100 million gun owners (OK, maybe it's only 80 million) desperately want to know where Republicans stand on the right to keep and bear arms. Democrats revealed their positions -- they stand for gun bans -- like Australia.

The truth, and the bias, came out loud and clear at the 3rd Republican presidential debate. But had the guts to expose it in today's issue. No other major "news" outlet has even approached the issue. I put my heart and soul into it. Read it while you still can:

Gun Bias Degrades Presidential Debate

My article's now live on

The entire gun-owning community in America—all 100 million of them—desperately wants to know where the candidates stand on gun issues and the freedom that represents. OK, maybe it's only 80 million folks; let's not quibble over petty details. These one-issue voters can swing the election. Guns matter....

Read more.

Correction to NRA Comment for News Media and Americans

A recent Uninvited Ombudsman report portrayed the National Rifle Association as having "only" 5 million members, contrasting it to the 100 million gun-owning Americans who are the real gun lobbyists in America. Apparently some readers, including some NRA members, misunderstood this remark.

Contrary to belligerent "news" media reports, the NRA is a moderate civil-rights group, the oldest civil-rights group in America, whose middle-of-the-road positions on firearms do not attract the vast majority of gun owners in America.

This is typically misrepresented in the so-called mainstream media as extreme, yet are too modest to appeal to a large swath of American gun owners.

When anti-gun-rights activists like the current president Barack Hussein Obama, whose middle name is not supposed to be used, or Hillary, whose other names are less frequently used (due to disapproval of her husband's background-check law and other factors, according to critics), stridently recommend "solutions" that repeatedly do not work, of course armed Americans resist and protest their actions.

The NRA's modest proposals include gun-safety education, marksmanship training, and armed response to the illegal use of force. They are the largest gun-safety training group on planet Earth. Their activities have been shown to be effective in reducing accidents, strengthening character and stopping vicious criminal perpetrators. The media fails miserably in portraying this side of this honorable group, violating journalism ethics standards.

To see what really strong measures look like you would have to consider a group like Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership,, whose "Never Again!" position the media won't even mention, let alone belittle and deride.

The NRA, with its wholesome and moderate stance does not go anywhere near calls to eliminate "papers" for the right to carry, repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act that was copied from the 1938 Nazi gun laws by former U.S. Senator Thom Dodd (father of current Sen. Chris Dodd),, or other common-sense but more strident gun-rights proposals. See, for example, Kosher Gun Laws on their website.

The political left is loath to admit it but observers are well aware that the furor raised by promoting mass murderers works wonders for arousing sentiment against gun owners and gun ownership, and works toward building sentiment for gun confiscation, repressive laws and gun control the political left desperately seeks.

This helps answer the niggling question of why anti-gun-rights activists perpetually "dance in the blood" of murder victims immediately after a spree killer's dirty work, and refuse to pledge to refrain from such gory and immoral activity. Raising the murderers to iconic status does nothing for crime control and in fact encourages copy cats -- totally counterproductive if the goal is to make society more safe, but very valuable if you want to build sentiment to erase the Second Amendment.

Obama Reverses Course, Drops Calls for Background Checks, Decides to Pursue Chicago Murderers

Washington, D.C. -- In a stunning announcement no one expected to hear prior to his trip to Roseburg, Ore., President Barack Obama backed off his long held proposals for new background checks, and has proposed a full-court press to find and bring to justice the black murderers plaguing his home town of Chicago.

According to government sources, the Chicago police force will receive emergency funding to track down and prosecute the gangs and hit squads that have been terrorizing select neighborhoods with impunity for decades. Despite hundreds of murders in the city, with offenses occurring on a near daily basis, virtually no one is arrested or prosecuted for the crimes. Murder is the worst crime on the books.

"I recognize my former approach to gun violence will take a long time and meet with bitter resistance, but this new plan will have an immediate effect and start saving lives, especially black lives, right away," the President said at a hastily called private meeting. "Black lives matter," he said, "and I plan to make that more than words."

This reverses his long held yet failed policy of seeking new national gun laws that have been fought vehemently by the powerful gun lobby and left him, in his own words, "stymied." Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has been pursuing new gun laws on a state level, privately, using his own money, with very limited results.

Mr. Obama made the announcement following a month in which his home town Chicago reached 59 murders and 362 gunshot victims in September 2015, marking the Democratic-run city's deadliest month since 2002, according to analysis by The Chicago Tribune.

Chicago has some the toughest gun laws in the nation, but like other cities with tough gun laws, black neighborhoods in particular suffer enormous amounts of gun-related violence, with very little crime control or police enforcement. Critics have pointed out that tough gun laws, and tough law enforcement are not the same thing, with Chicago as a case in point.

Reached for comment, gun-rights advocates were virtually speechless, preferring to not go on the record, since they were inclined to say, "I told you so," having been calling for a new approach to the failed policies the president and other left-leaning politicians have been attached to for so long. They also did not believe the change could be true.

And in fact it is not true. Obama has not decided to go after real criminals. He continues to vigorously battle against the civil rights of innocent Americans who own firearms instead of pursuing known criminals. This is an imaginary report, showing what a real change in gun policy would look like, since news consumers never get to see one. We now return you to your regularly scheduled advertising.

This report shines light where there is darkness. It demonstrates how it might be received, and what the gun-control vs. crime-control debate could be, if the mainstream media were to start asking real questions and fulfill its role as a watchdog. Cynical observers do not expect it to happen in the near term.

Instead, the media simply marches in line behind the current administration's repetitious feckless demands to curtail civil rights and leave hardened criminals alone to commit their atrocities.

The perpetual report of murder numbers, like the Tribune has just published for the umpteenth time, adds fodder to Mr. Obama's calls to infringe on rights, but is not used for calls to find and arrest the murderers. Mr. Obama seems immune to going after criminals, which would definitely reduce crime, and bring criminals to justice.

The media seems immune to calling him out about it. And the president persists in attacking the rights of the public, calling for still more background checks, which even his allies admit will do nothing new, would not have affected the recent murderer (not "gun man," a demeaning sexist gender-bias slur against guns and men) and meet with fierce resistance from 100 million innocent and honorable American gun owners.

The American "news" media has become as big a part of the problem as the heinous villains wielding the guns and murdering their fellow black citizens with impunity.

Method for Stopping Shooting Rampages Emerges

Hard evidence -- not doctor theories, news commentary, conjecture, hyperbole, rumor, innuendo or any other proposals -- clearly shows that the only known way to actually stop spree murderers is to shoot them -- or scare them into shooting themselves. Time and again society has found this works.

According to the evidence, every mass murder in recent times has been halted, in the final analysis, by shooting the murderers, or threatening to shoot them, with guns. Members of the press corps continue to debate the subject, despite the evidence. Sources speaking privately say the media consciously reject this fact. In stark contrast, self-defense incidents using guns are suppressed, by news-media policy, and do not appear on the public stage.

An excellent write up about the censorship of firearms used in self defense appears here --

and here --

Multiple reports of self-defense, accomplished by shooting criminals, appear as paid space in USA Today, which otherwise censors such reports:

Although knowledgeable commentators are still debating the merits of shooting murderers, the visible evidence clearly demonstrates that shooting the perpetrators does take care of the problem. No other solutions have worked.

The only problem identified is the relative slowness of this effective remedy, due mainly to the delay in getting guns to the scene where innocent victims are assaulted. The scenes have virtually always been in supposed "gun-free zones," with posted signs flatly rejected by the perpetrators.

President Barack Hussein Obama, whose middle name is not supposed to be used, went on national TV, twice in the past week, to propose other solutions, which he announced as "politicized." He promised to "continue talking."

Continue reading "Method for Stopping Shooting Rampages Emerges" »

Ted Nugent calls the President a pathological liar

Ted Nugent has posted a response to President Obama's speech about the Oregon shootings on his Facebook page. See Ted Nugent on Obama’s Speech: ‘The President is a Pathological Liar and America Hating Goon’ or check out his Facebook page. He quotes in full the last blog post here on Page Nine, Obama's Impassioned Mass-Murder Speech Includes Error.

Obama's Impassioned Mass-Murder Speech Includes Error

The President's impassioned Oregon speech, moving as it was, missed a key point that could lead to real progress on this terrible issue of mass murder.

The 16 black Americans shot and murdered in ghettos that same day, and the day before, tragically got no news coverage.

This is stunning, unmentioned -- and those lives matter.

That black-lives gunfire atrocity is repeated, daily. And will remain true tomorrow when another 16 are murdered, but get no "coverage" -- 6,000 per year.

The "Graph of Death" Mr. Obama asked for is already available here:
(with gut-wrenching explanation)

By focusing on an isolated "newsworthy" tragedy in one place, Mr. Obama unknowingly obscures the real issue, and does indeed politicize it -- as he forthrightly admitted.

NOTE: Every action of this Oregon murderer is already 100% illegal -- legal scholars know the call for new laws is superfluous and disingenuous. It is a political agenda that weakens support and the true effort to solve the problem.

The President made a repeated and critical mistake: New laws affecting all Americans will not affect the lone psychotics who commit these atrocities --

The medical community stands as the greatest obstacle in getting to the psychotics.

And the biggest ignored issue of all is: The existing background checks have stopped two million people from buying guns because they are known criminals or mentally unfit -- and they are simply turned loose on the streets.

We have their names and addresses -- and our government just sets them free, right after they try to buy guns.*

Mr. President, do something about that if you're really serious.

Don't try to pass something else, that you know and admit Congress and the public will resist. Act now.

If you want more common-sense solutions, call me.

Comments help keep me going. Alan.

My quibble with you, is this belief in reporting the truth. That is a modern falsehood of post WWII journalism. Journalism has always been propaganda of the owners and most importantly the advertisers who foot the bill in most cases. The newspapers of olden days of 100 years ago didn't even make believe they reported the truth. It was assumed it was just one point of view. Why most cities had many papers from far left to far right and in between. Something for everyone. Today, nobody who wants variety reads USA Today or Wall St. Journal, they surf the net and get their point of view validated. Like the good old days. Regards, Tony T. [Points well taken Tony. Still, the ethical tenets of the profession apply, reporting still differs from editorial content (or should) and belongs in its place, bias still merits noting, self-evident errors and internal contradictions drive me nuts and demean the profession. What would you have The Uninvited Ombudsman do?]


(Referring to the ludicrous nature of phony gun-free zones)
Amen to that!  I've worked in hospitals for over thirty years, all of which have had these absurd signs posted.  Yet in addition to secret announcement codes for arrests, fire, etc. there is always a code for a “weapons situation.” Why is such a code needed if signs are posted?  What garbage!  If Mr. Nutcase pays a visit (the staff entrance is around the corner from my office) I just have to hope I can lay my hands on a bottle of stain or something else to use as a weapon before he finds me… while I don't miss the smog, the crime, the traffic, one thing I do miss about living in Arizona is visiting your booth at Crossroads and saying hello.  I'd buy everything in your library if it was in the budget…
Michael, Laboratory Safety Officer


Enjoyed the entire Page Nine, as usual. Thanks for your hard work. Your skill at getting the point over is certainly a blessing, and I know that, agnostic or not, you don't believe that you are responsible for how adept you've become at confrontationally addressing all who continue their attempt (with much $ and media sensationalism) to take away our basic rights. So, God bless you and your family!
I especially appreciated the NYT write up. It's about time you got deserving publicity. I mean, what's a liberal mind going to do to say after learning about Alan Korwin, except, maybe, "Profanity, profanity, why can't MY brilliance get that kind of coverage. Profanity."
So, keep up the good work (continue writing), and continue making our stand for freedom beyond dispute.
And, finally, as millions will agree, the "Alan Korwin Experience " is the highlight of Armed American Radio. Sincerely, Mike G. [I asked Mike about the New York Times reference, haven't been in there for a while, he meant New Times, The article has a nice handful of errors, but overall it's pretty good.


I have to say my earlier note was an emotional one and I haven't been doing the best job of taking gun violence in stride. I have no idea what the solution is to gun violence, but America continues to lead the industrial West when it comes to shooting it out. I think one step in the right direction would be an extension of the castle doctrine to allow shooting anyone open carrying an assault rifle. [emphasis mine. Alan.] That would be an interesting court test.

If you see a couple of people carrying assault rifles openly, you could argue convincingly that they needed killing. This is based on experience with people openly carrying assault rifles in public places who were perfectly within their rights until they pulled the trigger.

Actually, I think this would be very appealing to folks like you. It would be taking us back to something more like the Old West which is the keystone of our shoot first and ask questions later culture.
By the way, of all the people I have asked why they carry concealed weapons, they all reply it's for protection.    When I ask the same people if they wear bulletproof vests, the answer is zero. 
ps  if you are concerned about protection, why would you not make a bulletproof vest your first choice?  Like police officers?   A bulletproof vest will have fought off the first attack, giving you time to reach for your own Glock.  -Bill S.

Read what people are saying about Page Nine, or tell Alan yourself.

See the archives below, or click through to an index of Page Nine posts at

About the Author

  • Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.

Recent Comments

Read the last 100 comments on one handy page here!