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!


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.

How to Destroy the West: Muslim Immigrants

The lamestream media told you:

USA Today--Jubilation as Austria, Germany Open Borders: Thousands of migrants arrived in Austria and many more were heading there on foot Saturday as European countries broke a stalemate and began finding ways to take in the masses of humanity... The migrants are mainly from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and have endured hardships... Arabic-speaking translators were also on hand to help at emergency registration centers... tens no hundreds of thousands, more coming, statistics upon statistics... where were they all last week, month, year... it doesn't say.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In an accompanying USA Today story -- which logic would dictate even if it weren't in ink: "Persian Gulf countries such as [fabulously oil-rich wealthy] Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait have pledged or donated hundreds of millions of dollars but won't resettle those fleeing the Syrian civil war raging for more than four years." Hmmm. According to Amnesty International's Geoffrey Mock, the Gulf states have "offered zero resettlement places." Why would Arabs reject fellow Arabs? (Because it's the best thing that could happen for their cause.)

Luay Al Khatteeb, at the Brookings Institute gets it right when he notes in the same piece that the Gulf states "may" fear destabilization from a major influx of migrants. "When they enter any country, they will bring with them all the reasons why they left."

The Gulf states "may" fear
destabilization from a major
influx of migrants.

So they're not taking them.

They're letting them go to Europe, much further away.

And it, uhh, helps the caliphate. Shhh.

This of course is EXACTLY what the United States is experiencing from the influx of illegal immigrants across its southern border, unchecked for more than a decade. The migrants know it. Their domestic supporters inside government and out know it. Voting is shifted. Culture is shifted. Economics shift. Citizens are screwed.

And there's the rub.

ISIS and muslims everywhere know that the wars in the Middle East are a good thing, if all they do is drive hundreds of thousands of other muslims to pollinate Europe in one fell swoop. The millennium-old muslim dream of a global caliphate moves a giant leap closer, with limited bloodshed and tragedy, just people dying along the road and washing up on shores, to elicit sympathy, and funding. They may not want to admit it, even to themselves, but every single one has had that thought. Just like you.

What will Europe do with these teaming masses, yearning to be... islamic? Many unskilled in employable western ways, insular thanks to language and culture, an economic drag on the economy, despite politician's pipe dreams otherwise: (Angela Merkel, Germany -- "As a strong, economically healthy country we have the strength to do what is necessary," but then she does promise that every asylum seeker, "gets a fair hearing," whatever that means; how long can their strength last? How do Germans feel paying for that?

If you wanted to establish a caliphate, destroy Western culture, take over Europe -- the heart of your enemy -- how better than to send endless hordes of refugees there, with the ignorant political infrastructure welcoming them, instead of forcing them back to their allied countries -- who reject them for the same reasons you should.

Here come the teaming masses
yearning to be... islamic.

Socialism Plans To Win

This links to a fascinating obituary for Robert Conquest.

Dr. Conquest documented the calculated evil of the world's largest totalitarian state (socialist/communist) when it was quite unpopular to do so -- until then it had enjoyed unbounded praise of outsiders. The New York Times knowingly hid the truth from the world for decades. The world owes much to the gut-wrenching truth he published. From the obit:

"... An ardent Bolshevik as a young man, Conquest became a bitter foe of Soviet “Socialism”. He had first visited Russia in 1937 as a youthful devotee of the great experiment. It was a half century before he returned in 1989, having spent his life between chronicling the horrors the country had endured, and emerging, in the view of the Oxford historian Mark Almond, as “one of the few Western heroes of the collapse of Soviet Communism”. “He was Solzhenitsyn before Solzhenitsyn,” said Timothy Garton Ash.

"Of his many works on the subject, perhaps the most important was The Great Terror, published in 1968 and detailing the full enormity of what Stalin had done to the Russian people in the 1930s and 1940s. The Mexican writer Octavio Paz paid the most succinct tribute to this book when he said in 1972 that The Great Terror had “closed the debate” about Stalinism."

And we now have a socialist openly running for president ("Go get ’em" Bernie Sanders). And we have huge minions ardently following him. And we have a lapdog media singing his praises and failing to point out that socialism is the arch enemy of The American Way and everything this nation stands for. And this man commanding media attention calls for redistributive economics, central controls on the economy, and abject collectivism, all of which are proven failures and tyrannical forms of governance. And nowhere in the mainstream is "balance" from reporters, with reference to individual effort, entrepreneurship, profit motive, self interest, capitalism, free markets, laissez faire, personal responsibility -- none of the values that made America the most prosperous bastion of freedom the world has ever seen. Socialism should be debunked not defended.

Evidence: Black Lives Count For Less

Two reporters are shot in Virginia, and get wall-to-wall news coverage that day. The same day, 16 blacks were murdered in ghettos, but no national news reports appeared, justifying the controversial headline of this news brief.

The next day, 16 blacks were murdered in ghettos again, but no national news reports appeared, even though the two white reporters commanded major news coverage everywhere, justifying the controversial headline of this news brief again. Blacks were the murderers in both cases. The next day, 16 blacks were murdered in ghettos yet again (all based on annual national averages), but no national news reports appeared, blah blah yada yada do wah diddy diddy. According to leading national experts, this shows black lives don't matter as much. The movement with the similar sounding name seems to be a rebirth of the ole Black Panthers movement, for the same underlying causes.

Gun owners demand the arrest and punishment of the murderers, because they are dangerous murderers, and are hurting our gun rights, but are ignored. Left-wing anti-rights zealots demand making lists of everyone who buys a gun, because two reporters were shot by a madman, but are ignored. Go figure.


At your next meeting where politicians
or candidates are present just ask:

"As a candidate for office,
do you support a moratorium
on sales taxes on gun safes,
to encourage people
to buy and use them?"

The Background Check Lie

The Ugly Secret About Background Checks:
They Aren't Background Checks

It's a gun registration scheme

If people knew the truth they'd never support it--
So it is promoted with deceit, front to back

What's so bad about gun registration, right?
We register cars.


The entire push for so-called universal background checks is based on deceit and misinformation. It's the only way it can pass -- get enough people to support something that sounds good, whether it is or not.

Daily Caller has decided to republish an article of mine, one of the best I ever wrote, exposing this deception. "News" articles perpetually mislead the public in a (sometimes) ignorant push for so-called "simple, common-sense" gun checks, believing (hoping) it will finally stop (or put a dent in) crime. It will have the opposite effect. How could they be so wrong? How could they miss the evidence, the logic, even the emotions of this crucial story? How can they not get it? They would if they read this.

Mom's Against Guns -- PROTOTYPE

Sponsored by Mike Bloomberg

1. Find ALL innocent gun owners.
2. Put every one on a government list.
3. Compile records on every gun they own.
4. Call it a "universal background check."
5. We win!

If they win, America loses.

Listing the innocent is expensive, diverts critical and scarce law-enforcement resources, and doesn't affect criminals. The question reporters should be asking -- but aren't -- have the background checks stopped any criminals from arming themselves? We know regular people have been denied their constitutional right to arms by the system, without trials, due process, confronting witnesses, representation, even hearing the charges against them.

Before blindly promoting cries for more checks, reporters need to ask: So why aren't denied people arrested? Isn't it a crime to buy, or even try to buy a gun if you're prohibited? Of course it is. It's just that the system is not that good. It's good enough to deny you your rights, but nowhere near good enough to dispatch police, make an arrest, build a solid case, bring you to trial and get a conviction. Why? Most people stopped are guilty of nothing. And murderers just go shopping. Or shop elsewhere. What a scam. Mass murderers promoted (yes, promoted) by the media went through the check, or got their guns elsewhere.

None of this appears on the “news” channels. They're all busy showing the public (and potential copy cats) the smiling face of murderers.


The media wants you to believe the Brady bill background check has somehow succeeded in disarming criminals, because (they say) two million firearms transactions have been prevented. Right.

What that really means is that, without due process, formal charges, a trial, representation by an attorney, right to confront witnesses -- even an explanation for the denial of your specific enumerated constitutional right -- an unelected low-pay bureaucratic clerk sitting in front of an FBI government computer in Clarksburg, West Virginia prevented an American from exercising the right to obtain a firearm.

Was the person denied actually guilty of anything? Was the denial legal and proper? Was anyone punished for wrongfully denying a person their civil rights? We don't know, we don't know, and absolutely not.

Was an actual criminal denied and arrested by this so-called background check process? Nope. Sorry, that's not how this works. Some John Smith, Tyrone Jackson or Jose Rodriguez whose name got into a computer just had their rights denied, case closed. Rights denied.

So we must ask: “Are there any criminals in America who want to arm themselves and who cannot because of the Brady law?”

No one in government asks this. None of your representatives asks this. No republicans, no democrats, no bureaucrats, no candidates, no reporters, nobody asks this.

The Uninvited Ombudsman asks this (here and elsewhere). Anything less is tyrannical.

About this comitatus penalty

Now look, financial penalties for a government agency aren't exactly the kind of stiff penalties we'd like to see for government malfeasance. After all, that's our tax money they're being fined! But it's a huge embarrassment, and it cuts their budget, and it's a stinging slap, and it's a court order, and (hopefully) it's enough to prevent them from doing what they're BANNED from doing. Most of all -- it's a good first step.

It recognizes that laws against government must include penalty clauses,
the same as laws against the public. Anything else is fraudulent and deceptive. Feckless laws are intolerable acts.We're talking here about deliberate, intentional, knowing denial of fundamental civil rights under color of law. How bad does it have to get? Are these perpetrators simply hoplophobic? They should seek help. They should not be exercising power. If your legislators refuse to support comitatus laws they are corrupt, do not represent your interests, and should be removed from office -- or worse.

This is the worst kind of civil-rights discrimination. And these "officials" in Texas have been doing it to law-abiding citizens for years. And getting away with it. They have been laughing at us. They deserve to be in prison as badly as any person who refuses to serve black people at a lunch counter. The media looks the other way, officials ignore it. Polite society won't even discuss it. Now it ends. Punishment is what puts teeth into law.

Bureaucrats and politicians take notice. Comitatus law is coming your way.

Texas Gun-Law Changes for 2015

Texas Gun Laws Improve Again!

For falsely denying your right to carry by posting signs, government can now be punished.

Small steps in the right direction add to the 8th edition of The Texas Gun Owner's Guide.


Edition 8, copyright 2014.

Download a printable update for edition 8 to put in your book.
The Texas Gun Owner's Guide


Download a printable update for older edition 7 to put in your book.
All updates here.


New Texas Gun Law, effective Sep. 1, 2015

SB473 Machine Guns and other special weapons—
Penal Code §46.05 Prohibited Weapons was amended to make it clear that Type II NFA weapons (full-autos, short-barrelled long guns, silencers and explosive weapons), are legal as long as they’re properly registered with BATFE. The bad idea of “affirmative defense,” where you might have to defend innocent possession of these in court was repealed. Parts of the law were renumbered.

SB273 Ban on Excluding Lawful CHL Holders—Government Code §411.209 makes it illegal for any state agency or political subdivision to use any form of the §30.06 no-guns-allowed notices to keep CHLs out, if CHLs aren’t really banned from entering (as some prejudiced bureaucrats have been doing). Violations make them liable for penalties that can exceed $10,000 per day, under rules spelled out in the law (violators must get written notice, with evidence, time to cure the violation, the attorney general must investigate, and act, more). Any citizen can file charges, and all costs are recoverable. Basically it means officials will have to stop the vile practice of posting false signs to illegally deny your civil rights.

SB273 is comitatus law, law with teeth, so it sets controls.

Government Code §411.209 is written the way laws should be written.
Instead of the typical “government shall (or shall not) do X,” format,
which officials violate with impunity, comitatus law says,
“If you do X this is the punishment.”

Comitatus penalties can include jail and dismissal
(see, for example, the posse comitatus law).
Many laws should be comitatus.
We have the Texas State Rifle Assn.
and legislators they work with to thank
for accomplishing this important victory.





Penal Code §46.035(c) Unlawful Carryhas been amended to limit its effect, so only the room(s) where a government meeting is taking place, not the entire facility, are restricted to CHL carry, and then, only if the meeting is an open meeting subject to open-meetings law (Ch. 551), and proper notice was provided.

HB554 CHL Tolerance at Airport Gates—Penal Code §46.03(a)(5) has been amended to help people who show up at airports with their CHL sidearms. It is a defense to state prosecution if you show up at airport gate security carrying a firearm legally under a CHL license, if, once it’s detected, you leave the gate area immediately after the screening. A peace officer cannot arrest you if you comply but can if you fail to comply. Caution: Doesn’t affect TSA agents.

HB905 Preemption of Knives—Local Government Code §229.001.Knives are added to the preemption list, things municipalities have no control over the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of, including firearms, air guns, ammunition, firearm or air-gun supplies and more. LGC §§236.001, .002 definitions are updated.

SB11 Campus Carry—Effective August 1, 2016 for some institutions, details coming soon.

HB910 Open Carry—Takes effect Jan. 1, 2016, complex, contentious, and like campus carry, it will take some settling in and a shakeout period. No sense in becoming a test case.

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!