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

SHOULD BLACKS HAVE GUNS?

Sharpton, Jackson, NY Times, Community Organizers Say NO!

But blacks are arming themselves.

Just like white folk do.



The lamestream media told you:


Guns are bad. No one should have them. Well of course police should have them.
You trust the poe-leece, don't you?

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The anti-gun movement is a function of the liberal left, which includes the famous “leaders” noted in the headline above.

If black leaders had their way, blacks would be disarmed (along with you). Guns are too dangerous. You'll hurt someone. Chances are greater that you'll hurt someone if you have one. Leave your safety up to the police (!). Underlying message -- you're too stupid to safely have a gun. Don't do it. Ignore 100 million neighbors who manage to safely do it somehow. Choose fear.

We leaders on the other hand, the ones bringing blacks this message of fear and danger, we can have guns (and that includes the headliners, bristling with armed protection). We, the authorities. We in gated communities and nice neighborhoods and we keep them that way. You don't need no gun. But we ain't exactly givin' up ours. Oh no.

Bottom line, when you strip away the Emperor's clothes, black lives don't matter, coming from the leaders of the democrat movements, who would ban guns for blacks, and gays and women and all the oppressed classes -- because they would ban guns for everyone. Except the people in power -- themselves. If that isn’t unequal treatment under the law nothing is.If black lives really mattered, there would be 700 murder trials for the 700 black murders Chicago experiences in a year. I can hearing you laughing. In your heart you know it's true.

Blacks are catching wise. A growing movement is spreading the message behind the Second Amendment. A two-edged sword? Of course. When you learn that peace and freedom are attained through a balance of power, and not the power of one group over another, you can reconcile it all. White folks have -- we're well armed and that's why we don't shoot each other. So look what’s happening (virtually absent from mainstream anything):


Black women gun training
Marchelle Tigner, in Savannah, Georgia, runs the first Atlanta-area class for black women to learn to shoot. Nov. 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/27/black-women-guns-classes-racism-trump

Trigger Happy Firearm Instruction
Tiffany Ware, 44, Cincinnati, founder of the Brown Girls Project, which offers makeup workshops and other activities for building self-esteem in young black girls  -- has organized a group of black women for a firearms training class on 18 December

Black Women's Defense League
In Dallas, the Black Women's Defense League, launched in 2015, has seen the number of black women signing up for time at local shooting ranges at least double in the past 10 months or so.

Nicholas Johnson, law professor at Fordham University and author of Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms, pointed to a 2014 survey showing that 54% of black people felt that owning guns did "more to protect people than endanger personal safety", nearly doubling the 29% who said the same two years earlier.

Here is truth you won't find elsewhere --



Black Man with a Gun
by Reverend Kenn Blanchard, 172 p., $16.95

http://www.gunlaws.com/books21Newest.htm

Is Aaron Zelman Dead?

JPFO Remains Alive and Kicking.

"Friends of JPFO"

The lamestream media told you:

"News" coverage for firearms civil-rights groups is not happening. These days.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

I’ve heard rumors that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership had lost its moxie after founder Aaron Zelman died. It shows you what a tremendous figure Aaron was. JPFO lost its Moses and the rabble figures they’ll walk in circles for 40 years. JPFO experienced changes (posted at JPFO.org), moved, and continues breaking ground in Aaron’s strictly zero-compromise pro-gun-rights tradition. We do deeply miss his voice.

JPFO filed a court amicus brief against anti-gunners in California trying to ban gun stores. The Bill of Rights Sentinel newsletter is back in print -- and no one says what that rag does (See below, get one). The David and Goliath Award is recognizing heroes the mainstream doesn’t want you to know about. You don’t have to be Jewish to join, you just have to love freedom and want a respected, morally courageous ally on your side. Join as a Friend of JPFO. Go here to contribute, just learn more, sign up with “America’s Most Aggressive Civil Rights organization.”

Get the next JPFO Bill of Rights Sentinel:

https://www.facebook.com/jewsforthepreservationoffirearmsownership/

[Sentinel EXCERPT:]

I’ve had it with all these statist gun owners who think training should be required. Exercising your rights doesn’t require training. Failure to get training doesn’t vacate your rights or subject you to penalties. Got it? No training required to be a parent to helpless infants, none needed to buy poisons and sharp things in Home Depot, no certificate of completion needed to enter bizarre religious ritualistic buildings. Understood? A dangerous world does not justify government training your life. Smart people get trained for everything because they’re smart. Get smart. Do it on your own. With or without any kind of training, if you screw up, you're responsible. OK? Training doesn’t get you off the hook, at all, but it may help you stay off the hook (and looks good to juries). Making the government force you to be trained the way it thinks you should be trained is horrific.




Washington Times reporter Emily Miller
receives the JPFO David and Goliath award, 2013.
Who will win one this year at GRPC?

Mandatory Gun Training Demands

Excerpt from upcoming JPFO Bill of Rights Sentinel

Few people want to address this subject openly:
Gun training good. Forced training bad.

If you come out against mandatory gun training you are pilloried, and verbally attacked by leftists and other malcontents, and plenty of people who believe they support gun rights.

Each state that has mandatory training imposed as a condition for CCW permits found the government's idea of what you need, and qualified trainers ideas don't match at all. People took the CCW classes, thinking they had to, when what many needed was Guns 101, since they had never handled firearms before. Teaching them about actual carry in public is an entirely different ballgame.

Under a mandatory training regime, if some little old lady (or you) shoots an attacker in legitimate self defense, and you didn't take the approved class, you've committed a crime and go to jail, for what is essentially a righteous act. That's just not right.

Government could play a positive role if it ran public service announcements, "in cooperation with this station and the Ad Council," and put up billboards, encouraging the public to go to the range, take classes, learn about gun safety, the whole nine yards. Don't hold your breath. Promoting the Constitution and Bill of Rights is no longer any part of the federal agenda (in meaningful ways).

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org (JPFO) publishes its no-holds-barred newsletter, The Bill of Rights Sentinel, this is coming in the next edition:
https://www.facebook.com/jewsforthepreservationoffirearmsownership/

I’ve had it with all these statist gun owners and especially firearms instructors who think training should be required. Exercising your rights doesn’t require training. Failure to get training doesn’t vacate your rights or subject you to penalties. Got it? No training required to be a parent to helpless infants, none needed to buy poisons and sharp things in Home Depot, no certificate of completion needed to enter bizarre religious ritualistic buildings. Understood? Smart people get trained for everything because they’re smart. Get smart. Do it on your own. With or without whatever training, you screw up, your responsible. OK? Training doesn’t get you off the hook, at all, but it may help you stay off the hook (and it does look good to a jury). Making the government force you to be trained the way government thinks you should be is horrific.

Do you think this is a fable, just paranoia? Look:

GUN-RIGHTS LICENSING TEST PLANNED
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate4-SHOTnHR45.htm
People complain it's just scare tactics when rights activists holler about gun bans. Here's the bill that proves them right, HR 45 from Illinois congressman Bobby Rush, which goes beyond gun bans to ban gun owners. It is so far outside constitutional boundaries it defies belief -- the man deserves to be removed from office. Also, a brief SHOT Show report with pictures.

The Solution: You want everyone trained to arms, include it in school curricula. You should be firearm trained even if you don't own a gun. Maybe especially if you don't own a gun. Give it in school.

Republicans Quit Trying on Gun Rights

National Carry bill ignored, "leadership" squashes activity

"These people are not the friends you think they are."

Inside scoop -- why the National Carry Act HR38 isn't moving, despite republicans in charge of all three Houses:

Anonymous Source

"Leadership is holding up HR38. They don't want the 'distraction.' Gotta marvel at the stupidity of republicans sometimes. I think the bill has no chance in the Senate anyway*, but they need to force the vote to hold the dem's responsible. Can't understand why they don't see this as a valuable election issue -- keeping their promise, so maybe GunVoters will trust them and keep supporting them, and making the dem's own their votes against it.

"VCDL https://www.vcdl.org/ has posted an official White House online petition to Trump, but none of the bigger org's have promoted it, so it's not likely to reach the 100k threshold needed.** I haven't been able to determine exactly what NRA is doing. It's almost as if a deal has been made with the R's to let them hold off on any action this year. If they do that, they're foolish. If the R's won't push it this year, they certainly won't during an election year."

The conservative/libertarian/independent and entire right side of the nation supports gun rights, and Congress should demonstrate this. Instead, even our best representatives refuse to move against the corrupt leadership of the system, that's the swamp that needs draining.

*Whether the Senate will act properly or not, and end the infringement we all endure, is an open issue. If the House does act, pressure on Senators will increase by an order of magnitude. Then the threshold for a petition may make sense. The online White House tool attempting to take control of (under the guise of providing access for) the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances," has some serious flaws. I'll get to that soon. Scrutinize their policy statement like I did and scratch your head. If the petition gathers 100K signatures soon, we get a reply.

**Needed for what, you ask? So that, according to the website, "we" can respond. If you reach the magic number, something happens, like an email to the list holder. Almost no petitions do, "we" know that, crazies may not apply, real petitions still count (so far), it looks more like a way to defuse energy, or be able to say later you don't count, than anything related to how the White House is really influenced. "How the White House is really influenced." Think about that, more on it later.

Here is a simple link you can share with people for the petition if you wish, at least look: http://vcdl.org/Sign-The-White-House-Petition

The commenter suggested, "All we can do is try to keep the pressure on." Is that really it? How intolerable need acts be?

HR38 has 207 House co-sponsors, 37 Senate

John Snyder, "The Dean of Gun Lobbyists" points out that "AWR Hawkins, the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, wrote that "gun control activists are up in arms over the legislation, because it would immediately do away with strict gun controls in a number of states."

"Actually," said Snyder, "that's a good reason for supporting it and promoting it. The gun haters have had too much to say for too long. It's time to turn the tables on them and tell them to get lost."

"...it (HR38) would immediately do away with strict gun controls in a number of states." Strict gun controls is just a euphemism for infringements on your rights. Laws against gun crime are totally unaffected by this bill. The only thing missing is jail time for the perpetrators who put the controls on you into law, in violation of the rule of law.

Texas Community College Carry Activates

Built-in 1-yr. lag-time expires, another infringement falls, everyone survives

Bloody lunacy never materialized with campus carry, colleges unrepentant

Although college officials continue to hate it, campus carry has created no problems. The warnings of doom were once again proven -- proven I say -- to be paranoid delusions:

"...non-bizarre delusions are fixed false beliefs that involve situations that could potentially occur in real life, such as being followed or poisoned (Ed., or shot). Apart from their delusions, people with delusional disorder may continue to socialize and function in a normal manner and their behavior does not necessarily generally seem odd. However, the preoccupation with delusional ideas can be disruptive to their overall lives." --Wikipedia

The Texas Tribune along with many other local media outlets reported the change. Most but not all buildings are open for discreet carry by LTC (formerly CHL) license holders at the state's 72 community colleges. The paper notes, "Depending on whom you ask, the fact that guns may be carried into Performance Hall and buildings like it is either an important assertion of freedom or an affront to the very character of higher education."

One small university had an unintentional discharge and no injury. Aside from that, comments were uniform -- "(other than that) very smoothly and without incident" (Tarleton State U., which had the UD); "Virtually no impact at all" (Texas A&M); "Amazingly quiet' (Texas Tech); "I expected it to be largely uneventful, and those expectations have been pretty much borne out" (Sam Houston State U.). The paper notes, "The uneventful implementation follows the patterns of the seven other states that legalized campus carry before Texas."

A number of professors, acting out on their fears, left Texas, citing the new freedom to carry as their reason. The ability of anyone to go shoot them didn't change, only their perception of danger. The Tribune story is illuminating: https://www.texastribune.org/2017/08/01/campus-carry-one-quiet-year/

A complete description of the law is here: http://www.gunlaws.com/updates.htm New Texas laws for 2017 take effect Sep. 1, we'll have that out soon.

New Arizona and Texas Gun Laws in Place

Mostly good but as always a mixed bag

The 2017 Update for The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide will be posted in downloadable form here.

The four main new gun laws may not affect gun owners immediately, but protections are now in place against expected attempts at future infringements. All 50 states should have similar protection in place. The Arizona versions can serve as a model.

1. Firearm Tracking Ban -- It's now a class 6 felony to require a person to use any sort of electronic firearm tracking system. That includes devices on the firearm and centralized or decentralized databases. Includes electronic systems "used to locate or control the use of a firearm," which could include so-called personalized guns (sometimes erroneously called smart guns). People could opt in if they want (they did with LoJack), and there are exceptions for authorities. A not perfect but really good plan. Read more.

2. Police Protection -- Cops now get special treatment whether on duty or off. Many protections only applied in the performance of official duty, that's been removed. An assault on an officer, on or off duty, if done with "malice" is aggravated assault. A direct result of the orchestrated Fergusson, Mo. black riots. Includes a gun snatch from an officer, what Michael Brown was doing when shot (misreported to this day by most "news" outlets. USA Today recently said shot "during a scuffle."). Read more.

3. State Preemption -- Continuous struggle to keep local fiefdoms from finding creative new infringements. This amendment basically stops them from banning their employees and contractors from having firearms in their vehicles, or on their real property (homes). Read more.

4. Private Property Transfers -- Beautifully written roadblock to prevent tyrannical actors who are seeking to force gun transfers to fall under federal control or registry. Elegant -- it doesn't mention firearm in any way -- a person cannot be required to check a database before the private sale, gift, donation, or any other transfer of any personal property, and no third party can be required to be involved in such transfers. Introduce this in your state. Read more.

Stop legislators’ elitist plan to arm themselves

They get gun rights -- you don’t

Congress has so far refused to move a bill, HR 38, which would end the civil-rights ban on honest citizens carrying firearms nationwide. It was introduced soon after president Trump was elected (January 3, 2017, assigned to the House Judiciary committee Jan. 12, no further action).

The bill would lift the controversial and apparently unconstitutional restrictions on legally carrying firearms outside a person’s home state. It would apply to anyone who can legally possess firearms under federal law and their home state’s law, including legislators and the general public, with conditions. Among the generally favorable conditions (http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm), Constitutional Carry would be recognized. One congressman is suggesting a new approach.

Now Congress may consider a different fast-track bill instead, H.R. 2940, proposed by representative Mo Brooks, (R-Ala.) that would grant legislators power to carry firearms nationwide and exclude the public. The bill has been described in the media but Rep. Brooks’ office notes the bill has not been publicly posted yet. Media reports are notoriously inaccurate when describing gun legislation. http://www.gunlaws.com/NewsAccuracy.htm

The likelihood of finding enough political capital for passing two similar firearms-carry bills is vanishingly small, experts say. The reasoning behind the new bill, according to Brooks on TV, is that elected congressional officials are at risk of attack and need to be armed. But members of Congress are statistically quite safe, when compared to the 30,000 American citizens who are murdered every year. Why the congressman believes there is a risk difference is unclear. Online reactions to the proposal have been vitriolic and called elitist.

Jesse Watters, who interviewed Brooks on the FOX News network, failed to ask him about the apparent lack of equal treatment under the law, if legislators get special exclusions from the bans that deny rights to the rest of Americans.

Watters instead praised the idea live on TV, and promised to follow its progress. There was no mention of the existing bill which would accomplish the same purpose, and empower the entire nation for defense against crime, or against the jihad currently being waged here and abroad. Brooks told Watters, “I wouldn’t have to worry about what the laws are,” a statement infuriating to gun-rights advocates. When asked in an informal survey, one high-profile political respondent who refused to be identified, replied, “It’s one of the things the British did that ignited the Revolution.”

The Freedom to Carry Bill, HR 38,  is described here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm
 

Guns for me but not for you



Legislators propose to arm themselves, exclude public

“I wouldn’t have to worry about what the laws are,” Representative Brooks says.


CONTACT: Alan Korwin, Author, Gun Laws of America
602-996-4020

As seen in



http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/29/concealed-carry-for-congress-but-not-for-you/

Read my other work at The Daily Caller:
http://dailycaller.com/author/alankorwin/

 

In a “more guns” bill that alarmed even pro-gun-rights activists, representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) has proposed arming federal legislators to the exclusion of regular citizens. An existing bill, HR 38, to make the firearm-carry permits of normal American citizens valid nationally, has languished in Congress since the election of Donald Trump. It would accomplish the same thing, freeing legislators to arm themselves, without excluding the public.

  Motivated by the attempted assassination of republican officials playing baseball in Virginia, the proposed Brooks bill would exempt elected federal officials from controversial and possibly unconstitutional laws banning their right to keep and bear arms in the nation’s capitol -- and anywhere else in the nation. The general public has suffered under such bans for decades, and has been assaulted and murdered by the tens of thousands annually while unarmed and defenseless.  

The U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment requires equal treatment under the law, which representative Brooks’ bill would ignore, in arming his own colleagues and omitting the rest of the nation. Similar discriminatory laws have been overturned in the past. According to statements he made during an interview with Jesse Watters on FOX News, “I wouldn’t have to worry about what the laws are,” indicating he would be free to exercise his rights anywhere. The rest of the public would remain under draconian barriers to possessing firearms for self defense, or any other legitimate purpose.  

When asked by Watters about arguments from anti-gun-rights activists and democratic legislators who say it would be too dangerous to let legislators be armed, since they might commit crimes or shoot people without cause, Brooks replied that’s “a ludicrous and inconsequential argument.”  

Facts back him up, since the battle for gun rights has constantly confronted this line of thought, and the facts never bear it out. Every time a new firearm-carry law comes into effect, imagined fears of upcoming bloodbaths dominate news coverage, but the projected horrors turn out to be delusions that do not occur. Retractions are never seen, contributing to widely recognized journalism-credibility problems.  

According to a Beltway lobbyist familiar with the situation, Brooks may have spoken in the heat of the moment, forgetful or unaware that HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 would accomplish the same purpose, without excluding the law-abiding public. That bill, sometimes referred to as Freedom To Carry (FTC), exempts lawful gun owners whose rights to carry are intact, with some conditions, against gun bans that start at state borders. Constitutional Carry is included in that bill. http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarryIndex.htm  

In effect, congressman Brooks, his staffers, and anyone else in America whose Second Amendment rights are whole could be protected under HR 38. The clamor to enact HR 38 has grown since the baseball assassination attempt.  

Because the political capital may not be available to enact two federal firearm-carry bills, one for an elite group and the other for the people, the smart course of action would be to put all energy behind the national Freedom To Carry bill, according to experts contacted for this news release.  

###

[Backgrounder:  Alan Korwin's Scottsdale-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, GunLaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. Gun Laws of America for news-media review is available on request, call 1-800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers.  As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.”

Disarm Annoying People -- Enacted

Empower relatives and friends to declare anyone unfit

"It could save lives."

Violations of journalism ethics ignored

Violations of due process and constitutionality ignored

Californians basically like it



The lamestream media told you:

The New York Times, in its unending legacy of anti-gun-rights editorials (June 1, 2017), is now praising a California gun law as "particularly important because it gives standing to concerned family members, not just the police, to seek a court ruling against possession of a gun by a violent abuser." (Violent abuser includes an annoying person*.)

Citing numbers from (unidentified) Michael Bloomberg's "gun-control" group, the paper claims of 156 mass shootings from 2009 to 2016, clearly an awful lot, 54% were traced to domestic violence, also a lot apparently. Support for the numbers, as usual is not provided, though Everytown for Gun Something gets plugged by name.

Doing the math shows 22 total events claimed per year, or 1 per month (54%), statistically insignificant. All unintentional death is of course tragic, a point on which everyone agrees, and which the Times makes repeatedly, sometimes several times in single sentences.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Everything has a cost. For whatever expense goes into preventing the single monthly event the Times appears so concerned about, funds are unavailable to address, for example, the 100,000 annual deaths multiple sources continue to report occur from iatrogenic death -- what the industry calls medical misadventure, or what the public calls doctor's mistakes. (And don't overlook nosocomial disabilities and death, maladies you catch in hospitals.)

The new California law would allow relatives and family members to disarm people by just asking a court to do so, without adequate representation for the person subject to the rights denial, in the hope the disarming would do more good than harm. Charging anyone for the 100,000 annual "mistake" deaths is virtually impossible. Californians are well known for their strained far-left anti-gun biases, where a good gun is no gun. Family members, under the new law, includes people you have dated, or ever stayed at your place.

California already enforces removal of Second Amendment rights for people charged, but not convicted of anything. If the Times was concerned with saving lives, and not disarming the public as critics claim their reporters stand in violation of their ethical oaths, it's obvious the paper might have a different focus.

The Times accepts mountains of expensive drug company and other medical advertising. They take no advertising from the firearms industry. But I digress.

*What you must claim against people in California to have their guns and ammo confiscated (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.6): "...a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose...

Law Firms to Gang up on Constitution

"Firearms Accountability Counsel Task Force"

$1,000/hr. lawyers will attempt to unravel Second Amendment

Joint effort to stop "gun violence"
(at the expense of rights you currently enjoy)

Old familiar left-wing gun-control dialog --
but with fresh blood, legal eagles and "novel" strategies,
the same misconceptions and prejudices,
plus tens of millions to spend (dark money?)
on "free" legal support.

Gun owners and local laws are their prime target

Stymied at federal level, they're targeting courts

The lamestream media told you:

The New York Times offered up one of its Sunday front pages and an entire back page to applaud the introduction of an army of elite law-firm lawyers, supported by fees from their clients, to do "free" work attacking the current status of the Second Amendment.

Diminishing rights Americans have didn't rise to the awareness of reporters or editors who produced the piece. They displayed instead hoplophobic blinders, obscuring their preoccupation with what they call gun violence, misdirecting attention from criminal behavior and crime.

The Times, literally gushing at the possibilities, lambasted the "gun lobby" for doing such a successful job in protecting the right to keep and bear arms at the local, state and federal legislative and judicial levels, then predicted a campaign of destruction for gun rights at the hands of the high-powered coalition of firms, allied with the usual anti-gun-rights suspects, naming many of the firms and their leaders.

Arnold & Porter, Richard M. Alexander, chairman
Brady Center to Promote Gun Violence, Avery Gardiner, chief legal officer
Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, Eric M. Ruben
Covington & Burling, represented D.C. in Heller
Dentons
Everytown for Gun Safety, Michael Bloomberg, financier (did not join)
Hogan Lovells
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Robyn Thomas, executive director
Mayer Brown, Counsel to Brady Center
Munger, Tolles & Olsen, Brad D. Brian, co-managing partner*
O'Melveney &Myers, represented D.C. in Heller, Charlie Lifland, Partner
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Brad S. Karp, chairman
Ropes & Gray, Counsel to Brady Center
Skadden Arps, Counsel to Brady Center

Note: Mr. Brian makes a familiar "but" statement in the article, "... recognize that the Second Amendment is an important part of our Constitution... responsible gun owners... but... an epidemic of gun violence... law can save innocent lives without infringing..." Additional easily recognizable left-leaning gun-speak permeates the story.

Continue reading "Law Firms to Gang up on Constitution" »

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!