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!

Books

For Arizona Voters

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing reliable.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


Korwin's Analysis:

2016 Arizona Ballot Propositions

 

...and VOTING EARLY -- BAD BAD BAD.

 

Most folks know by now I don't endorse or oppose candidates -- no way to predict their behavior once elected, experience shows their promises are empty, unenforceable, virtually worthless. You decide who gets your vote.

Ballot props on the other hand can be evaluated, and since I vote, I can share results of my own evaluations. Arizona has two this year. First: Do NOT vote early, so your vote absolutely counts, as planned.

You should rise up as a nation as one, on one day, and choose our next elected leaders. It makes us a political unit, cohesive -- from many, one: E pluribus unum. This is important, it's the plan, it's a good plan.

Dissolving the election out over a month or more is practically a plot, wiping out the original inspired plan. Between the BOGUS EARLY DATE and the REAL CONSTITUTIONAL ELECTION DATE:

candidates die

or worse,

they are arrested,

they withdraw,

you learn they are lowdown bottom feeding maggots,

worse than you dreamed,

Wikileaks spills dirt,

the media spins,

phony "polls" mislead,

advertising lies,

money promotes,

and worse.

Your vote gets wasted

bent, misled, and worst:

cast at the wrong time.

Recently hundreds of thousands of people early voted for Canadian-Cuban-American Ted Cruz who was on ballots but no longer running. Wasted votes. Cuban-American Marco Rubio too. They wasted their votes. You know who you are. But it gets worse.

The frenzied breathless live tallies election night only count real votes. Early votes -- huh, maybe sometimes somewhere, it was unclear at press time -- 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? What's election day for?

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 is an afterthought ("47% have voted already in Floridistan! It's over with only two weeks to go... said the announcer for Rock 99 FM"). I heard CNN say practically that. If the choice is made before election day -- that virtually is a plot. I thought the commies were dead. (Hint: they are very much alive and active.) Sure, I wish we had better choices than we do. I always do. And I admit to having no solution to that conundrum.

Continue reading "For Arizona Voters " »

Growth in Arizona Gun Law

You've heard the speculation and nonsense.

Here's the math:

 



These are the word counts for the law section, Appendix D, of this and previous editions of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide. The increases are caused by two factors—the discovery and inclusion of new sections of gun law (e.g., security guards, game and fish department, military affairs and emergency management, etc.), and the enactment of new laws by the state legislature, which has been occurring every year in recent times. Reductions, through amendments and repeals, also occur, but the net difference has been an increase since we began doing tracking. Gun laws are growing nationally, with no end in sight. Our gun laws here have tripled in 20 years. Politicians who claim they can’t pass more gun laws are either ignorant or deceptive, which is worse.

Both Sides Fight "Open" Elections

Left and Right Do It Differently, Both Do It

The ACLU told you:

"Dear Friend,  The election is just weeks away, and the right to vote is still under attack. Every citizen deserves to have a voice in this election – and we need your support today to make sure that they are not silenced. Friend, donate now if you are with us—help us protect the right to vote, and defend all our freedoms.  We can win key battles in these remaining weeks with you by our side. Right now, we are:

"Opposing laws in over a dozen states that place barriers in the way of voters—largely people of color, students, and the poor. Fighting in states where feckless officials are attempting to circumvent our voting rights wins, like in Wisconsin, where free voter IDs are not being issued to voters despite orders by a federal judge. Ensuring voters don’t face harassment and intimidation from self-appointed “poll watchers” who may act outside of the law."

The lamestream media has told you:


There is practically no evidence of voter fraud. It's a myth myth myth.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


Republicans struggle to keep ineligible voters out of the polls, and ineligible votes from being cast, two issues that don't concern democrats too greatly, if actions mean anything.

Just Google "vote fraud" for more evidence than you ever needed to see. In Chicago, the dead vote. Felony criminals in prison manage to vote. Illegal aliens register and vote by the thousands, in person and absentee, with help from democrat activists. In California, driver licenses, the main ID used to register voters, are being issued without controls to illegal aliens by the hundreds of thousands -- more than half of all in 2015 went to illegals, 605,000. Eleven other states do the same.http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/10/almost-half-of-california-drivers-licenses-went-to-illegal-immigrants-in-2015/

Efforts to bring illegals into the country are tied directly to voter registration efforts. So-called refugees from "majority-muslim" nations are on the planning charts for importation to America from the democrats. Only fools believe no one has looked into how they will vote when they arrive, who will register them, who will advertise to and influence their votes, who will go through their neighborhoods and "educate" them about how they got here and how they can advance their "free" benefits by voting.

Yes, both sides want to influence the vote. One side, the right, wants to keep the vote American. The lamestream media calls this "suppressing the vote." They kill us words. (The Politically Corrected Glossary, http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm)  The other side, the left, is seeking to destroy American values and have people lacking in understanding, legitimacy and interest in The American Way, to permanently despoil what we have here on a permanent basis. That's called "corrupting the vote" but the right doesn't control the dialog.

VOTE FRAUD

Some actual cases described:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/18/voter-fraud-is-real-here-are-4-more-cases/

New York Times:
2,068 cases of fraud nationwide since 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/voter-id-laws-donald-trump.html?_r=0

Pennsylvania Invites Illegals to Register by Accident
http://truethevote.org/news

You'll find pages and pages for you to review on any web search.

Observation: None of the reported fraud numbers match.
Observation: Democrats are convinced fraud is a "myth" (their word, appears everywhere).
Observation: Republicans are convinced fraud is rampant and their evidence is debunked vehemently.

The Uninvited Ombudsman asks:

If you don't require identification to vote, ineligible people could vote,
or people could vote more than once. Does this matter?

I've asked the right. They say yes, ID must be required to vote.
Only eligible American citizens can vote.

I've asked the left. They have a litany of why people
could legitimately not have ID, and should be able to vote anyway.
Eligibility must not interfere or cause disenfranchisement.

And now you know.

 

Media Lies About Sex Remarks

They make things up when reality isn't dark enough

The lamestream media told you:


"Trump talks about being able to 'do anything' to women because he is famous..."
-- trumped up by USA Today, on page one, 10/9/16, by David M. Jackson.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


Trump actually said, "When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything..."
And he went on in greater detail. http://tinyurl.com/zx8fs9d

The media, completely in the tank for the other candidate, the female who repeatedly attacked other women for complaining about her husband's documented sexual assaults on them, will distort and pour guilt on the world to deny hard reality. So here it is:

Men are pigs and deserve to die.

OK, there it is. Satisfied? Now that's out of the way, let's get down to the truth.

The object of every teenage boy's desire is women's private parts, that's just the way it is. This continues unabated for decades. I have to tell you this? If you're a man, or a woman, you already know this.

The political left promotes this in every communications vehicle that exists. Now it is attempting to destroy America on this very point with unabashed guilt -- they have the core of the republican establishment, and their own party, and the media -- denying this basic biological, social and cultural TRUTH. What a win for their side.

Watch a movie. Or TV. Or the best-seller list. Non-stop objectification of women. Look at the woman supposedly the object of Mr. Trump's remarks -- Nancy O'Dell, who dresses and acts as sexually provocative as she possibly can. Who's kidding who? Her show is obsessed with who's zooming who, it is its raison detre. The attention lavished on Mr. Trump has simply brought this to the table (and floor, and wall, and bathroom, and bushes, and back of the bar).


You focused on her eyes, right?
Nancy O'Dell


Since childhood I have wondered, without answer, why women are dressed in a piece of cloth that deliberately exposes their main private part. The object of rape, incest, lust, adultery, infidelity, passion, romance novels, dirty jokes, leaked bawdy tapes. Whose idea was the dress and the skirt? Why does it persist? Why isn't that part covered, protected? I've been told that's not "ladylike." Say what?

Nightly "news" is drowning in these exposure clothes. Temptation garments. "She's asking for it" rags. The women, dolled up to the nines, bleached blonde, have to sit with their legs crossed -- all of them all of the time -- so they don't expose themselves. This is right? Don't their legs fall asleep? Mine would.

You saw the ultimate example: Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct (I could not have picked a better name). This is no secret. The holier than thou ranting on "news" shows is abject nonsense, total hypocrisy. Starting watching for it. Keep count.

 
No objectification here


Before I turned off the "news" version, I switched by chance quickly to the movie Horrible Bosses*, in time to see Jason Sudeikis ogle some guy's wife in their wedding photo, and remark, "I'd like to bend her over a barrel and show her the 50 states!" A mild, inconsequential remark like a thousand others to be found non-stop from Hollywood, leading the charge on objectification education of our children and ourselves.


Newscasters should be immune from criticism because they maintain high standards. Hot.


Trump's remarks weren't locker-room talk. They were every-day talk. We all know it despite the denials. In fact, thanks to the denials. And women with their legs out encourage it. Don't play coy. You know it. "I am sickened by what I heard." (House Speaker Paul Ryan). Bull. "I was wrong." (Donald Trump). Everyone knows he was forced to say that. It was a normal remark men make and will continue to make unless the left emasculates us to the nub.

"No woman should ever be described in these terms, ever." (Reince Priebus, party chairman). He doesn't get out much, has been totally manipulated by guilt and the left, who revel in describing women in these terms on the big screen. "No apology can excuse the reprehensible remarks" (Jeb Bush). So he never went to a sports game and saw mostly naked cheerleaders. Have you ever seen Lingerie football?

People are falling over each other to lie and say they never heard of such a thing.



*Jennifer Anniston has a snack in Horrible Bosses. You must
be 17 to see this film (or bring an adult). Anniston, a woman,
has no problem advancing normal objectification stereotypes.





The person currently in the White House
duplicitously attacks a candidate's speech,
while inviting the worst of the worst to visit
the White House -- batches of rappers with
lyrics too gross to repeat, F bombs, bitches,
hoes, murder, degrading demeaning abuse,
elevating them to respectability without caveat.
Artists like Killer Mike with his hits One More Gram,
F*ck You Pay Me, The Next Bitch, and of course Gat Totin'.

Beyonce
His wife calls Beyonce a role model for her girls --
just watch her videos, read her lyrics, see if you think
solid American values are remotely connected.
Yes, the images are gross, sorry, it makes the point.


 "News" media is AWOL.

Hillary Insists: No-Fly No-Buy for Guns

She confirms her stance in 3rd debate.

"Gunism" runs rampant in lamestream media and leftist circles.


Ignorance, prejudice, bias are front and center when the subject is firearms.

Reporters fail to ask even the most basic questions:

If you can't fly, why can you drive?

Why are you even out walking around?

How can a person be too dangerous to go through a metal detector?


What are they charged with, exactly?

Nothing, except the prejudice of gunism.

We should take away all their other guns too, if they can't buy a new one, right?

It makes no sense to deny a person a flight, but let them keep all their guns, based on a secret police list you can't see -- that they're not told they're on, that only keeps them from buying new guns at retail. Does that get you confused too?

The whole idea makes no sense, but the democrats cheer like crazy. Like crazy.

It sounds like proof.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The idea that Hillary wants to ban your right to have a gun with a list she can write your name on has a name -- it's called tyrannical.

It's not about air safety.

Miscellanea

From The Wayback Machine
The Wall Street Journal reported on page one, back when Bill Clinton took office, he spent $12 million taxpayer dollars on his inauguration party. People were choking on their breakfast cereal when they read that, it was unheard of. He and the democrats (who got to go to the multi-day affairs, and I do mean affairs if you catch my drift) scoffed it off. Hey, they earned it right?

I'm taking bets on the cost for the next one, whoever wins.

 

Secret Messages From Now On

You just have to wonder how Hillary -- or anyone -- is going to send private secure messages going forward. Ear whispers with loud background music? Private chats from plane to plane on the tarmac. Scribbled notes hand carried then burned (subject to interception en route). With the NSA and WikiGotcha operating, even the U.S. presidency is reduced to unwanted incriminating evidence trails. Want ads for bin Laden couriers are circulating.


500 People Show Up Armed For Dinner

Slowest Waiters All Make It Home Alive
Open-carry banquet a splendid affair, 11th year in a row
Arizona Citizens Defense League Annual Meeting
sold-out, total success, auction, speeches,
sign up early next year, the seats go fast.


Political Pledge You Won't Hear

Will you pledge to never sign any legislation you haven't read, personally?

Everyone knows this is right. Politicians have forgotten this. Sure, reading everything will slow things way down. That's the point. And absolutely no voting on 1,000-page bills that haven't been distributed yet -- that would be malfeasance and grounds for dismissal in business.

Followup: Will you agree to step down from office if you vote for a bill you haven't read?

More: The Liberty Poll
http://www.gunlaws.com/the%20liberty%20poll.htm
Where's a decent reporter when you need one?

Only 250,000 Illegals Flood Across Border

Media Heralds This as Great News

Invasion by a quarter million isn't a problem?

The lamestream media told you:

(Daniel Gonzalez) -- "How many migrants successfully enter the U.S. each year by crossing the border illegally?

"According to recent polls, Americans believe the number has been increasing rapidly, while in fact, the number has decreased significantly. Increased border security already in place is a major reason.

"New research by a former Dept. of Homeland Security official found that successful illegal entries, including people who had crossed multiple times, plummeted to 250,000 in 2015. That figure represents one-tenth as many successful illegal crossings as in 2005, the study reports..."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Perpetual illegal-immigration apologist disguised as Gannett "news" reporter Daniel Gonzalez, in a page-one story, suggests that a mere quarter-million invading illegal aliens is such an improvement we should be happy for the wonderful results. The online version of this story puts the figure at only 170,000 people, without explaining the difference. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2016/10/09/how-many-mexicans-actually-cross-border-illegally/91280026/

He claims the $130 billion spent on added security has been a major deterrent to Mexicans. Presumably, it has been a deterrent to Central Americans too, and the muslim jihadis other sources tell us are coming across the southern border and insinuating themselves into our midst.

Why this study comes from a retired individual and not an agency is unexplained. How this person counts people who slipped through undetected is unexplained. How the person figures out some of them came in, were deported, and came back again, undetected, is unexplained. Why we should accept any of this is unexplained. The next effect of a quarter-million illegal alien invaders whose destination and intentions are unknown, this year alone, should be terrifying, not presented as a vast improvement. Where is last year's batch of invaders? That's enough to replace the entire population of cities like Orlando, Jersey City, Ft. Wayne, Madison, Norfolk, Scottsdale, Baton Rouge, Boise, Spokane, or Berkeley twice over. The rumor that in Berkeley this would be an improvement was unexplained.

In other news, during his Senate race debate, Sen. John McCain claimed we are building border watchtowers at a cost of $3 million each (PBS-TV, 10/10/16). You can buy a 4,000-foot mansion for $3 million, with state-of-the-art security, a pool, a putting green and multiple bedrooms and baths. Just what kind of guard towers are these? (He didn't elaborate.) Requests for information from the three reporters went immediately unanswered, and still.

If a security system grants unauthorized access to 685 people every day (do the math), and this is a vast improvement over the prior system (which it apparently is), someone's head belongs on a pike, and I'm not referring to the illegals.

Questions I Can't Answer

Questions have crossed my desk that I can't answer. What do you say?

At what point of federal encroachment should a state secede? Never?

When does a law, or a set of laws, if the system allows them to stand, become so tyrannical that they should not be obeyed?

Can five people in black robes at the U.S. Supreme Court really re-write the U.S. Constitution? What are the options if they do? (Art. III, Sec. 2., Cl. 2)

I've heard this one asked, but it strikes me as silly, and the answer is too obvious:

Q: Is the idea of the nation-state still relevant, and does national sovereignty matter?
A: Yes, of course, a long practical and philosophical answer. Later. Maybe.

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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html

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.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FeinsteinGunBanBillAnalysis.htm

Bobby Rush's bill required tests, designed by government, with no controls (and more) before you could exercise your rights.
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate4-SHOTnHR45.htm

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?

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 Gunlaws.com

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!