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!


"Mental-Health" Gun Bans

Where are the thought police when you need them.
Oh. There they are. I can see them.

The lamestream media told you:

The Arizona Republic, Gannett's #2 rag after USA Today, said, in an editorial, "The mentally ill should not have guns."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Can you see where this is going? Crazy people shouldn't have guns, sure. "Mentally ill" people, that's a judgment call, not a diagnostic test. How mentally ill is ill enough to start placing people in forbidden zones? Depressed? Angry? Angry a lot? Cursing regularly?

Once you're in the NICS Index -- the federal list of people whose right to keep and bear arms is extinguished -- you're in the forbidden zone with no practical way out. The anti-gun-rights forces want to see that list grow by leaps and bounds. They understand -- it's one effective strategy for taking away all the guns.

"Boy, that guy seems crazy to me," said one neighbor to another, before calling police and, unknowingly, ruining that man's life forever. Being sufficiently crazy (or at least charged as such) to make the gun-ban list, removes your right to a lot of things.

Everyone is going to have to walk around deliberately acting "normal," being careful not to step outside "acceptable" bounds or else people around may start to think you might be "mentally ill." This massive cultural paranoia can set in, as we all watch each other, scrutinize the person next to you, wonder if he's thinking thoughts he shouldn't. Why, just owning a bunch of guns and a modest stockpile of ammo implies you might be crazy. Who would want to do such a thing? There's something about Harry...

AND in other news:

All the problems with classical Freudian psychiatry are apparently starting to resurface with a trend amongst "normal" cognative therapists. Ted K. a prominent figure in the education reform movement, is expressing concern over a new effort to stigmatize, or at least label children who aren't as bright as others. With guidelines that are not clearly established, at least some "professionals" want such kids identified as Sluggish Cognitive Tempo children. Whether this is a disabling condition for other legal purposes, and what remedies or redress might exist for having been given the label, was not clear at press time.

The New York Times told you:
"With more than six million American children having received a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, concern has been rising that the condition is being significantly misdiagnosed and overtreated with prescription medications." [The Uninvited Ombudsman notes that this is indicative of pretend science.]

"Yet now some powerful figures in mental health are claiming to have identified a new disorder that could vastly expand the ranks of young people treated for attention problems. Calledsluggish cognitive tempo, the condition is said to be characterized by lethargy, daydreaming and slow mental processing. By some researchers' estimates, it is present in perhaps two million children." [The Uninvited Ombudsman notes this is indicative of pretend science on steroids -- they are just making this stuff up as they go along.]

"Experts pushing for more research [read: funding to pay themselves with] into sluggish cognitive tempo say it is gaining momentum [read: pure hype to get the funding] toward recognition as a legitimate disorder [that is, recognition by the people doing the recognition, to get the funding]  -- and, as such, a candidate for pharmacological treatment [that's where the money is]. Some of the condition's researchers have helped Eli Lilly investigate how its flagship A.D.H.D. drug might treat it." [no attempt to hide self-evident bias and conflict of interest.]

Gun Registration Bill Exempts "ObamaCare" Entities

The lamestream media told you:

92% of the public supports universal background checks. 92% of the public supports universal background checks. 92% of the public supports universal background checks. 92% of the public supports universal background checks. 92% of the public supports universal background checks.

We have not reported on the contents of the bill, despite its amazing acceptance level.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

It's a pelosi! People support it without knowing what's in it!

The gun-owner registration bill "92% of the public supports" leaves out guns in hospitals and any... "health insurance entity." ObamaCare is a health-insurance entity.

It's amazing what you can learn by reviewing the bills our leaders propose. Alert reader C.D. Tavares spotted an error in Page Nine No. 133, which turns out to be a major element of this breaking story.

Here's the relevant statute language from
the proposed Manchin-Toomey amendment,
the gun-registration bill being sold to the public
as a wildly supported (but repeatedly defeated)
background-check bill --


(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the --
(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.

[Note that the AG, or anyone, is not prevented from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or backing up these (or, elsewhere in the bill) all other gun records on you forever; there is no audit trail or punishment for violations; and anyone except the AG could "consolidate or centralize" these or any other firearms records under this "ban." It's preposterous, a farce.]

In my Page Nine review last issue, I remarked about that last line in the section:

"And what's that bit at the end that says medical- and health-insurance-company owned guns are exempt."  Had I added "...from the paperwork rules," C.D. noted, it would have made the line more accurate, or at least more clear. But that got me thinking.

The point is this, and it's never been made before as far as I'm aware. What exactly is a "medical or health-insurance entity" and what are those places doing with all these guns? That's an anti-gunny-type question to be sure, but surely valid here. And why are they exempted?

This is for people working in ObamaCare -- a health-insurance entity. Who are these people? How many of them are out there, exempt? Can we the people get equal treatment under the law? Is this what 92% of the public supports? Or has the media been feeding you nonsense straight from the anti-rights advocates, without a single hint of skepticism or research on their part?

The AG (but no one else in this bill) is also banned from "consolidating or centralizing" records about:
"(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by --
(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;"

That's FFLs, people in the gun business. The various dealer types are exempt, because they're already well papered. For them, this would just be redundant.

The antis will look you right in the eye and lie:


Read the original article, which became the lead story in The Daily Caller --

[Note that the AG, or anyone, is not prevented from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or backing up its gun records on you forever, there is no audit trail, and anyone except the AG could "consolidate or centralize" these or any other firearms records under this "ban". It is preposterous, a farce.]

This is why anyone with a grain of knowledge understands it's not about background checks. It's about gun registration by the federal government. It's in black and white. The media is lying to you.

Arizona Moves Good Gun Laws Ahead

Good news!  The bills listed below have been scheduled for Senate Committee of the Whole (COW) hearings on Monday, April 14.  AzCDL (approaching 11,000 members) thanks everyone who has already contacted their Senator!

If you have not yet sent your emails to your Senator on these bills, please do not hesitate any longer.   To access your letter, simply go to the AzCDL Legislative Action center, and take care of business.  The following are the bills that are scheduled to be heard on Monday, April 14.

HB 2339, the AzCDL-requested bill that would allow CCW permit holders to carry in public buildings (unless everyone entering is screened for weapons).

HB 2483, which would strengthen the protection of the lawful use of firearms, air guns and archery equipment on private property.
HB 2517, which would add penalties for cities and counties violating state firearms preemption law. (This is the comitatuslanguage I've been railing for, punishment for government failure to obey the laws.)

HB 2535, which would require local law enforcement to sign required NFA transfers within 60 days after receiving a request for certification.

You get to the Legislative Action Center, and once there, the bills are listed on the right side of the page under the “Take Action” banner.  Simply click on each bill and follow instructions.  Be sure to check the “Remember Me” box when verifying your contact information.  If you encounter any difficulties, please contact Fred [email protected]

We expect the following bills to be heard later in the week.  If you have already sent your letters - Thank You!  If not, there is still time to contact your legislators.  Go directly to the AzCDL Legislative Action Center to send the message we have prepared for you.

HB 2103, the AzCDL-requested bill lowering the age limit for CCW permit eligibility to 19 for those with military service, has cleared the Consent calendar and the Majority and Minority caucuses, allowing it to bypass a COW hearing.  It will soon be scheduled for a Senate Third Read vote.
HB 2338, the AzCDL-requested bill that adds to the definition of Aggravated Assault the illegal taking, or attempted taking, of a legally possessed (i.e., your) firearm, passed out of the Senate Rules Committee on April 9, and will soon be scheduled for a Senate COW hearing.

SB 1063, the AzCDL-requested bill that would make “no firearms” signs on public buildings unenforceable unless the statutory weapons storage requirements are followed, needs to pass out of the House Rules Committee before it can proceed to a House COW hearing.

SB 1366, which clarifies the definition of a firearm, also need to pass out of the House Rules Committee before it can proceed to a House COW hearing.

As bills progress AzCDL keeps you informed via direct alerts.  Watch for the "Action Alerts" on bills needing your help using the Legislative Action Center.

Don’t forget!  Every AzCDL member who sends the emails generated from the Legislative Action Center will be entered into the raffles for Brownells gift certificates.

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization.

AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom .

Copyright © 2014 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.

Media Hides Gun Business Milestone

The lamestream media told you:


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that: picked up this announcement about massive economic growth, missed by the lamestream media for unknown reasons --

GUNBROKER.COM Celebrates Major Milestone:

March 15 marked the 15th anniversary of, the world's largest online auction site for firearms and accessories. Growth has been steady, as the company last year recorded nearly $1 billion in sales and cemented its position among the 400 largest U.S. websites.

Six years ago the company logged its one millionth registered user; that number now exceeds 3 million, a tripling of business and only one of several milestones.

The most popular sidearms for February: 1st - Smith & Wesson M&P, 2nd - Sig Sauer 1911, 3rd - Colt 1911, 4th - Sig Sauer P238, 5th - Sig Sauer P226. For semi rifles it was: 1st - Ruger 10/22, 2nd - Smith & Wesson M&P, 3rd - Kel Tec Sub 2000, 4th - Ruger Mini-14, 5th - Springfield M1A.

GunBroker's average customer is tech-savvy, under forty, and has a median household income of $88,000. The site attracts 5.5 million visitors monthly and averages about 650,000 firearms for sale at any one time.

This excellent news, reflects the fact that America is strong, businesses are thriving, the public has money to spend, and things are working the way they should. If the daily drumbeat of the "news" media has you convinced otherwise, even if your own situation is presently less than ideal, know that this country can overcome all its obstacles, foreign and domestic, and so can you.

The 111th U.S. Supreme Court Gun Case

Rosemond v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1240 (2014)

There are three more SCOTUS gun-related cases that have not been addressed in Page Nine or by Bloomfield Press (my publishing company) yet.

Salinas v. Texas, No. 12-246, 6/17/13
U.S. v. Castleman, No. 12-1371 3/26/14
Abramski v. United States No. 12-1493 (not decided yet)

I'll get to them soon, I promise.
In the meanwhile, check out the first 92 decisions in my award-winning book:
Supreme Court Gun Cases,
written with lawyer-experts David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook.
See the entire list of cases on that page.
If you know of one we missed, speak up.

About this case (Rosemund)--

The lamestream media told you:

When it comes to Supreme Court cases, the "news" descriptions, and what the decision actually says and means are usually night and day. Read the decisions, they are your law, fascinating in most cases. Sickening in how different they are from what the media tells you. The media largely ignored this gun-related case.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Rosemond concerns whether a prison sentence should be increased because someone during the commission of a drug sale (one pound of pot) fired a gun. Legally speaking, it's about aiding and abetting a crime, and the difference between taking actions, wanting to (known as mens rea, a guilty mind), and foreknowledge of events.

It's an exciting story, with a drug deal, theft of the goods, seven shots from a 9mm with no hits, no gun found, witness stories all over the place, and many facts never established. Havingbrandishing or firing a gun during certain drug crimes increases the sentence (5, 7 and 10 years). It was never determined who exactly fired the gun, but the government sought the added charge and jail time because a gun was used.

Almost half of all federal prisoners are in for drug charges, and 30% of federal dockets are drug cases. This is big business for the "criminal justice" system and all the people who earn their livings there -- cops, special agents, bail bondsmen, law clerks, lawyers, court staffs, jailers, judges, stenographers, reporters, it's a long list. (They really do have a reverse incentive against seeing this sort of crime disappear, it would cost them their jobs.)

What's important to recognize in this case is that the government argued, in essence, that anyone involved in a crime is guilty of all aspects of the crime, no matter who committed them or what you thought. This is extremely dangerous for the public, because it means if you have even remote connection to some illegal act, the government's inclination is to presume you are guilty of the worst part of whatever took place.

That may have some value in dealing with gangs who, as the government pointed out, often act in concert to achieve some criminal end. But it is a terrible precedent for the innocent. Any wrong-minded youth (or adult) who gets mixed up (or suckered into) something, would end up as guilty as the people who are really bad actors, if the authorities have their way. The potential for abuse is too great to allow on those grounds alone. Like RICO forfeiture, they could condemn everything in sight, lock everything up, just for the bad acts of a lone individual.

Now, the Supreme Court shut down this line of thinking 7 to 2, in a decision written by Elana Kagan. This time. But the fact that your government, here to help you, is thinking this way, is a very bad sign.

Guns made it into a footnote denial: [8] "We did not deal in these cases, nor do we here, with defendants who incidentally facilitate a criminal venture rather than actively participate in it. A hypothetical case is the owner of a gun store who sells a firearm to a criminal, knowing but not caring how the gun will be used. We express no view about what sort of facts, if any, would suffice to show that such a third party has the intent necessary to be convicted of aiding and abetting." (But they thought enough about it to write that disclaimer. Hmmm.)

Autism Next To Ban Gun Rights?

The lamestream media told you:

NEW YORK (AP) -- "The government's estimate of autism has moved up again to 1 in 68 U.S. children, a 30 percent increase in two years. But health officials say the new number may not mean autism is more common. Much of the increase is believed to be from a cultural and medical shift, with doctors diagnosing autism more frequently, especially in children with milder problems.

"The cause of autism is still not known. Without any blood test or other medical tests for autism, diagnosis is not an exact science. It's identified by making judgments about a child's behavior (emphasis added).

"The new CDC report focused on 8-year-olds because most autism is diagnosed by that age. The researchers checked health and school records to see which children met the criteria for autism, even if they hadn't been formally diagnosed. Then, the researchers calculated how common autism was in each place and overall.

"The CDC started using this method in 2007 when it came up with an estimate of 1 in 150 children. Two years later, it went to 1 in 110. In 2012, it went to 1 in 88. Experts aren't surprised by the growing numbers, and some say all it reflects is that doctors, teachers and parents are increasingly likely to say a child with learning and behavior problems is autistic." (!)

"'We cannot say what portion is from better diagnosis and improved understanding versus if there's a real change,' said Coleen Boyle, the CDC official overseeing research into children's developmental disabilities." [Note: Her "improved understanding" includes no known cause, no test for occurrence, and known racial and sexual bias in diagnosis.]

"For decades, autism meant kids with severe language, intellectual and social impairments and unusual, repetitious behaviors. But the definition has gradually expanded and now includes milder, related conditions."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

As the Obama administration forges ahead with plans to ban the right to keep and bear arms based on poorly defined, fuzzy-logic mental-health "measurements" and "findings," the CDC has announced radically growing numbers of children now diagnosed with a potentially disabling condition. The "officials" admit they do not understand, cannot measure, lack a diagnostic test for, and cannot cure the condition, and they actually admit is growing because they simply declare more people to have it.

Criteria for measuring the condition whose definition keeps changing, which is diagnosed based on judgment calls by doctors, have been relaxed from severe abnormalities to mild childhood behaviors, according to "scientific" reports just released.

According to the AP report: "In the latest study, almost half of autistic kids had average or above average IQs. That's up from a third a decade ago and can be taken as an indication that the autism label is more commonly given to higher-functioning children, CDC officials acknowledged."

Racist and sexist prejudices have been acknowledged by the experts as well, and drive this field of "medicine," as noted in their report: "Autism and related disorders continue to be diagnosed far more often in boys than girls, and in whites than blacks or Hispanics. The racial and ethnic differences probably reflects white communities' greater focus on looking for autism and white parents' access to doctors, because there's no biological reason to believe whites get autism more than other people, CDC officials said at a press briefing Thursday."

With the practice of medicine proceeding this far from anything remotely scientific, and when even supposedly pro-gun-rights groups are pressing hard for mental-health bans on the right to keep and bear arms, serious gun-rights advocates are predictably worried.

"The idea that so-called experts constantly evolve this condition, change their standards, use judgment to declare a person guilty of the disease that has no known cause, and that the end result could be denial of your fundamental rights -- who wouldn't be terrified of government-run 'medicine' like that?" said one observer, who wishes to remain anonymous, for fear of being diagnosed as paranoid. (See separate story about widespread cultural paranoia setting in. Are Your Crazy? Denial is a symptom that you are...)

The American Academy of Pediatrics, a known anti-gun-rights advocacy group, issued a statement, saying the nation needs to step up screening for the condition and research into autism's causes. Experts say a diagnosis can now be made at age two or even earlier, though the CDC report says most kids are identified by age four. The AP report points out that: Autism support groups and advocates stand to benefit from increased diagnoses, as more patients equals more funding.

Continue reading "Autism Next To Ban Gun Rights?" »

"High Capacity" Magazines Are Insufficient

The lamestream media told you:

We have to do everything we can to ban high-capacity magazines. Nobody needs these things and they have no place in our society, as we have said hundreds of times already, with no luck so far.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

First of all, ownership of property is not based on need. That's the communist model.

No one is in charge of deciding what you need, or has legitimate power to tell you what you can or can't have in that sense. In this country, ownership of property is based on individual choice and ability to pay. You don't need 10 pairs of shoes, and no one is in a position to say otherwise (well, commies can, "to each according to his need").

The real question, if reporters were worth anything these days, isn't why does anyone need these, it's why would anyone wantthese. The entire "news" media can't answer that or even raise it when it comes up, yet tens of millions of people want and have them. The answer is simple: "For the same reason the police do."


The "news" media is actually referring to "normal capacity magazines," a term you should start using, "the same as police use." Changing your language helps deflate their assault on your rights. Normal or regular capacity magazines, the same as police use.

Experts are now marketing magazine carrying cases capable of holding multiple full-sized magazines neatly, because having only a few is insufficient when facing today's criminals and other miscreants (or tyrants, as we observe overseas).

"Leave it to the free market to come up with an appropriate solution," said one tactical expert who refused to be named for this report. "Running out of ammo is not an option when you're life is on the line, and you face criminals who do not obey 'infringed-size' magazine laws passed by idiots in legislatures." Experts want as many rounds of ammo to protect them as possible -- and in the hands of their armed forces, the police and the public at large.

What many people still don't realize is that police are second responders, another term you should start using, to upset the lie newscasters pound daily. The true first responders -- the crime victims targeted by criminals and terrorists, i.e., YOU -- must have at least equal means as the police. You face identical threats. It's just that you face them first.




Typical product (this one marketed in American Cop magazine), offers easy transport and access of sufficient ammunition, pre-loaded into normal magazines, for ready use in an emergency. Police are professionals in self defense and the fight against crime, understand the need for (choose one:) full/normal/regular/factory/standard-capacity magazines. They sneer at ignorant legislative attempts to infringe on the public's right to have such crucial equipment, denying the public adequate protection.

"Prohibited Person" is now "Prohibited Household"

New wrinkle in rights-denial 

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing, except we want to get as many people into the background-check system as possible, to make everyone safer. 90% of the public supports this. (92%, according to a democrat's party mailer with Mr. Obama's name on it:)




The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

First, let me repeat: 90% of the public doesn't support much of anything, especially gun stuff, so that number, like most "news" numbers these days, especially from advocates, politicians or government (unelected apparatchiks) is totally bogus (John Lott dissected their ludicrous math). Even so, try this "thought experiment" opinion poll: "The bill proposed for universal background-checks will create a government list of everyone in America who owns firearms, and makes a criminal out of anyone whose list of guns is inaccurate or incomplete. Do you support this?" Still 92% in favor? Not. I described the actual bill in plain English last year:


An insightful analysis of background checks, by Page Nine reader Bryan Potratz in Wyoming, and reviewed by the Uninvited Ombudsman and gun-rights attorney Dave Hardy, has received little attention before now. It makes it clear that if a Prohibited Possessor lives anywhere, no one else who lives there can have free access to firearms or ammunition. This has gone basically unreported, even though it is in effect.

If you can't prove that your security measures are satisfactory -- to BATFE's unwritten standards --  YOU become a felon for providing contraband to a prohibited person. Even if they never touch anything.

Even a single round of ammo out in the open would put the prohibited person in violation of 'proximity to guns or ammo' (a red-tape concoction that is a looonng stretch from the law as passed, which talks about "possession"). This is the same standard they use for drug busts, technically called "constructive possession," enabling them to arrest everyone in a house where drugs are found (or planted). Courts have backed up this method completely.

The government, as it always does, takes the most restrictive view it can take: If freedom is at stake, drive a stake through freedom, even if it's just a little. Mere presence in the same home meets their definition of possession, and creates the violation.

"If freedom is at stake,
drive a stake through freedom."
--government SOP

The real downside is that this now creates Prohibited Households -- entire private homes where you cannot have a readily available gun for emergencies, or even for cleaning or showing to friends. Everyone in the house is (technically) disarmed by the presence of one person on the NICS Index.

The anti-rights people probably don't mind a bit -- it's like a four-for-one sale on gun bans for an average-size family. And it's unlikely the antis actually worked this out ahead of time. It is a boost though for the forces of darkness, because for every person they can get on that NICS Index, that's a multiplier for people they've disarmed. Five people in NICS, figure 10 to 20 or more denied their rights at home.

Bryan goes on to predict that the NICS Index (the prohibited persons list) could be cross-referenced with hunting license, CCW, FOID or similar databases, to identify addresses where violations might be occurring. This sort of cross-checking is routine police work. He also suggests, "BATFE will be able to claim that such correlations are de-facto probable cause for a warrant to check for/arrest a 'prohibited person in possession of firearms or ammunition.' "  He continues, quite rationally, that, "We know how subtle BATFE can be when prosecuting such warrants."

This threat to the right to keep and bear arms has not hit the radar of any of the national gun-rights groups, at least not publicly. But millions of people nationwide are suffering under it right now.


The concept of "constructive possession" regarding firearms is an affront to freedom and The American Way, and should be abandoned in favor of actual physical possession with deliberate mens rea (criminal intent). Prohibited Households is a miscarriage of justice, and anyone attempting to prosecute such a case should be brought up on charges themselves, in an overdue application of 18 USC §241 et. seq. (denial of civil rights under color of law, look it up).

Cold Dead Fingers -- Baloney!

The lamestream media told you:

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Connecticut gun owners are rushing to register certain firearms and ammunition that will be considered illegal contraband this year. People have been lining up early in the morning at the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection's headquarters to turn in applications for "assault-weapons certificates" and high-capacity magazine declaration forms so they can legally keep the items they thought they currently legally own.

Under a wide-ranging gun-control law, passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass murder, gun owners have until Tuesday to submit the paperwork. The law expanded the definition of assault weapons in Connecticut to include more banned weapons. Existing magazines can be kept so long as they're registered with the state. "One thing is clear," Lawlor said. "If you haven't registered it, on the following day, it is completely illegal contraband" starting on Jan. 1.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

You've probably seen this now-famous image of gun owners lined up to get their "papers."

Does this look like "cold dead fingers" to you? Or is this sheeple waiting politely in line

to bow to their government masters? Are they using the front end of their guns for the

intended purpose -- to stop tyranny in its tracks?

Online chatrooms are filled with bragging about all the people NOT on line. Are the "civil disobedients" being smart? What can they do with their unregistered guns, except wait to be arrested? They can't use them, or train with them, or transport them safely. Can't show them off to friends for fear of being turned in. Knowledge of possession is virtually complicity in the crime. "You knew he owned contraband and didn't report it? That makes you an accessory to a felony."

Can't bring it to a gunsmith for repair or modification. If agents turn up at your door and demand it, or search -- with or without a warrant -- and then arrest you, who you gonna call? You gonna use it to shoot the poor unfortunate rookie cop with a young wife and two young kids at home, so some sweet blonde reporterette on the nightly "news" can call you a vicious killer living in a compound? Are you going to turn yourself into a set of cold dead fingers then? Will you wish you had stood in line to get your papers? 

The Connecticut law -- and others like it have turned the people who disobeyed it into felons-in-waiting. They are in possession of contraband, a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, so the first time they have a fire, or a flood, or a home remodel, or a moving man, and the property becomes known, it serves no purpose but to have them scooped up -- and the Second Amendment means nothing but a way to make them submit to the will of an out-of-control government.

If you're not willing to use the front end of the gun for its intended purpose when the move to confiscate it comes around, then the right to keep and bear arms is meaningless pablum. Walter Mitty's Second Amendment is in full force. What's that? Read it and weep (it's short):

Terrifying. It will keep you up at night.

Western Conservative Conference (Trevor Loudon)

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing. It was only CPAC for the Western U.S. With more than 600 people including key leaders of the conservative movement, why cover that?

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Google it, there's news out there. I was emcee for the luncheon, with Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform), Trent Franks (AZ Congressman), more.

Author and lecturer Trevor Louden from New Zealand, who fights global communist and socialist subversion, made more sense about our presidential election in 2016 than any other speaker I've heard lately.

If conservative, constitutional government is to win in the U.S., it needs a Dream Team that draws together all our different forces at once, so everyone is on board. It needs a leader who plans to bring together numerous champions onto one ticket when elected. What do you think?

Vice president: Alan West
Secretary of Treasury: Rand Paul
Secretary of Energy: Sarah Palin
Secretary of Labor: Scott Walker
Secy. of Commerce: Herman Cain
Secy. of State: John Bolton
Ambassador to the U.N.: No one
Secy. of Health and Human Services: Dr. Ben Carson
Attorney General: Mark Levin
Secretary of Education: David Barton
Everybody gets something.

You might make substitutions on the team, but you get the idea.
Everyone can't run for president, but the president can promote an inclusive team.
Some of those departments have to go? Sure. But deal with now.
Would you be motivated for a team like that?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket, Louden says, spread your risk,
get everybody involved, motivate the whole team. It's an interesting plan.

Get a big base of real conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, tea-party activists bubbling up, unhappy and ready to do something -- unify the whole base with those leaders folks and who's going to stop you? No one. So that's my advice from a Kiwi from the other side of the world folks.

Because I love this country. And more than that, this country has to survive for my country to survive. [He later pointed out that Communist China's huge army has plans for conquest of the entire Pacific Rim, leaked by a defecting officer; his tiny island nation and all the others, Australia included, are dangling by a thread protected only by America's dwindling might; and that our shrinking military, weakened deliberately by Obama, is the greatest threat the free world has ever faced; China knows this and is biding its time.]

I love what America has done for the world, and America has not yet seen its finest hour. But it can only happen if you unify and pick the right team; you cannot afford another weak candidate. Do not let the media pick your team or Carl Rove pick your candidate. You have to do it.

See him deliver this thought-provoking, rousing speech:

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!