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!


Take Away The Bad Guns

New York Times assaults the best guns, the ones the public wants

The gloves are off, no more weasel words, confiscation on page one


The lamestream media told you:

OMG, The New York Times ran an editorial on Page One! Pundits go wild!
The first time since 1920, so it must be critically important!
(Readers of The New York Times of course know a good percentage
of everything in that paper is editorial, and it is not right-of-center,
it is hopelessly biased to the left.) This one demands gun confiscation.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

For years the gun-owning public has known left-wing radicals like the people at The New York Times and their followers want to outlaw guns and confiscate them from the public.

The left wing, in typical totalitarian fashion, has denied it, lying to our faces. They've decided to stop lying, though we've outed them in the past. Now it's a big deal the The Times said it in an editorial on their front page, as if this is more meaningful than all the other covert and overt threats we have endured, and stories they have run. They said:

"Certain kinds of weapons... and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership."

It's time to, "require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."

Just wait until you see the bills they draft to do this.

Diane Feinstein's bill outlawed guns with grips. I kid you not.

Bobby Rush's bill required tests, designed by government, with no controls (and more) before you could exercise your rights.

To Be Fair Just Let Anyone Vote

No, of course not, I'm mocking the idiot left

The lamestream media told you:

Democrats object strongly to the need for Photo ID at the polls. The ACLU has filed numerous lawsuits to stop the evil controversial practice aimed at suppressing the vote by evil republicans.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Why is it unreasonable to expect people to provide government proof of who they are before voting in a government election?

Put another way, why would you want a person who can't get a job, or unemployment, open a bank account, rent an apartment, or a hotel room, buy a home, get a mortgage, buy a gun, go to college, get on an airplane, visit a doctor, get government aid, buy a cell phone or drive a car... to vote? Who are these people?

Followup question: Should our elections be limited to only citizens eligible to vote? Is it OK for people who are foreigners or otherwise ineligible to vote in our election, to vote?

Early Voting Is Dangerous

"News" Incentives Should Be Warnings

The lamestream media told you:

Be sure to register for early voting. Your vote counts.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Do NOT vote early.

It helps guarantee your vote will NOT count.

The nation is supposed to rise up as one, on a single day, and choose our next elected leaders. It makes us a political unit, cohesive, from many, one. E pluribus unum. This is important.

That's the plan. It's a good plan. I'm not going to go into all the reasons, look it up if you want to understand your nation better. This 1994 paper, when early voting was rare, describes it pretty well.

Spreading the election over a month or more is practically a plot. It wipes out the original inspired plan. Between the bogus early date and the real constitutional election date, candidates die, get murdered, they are arrested, they withdraw, you learn they are lowdown sly lying sidewinding snakes worse than you knew, and worse. Your vote gets wasted.

In the recent primaries hundreds of thousands of people early voted for Canadian-Cuban-American Ted Cruz who was on the ballot but no longer running. The same for Cuban-American Marco Rubio. They wasted their votes. You know who you are. But it gets worse.

The live tallies election night count real votes. Early votes sit in envelope boxes to get opened and counted later -- only if the election is close enough statistically to matter. Is that what you want?

Yeah, I know the arguments. Early voting is so convenient! Voting is not about convenience, it's about running America. I don't want to miss voting! You don't miss an airplane, don't miss the vote. I have to tell you this? I may be out of town and need an absentee ballot! Did I say anything about legit absentees? Sheesh.

But again, the main thing is the spirit of the thing. Rise up with your neighbors and select your leaders on the same day. Don't spread it out over an arduous month so the election becomes an afterthought. So the choice is made before election day -- that practically is a plot.  Sure, I wish we had better choices than we do. I always do. And I admit to having no solution to that conundrum.

U.S. Nukes Stored at Turkey's Airbase At Risk

Official's Lies Are Blatant, Self Evident

Safe as "Blocks of concrete"? C'mon!

We'll Never Get Truth About Foiled Coup

The lamestream media told you:

Tribune News Service

[Note: Turkey, a staunch and formerly stable U.S. ally, has housed U.S. nuclear weapons for decades. The foiled coup in July raised questions about the security of those bombs.]

Wesley Clark, the retired 4-star general who was a NATO supreme allied commander in the 1990s, is quoted by Tribune News Service (link above) about the dozens of nukes U.S. has stashed in Turkey: “They are very secure.” He said they could be extracted quickly if the situation deteriorated, and the electronic locks on the bombs would render them useless: “If you captured them, it would be like having a block of concrete.”

The Tribune states that the B61s are broadly considered more a political symbol of US commitment to the NATO alliance than a military asset. The US does not have aircraft at Incirlik airfield qualified to deliver the weapons.

For the weapons to be used, the US would have to fly a squadron of aircraft into Incirlik to load the bombs, all of which would be observed by Russia and possibly make the base a target of a first strike.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

If the airbase in southern Turkey base is overrun by neighboring Syria, or the Islamic radicals in Syria, both just a short drive away, or the poorly identified coup rebels already in Turkey, the scores of nuclear bombs there are anything but secure, this much is obvious to a retard, a word that politically correct forces threaten us for using. Clark is not retarded but perhaps thinks we are.

Calling captured nuclear bombs with trigger locks "blocks of concrete" wouldn't fool Oliver Wendell Holmes, who recognized a three-tier hierarchy of idiots -- morons, imbeciles and idiots, from stupid to stupidest. He decided it was fine to sterilize a woman because she was in category two, an imbecile (and she wasn't actually but the federal government sterilized her anyway, thanks to Oliver). But I digress.

A nuclear weapon even without a trigger, let alone one with a perfect trigger lock (and there is no such thing, since someone can operate it, right?) is packed solid with enough unstable nuclear metal to explode -- uranium or plutonium -- just what jihadis or terrorists want. And it's also got enough hi-tech hi-explosives to set it off, that's how these things work. A block of concrete indeed! What sort of blockheads do they think we are? Even unbathed jihadis in rags can figure this much out. Journalists, reportedly intelligent, didn't question the general.

As to acting easily and getting them out quick, and I won't reference Benghazi here, the political implications of "declaring" the situation so dire, and our most heavily armed NATO ally unfit to store the things by rashly pulling them out, this is drastic or we'd have done it long ago, aside from demonstrating how weak we now are.

And finally, the abject nonsense that we have no system qualified for delivering a B61 tactical nuke, a design from the early 1960s and among our oldest, whose yield apparently ranges from 300 tons to 170 kilotons of TNT, c'mon! If the Iranians had one, just for starters, they could put the fissile material and explosives in a truck with some guy and a hammer. We delivered in WWII in a propeller plane.

I just don't see how the "news" could get any worse.

Trump Pfumpfers Through No-Fly-Fraud

The No Fly Scheme Seems Attractive -- But It's Tyranny

They didn't get the memo?

The lamestream media told you:

During the first presidential debate, Trump, flustered and unprepared, almost said he thinks the secret-police no-fly list is a good way to deny gun rights. In typical unfortunate fashion, as the transcript here shows (his thoughts are disjointed, but you can sort of get his gist from his incomplete sentence fragments):

“First of all, I agree, and a lot of people even within my own party want to give certain rights to people on watch lists and no- fly lists. I agree with you,” Trump told Hillary*. “When a person is on a watch list or a no-fly list. I have the endorsement of the NRA, which I'm very proud of. These are very, very good people, and they're protecting the Second Amendment.” “But,” he continued, “I think we have to look very strongly at no-fly lists and watch lists. And when people are on there, even if they shouldn't be on there, we'll help them, we'll help them legally, we'll help them get off. But I tend to agree with that quite strongly.” (Agree with what exactly?)

He later tweets: "I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns."

Moments later the NRA responds: Happy to meet @realdonaldtrump. Our position is no guns for terrorists-period. Due process & right to self-defense for law-abiding Americans

NRA's Chris Cox, same day:

“The NRA's position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watch list who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist.

At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watch list to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate.  Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.”

*In a lengthy anti-gun-rights monologue, Rodham-Clinton included this: "And we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who’s on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun." The no-fly list is a small (70,000) sub-set of the terrorist watch list (about 1 million). "Buy a new gun" and "have lots of guns" are different, one without the other makes no sense, and journalists, predictably, never ask about such things.

When the bill gets drafted, typically, it bears little resemblance to public statements. The current bill is an uncontrolled grant of power to authorities to regulate transfer of firearms, under the rubric of a no-fly something or other:
"No district court of the United States or court of appeals
of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the
lawfulness or constitutionality of this section..."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Forget what Rodham-Clinton said ("If you’re too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun.") --

If you're too dangerous to fly, you're too dangerous to be out walking around free. Right?

Should some reporter somewhere have asked her about that? What's wrong with these people? (The reporters, we know what's wrong with jihadis who should not be out walking around.)

Don't Airport Checkpoint Scanners Work On These People?

You're not telling us checkpoints are just for show and don't work, are you?

If people are too dangerous to get on a plane to Cincinnati,
why can they go there by AmTrak, or Greyhound, or car, or on foot?

Who are these people? (It's a secret.)
Are they even charged with anything? (No.)

You mean the Constitution has been suspended for American citizens,
because they're named on a police list -- in secret? A secret-police list?

Can politicians do that -- and remain in office?
Doesn't that violate the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? (It does.)

Are Americans awake?
How can you run for office with that as a platform?

The entire tyrannical travesty is spelled out here:

No-fly no-buy is a subtle but seductive error of logic --
and violates everything America stands for. For example:

Q: If you can't buy a gun,
what about all the guns you already have?

Didn't the moderator think about that?
Didn't you?
Rodham-Clinton is coming for your guns.


Don't Inspire Evil Initiative

Support Grows, Media Remains Immune

__________ON LETTERHEAD__________


Do you belong to a national group that would support this campaign?

Send me a letter on your letterhead expressing that support, and I'll make sure it becomes part of the program.

Hundreds of journalists at the annual Society of Professional Journalists ( conference in New Orleans were exposed to this message in September. So far, there has been no direct feedback or visible results. Leadership received letters like the ones above, and other materials, by fax to their hotel, by email, and by telephone, so we know they got the message.

This program is ongoing. News as it happens.

Wolf Blitzer's Professional Demise

Interview Ends All Doubt

CNN, 9/13/16 -- With a news-like demeanor and a professional tone, Wolf Blitzer actually asked a sitting U.S. Senator, "So why is Donald Trump refusing to release his tax returns?"

And with that seemingly newsworthy inquiry, Blitzer gave up the last shred of pretense that he is a journalist or reporter, and is merely a political partisan in tailored suits. The question was a perfect paradigm of the rest of his broadcast.

That question, which has been posed and addressed thousands of times literally answers itself. The people like Blitzer who ache for the information want to find things they can use to hurt Trump. Trump wants to keep it under wraps to stop them and protect himself. Everyone knows this implicitly. It's been regurgitated ad infinitum. Why even ask -- it only shows you're a partisan.

Trump has replied endlessly (Blitzer of course knows this) he is waiting for the IRA audit of him to complete. Until then, the returns are preliminary, and subject to change. That is so normal, asking the question gets an F in Journalism 101, and a dunce cap. Two dunce caps to the reporters who want the returns to see what Trump is worth -- your tax returns don't reveal that. An imbecile who files returns knows that, a commentary on too many First-Amendment-protected reporters. After the audit, Trump may stall anew, everyone knows this too.

What Blitzer should ask a sitting Senator when he gets one to speak with him, is, for example, what's happening about the $400 million in cash the terrorists in Iran got in cash from us, that's now $1.7 billion in foreign currency? Which bank cobbled together that much dough, in foreign currency? What does "provide material support to terrorists" mean (18 USC §2339A et seq.)?

Or he could ask, "Now that so many counties and states have only one health-care provider going broke and hanging on by a thread under ObamaCare, and customers everywhere have had price increases, is the system truly on the verge of collapse?" "Can it be held off until Obama is out of office?"

Or, what's happening in Chad where terrorist training camps are set up? What is Canada doing with its tar sands oil while we stall around? Or, if a person isn't free to fly, why can they drive? (full story below) How about, How do you justify the Dept. of Education, since it's not authorized by the Constitution? Or my favorite, especially good for candidates but good for politicians too, What's the purpose of government? Need more? Try The Liberty Poll:

Only a reporter would be asking such things. We don't seem to have any left.

ATF Launches Anonymous Tip App

A government press release told us:

ATF Launches Anonymous Tip App
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has launched a new mobile app that enables the anonymous reporting of information regarding crimes or that could be used to help prevent the commission of crimes. With the reportit app, available through the App Store or on Google play, citizens can submit a tip and attach a photo or video. The information is forwarded to ATF in real time, but should not be used to report a crime that is currently in process. Submitters will have the option to provide personal information, but it is not required (emphasis added).

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Is it possible this app doesn't already know who you are if you use it? Especially considering who designed it?

Top-notch expert: Oh I'm sure it does.
Second top-notch expert: Recommend you route any tips through Hillary's personal email server to be safe.
Third: Doesn't everyone know the system has to identify both ends of the address to deliver the message?
Names withheld but it doesn't matter anymore.

Article in

To: Friends, Fans, Associates -- is running a column I've written
about an issue that belongs in the presidential debate.

If you take a quick look it will help raise its online score
and increase the chances it gets heard in the right places.

Besides, it's a real thinker.
That's why they ran it.

Thank you.
I'd love to hear what you think.


Attack On Gun Rights Takes New Shapes

Bureaucrats assume new roles—
testing waters for future administration?

Why use Congress when infringement works without representation?

Abuses skyrocket, but armed public remains quiescent

1. Gunsmiths (in theory at least), according to new "rules" put in place without Congress or public representation or approval, can't operate without international defense materiel qualifications and excessive fees and paperwork. This could force most of them out of business, into bankruptcy or into felony violation of the new "law" (actually, AECA and ITAR import/export regulations, even if you are a strictly domestic operation). Very clever attack on the part of the current administration -- it's another Hussein-Obama executive order.

2. A crucial gunpowder component (nitrocellulose, needed for smokeless powder which has been the key ingredient in what's commonly but inaccurately called gunpowder for decades) has been deemed an explosive by BATFE decree without notice or rationale. This virtually eliminates its transportation or storage by traditional means, by powder manufacturers and others in the manufacturing and distribution chain. Industry experts are (foolishly in my opinion) seeking a delay in implementation of the surprise ruling, instead of the identification of the people who invented this outrageous travesty, and demanding their ouster, with punishment, along with their superiors who facilitated this gross constitutional infringement. This sort of deliberate malfeasance should not go unpunished. Who gave the order? Who do these people think they are?

3. A medical marijuana CARD (not use) is now Second Amendment disqualification, according to a decision of the uber-liberal federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a case with no parallels, a woman who obtained the card to show support for the medical-marijuana movement -- but who doesn't use pot -- has been disqualified from her constitutional rights, for possession of the plastic card. Wherever you may stand on the drug issue, even the statute itself requires drug use, not government permission-slip possession. In its decision, this Court introduced the idea that you might not be sufficiently mentally OK at times to bear arms, so summarily removing your rights is totally is fine. Whether this applies to beer, over-the-counter medicine that might cause drowsiness and any other mental evaluations was not addressed, but surely can't be far behind in the minds of those who can come up with a decision like this, would seek any means to control the public.

I have said for years:

1- Federal government lacks any legitimate delegated constitutional power to control vegetables (which describes cannabis). The power they assert here is usurped. They could attempt to gain the power legally, but haven't, understanding they might not succeed and the failed attempt would demonstrate they have no authority in the field.

2- Federal government lacks any legitimate delegated constitutional power to control drugs (which marijuana apparently is). The power they assert here is usurped, and has been for decades, even if the public likes the drug prescription system, the various bans, wild price supports, cartels, lack of access and all the rest that goes with usurped powers.

3- With this ruling it is now much more clearly dangerous to your rights to get marijuana from the government cartel than from the Mexican cartel. The government cartel can strip you of your freedom, with massive invasive forces behind them. The Mexican cartel just takes your money. Both can shoot you if they so choose. You can shoot back, of course, but you know where that gets you. If it's against the Mexican and related cartels, your story gets buried, along with you. If it's against the government cartel, you end up on page one, along with the compound you live in, for days.

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!