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!


The “Don’t Inspire Evil” Initiative

Bloomfield Press, in cooperation with a growing list of nationally recognized institutions and individuals, joins in support of The Don’t Inspire Evil Initiative:

“Refrain from gratuitous or repetitious portrayal of mass murderers’ names and images.”

Accuracy In Media, Don Irvine, President
Lori Klein, President, Western Journalism Center
Sheriff Richard Mack, Founder, Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Assn.
Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
Bloomfield Press, Alan Korwin, Publisher and CEO
Crime Prevention Research Center, John Lott, President
David Kopel, Columnist, The Washington Post
Second Amendment Foundation, Alan Gottlieb, President
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Rabbi Dovid Bendory

We join with Le Monde, La Croix, and CNN French TV affiliate BFMTV who will no longer publish photographs and names of terrorists “to avoid possible posthumous glorification effects.”

We stand with Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin who became world news by refusing to name the perp in an Oregon college incident given saturation “coverage” in national media.

We support the work of No Notoriety, a citizen effort to curtail glorification heaped upon the worst elements of society in perverse efforts to increase media revenue.

We join with former highly regarded FBI Director James Comey who refused to name the mass murderer in Orlando to avoid the “twisted notion” that “fame or glory” could come from carrying out the attack.

The well-established link between copycat crimes, and excessive exposure of criminal perpetrators by mass media, must finally be admitted and broken. We support adoption of the ethical guideline above to encourage responsible reporting, and discourage behavior by reporters, broadcasters and editors that tends to glorify, promote or encourage mass murderers, jihadis and related criminal activity. Every journalist who fails to take steps to limit the publicity support these heinous villains seek is tantamount to complicity in the crimes they commit against humanity.

“We must starve terrorists of the oxygen of publicity which they seek.” --Margaret Thatcher

Working Less Is Good -- or is it?

Unclear who is promoting Americans to work less

What possible ulterior motive could this include

The lamestream media told you:

“Knock off from work a little early? Sure, it’s good for you.” USA Today. Page One.
Newspapers report facts, or claim to.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Any doubt that the lamestream media no longer supports The American Way (click that link) has been finally dashed to pieces with the appearance of a front-page story in “America’s newspaper” (self-proclaimed) USA Today, proposing hard work and long hours are bad and should be abandoned in favor of working less and slacking off, like the French do. According to a new study, so it must be true.

The study, from the great fortress of science, Australia, found that hard work “erodes your mental and physical health, leaving you less time to eat well...” Americans currently suffer from an obesity epidemic, not mentioned in the story.

The work was done by Huong Dinh, from the “research school for population health,” a new discipline. The Uninvited Ombudsman is awaiting charges of xenophobia (dislike of foreigners) to come flooding in for doubting the report. Wealth of Nations, by American Founding Father Adam Smith, upon which the most successful nation in the history of the world was founded (ours), conflicts with the report.

In a shockingly sexist and misogynistic statement, Dinh and reporter Mathew Diebel note that women should work less, because they must, “spend much more time on care and domestic work.” The typical insults and attacks usually hurled for inappropriate and differential sexist mistreatment of women were missing from the story, for reasons that were unclear. Women can, according to the report, work longer if “they compromise their health.” Who decides to run this stuff as if it’s news, or even valid, was also unclear. A picture of an attractive woman staring into the distance, wearing a telephone headset at a computer terminal, accompanied the story.

A Fox News for the Left?

Left-wing news outlets keep failing

Will require "serious funding" or it won't work

Columbia Journalism Review reports

The lamestream media told you:

Columbia Journalism Review, a formerly highly respected centrist commentator on the state of journalism, and now an integral part of the left-wing media produced at an alt-left college, is incredulous at the inability of leftists to maintain healthy numbers in cable and talk radio, where conservative voices hold sway.

CJR, March, 2017 -- "Between the nation's number one cable news network, a vibrant talk radio circuit led by Rush Limbaugh, and a bevy of websites ranging from the "alt-right" nationalism of Breitbart to the conspiratorial fever-swamp of Infowars, conservative media has found sustained success in ways liberal outlets have consistently failed to match. In a piece co-published by CJR and The Nation, Mark Hertsgaard argues that the left needs to find a response.

[Hertsgaard overlooks the virtual lock liberals maintain on print, broadcast TV and film.]

"It is past time to build a countervailing independent-media infrastructure -- not to mimic Fox and Friends' delivery of propaganda disguised as news or to slavishly carry water for any political party or cause, but rather to bring professional, truth-telling journalism to large numbers of Americans, many of whom trust neither Fox and Friends nor the mainstream media to tell the truth," Hertsgaard writes.

[Hertsgaard overlooks the delivery of propaganda disguised as news from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS, or how they slavishly carry water for any political party or cause -- if it's left wing.]

"It's not as though the left hasn't tried (see below), but any attempt to replicate the success of Breitbart, let alone Fox News, requires serious funding and the sort of breakthrough success that has so far eluded liberal outlets."

[Hertsgaard recognizes that serious funding, and not free-market results, is needed.]

CJR summarizes some of the failed almost laughable attempts, which confound the left, including the failure of Air America, with an obituary from the New York Times.

Air America, the long-suffering progressive talk radio network, abruptly shut down on Thursday, bowing to what it called a "very difficult economic environment." NYT 1/21/10 "It would be a shame if the world sees the failure of Air America as representing the failure of progressive talk radio," said Michael Harrison, the editor of Talkers Magazine, a talk radio publication. Company's chairman, in an unusual statement for a left winger, said, "our company cannot escape the laws of economics." The broadcaster had a role in the careers of Rachel Maddow and Al Franken, both of whom hosted shows there before it failed.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

CJR and this writer lack even a glimmer of awareness that the left’s continued failure here has something to do with their audience, and its inability to hold up their end of the news bargain, not the content. If you’ve debated with these people, you’ve found they can’t think in a straight line, or at least not for very long, they have trouble connecting dots, change subjects whenever anything gets even slightly uncomfortable, can’t grasp concepts greater than a triangle and sometimes not that.

Listen to the few left-wing outlets out there -- it’s like listening to Bizarro in a Superman comic. The pathetic thing is people who have this mental incapacity tend to congregate together, and you get the heart of that party -- and listenership. Of course it fails. Gather enough and yes you can elect candidates -- to everyone’s detriment -- but run a financially sound, audience-dependent information-based broadcast... different problem.

The jihad isn't terrorism

Now that we've seen a madman plowing a truck into people exiting a mosque, the media has to stop treating everyone the same -- as terrorists -- or we won’t know what’s taking place!

Would it even make sense now to wait for "official word" if a mass death is an act of terrorism? That word terrorism no longer works as a substitute for the jihad.

How can you be accurate about jihadis and the muslim jihad if you call every mass murderer a terrorist? That sure isn’t right, even a journalist can see that.

Surely this recent guy with a truck isn’t a jihadi, right? It’s time to call killers killers. Stop calling murderers gunmen, which demeans guns and men (with a misandrist sexist term). Get back to the business of using language with precision. The journalism Code of Ethics requires it.

Is Subliminal Sex Selling “News”?

Too Fast For The Eye But It's In There:

The lamestream media told you:

Sex sells.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

These images, taken from regular daily broadcasts on the FOX News Channel, bear a striking resemblance, according to reliable sources, to a woman in the midst of behavior that cannot be aired on regular daytime TV.

They appear almost too quickly for the human eye and brain to consciously perceive, a process sometimes referred to as subliminal information. The question of whether this is an unconscious or unplanned appeal to male or other viewers is unknown. The woman pictured is Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former district attorney and personality on the FOX News Channel.

Online debates over the sexiest newscasters are a hot topic, with some international stations using complete nudity as an audience draw. Anyone who still believes news is about news is behind the times. American news has become infotainment at best, "America's tale," and news consumers must rely on multiple sources to corroborate anything they get these days, especially if it’s from lamestream outlets. Panel discussions are opinion fests, to which nearly every spoken line can be met with, "You don't know that." Reporters interview each other, instead of people involved in events.

As they say, If you watch ABC or NBC, you’ll C...BS. Fair and balanced is a catch phrase, not a principle of physics (which is also less than 100%, and always was).

How to Manipulate a Poll

Just for fun

Sample question:

1. "If they took all the guns away the world would be a safer place."

A: I guess democrats would say: Yes. No. I don't know.
A: I guess republicans would say: Yes. No. I don't know.
A: I think: Yes. No. I don't know.

2. Does question 1 include the police?

3. In question 1, who is "they" who takes all the guns away?

4. If they take all the guns away, do the Russians and Chinese go along?

5. Can we take away all the guns from the criminals first?

6. T or F: The world was a safer place before guns were invented.

7. T or F: If guns disappeared criminals and dictators would make new ones.

8. T or F: If there were no guns, street gangs would use brutal methods instead.

9. T or F: Since criminals could just take my gun, I could just take theirs.

10. Essay question: The news media keeps me fully informed on this subject.

Extra credit: What the media does provide about guns has no bias: True. False. Can't tell.

Bonus Q: If the government and political forces attempted to ban firearms outright, as the losing presidential candidate seemed predisposed to do, and some politicians have openly advocated for, who would be exempt? Circle as many as you think apply. The Secret Service, Local Police (New York City has 51,000), FBI, CIA, NSA, TSA, BATFE, National Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Supreme Court Police, Dept. of Agriculture Police, Homeland Security Police, EPA Police, NASA, Customs, Border Patrol, ICE, Coast Guard, County Sheriffs, 55 groups specified in federal statutes at last count, Other (specify, use extra paper if needed). Could the country have private investigators, body guards and armored car services, and finally, who would be in charge of banning firearms outright for people already banned, like armed criminals.


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

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


Secret Messages From Now On

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

500 People Show Up Armed For Dinner

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

Political Pledge You Won't Hear

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

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

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

More: The Liberty Poll
Where's a decent reporter when you need one?

Questions I Can't Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Korwin's Daily Caller Columns


They speak for themselves, get more of the good stuff --

A Presidential Fable

A Kenyan American, a Cuban American and a Canadian American all tried out for the presidency of the United States. The Kenyan American said, "I'm eligible because the Founding Fathers believed a person with an African dad would make a fine president, would have no divided loyalty, and wouldn't even have to prove he was born here in the U.S. until well after he got into office." He said they put that logic right into the Constitution in Article II.

The Cuban American said, "I'm eligible because both my parents come from a brutal communist dictatorship that aimed nuclear bombs at the United States, but because they escaped in time to have me born in Florida, the Founding Fathers believed I would have no split allegiances of any kind, and I would be a perfect candidate for the presidency and the nuclear launch codes." He dropped out of the race when too few people voted for him in the primaries. Cuban law claims him as a citizen, as they do for everyone with even one Cuban parent, but Americans like to ignore that, because it would make things difficult with such a hostile enemy.

The Canadian American, who is also a Cuban American thanks to his Cuban refugee dad, giving him triple citizenship, said, "I'm a Harvard law grad, and I can tell you for certain the Founders would believe I'm eligible because I renounced my Canadian citizenship last year. I can also tell you it is a 'settled matter of law' that being born in a foreign country like I was doesn't matter, because I have at least one American parent, my mom, and that's how the Founders planned to protect the presidency, right there in Article II. Paternity didn't matter to them, despite what the British thought." The British thought nationality came from your father, not your mother. Other countries thought it was land based, or both.

But then John Jay spoke up. He became our first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Back in 1787 he said we have to prevent any chance that the commander in chief and the presidency "be given to, nor devolve on" foreigners, in a letter to George Washington, and Washington had written back to agree. [I have those letters posted here.] That's why the Committee of Eleven, the group appointed by the Constitutional Convention to do a lot of the editing of the Constitution while it was being drafted, wrote Article II to require only a "natural born Citizen" could hold the office of president and commander in chief of our military forces. They changed Alexander Hamilton's weaker draft.

So modern-day skeptics asked, "How did those old dead white guys even know what a 'natural born Citizen' was, or that it was the correct phrase? They might have used a term like that, in that critical spot, and just guessed at its meaning! They didn't even define it in the document itself!"

To which a frustrated uninvited ombudsman blurted out, "Only brain-dead idiots or followers of network "news" could believe such poppycock! They didn't go defining ANY of the terms in the Constitution. They knew EXACTLY what their words meant. Those white men were inspired geniuses. The definition of that exact term was written down at that time for Pete's sake."

In a reference book Ben Franklin brought to the Convention, Law of Nations, that phrase is precisely described, and it means just what you would expect if the Framers were trying to guarantee a 100% American president free from foreign entanglements, like Jay and Washington discussed in writing.

Law of Nations says, in Section 212: "Natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." That's it. A three-part requirement. Two citizen parents at the time of birth (jus sanguinis in Latin, "of the blood"), on U.S. soil (jus soli in Latin, "of the land").

No Kenyan Americans. No Cuban Canadian Americans who renounce foreign citizenship the year before they run for office. Sorry folks, some people are not eligible. That was the Founding Fathers' plan. How foreign is too foreign? Any.

Ben Franklin wrote a long letter back to Charles Dumas in 1775, who provided their copies of Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel (Ben had gotten three), to thank him and tell him, "...the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting..." He also mentioned, among many other items, they were working hard to make saltpeter, desperately needed to manufacture gunpowder. The letter is in the National Archives.

The Convention used "natural born Citizen" in only one place and to this day has only one use in our entire body of law -- as a restriction on who can be president and commander in chief. Every other official requirement in law uses the plain word "citizen," a condition that can be achieved in numerous ways, including after birth, and appears constantly in law. Natural born citizenship can only occur at the moment of birth.

A Kenyan American, a Cuban American and a Canadian Cuban American were sitting in a bar, having read this short essay and asked themselves, "So, what do we do now?" The Canadian Cuban American said, "I'm eligible for the U.S. Supreme Court, and since I'm a Harvard law grad, even though that's not a requirement, I think I'll go for that." The Cuban American said, "I'm a U.S. Senator, and even though I rarely vote there and too few people voted for me, I'll try to stay there." And the Kenyan American said, "I may have a problem, I'm going to seek legal advice from an undisclosed location." And everyone lived ever after, for a while.

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!