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

Trump's Tax Returns

You know the answer

The lamestream media told you:

Trump should release his tax returns. Trump must release his tax returns. Why won't trump release his tax returns. We demand to see Trump's tax returns.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Perhaps Trump could release his tax returns on the same schedule Obama released his birth certificate.

That would be roughly six years from now.

The tax returns resolve nothing.
The birth certificate would have resolved whether the man was a usurper.
Why wouldn't Obama release his documents?

Worst case, what the left hopes for and may well be the case -- Trump's returns show he paid no taxes at all. Yeah, so... you expected something else?

The only reason for asking for them is to use that against him, to hammer. That's what the "news" media does. Reporting is not what they seek here. But as long as he's within the law, balancing wins against losses, what exactly is the problem?

Can you demand he pay taxes that are not due?

I suppose if liberalism really is a mental disorder, you could feel like a rich person should pay taxes even if they are not owed.

While the returns are under audit, there is nothing to release. They are temporary, tentative, not final. It is the final adjusted returns any sentient being would want to see. And when those show no payment, or proper legal payment, yeah, so what?

Who Really Won The Election?

It's the math, silly.

The lamestream media told you:

She got more votes!

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

He got more states!

In the Grand Compromise, when the nation was founded, we decided the most fair, rational, balanced and representative way to select the President was by state. That's why there is an Electoral College.

Final tally:
33 to 17
States
 
306 to 232
Electoral College Votes
 
You may have noticed the "news" media doesn't like making these numbers
prominent, because it doesn't promote their sore-loser, prejudiced status.



As an aside, Senators, Representatives and Supreme Court Justices are all selected by different methods, to help spread the influence around (Senator selection was changed from state legislature selection to popular vote, which many people feel was a bad idea, but that's another story.)

Media Wants Electoral College Dead

Anything they want killed that badly must be pretty good

The lamestream media told you:

Dec. 25, 2016 -- Christmas Day -- Hartford, Conn. Susan Haigh, AP https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-arizona-republic/20161225/281715499275454

"The Electoral College is a relic of a bygone era, and we need to change this system," said Connecticut state Sen. Mae Flexer, who filed a bill with several fellow Democrats requiring Connecticut to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact..."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In a 36-column-inch story on Christmas Day, the AP could not find one thing worthy about the Electoral College or why it even exists, in reporting on the effort to remove it from the greatest governmental system ever devised by man on Earth, the one that allows them to print their (place adjective here). More than 1,000 "news" outlets reprint AP pronouncements verbatim.

Expert after expert, democrats and republicans alike, are quoted, cited and described, but every word supports the idea that the Electoral College is antiquated, outdated, in need of a "work around," "a relic of a bygone era," and "we need to change the system." This is called "reporting." People taught to think call it "propaganda with an agenda."

Some critics do question however... whether they can get it done quickly, and there is even a republican mentioned who claims, without support of any kind, that it won't benefit either party. But it is a scheme being promoted virtually entirely by democrats only, for reasons that were unclear at press time. Because 33 state legislatures are controlled by republicans, the report recognizes there is "uncertainty."

Thanks to the Electoral College system, the unindicted corrupt syndicate that sought to incrementally eliminate the right to keep and bear arms, confiscate existing guns, promote the marxist progressive agenda, and unravel The American Way, was soundly defeated. http://www.gunlaws.com/TheAmericanWay.htm

Why anyone in their right minds would even think of supporting the Founding Fathers tried-and-true system of ensconced wisdom in the Electoral College instead of a mass popular vote for president isn't even hinted at. And yes, I ended with a preposition.

How many illegal aliens voted?

The "news" media is obsessed with demanding Mr. Trump provide evidence for his concern that unqualified votes were cast. The controversial New York Times claims it asked Secretaries of State if they knew of fraud or unqualified voters and they all answered in the negative.

So what ever happened to reporters reporting and investigating?

With such a serious claim by the president of the United States, it would seem only natural for reporters to get on the case and start digging. Here's what I would do if I were them -- instead of badgering our busy new president and making all sorts of disparaging demeaning insulting offensive remarks that show no respect for the office -- while displaying the hostility and prejudice they deny as neutral journalists.

How about: Get a list of every Californian who got a driver's license as an undocumented illegal alien, and compare those names to the voter rolls, and see if there are any matches? Since those hard details are hidden through policy, statistical analysis of volume and trend changes can imply effects, for a ball park view. How about, go to sanctuary cities, and compare the sanctuarians (new word) to the voter rolls? If you can't get the names and do the comparisons, how about raising a red flag just based on the numbers? Have illegal immigrant lobbyists hidden the data so well we can't tell? That's its own scandal. Wave the red flag. How about followup with state activists who claim to know of large numbers of ballots turned in through vote-harvesting programs, and examine them with care? All things Secretaries of State have not done, the controversial Times has skipped. How about that for starters?

Ask your local reporters to try this, and mention it's worth a Pulitzer if they turn up any positive results, or not. You don't have a media list? C'mon.

Obama's Leg-pulling Legacy

As the lamestream media fell all over itself to create and broadcast exit interviews with the man leaving the White House, and "establish" his legacy, approximately zero concern was paid to the thing formerly known as truth.

It begins and ends with the fictional statement that his is the only administration that has suffered no major scandals. I kid you not. It is appalling. He said that. With a straight face. Right into the camera. He was not questioned or challenged at the time:

"I’m proud of the fact with two weeks to go, we are probably the first administration in modern history that has not had a major scandal in the White House." --CBS 60 Minutes. It's all over the web, go look. According to informed sources, it is likely he (and his minions) actually believe that.

Couric fabricated a video
thru secret editing to give
an impression that was
totally false. 60 Minutes
let a bald-faced lie stand
without questioning when
Obama told his whopper.

Which is honestly worse?
Lamestream media defies
any sense of ethics. Then
they act stunned when they
are called out for it, as if
their critics are the ones
who are brain dead.



To believe Mr. Hussein-Obama had no scandals
you must avoid using his full name and believe:


If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

IRS didn't target conservative groups, and no one claimed 5th Amendment protection when asked.

The murderous Benghazi jihad attack was the result of a funny video tape, or didn't even happen.

Solar energy company Solyndra didn't get a half billion dollars of your money and then close.

Operation Fast and Furious didn't ship thousands of guns to Mexican drug lords.

An unmarked plane didn't ship $400 million dollars in unmarked cash at night to Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism.

The cash was not ransom for four Americans released immediately afterwards.

The $1.7 billion total in cash Obama had flown into Iran, in unmarked foreign bills, bought food.

Nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus money created shovel-ready jobs, which people got.

His Attorney General Eric Holder wasn't held in Contempt of Congress, even though he was.

Obama's Secretary of State didn't, well, that list is too long for here. She is the first woman in history to lose the presidency, twice.

22 million detailed government personnel records weren't hacked ("stolen") by the communist Chinese, so we did nothing about it.

Lethal jihadi attacks on unarmed military personnel on U.S. soil were workplace violence, and had nothing to do with the global muslim jihad on western civilization.

Cash for clunkers was a financial windfall for the country.

The Iran nuclear deal was great for America.

ObamaPhones you subsidize, coal energy, oil pipelines, border control, Operation ChokePoint...

Let me tell you something friends, Michael Savage is right -- liberalism is a mental disorder. This person who left the White House either believed, which is unbalanced, or is lying to pervert history. The reporters covering him are complicit, committing a coverup.

They refuse to confront the abnormal number of monstrous scandals, incredulously saying he had none, as if that will make it so. It's a mental disorder. Unmarked bills at night to Iran for Pete's sake. Material support to a designated state sponsor of terrorism.

While democrats are doing everything they can imagine, in cooperation with the lamestream media, to convince themselves Mr. Trump isn't legit and wasn't elected with 77 more Electoral College Votes than the other guy in the pants suit, it is the person who just left office who was never properly vetted for the Article II requirement for natural born citizenship. How is it that John McCain had to undergo a lengthy Senate hearing in 2008 to establish he was qualified to run, and Mr. Hussein-Obama who had all sorts of questions hanging did not? By what power was that skipped?

Read enough BHO scandals to toss your cookies:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/02/18-major-scandals-obama-presidency/

Understand the Article II constitutional eligibility requirements for commander in chief and president:
http://www.gunlaws.com/Should%20We%20Elect%20An%20American%20President.htm

Usurpations Mount

Bill of Rights Day a good time to reflect

How much rollback might a new administration bring?

People who argue that all gun laws are infringements are completely off base. Yes, laws that criminalize mere possession of firearms typically usurp power government is not rightfully delegated, and should not rightly have. Possession of private property is not and should not be grounds for arrest. You're supposed to do something harmful before an arrest occurs. That might get fixed, if Constitutional Carry moves forward. http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarryIndex.htm

But a person legitimately arrested can have all weapons removed, the same for people in jail, without infringement. Five-year-olds can't walk into gun stores and buy arms. Use of weapons in commission of crimes increases the crime and its punishment. Arming a vessel of an enemy nation is a criminal act. These laws are legitimate. Review how some gun laws ought to change here (model legislation): http://www.gunlaws.com/ModelLegislation.htm. Do not expect all gun laws to simply go away, even if you believe the new boss is a gun-lobby lackey (he's not). That would be idiotic.

True usurpations, and this is not a complete list, the ones that have our system running out of control, are where government is operating because some folks think it would be good (or seek power), but there is no legitimate delegated authority to act. It's what we used to call a government of limited delegated powers. To the extent the president or Congress or even the courts have not remained within those constraints that usurpation rules our lives. And no one is prepared to shoot the perpetrators for the usurpations, as the Declaration describes.

We go to war without an act of Congress, a complete travesty, total violation of our charter and morality, full abandonment of the Constitution. It empties our treasury, kills our people and others, creates enmity on a global scale, and ignores any semblance of rule of law. The Department of Education has no authorization in the Constitution, along with the Departments of Energy, Environment, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and half the others which have been delegated legislative authority disguised as "rule making." Books have been written about the extent of that debacle.

Appointments to the Supreme Court are made to satisfy ideology -- surely you know that's not right. Oh sure, it's so much better when your side picks the approach, and the other side gets stiffed. You know the other side feels outraged about that -- and that was almost you -- but both sides are wrong on that. To top it off, Congress is supposed to exercise control over it (Art. III, Sec. 1, cl. 2: "...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." They have abdicated their power to keep the whole thing in check like they're supposed to.

Do not believe the "news" media when they say the High Court is deadlocked at four to four. That is a decision. It means they decide to let the court below settle the case, and the settlement only applies to a small area of the country -- that Circuit only. The rest of the nation is free from the decision. Not bad, really, federalism at work. There's value in that. An even number of Justices (eight) means that overruling the locals requires a five to three majority (62.5%), a nice break from one-vote policy decisions we've been enduring (55.5%).

Does anyone expect the new boss to do anything differently than the old boss? Chill the euphoria for a few moments and remember where things were before Nov. 8, OK?

So, who did win?

And who are the real haters?

HINT: Whatever the left says conservatives are -- is what the liberals are.

They call conservatives racist, but the liberals are the racists. Who are the bean counters, constantly obsessed with how many blacks, or whites, or whatever group-of-the-day are included or excluded? It's the liberal race baiters (think Sharpton, Schumer, Jackson, long list).

Who is overwhelmed with feminist anti-men programs that are true misogyny? It's the liberals of course -- the men of conservatism are real men, not girly men. I could go on at length, but you understand. Liberals charge everyone else with their own liberal foibles, the election brought this out, especially the vitriol afterwards -- it is "psychological projection" -- they project their neuroses, fears and hatreds on the people around them because they can't face it themselves -- it literally defines the liberal mindset.

The defeat of Hillary has provided our friends on the left an excuse to vent their pent up hatred, racism, sexism and other isms -- including gunism, blind hatred of firearms -- at the world and all available targets.

If it weren't for their vicious anger and threatening hostility we'd be having parades and celebrations in the streets for the election of a populist non-politician for simply promising to make our great country great again... but we hold back out of fear of firebombing, smashed glass, race rioting from racists and other civil unrest from phony peaceniks.

Continue reading "So, who did win?" »

Stop The National Carry Permit

"Gun Guys" Are Pushing In Wrong Direction

Misguided effort to restore rights can destroy rights

Will NRA, GOA and others get it right?


The lamestream media told you:

"Do you have a firearms carry permit Mr. Trump?"
"Yes."

"Are you for law and order?"
"Yes. Law and order is very important."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The last thing you ever want is to have the federal government issuing national -- or any -- firearm carry permits.

The feds do not have this power. The feds should never have this power.

Your right to have a firearm anywhere in America should never depend on getting "papers" from any government, much less the federal powers in Washington, D.C.

If you have a gun -- constitutionally protected private property -- and you aren't doing anything inherently wrong, that should never be a crime. There is no victim. No one is harmed. No actual crime is committed. The idea that you need a wallet card to be somewhere you have a legal right to be is preposterous.

Too many gun owners, including some leaders of the gun-rights movement, sincere but totally misinformed and misdirected, are salivating for our permit-carrying president elect to issue some sort of national carry plan. It cannot, must not, better not be a national permit in any way shape or form.

The best solution

The best plan to resolve the travesty of national gun-rights denial Americans have suffered under for generations -- worse than racism -- is to repeal the restrictions that deny your rights. You don't need no stinkin' permits to be black and we don't need no stinkin' permits to be peacefully in possession of property.

Repeal restrictions
on the right to bear arms.


The next logical step would be to arrest and charge officials who under color of law deny a peaceful person's civil right to possess arms. Denial of rights is a federal felony under 18 USC §241 et seq. You can't just deny a person's constitutional, civil and human rights because you don't like those rights. That's got a name. It's gunism, like racism. This law 18-241 and the ones that follow it were written to prevent haters from denying blacks their rights. Everyone has fundamental rights that need the same protection.

Continue reading "Stop The National Carry Permit" »

Electoral College Matters

The nub of it:
True America doesn't support mob rule.
Simple majority democracy tramples minorities, we don't do that.
We have rules, a Constitution:

That's why we're a Republic NOT a one-vote-to-tyranny democracy.
(The person currently in the White House and reporters constantly get it wrong.)
Read the Declaration and Constitution, you'll see.

Top official offices here get filled in four different ways:

  • The House is directly elected (two year terms)
  • Supreme Court is nominated and confirmed (lifetime terms)
  • The Senate was elected by State legislatures (six years, but method switched to mass democracy)
  • President selected by state majorities through Electoral College (two four-year terms maximum)
  • (Appointed officials in agencies frequently wield power they have no legitimate authority to exercise)
The Founders in their wisdom not only separated powers, they separated selection methods.

OK, now --

The lamestream media told you:

Hillary got more votes, she should be president! The election is unfair! She got a majority! The Electoral College is antiquated and makes no sense! It ought to be discarded just like the olden constitution, written by a bunch of dead white slave owning mysogynist pigs, and it's a living document that means whatever we want it to mean so it can help people! Hillary even said so in the debates, weren't you listening?

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

First, the words here are awful, because they don't mean what they seem to say.

There is no "college" in the Electoral College. Those folks are "collegial," meaning they work together.

Next, "federalism" is the opposite of the federal government. It refers to the States, as a balance to federal power. Federalism is a good dose of why we have remained free all these years. In other words:

Because you are governed by two governments, under federalism (state and federal), not one, there is a balance of power. If the feds are out of line, your state resists it, so federalism saves your sorry butt (and vice versa). Happens all the time. Some states approve of slavery, the feds say no, the rest is history.

The states and the feds battle over marriage, abortion, pot, wages, immigration, that's federalism at work. Eliminating federalism would destroy the brilliant system that has gotten us this far.

Arizona now has two highly paid high-power full-time lobbyists working to eliminate federalism by working to eliminate the Electoral College, after 230 years of success. It's a really really bad idea.

Democrats desperately want to get rid of the Electoral College, which the Founders invented and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It comes down to one thing and one thing only.

If the Electoral College is eliminated, we get democracy, also known as mob rule, and the Republic collapses. Anything that strikes the whim of the people gets passed. Population centers (there are about seven or eight) run the nation. Democrats will have a permanent lock of the office of the President, they know it, they're pushing for it.

--

Let's say Hillary got 65.5 million votes and Trump got 62.8. (They did.)
Looks like Hillary won. A 2.1% spread. Slim. And only a plurality.

But if Trump got 306 electoral votes to her 232, then Trump trounced Hillary.
(He did.) That's what happened. 57% to 43%. A clear majority.

But let's say Trump got 30 states and Hillary only got 20. (He did.)
Looks like Trump won again. He did. In another clear majority.

Trump won by a 60% to 40% majority in the forum that decides, the states.
Which translates to a decisive majority in the Electoral College.

With 320 million Americans, 128 voting means 40% of the total population voted.

The Founders set us up as a federal system, where the states' electors,
proportioned based on representation in Congress, elect the president.
Trump wins.

Otherwise, the few population centers would elect the president,
and most states would never have a voice. False democracy would crush the republic.

In Colonial, times, it meant Boston, New York and Philadelphia would always elect,
and Vermont, Georgia, New Hampshire and the rest would count for nothing.

We're a Republic, not a democracy, which the founders understood
would be a terrible mob-rule disaster. The Founders kept the word democracy
out of all our founding documents and plans.

It's imperfect. It would be either way. The way they chose was best. For centuries.

Both Sides Fight "Open" Elections

Left and Right Do It Differently, Both Do It

The ACLU told you:

"Dear Friend,  The election is just weeks away, and the right to vote is still under attack. Every citizen deserves to have a voice in this election – and we need your support today to make sure that they are not silenced. Friend, donate now if you are with us—help us protect the right to vote, and defend all our freedoms.  We can win key battles in these remaining weeks with you by our side. Right now, we are:

"Opposing laws in over a dozen states that place barriers in the way of voters—largely people of color, students, and the poor. Fighting in states where feckless officials are attempting to circumvent our voting rights wins, like in Wisconsin, where free voter IDs are not being issued to voters despite orders by a federal judge. Ensuring voters don’t face harassment and intimidation from self-appointed “poll watchers” who may act outside of the law."

The lamestream media has told you:


There is practically no evidence of voter fraud. It's a myth myth myth.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


Republicans struggle to keep ineligible voters out of the polls, and ineligible votes from being cast, two issues that don't concern democrats too greatly, if actions mean anything.

Just Google "vote fraud" for more evidence than you ever needed to see. In Chicago, the dead vote. Felony criminals in prison manage to vote. Illegal aliens register and vote by the thousands, in person and absentee, with help from democrat activists. In California, driver licenses, the main ID used to register voters, are being issued without controls to illegal aliens by the hundreds of thousands -- more than half of all in 2015 went to illegals, 605,000. Eleven other states do the same.http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/10/almost-half-of-california-drivers-licenses-went-to-illegal-immigrants-in-2015/

Efforts to bring illegals into the country are tied directly to voter registration efforts. So-called refugees from "majority-muslim" nations are on the planning charts for importation to America from the democrats. Only fools believe no one has looked into how they will vote when they arrive, who will register them, who will advertise to and influence their votes, who will go through their neighborhoods and "educate" them about how they got here and how they can advance their "free" benefits by voting.

Yes, both sides want to influence the vote. One side, the right, wants to keep the vote American. The lamestream media calls this "suppressing the vote." They kill us words. (The Politically Corrected Glossary, http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm)  The other side, the left, is seeking to destroy American values and have people lacking in understanding, legitimacy and interest in The American Way, to permanently despoil what we have here on a permanent basis. That's called "corrupting the vote" but the right doesn't control the dialog.

VOTE FRAUD

Some actual cases described:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/18/voter-fraud-is-real-here-are-4-more-cases/

New York Times:
2,068 cases of fraud nationwide since 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/voter-id-laws-donald-trump.html?_r=0

Pennsylvania Invites Illegals to Register by Accident
http://truethevote.org/news

You'll find pages and pages for you to review on any web search.

Observation: None of the reported fraud numbers match.
Observation: Democrats are convinced fraud is a "myth" (their word, appears everywhere).
Observation: Republicans are convinced fraud is rampant and their evidence is debunked vehemently.

The Uninvited Ombudsman asks:

If you don't require identification to vote, ineligible people could vote,
or people could vote more than once. Does this matter?

I've asked the right. They say yes, ID must be required to vote.
Only eligible American citizens can vote.

I've asked the left. They have a litany of why people
could legitimately not have ID, and should be able to vote anyway.
Eligibility must not interfere or cause disenfranchisement.

And now you know.

 
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!