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

No Immediate Response

Media Hubris Goes Unabated

The lamestream media told you:

“The White House and Trump campaign officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.” -- USA Today, April 21, 2018 --Nicole Guadiano, Fredreka Schouten

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

“The White House and Trump campaign officials did not immediately respond to any of dozens of requests for comment today, on scores of topics.” --Korwin

The audacity of USA Today reporters, and “news” media elsewhere for commonly using this bombastic, antagonistic and pejorative expression, when they don’t get what they want. “The news media acts like they’re entitled to go behind police lines.” -Ted Parod.

The notion that the president of the free world is required or somehow obligated to respond at all, let alone immediately, to any request from me, or you, or an outfit with a reputation like USA Today reflects a level of hubris that calls for remedial behavior camp.

That professionals in an organization behave this way would be grounds for serious reprimand, if not dismissal, considering the status of the people being insulted. They could have their licenses revoked, except they are unlicensed operators.

The lunatic fringe nature in this particular case is hysterical. USA Today seeks an immediate response to the charge that Russian hacking revealed Hillary is indeed crooked, and with the democrat party illegally colluded to defeat -- Bernie Sanders! He apparently had a chance of getting the nomination for president away from Hillary. Democrats are suing, saying Hillary’s illegal activity, once it was revealed, hurt her, even though Trump had nothing to do with the dems shenanigans against one of their own.

“A request was made to Trump officials for comment at 10 a.m. today,” might be a reasonable line. Expecting a reply beyond sarcasm unbecoming a president? Fuggedaboudit. A reply would from the White House would be as unreasonable as the lawsuit if you think about it.

Facebook Censorship Plans Announced

Congress Goes Along

Zuckerberg must be thinking, ‘You are SO over!’

The lamestream media told you:

Opinions on Mark Zuckerberg’s recent marathon inquisition before Congress are all over the map. Search it online if you haven’t already, or care. Members of Congress showed themselves to be highly ignorant, illiterate and uninformed about the Internet, Facebook, data collection on individuals -- even how online tools work. Most of their questions didn’t rise to the level of grade-school children -- and the members didn’t know it.

Chairman Grassley struggled so hard to read his own statement he is an embarrassment to Congress itself, completely hard to listen to his broken cadence and stumbling.

Zuckerberg didn’t get frazzled, or smirk, or get really hard questions, and his answers, after a few hours and certainly by the second day, were simple repetition of prepared statements, delivered from memory, showing his incredible intellectual prowess, typical of the other few oligarchs of internet machinery.

His left-wing predilection was self-evident, and problems this presents for the nation are stunning. His support for dark-money funded ignorant children in the March for our Lives media-promoted movement was revealing.

Congress has no way to contain him, or the web’s power that challenges their own, though some suggestions did arise: An “honest ads act,” fake-account removal, state-actor identification, better advertiser ID, and third-party fact checkers from the Poynter Institute, each with their own merits and disastrous side effects and downsides were proposed. Stay tuned.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Facebook censorship will cover three areas.
No one raised objections, they all fell in line with Zuckerberg’s default position:

TOPICS TO BE FACEBOOK CENSORED:
Hate Speech
Violence
Terrorism

Yes, these are broad, easily abused categories.
Good definitions of these don’t exist.
Everyone agreed on that. But it didn’t deter Congress or Facebook.
Ask Dennis Prager if decent educational material is already being wiped out,
with those excuses as excuses. It is.

Continue reading "Facebook Censorship Plans Announced " »

Everyone Backs Speech Ban, the Idiots

The lamestream media told you:

Government must ban texting while driving. It’s just too dangerous. Almost all states now do. The few stragglers must get with the program. Lives are at stake. How can you possibly be against this? We’re the media, we know what’s right for you. The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Pressure is on to get all states to outlaw texting while driving. Only Arizona, Missouri and Montana don’t have it yet. Arizona just introduced a bill, Texas passed one after a tragedy. That’s how we do things now.

There is no disagreement this can be dangerous, and has caused traffic accidents and fatalities. There should also be no disagreement that government has no legitimate delegated authority to enact such a law. The Constitution forbids it—“no law respecting freedom of speech.” Texting is freedom of speech. If someone has the power to ban this under one condition deemed problematic, nothing stops banning it under some other condition deemed suitable. “No law” means no law for a reason.

For good measure, the Arizona bill bans reading and writing while driving too.

This situation, if we still had values, would need to be handled with an ad campaign, marketing, social pressure, schooling, tech inside the device and other creative solutions. It can’t be handled by government edict, that’s banned.

If schools can teach and convince students they’re not male or female (they’re doing this you know) they could advise on texting behind the wheel. The new law doesn’t actually prevent anything, everyone knows that, it just makes teens do it below the dashboard, where visibility is even worse. And it provides a $25 fine (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!) for a first offense, and then gets worse. Social awareness would do a better job. And it would be legal.

Arizona Lacks at Least One Senator

Senator McCain recovering, Doesn’t Vote
“Might Return by Summer,” daughter says
21 legislative days until August recess

Wife attends meeting for him,
reporter sings her praise, two photos, but
fails to point out he is a no-show, again.

The lamestream media told you:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2018/03/13/meghan-mccain-still-no-timetable-ailing-father-john-mccains-return-senate/422908002/

Dan Nowicki (Phoenix) There still is no timetable for U.S. Sen. John McCain to return to Washington, D.C., but his daughter on Tuesday floated the possibility of summer.

“I wish I had an exact date, but I just don’t,” Meghan McCain told Phoenix radio station KTAR-FM (92.3). "I am very cautiously optimistic about the summer, yes.”

Meghan McCain and her mother, Cindy McCain, last week helped shoot down a dubious online report anticipating McCain's resignation for health reasons.

Cindy McCain tweeted that her husband "is doing fine and has no intention of resigning!"

Meghan McCain likewise definitively dubbed the report, which had gotten some traction on social media, "FAKE NEWS."

While not giving interviews to the media, the elder McCain has continued to issue written statements from Arizona and remains active on Twitter.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Senator McCain, deathly ill with aggressive brain cancer, is not representing Arizona in public or in Congress, where you must be present to vote and participate. He is getting therapy at his cabin in Cornville, Ariz., and in hospitals, with the hoped for January return date come and gone. His daughter has appeared for and spoken for him more than once and on a local radio interview. His wife has also appeared on his behalf, which reporters just take in stride. Written statements attributed to the senator are being issued but he has not given any interviews in person.

In a published report, a local journalist covered a number of subjects but noticeably omitted the fact that McCain is not representing his state, leaving Arizona one vote short in the U.S. Senate. Arizona’s other senator, Jeff Flake, has the appearance lately of a non-Republican, angering many of the state’s constituents.

Dan Nowicki, the reporter, said McCain’s daughter Meghan, and her mother, “last week helped shoot down (sic) a dubious online report anticipating McCain’s resignation for health reasons.” He did not say why the report was “dubious.” He did later quote the senator’s wife Cindy saying McCain is doing fine and he has no intention of resigning. The daughter claimed the report was “fake news” without elaborating. Why McCain will not be representing the state, or will be living in Cornville for six months if he is “doing fine” was unexplained, or perhaps unexplainable.

Nowicki failed to respond to repeated requests for explanation of the “dubious” reports about McCain resigning, or how the Senator is fulfilling his obligations as an Arizona Senator, staying bedridden in Cornville with a condition medical experts generally refer to as incurable.

It Makes Sense the Left Is Using Children

Why should anyone be surprised?

Darling little kids are motivational, it’s all that matters

The lamestream media told you:

[Quote some “news” story about one of the children being bandied around as a news commentator, hogging spotlight. Actually, quote several, now known as survivors, which describes anyone at school that day, according to leading experts. Use the well-spoken one, the one from drama class, who says he can’t act (cue laughter). Too many people don’t know he was a drama student. He’s really good on live TV.]

“It should not be harder for me to get this girl in fourth period to call me back than it is to get an AR-15,” Cameron Kasky told Time Wednesday. This is how a drama teenager speaks?

The teenager doesn’t seem aware that if your rights are intact and you’re not disqualified for good reason, of course you can exercise your rights. The reporter didn’t ask.

Why the fourth period girl won’t call him back was also left unanswered, though leading experts believe that may be due to his personality, and may change after the national exposure. She may have avoided him for other good reason, but this was unknown at press time (“news” technique for planting spurious ideas in readers’ minds).

Time continues: “As the students’ movement gains visibility, they have faced backlash from bots and trolls who spread conspiracy theories about them and accuse them of being ‘crisis actors.’” The report doesn’t support the slur, and says the kids just laugh it off. “You should have seen me in Fiddler on the Roof,” Kasky says. “Who the hell would pay me to act?”

“The labor and socialist movements had youth affiliates going back to the beginning of the century,” according to a history professor quoted in the article, revealing more than perhaps the socialists would prefer, for reasons that were unclear at press time. Hundreds of similar articles have flooded the web, TV and print. Radio has had a tougher time getting these new spokespeople on.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The political left, a polite name for socialists, are using children with no actual credentials to be spokespeople in the gun debate, because progressives are trying to appeal to their base. Using children works, to their side.

It doesn’t matter that the kids are uninformed. This technique pulls at heartstrings. It is motivational. To the “useful idiots” (Vladimir Lenin’s term), people who follow the leader without thinking through on issues will be swayed and motivated by this technique. Of course the left uses children.

The only surprise is that republicans, conservatives (not the same thing), independents, libertarians, nonaligneds, even the reporters and editorialists who can still think and still have a platform, are surprised. What do you expect? The left should use reason, logic, facts? That’s not what they do. That doesn't work on them.

It would be a tactical and strategic error for leftists to do differently. They have to rally their troops. They have to use techniques that work. That’s why CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, USA Today, AP and the rest look the way they do. Journalism per se has been dead for a long while. Note: Human beings, along with “bots and trolls” observed the children were being used by sophisticated propagandists. The kids activities and printing were also being funded with huge sums, estimated to be in the millions, another “astroturf” movement. Countless buses, room and board have been provided to organize the spontaneous marches staged nationwide, as if spontaneously.

Eye witnesses in D.C filmed and reported the uncoordinated youth march was 90% adults. Cash was prepared and stapled together to give to school kid groups for buying lunch. media reports were phony, fake, saturation which itself should tell you something, and balance, there wasn’t any.

The Hill ($5 million spent on free march)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/380373-march-for-our-lives-organizers-have-several-million-dollars-in

Background on what Millennials really think
https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/29/the-media-ignores-millennials-skepticism

GOA Video shows the real marchers (D’oh!) BELOW:
https://www.facebook.com/GunOwners/videos/10155567554556701/


Where are all the kids?

The Bump Stock Deception

If the infringers get something we should too.
Using tragedy to manipulate infringement is perverse.
Left wingers seek to ban a piece of plastic out of pure frustration.

An open letter to Congress:

Regarding so-called "bump-fire" stocks or "slide-fire stocks" you are currently considering regulating --

1. You have no apparent legitimate delegated authority to regulate these essentially inert plastic/composite firearm accessories.

2. Because a firearm can be fired in "bump-fire" style without these accessories, regulating them is a specious and politically motivated attempt to placate certain elements of the public and political world who do not understand the issue.

3. Pretending to actually "do something," with a move like this, when you are actually doing nothing productive, is a humiliating embarrassment.

4. Regulations here will a) have no effect on psychotic behavior which is the real problem society faces, and b) deliberately masks the true nature of that problem.

5. Your agency should not play into this false narrative or deceptive practice.

6. Arguing that you can't ban other firearms, so you might as well ban these "crumbs" is reprehensible, and should be grounds for your removal from office for infringement.

Author Alan Korwin.



Unnamed-1
These guys get to have all the machine guns they want. The whole purpose
of the Second Amendment is BALANCE OF POWER. Has America
lost sight of this crucial principle? We lost this balance in 1986.

Trump's Deal on Iran Makes Sense

Obviously democrats will oppose it.
Their guy (BHO) arranged to give Iran nukes
Trump says no way no how.

The lamestream media told you:

[Compiled and summarized:] In typical fashion, Trump is being provocative and irrational in his handling of Iran and its nuclear program. He will never get his hair-brained schemes through Congress. Congressional democrats are standing firm in their righteous resistance to his stonewalling and unreasonable demands. In other news he has cut funding to the U.N. causing grievous harm to that fine organization, and causing outrage among our allies.

“Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., who voted against the agreement two years ago, said at a hearing Wednesday U.S. interests are best served by keeping the deal and aggressively policing the agreement to ensure Iran doesn't violate the terms.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-democrats-iran-nuclear-deal-20171011-story.html

More than 180 House Democrats sent a letter to Trump last week calling on him to certify compliance unless he could produce “credible evidence of a material breach by Iran.”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In his statement, Pres. Trump detailed his requirements for fixing the Iran deal: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-iran-nuclear-deal/
“I am open to working with Congress on bipartisan legislation regarding Iran. But any bill I sign must include four critical components.

“First, it must demand that Iran allow immediate inspections at all sites requested by international inspectors.

“Second, it must ensure that Iran never even comes close to possessing a nuclear weapon.

“Third, unlike the nuclear deal, these provisions must have no expiration date. My policy is to deny Iran all paths to a nuclear weapon—not just for ten years, but forever.

“If Iran does not comply with any of these provisions, American nuclear sanctions would automatically resume.

“Fourth, the legislation must explicitly state in United States law—for the first time—that long-range missile and nuclear weapons programs are inseparable, and that Iran’s development and testing of missiles should be subject to severe sanctions.

“...I also call on all our allies to take stronger steps with us to confront Iran’s other malign activities. Among other actions, our allies should cut off funding to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its militant proxies, and anyone else who contributes to Iran’s support for terrorism. They should designate Hezbollah—in its entirety—as a terrorist organization. They should join us in constraining Iran’s missile development and stopping its proliferation of missiles, especially to Yemen. They should join us in countering Iran’s cyber threats. They should help us deter Iran’s aggression against international shipping. They should pressure the Iranian regime to stop violating its citizens’ rights. And they should not do business with groups that enrich Iran’s dictatorship or fund the Revolutionary Guard and its terrorist proxies.”

After extensive analysis, The Uninvited Ombudsman cannot find any hair-brained ideas here. We do agree though the democrats will do what they can to block it.

Sexually Explicit Remarks Among Marines!

Leftists are stunned, seek reparations
Oh, wait, reparations are for the Civil War, this is recriminations

The lamestream media told you:

“Two civilian officials with the Marine Corps say their boss, a Marine officer, repeatedly made sexually explicit overtures to them at work, but their complaints to leadership were minimized.” -USA Today

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Aren’t sexually explicit remarks how you find out if a member of the opposite sex might be interested in an intimate relationship with you? What are you supposed to use, telepathy?

When a person “comes on” to you, you do what? Complain to your boss? Or your bosses boss? You rebuff the advance. High schoolers know this. If folks in the Marine Corps don’t we need some reeducation camp time. Americans are getting out of hand with this. Leave it to USA Today to elevate it to the level of national "news." It's not fake (made up and false). It's phony (should never be in the paper, where it is misleading).

The actual charge here apparently amounts to the man, four years ago, becoming aroused by the women and the women noticing this, under his clothing. No contact, just biology at work, at work. How much did he help that along? That part is he-said-she-said, so it can't be resolved. Go ahead, fire your complaints at me for stating the obvious. I am not evaluating a felony assault being ignored, I'm describing a lack of self reliance and toughness needed to deal. Do the Marines maybe have some real problems, like any big tough outfit? Sure. Is this case one of them. Nah.

"Children of color" aren't "Colored children"

Simple word play convinces racists they aren't racist


Nation's main purveyors of racism fooling everyone

The lamestream media told you:

"Fostering a lack of diversity"
"Kids in Arizona's care are mostly children of color, but those charged with treating them are overwhelmingly white. Experts have long recognized inequalities in America's child welfare system: When kids share identical circumstances except for race, black and Native American children enter foster care more often, spend more time in the system and wait longer to be adopted..." https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/11/12/arizonas-foster-care-boards-dont-look-like-their-communities-heres-why-matters/526586001/

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Charges of racism, and stories about diversity, affirmative action, "people of color," and all the rest of the bean-counting racism afflicting our nation come from one side only -- the Democrats, leftists, progressives, and radical proponents of so-called equality, where no one is equal, equality must be enforced, merit is not a fair gauge and individual virtue is frowned upon.

In a recent cover story on Gannett's number two paper, The Arizona Republic, a lack of colored people, called people of color, in child-welfare management, is highlighted as a problem for children in the system, who are disproportionately colored children, called children of color. The article points out that 90% of review board members in the state's largest county are white, 100% white in six other counties, and fails to mention percentages in the state's remaining five counties, for reasons that were unclear at press time. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/11/12/arizonas-foster-care-boards-dont-look-like-their-communities-heres-why-matters/526586001/

Also missing is the fact that 72% of black children are born out of wedlock, contributing to imbalances, crime, developmental problems and the child welfare mess. Why more colored people, now called people of color to distort the narrative, don't step up to help fix the mess that out-of-wedlock births create, is not discussed in the lengthy cover story. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was not quoted in the story. There is no National Association for the Advancement of People of Color.

Chances that this article here will be called racist for using non-mass-media-approved terminology are substantial. The reply, "What do you mean when you say 'racist' and what does 'racism' mean to you' is typically met with blank stares, confusion, and a variety of answers that don't match, when there are any.

Online definitions, with common threads, do not seem to apply to the terms "colored people" and "people of color," suggesting the terms are mere propaganda and thought control related to political correctness, and not racism, e.g.:

"racism, n., the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." The makeup of professional sports teams does not count.

racism, n. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others...

NPR: The Ugly, Fascinating History of the Word "Racism": The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902... Someone is either a racist and therefore an inhuman monster, or they're an actual, complex human being, and therefore, by definition, incapable of being a racist... Merriam Webster gives the date of entry into the language as 1936.

The idea that race, ethnicity, nationality, genetics, gender or even culture and upbringing have no effect on human traits and that all people are perfectly equal doesn't appear to have a name, though it is perfectly clear that all people are not equal. This is commonly confused with the egalitarian idea that all people are justly entitled to equal treatment under the law. It's complicated. Uncomplicated people, often found gathering in the democrat's party, have a hard time with some of these concepts.

911 Callers Deserve "Miranda Rights"

Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination
Right to have a lawyer present during questioning
Right to remain silent because --

"Everything you say will be used against you."

Half the convictions in self-defense cases come from the 911 recordings.
-- Mitch Vilos, author, Self Defense Laws of All 50 States


“The 911 Limited-Immunity Law”


Legislative Statement of Intent

Whereas the state legislature has enacted law defining certain circumstances in which a person may lawfully threaten to use or actually use physical or deadly physical force;

Whereas the state legislature recognizes a value for justifiable instances of threatened use or actual use of physical or deadly physical force to be promptly reported to the appropriate authorities to assist in the prompt dispatching of emergency medical and law-enforcement personnel;

Whereas the state legislature recognizes that individuals who threaten or actually use physical or deadly physical force have a deeply rooted constitutional right to remain silent, to have an attorney present prior to and during any questioning, or during the course of a potentially criminal investigation, and a sacrosanct Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination;

Whereas the state legislature desires to strike a balance between the potentially competing needs for prompt reporting of such incidents and an individual’s constitutional right to remain silent, have an attorney present prior to and during questioning, and be protected from self-incrimination, all of which could delay prompt reporting;

Therefore, the state legislature hereby enacts the following statute to provide limited immunity to individuals who are directly or indirectly involved in an incident involving the threatened or actual use of physical or deadly physical force if they promptly make a good-faith effort to report such instances by calling 911 or other appropriate authorities.

The net effect of the proposed law is:

1. Encourage people to contact 911 for assistance by protecting their 5th Amendment and Miranda rights during the call.
People currently lack self-incrimination protections.

2. Require the state to gain convictions in claimed but flawed self-defense cases by relying on everything except self-incrimination from 911 voice recordings.
The state frequently and abusively relies on unsound self-incrimination.

DRAFT TEXT OF STATUTE

“LIMITED IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE DURING 911 EMERGENCY CALLS.”

A. Any individual who is directly or indirectly involved in an incident involving the threatened or actual use of justifiable physical or deadly physical force shall be granted limited immunity for all statements made in a good-faith effort to promptly report such incident to appropriate authorities in an effort to obtain emergency medical or law-enforcement assistance.

Continue reading "911 Callers Deserve "Miranda Rights"" »

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!