Subscribe

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

Factoids Replace Travel News

The lamestream media told you:

"With gas prices falling, an estimated 767,000 Arizonans are expected to travel by road this week, a 3.2% increase over last year, AAA reports." --Gannett (Arizona Republic) 11/26/14

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In an un-bylined story with no backup (but attribution to a private auto club), the newspaper has somehow figured out, with decimal point accuracy, how many people are privately traveling by car Thanksgiving weekend. Even the much vaunted National Security Administration is incapable of this feat. Travel for vacation? To a store? How far? Overnight? How does this compare to the daily number of cars on a road? Is this in addition to that? Is this a factoid with no real meaning? Who are these people? Stories like this run all over, every year. Maybe it's based on a telephone survey, and you know what everyone thinks about those. Stay alert. Have a nice day. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Missing Global Warming Evidence Puzzles Scientists

The lamestream media told you:

Science News, 9/20/14 --Beth Mole. In a story missed by virtually every "mainstream news" outlet, the venerable 90-year-old Science News magazine is reporting that, "The Atlantic and Southern oceans may be covering up global warming by hoarding heat. The finding could explain a puzzling plateau in Earth's surface temperature that many scientists have blamed on the Pacific Ocean.

"Since the turn of the century, global average temperatures have remained flat despite an unabated rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists have developed several theories to account for the lost heat, including that it is getting trapped in the oceans."

Their report is based on the even more assiduous Science magazine, where the news first broke. "Using climate simulations, many studies have pointed to the Pacific Ocean, where unusually strong trade winds may have shoved warm water deep below the surface."

"But the new research suggests that the Pacific may play only a minor role. Instead, the Atlantic Ocean and the Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, are stashing most of the warmth." The article continues to describe the arguments between scientists for who's right and where the hidden heat must be. Some say both, some say one or the other, none know for sure.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

If this news ever got out it would undercut the entire politics of global-warming wealth redistribution and so-called "climate-science" spending. Because atmospheric gas ratios are changing, scientists can make computer guesses as to the effect that will have. The guesses come in the form of graphs and colored maps, purported to predict effects in the future. The effects change pictorially as the input data is changed.

Measurements, however, don't back up the guesses, so scientists are guessing why the guesses are wrong. Now they are guessing why the main guess theories are wrong. A lot of research money and their salaries (and the future of the entire human race, they say) depend on these guess, so I guess we better wait and see if they get it right. Though one of the gases you exhale and that plants breathe gets all the media attention, the gas that comes from water and makes clouds is orders of magnitude more significant. Both are very poorly understood.

Unlike any other field of science, this one has a bright dividing line politically. One half of the political spectrum is four-square behind it, and the other half is four-square against it. Even a moron knows true science is not supposed to work that way. Certainly, the left and the right don't have these arguments over gravity, inertia, particle physics, metallurgy, chemistry, mechanics or other hard science.

Panel set to study Ferguson fallout

The lamestream media told you:

" 'They are tough, they are smart and they are empowered,' governor Nixon said of the 16-member panel, charged with making recommendations on how to deal with issues raised by the shooting death of Michael Brown and the protests that followed... the commission will tackle several issues including the relationship between police and citizens, racial equities and disparities, the structure of municipal governments, public education and access to health care...."  --USA Today, 11/19/14

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

<snip> "...the commission will tackle several issues including the relationship between police and citizens, racial equities and disparities, the structure of municipal governments, public education and access to health care...". Public education? Access to health care? In other words, social-welfare agendas and community activism will take center stage, real issues will be ignored and the whole thing will be a standard whitewash. Federal subsidies were unknown at press time.

The real hard-core issue of what police should do when repeatedly smashed in the face by robbery suspects attempting to steal their guns is not even on the drawing board.

Why a member of "the community" would do such a thing, and why "the community" would not rebuke such action has apparently not occurred to "community" members, the 16-member commission, the governor making the assignment, orUSA Today in neatly reprinting the press release on the story. Perhaps the community-organizer-in-chief would know, though his officious statement didn't address the issue either.

Troops Deployed to Ferguson After Rioting Is Over

The lamestream media told you:

"Missouri's governor ordered hundreds more National Guard troops into a St. Louis suburb Tuesday after a night of violent protests over a grand jury's decision not to indict a White police officer in the killing of an unarmed Black 18-year old, a case that has inflamed racial tensions in the U.S." --Jim Salter and David A. Lieb, Associated Press, 11/26/14

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

This story could just as easily say: "Missouri's White governor ordered hundreds more National Guard troops into a St. Louis suburb Tuesday, too late to prevent a night of violent Black rioting over a grand jury's decision not to indict a young White police officer. The officer had struggled against a Black 18-year-old robbery suspect who attempted to arm himself by stealing the officer's handgun, after hitting the officer repeatedly in the face through a patrol-car window."

"Inaccurate and inflammatory reporting about the assault on the officer by the media inflamed racial tensions across the U.S., provoking unheeded promises of impending racial looting and terror in Ferguson. Had the suspect succeeded in stealing the officer's gun, it is likely the nation would be mourning the loss of this officer and not the thug who attempted the gun theft, an aggravated felony, punishable by decades in prison. Blacks are already incarcerated at elevated percentages over the population in general."

Media Misrepresents Ferguson Riots, Fuels Hatred (2)

The lamestream media told you:

"'I've invested everything I got into this place. There's no way I'm leaving,' said Natalie DuBois, 32, who opened her Ferguson, Mo., bakery, Natalie's Cakes and More, just a couple of months before a white police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teen and turned this town into a tinderbox." --USA Today, 11/28/14

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

This story could just as easily say: "I've invested everything I got into this place. There's no way I'm leaving," said Natalie DuBois, 32, who opened her bakery, Natalie's Cakes and More, just a couple of months before a black robbery suspect beat a police officer and attempted to arm himself with the police officer's high-capacity semiautomatic handgun. The suspect was shot and killed before he could complete the felony, which led blacks in the town to riot and destroy numerous local businesses, including DuBois' bakery."

"Although race-based violence was forecast by many 'community organizers,' the white state governor refused to dispatch adequate law enforcement to quell angry mobs stirred up by inflammatory and misleading saturation news reports, now the subject of ongoing investigations. Other local business owners have expressed uncertainty as to whether they will reopen in the troubled mostly black area, with such failure to protect private property."

Media Misrepresents Ferguson Riots, Fuels Hatred (1)

The lamestream media told you:

"Unrest exploded here, along Ferguson's downtown strip, after Monday's announcement that a grand jury would not indict police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown."  -USA Today, 11/28/14

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

This story could just as easily say: "Unrest exploded here, along Ferguson's downtown strip, after Monday's announcement that a grand jury found no grounds for indicting police officer Darren Wilson after black teenager Michael Brown beat and attempted to disarm him. Forensic evidence convincingly showed Wilson shot Brown during the assault in his police cruiser, and in the aftermath confrontation."

"News media outlets subsequently produced saturation coverage and inflammatory reports presenting the incident as an apparent excess on the part of police, encouraging racial riots in the small predominantly black town. News-media ratings spiked as a result of the coverage. Television advertising rates for news shows are based on audience size."

Media Misrepresents Facts in Ferguson

The lamestream media told you:

We've all seen, read and heard the reports at this point, I've picked a specific few apart below.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

As near as I could tell from the fuzzy images the "news" programs preferred to report on at Ferguson:

First, it wasn't people rioting in that town, it was Black people.
Race seems to matter in so many other reports, why not here.

Next, and more important, the real news wasn't that people were rioting, it was that Michael Brown, after committing a robbery, had assaulted a police officer and was attempting to take away his gun when he was shot.

If you attempt to take away a police officer's gun you can plan on getting shot. Why would a 295-pound 18-year-old member of the Black community attempt to do that after committing a strong-arm robbery, that's the question.

What drives people to such brazen acts of violence, especially pronounced in some communities and not in others, and what can be done in the future, to protect the police and these members of these communities.

Mr. Obama, formerly a community organizer, got on TV and forgot to mention, despite all the legitimate work that does need to go on between police and members of all communities, if you commit strong-arm robberies and then attempt to disarm police officers you ought to be, or at least are bound to be, shot.

In a now standard distortion of "news" reporting, cable news shows reported that people were demonstrating. "News" reporters ran breathlessly from one hot spot to another, eagerly showing looting, fire and destruction, with thrill in their voices. People weren't demonstrating. Blacks were rioting, committing crimes. The media had an opportunity to collect video evidence of crimes in progress, with crisp, documentary, factual narrative. Footage seemed to go out of its way to obscure and cutaway from the identities of perpetrators.

And none of the live reports dealt with the real story -- the police officer, after months of investigatory work and literally social torture, had committed no crime -- it was the black thug who had committed the crime, a likely felony assault on an officer (a gun snatch can amount to attempted murder, how many of you heard any coverage of that).

All the hype, the Al Sharpton and Barack Obama pronouncements that were wrong, officials' stunning calls for preemptory judgments, incendiary and misleading editorials and broadcasts, the whole national frenzy was really over a criminal shot in the commission of a crime, not some wanton drooling police slaughter.

The liberals had once again worked themselves up into a frenzy over something that didn't exist -- a myth. Their fantasy, their fear, created a make-believe tragedy. Sort of like the 50-state fear of CCW permit holders they exhibited, now long forgotten.

Unarmed, this bad guy was in the process of attempting to arm himself with the officer's high-capacity semi-automatic handgun. Who knows what he would have done with all that firepower if he had succeeded -- or who we would be mourning today instead.

After the perp smashed the officer repeatedly in the face through the patrol-car window, the officer luckily got off two rounds, which probably saved his life. That's the story here, untold by the "news."

But thanks to the guilt-ridden mentally-disordered media, we will continue to have the misdirection version of the story ingrained into the nation consciousness, about some non-existent poor little harmless victim. That should be dropped from public view for the minor criminal nuisance it actually is in the scheme of things. Just another would-be overweight cop-killing miscreant stopped before he could do his lethal dirty work, and a cop who gets to go home to his family that night, as it should be.

"The Assault-Weapon Myth" (NY Times Headline)

The lamestream media told you:

New York Times, Lois Beckett, Sep. 14, 2014 -- "In the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference."

"It turns out that big, scary military rifles don't kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do. Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population..."

"Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals." (emphasis added) In truth this was, "a politically defined category of guns -- a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with 'military-style' features -- only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide..."

After the ban expired, a detailed study by the Justice Dept. found that if it were renewed, "the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement..."

"Most Americans do not know that gun homicides have decreased by 49 percent since 1993 as violent crime also fell... 56 percent of Americans wrongly believe that the rate of gun crime was higher than it was 20 years ago..." Americans get their impressions of crime rates from the same place: The New York Times and other "news" outlets.

The Times actually leaked this news once in 2005, in a story by Deborah Sontag that got little attention, seven months after the ban expired:
http://www.gunlaws.com/NewYorkTimesAndGuns.htm

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

After two decades of deceit and manipulation of the political scene, The New York Times finally stated what more than half the nation -- the armed half, the so-called "conservative" half, the non-left-wing, non-liberal, constitutionally aware half -- has known all along (but struggles with, under the imperial cultural mind-bloc).

Assault weapons don't really exit, the guns singled out that way are not a factor in crime or mortality statistics, efforts to assault them have done nothing more than incite the ignorant and divert desperately needed resources away from crime fighting and toward a pretend enemy that made liberals feel good instead of getting something good done. OMG.

What it shows though is the power of setting the narrative, and that's done in print on paper, even in these days of the Internet.

And The New York Times and their cronies control it and do it. Despite reality, despite the ludicrous absurdity of their claims about so-called assault weapons that can't even be defined, they were able to twist the national civil-rights debate about guns into a knot for ten years, and then only fess up ten years later. Two decades lost to mythology -- by "the paper of record." For shame.

The kicker is this: they have pulled off this outrage repeatedly, never fess up, and so keep any serious improvement in the "gun-crime problem" from improving. So the ghettos remain centers of constant death, while police protect the suburbs which are armed to the rafters.

 

America's Gun-Problem Myth -- Over and Over:

"They don't want all your guns

It's just those little ones."


--from The Cartridge Family Band parody
Secret Gun Ban Plan
(to the tune of Secret Agent Man)



The New York Times and their cronies (democrats and liberals essentially) have started (and abandoned) so many gun-ban-plans because they don't work. Can you can remember them all?

Learning it won't work but still wanting to "do something" about "gun violence" or gun crime, or "the gun problem" or guns in the street, or... those terms keep evolving endlessly too, the targets have changed.

The Saturday-Night-Special Myth, because this was going to eliminate the crime problem, as soon as we outlawed those horrifying guns. Except, not. They never fessed up to that nonsense, they just dropped it.

Democrats, liberals and their media allies started and abandoned The Junk-Guns Myth, because that was going to solve what they call the gun problem, except, not. They dropped that, and never fessed up.

Democrats, liberals and their media allies started The Waiting-Period Myth. That came with The Cooling-Off-Period Myth, remember that one? Arm maniacs after five days and then just hope they remain calm for the rest of their lives. Hmmm. Myth is too soft a word.

Democrats, liberals and their media allies started The One-Gun-A-Month Myth but everyone saw that had nothing to do with crime, it only affected shopping.

Democrats, liberals and their media allies started The Semiautomatic-Bullet-Spraying Myth, except semiautomatics are what the police consider best for safety.

Democrats, liberals and their media allies started The Hollowpoint-Ammunition Myth, except it's safer too. Police want it badly enough they got federal law passed to guarantee they can carry it anywhere.

Democrats, liberals and their media allies started The Undetectable-Gun Myth, except there aren't any.

Democrats, liberals and their media allies started The Gun-Registration Myth, except a list of innocent gun owners has no crime-fighting component, is very expensive, error laden, misallocates resources, and you can't list the crooks because that would violate the Fifth Amendment. (This myth is still floating, and is among the most dangerous of all the plans).

Democrats, liberals and their media allies started The Universal-Background-Check Myth (as a code word for the registration myth, but everyone's figured that out). Under this plan, any innocent person who has a gun is guilty if they lack the paperwork. Criminals of course are already guilty if they have guns, that's unaffected -- but that's how myths work, they make no sense if you look too hard.

Democrats, liberals and their media allies started The 92%-In-Favor-Of-Universal-Federal-Government-Checks Myth, except that's just a lie.

Democrats, liberals and their media "news" allies promoted The Bloody CCW Myth -- 50 times in a row -- as each state in America drafted, debated and enacted laws for discreetly carrying firearms. They screamed that if people bear arms in public it would lead to wild-eyed bloodshed in the streets. It was simple paranoid projection from gunless activists and cooperating reporters, just another assault-weapon myth, except, with no fess up at the end.

There you have it. Pretty much all the gun-stopping plans The New York Times and their left-wing cohorts have figured out are mythically based.

Plans that would actually go after criminals are not part of the plan. The plans all go after the guns innocent people own, who haven't done anything wrong. So of course they run into fierce resistance.

When they stop supporting myths and start dealing with reality they'll garner a lot more support. The New York Timeswill be doing what it's supposed to do as journalists and a newspaper. But confidence is low, as a look at The Ferguson Myths (below) clearly shows.

We celebrate Bill of Rights Day here in Phoenix -- Monday, Dec. 15

if you've attended one you know
how awesome the reading and discussion is.

You should do this where you live, it's easy:
http://www.gunlaws.com/BOR-CommitteeReport1.htm

Our events have gotten tremendous.
We started as lunch for 12. You can too.
Read the Bill of Rights together. Do it.

How To Hold a Bill of Rights Event




SIGN UP NOW:


Eventbrite: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bill-of-rights-day-tickets-14368170585
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/729464160478348/


Bill of Rights Day Extravaganza, Phoenix --

 

 

 

Alan says: I've been orchestrating Bill of Rights Day gatherings since 1999
and this year I passed the Arizona baton to KnowledgeWorks and Carlos Alfaro.
Just look at what they've cooked up:




This Year's
 
Bill of Rights Day
 
Celebration In Phoenix

 

Monday, Dec. 15, 2014, 5:30 p.m.
The AE England Building at Civic Space Park
424 N. Central Ave.
W. side of Central, N. of Van Buren

Come to the 15th Annual reading and discussion
of the health of the U.S. Bill of Rights
General admission $15, Students with ID only $10


BILL OF RIGHTS CHALLENGE
Special Guest Speaker:

Edward Snowden's Attorney Bruce Fein

"... the most well-connected Lawyer in Washington DC, Langley and Tel Aviv." 

 


"Bruce Fein is a lawyer in the United States who specializes in constitutional and international law. Fein has written numerous articles on constitutional issues for The New York Times, The Washington Times, Slate.com, Legal Times, and is active on the issues of civil liberties. He has also worked for the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, both conservative think tanks, as an analyst and commentator.

"Fein is a principal in a government affairs and public relations firm, The Lichfield Group, in Washington, D.C. He is also a resident scholar at the Turkish Coalition of America.


"Mr. Fein has maintained that the First Amendment

prohibits the government from criminalizing disclosures

of classified information that reveals violations

of the Fourth Amendment or other government illegality."

[Wikipedia]





Limited auditorium seating
Reserve now so you can get in

Eventbrite: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bill-of-rights-day-tickets-14368170585
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/729464160478348/


Limited number of display tables
 
available for organizations

Contact: Carlos Alfaro   carlosalfaro --at-- live.com
I'll have one, your group should too, Ernie.

Live music and good refreshments will begin at 5:30 p.m.
The reading of The U.S. Bill of Rights commences at 6:30 p.m.
followed by the balance of the program.

 

Seven New Arizona Gun Laws

EFFECTIVE JULY 23, 2014
 
Arizona has enacted all these gun laws, mostly excellent, casting doubt on the "news" media, which persists in quoting politicians, who insist we have been unable to enact any guns laws, instead of digging and publishing facts.
 
State after state has enacted gun laws, many good, many terrible, increasing the toll on gun owners, who must know more than a human can reasonably be expected to know.
 
KEY: Bill number o Statute Affected o Chapter number o Description
 
2014
 
HB2013 o §13-3112 o CH85 o 19-Year-Old CCW for Military Members o The qualifying age for carry permits has been lowered to 19 for anyone currently in or honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Services, Reserves or State National Guards.
 
HB2336 o §38-1102 o CH147 o Cops and Booze o Text about non-existent state-operated bars was removed from this law to help clarify that off-duty and retired cops can't drink in public while armed (just like us), unless on special assignment, but the use of "may" makes the actual affect of this law unclear: "C. A peace officer or retired peace officer may be prohibited from carrying a firearm as follows: 5. When consuming alcohol at a licensed liquor establishment [Deleted: operated by this state, a county, a city or town or any other political subdivision of this state], except if a peace officer's employing agency authorizes the consumption of alcohol in the performance of the peace officer's duties."
 
HB2443 o §17-337 o CH93 o Soldier Hunting o Any member of the U.S. Armed Forces on active duty stationed here can purchase a resident hunting license (the offensive 30-day waiting period has been repealed).
 
HB2483 o §§11-812, 12-558, 13-3107, 13-3108, 17-601 o CH62 o Shooting On Private Land o This bill protects shooting firearms, BB and similar guns, and archery on private land and elsewhere:
 
1. Regarding county land, nothing in any ordinance can prevent, restrict or otherwise regulate lawful discharge of a firearm, air gun or use of archery equipment on private land that is not open to the public on a commercial or membership basis (§11-812).
 
2. No one can be banned ("enjoined") from lawful discharge of a firearm, air gun or use of archery equipment except by a) the attorney general to stop a public nuisance under §13-2917, or b) a private nuisance lawsuit or a negligence suit by a person in a permanent residence within 1/4 mile of the shot, with a strict burden of proof, the prevailing party collecting attorney's fees and costs, any claimed damages subject to clear and convincing evidence, and more (§12-558).
 
3. If hunting is legal in a city, the city can ban shooting within 1/4 mile of an occupied structure-unless it's OK with the owner or person in the structure. "Occupied structure" is now limited to a building where a reasonable person, at the time and place the shot was fired, would expect a person to be present (§13-3107).
 
4. Wherever hunting is legal, government subdivisions are under similar restrictions to those described above (§13-3108).
 
5. Political subdivisions of the state cannot use zoning to prohibit or regulate the discharge of firearms, or land maintenance or improvements directly related to shooting, on private land that isn't open to the public on a commercial or membership basis. They are also banned from exercising the same controls over land used for agricultural or other non-commercial purposes (§13-3108).
 
6. The definition of a shooting range is expanded to include, "Any area that is used for shooting on a private lot or parcel of land that is not open to the public on a commercial or membership basis." This is designed to stop various authorities that have been harassing the public for using air guns and other implements in their backyards, without harming anyone, as a matter of pure anti-rights bias (§17-601). Use of BB guns and similar training tools and toys in Arizona has always been understood to be protected under §13-3107, simply with adult supervision. This also protects ranges people can simply set up on sufficient tracts of private land.
 
It got complicated preventing squirm out and collateral attacks on firearms and related private-land use. §13-3121 already covered this, but it needed reinforcement.
 
HB2535 o §13-3121 o CH173 o NFA Certification o The transfer of certain NFA weapons, such as full autos and suppressors*, requires certification by a local chief law enforcement officer (CLEO), who is now required to respond to requests within 60 days and to provide certification if the transfer is legal. If unable to do so, the CLEO must inform the applicant in writing, with a reason. If the CLEO has less than 15 officers, the applicant may be referred to a county sheriff, who must comply with the request as above. A county attorney or tribal agency also may but is not required to provide certification. CLEOs cannot refuse to act because they don't like NFA weapons (that's actually in there, because some did refuse, which is why this law was enacted). *These are often referred to as Class III weapons, but they are actually Title II weapons. Class III is the license type dealers need to handle them commercially.
 
SB1118 o §17-304 o CH182 o Hunting Trespass o A criminally actionable request to leave land during a hunting trespass now includes being asked by a law-enforcement officer on behalf of the land owner, not just by the landowner or the owner's agent.
 
SB1266 o §13-3102 o CH1889 o Arming Elites o Elected or appointed judicial officers, as defined, can carry firearms in court facilities where they work if: 1- They've demonstrated competence with a firearm as described in the CCW law §13-3112N, and 2- They comply with any rule or policy of the presiding judge of the Superior Court while in the facility. This literally gives gun-law-making authority to presiding judges without legislative oversight, to people under that command, a dangerous new power completely without precedent. Everything below subsection D in that section gets renumbered.
 
NOTE: Carry In Post Offices Is Apparently Banned o Although 18 USC §930 seemed to provide for firearm possession and carry in Post Offices, an analysis provided by scholar Joe Olson at Hamline U. suggests government has ruled out this liberty with the generally unnoticed passage of 39 USC §410 in 2003, which eliminates large swaths of law that generally controls the Post Office, including 18 USC §930(d)(3),"the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." See the apparently valid description of how this got done at GunLaws.com under the Updates button.
 
 
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!