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!


You're the Loser -- or Winner

The lamestream media told you:

The blue wave is going to take over the government. Once democrats control the House they plan to impeach the president. Nothing will stop them. We told you so. They'll eliminate the filibuster rule the republicans idiotically maintain because they have principles. Dems don't. Just watch. The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


If you belong to a shooting club, a hunt club, a wildlife club, Ducks Unlimited, Western Turkey something, Single Action Shooting Sports, Three Gun whatever, IPSC, the alphabet our-side soup --

and you’re not registered to vote, or you don’t vote,

YOU PERSONALLY will be responsible for everyone else losing their right to keep and bear arms.

Left-wing billionaires are doing everything they can to rob you of your rights.

To make sure their armed servants have guns, to protect them, and you have nothing.

The bill to ban the AR-15, that school kids think they want, bans anything with a magazine and a grip. It's true. They don't know that. Maybe you don't either.

Elections matter. You matter -- unless you don’t vote.
I don’t know how to be more clear.

You are already on the government list -- because you get mail.

You have a phone, a TV with reception -- "they" know who you are.

Figure out how to register, where to vote, and vote.

You have four months.

You’ve been warned. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Infringement Is Illegal

The lamestream media told you:

We must ban guns. Especially the AR-15. And guns with magazines. And repeal the Second Amendment. No one needs a gun. There are so many stories in the so-called "news" calling for gun bans it is pointless to point to any particular ones. The journalism ethic that requires covering all sides of a story is completely abandoned, no where to be found. All the good guns do, all the lives saved and crimes prevented, are suppressed. When a mass murderer was shot dead outside a diner in Ohio the other day, reporters flocked to the scene after hearing of people shot, then fled when they learned the criminal had been shot by a permit holder.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Calls to outlaw guns, gun possession, accessories and similar wild-eyed notions now percolating through a portion of our youth and culture are... illegal.

So called “news” media, involved in whipping up the public and unsuspecting youngsters into a frenzy to ban gun types, gun parts, all guns, and places where people can have guns for all legal purposes -- like defense against murderers -- are an affront to our society and our Constitution. When did teachers lose their right to keep and bear arms exactly? The guarantees of The U.S. Bill of Rights can just be... lost?

Unless you decide to give up on the rule of law, and simply enact anything by mob rule, guns can’t simply be banned, as television is campaigning for. People could begin a new country based on utopian socialist rule with no leadership, no charter, and the will of the people simply expressed day-to-day by vote, that’s conceivable. But America cannot legitimately ban guns already in the public’s hands by passing laws, to appease loud children.

We get that the kids are scared, and should be, they’ve been let down. That doesn’t erase the rule of law.

If stopping crazed, psychotic mass murderers who take it on themselves to spree murder their classmates is the goal, that’s a good goal.

Loud youngsters who think disarming the public will somehow accomplish that goal are not mature enough to understand that first, -- it won’t work, and second, the adults egging them on in the media and politics are manipulative SOBs worse than their worst parents.

Those adults are using what amounts to a national tantrum to accomplish the adults’ goal -- not the children’s goal. The so-called “news” media has disguised or totally hidden this revealing truth. Journalists have become virtually as much an enemy of the nation’s health as the murderers themselves. That’s a hard thing to say, as a journalist myself.

Here’s a secret. Everyone wants to stop sociopathic students from murdering their classmates at school. It shouldn’t be a secret. The hated NRA wants to stop that. Do you really think they’re devils who want their own kids at that kind of risk? If you do, you’ve been sold a bill of goods. Remember the secret -- Everyone wants to stop sociopathic students from murdering their classmates at school.

Here’s the bottom line. Banning a firearm a person already owns is infringement, simply by definition. Doing that is banned in America, it’s why we’re the linchpin of freedom on the planet. It’s why oppressed masses flock here, and always have, though schools no longer teach this. They used to, when America was at its peak.

Attempting to take such a firearm away -- government confiscation of the public’s guns is aggravated infringement, felony-level criminal activity. It is exactly what government cannot legitimately do. It’s where peaceful rule of law ends and tyranny begins: gun-taking. Gun-taking kindles revolts, around the world, and if it goes too far, it could happen here. Disarming the innocent doesn’t set well with the innocent. The reverse is true too -- you can’t arm slaves and expect them to remain slaves.

State by state, we are going to see an effort to put aggravated infringement into statute so offending officials can be charged and imprisoned if they attempt to infringe on this fundamental constitutional right. Banning guns is on the same par as banning gays, blacks, speech, Bibles -- you just can’t do that here.

It doesn’t matter how many votes you can manipulate or cajole with phony logic. “Majority rules, minority protected,” you remember that, right? It means you can’t strip the Bill of Rights with a legislative vote.

People who do so or attempt to do so need to be subject to defined penalties. Like any other civil and human rights violation. We actually have 18 USC §241, and 18 USC §242 for this, they just need some backup, and enforcement (q.v., denial of constitutional or statutory rights is a crime). Read those short, crystalline statutes.

The noise level is rising to a dangerous pitch. Attempting to disarm the public is what has, throughout history, led to either revolution or genocide. Americans want neither. The loud children want neither either, they just don’t know it. They know not what they do, and their handlers are keeping them quietly in the dark.

The Andersons and Wolves are incomprehensibly keeping them ignorant, and maybe they are themselves. I’m reluctant to join my colleagues who see it for an evil agenda, and the markings could easily be read that way. At the least the mass media culprits should lose their licenses to broadcast. Oh, that’s right—they are unlicensed operators.

Banning guns already in the public’s hands is infringement. Attempting to take an infringed item is aggravated infringement. Attempting to take an infringed item is where chilling phrases like, “Bullets first!” and “From my cold dead fingers!” arise. This country does not want to go there. Someone tell the kids.


Gay Community Thinks Crosswalks Are Political Billboards

What color should Black Lives Matter get?

Dancing in the streets about to become a real safety hazard

The lamestream media told you:

"Phoenix values and embraces its LGBTQ brothers and sisters," mayor Stanton said in a news release. "Phoenix is committed to ensuring equal treatment and rights for everyone and showing our support because we know diversity makes us stronger."

The installation of the rainbow crosswalks in Phoenix were requested by the Phoenix Pride Community Foundation, one-n-ten, and Aunt Rita's Foundation after contacting the mayor's office. These groups have offered to cover the costs of materials, installation and ongoing maintenance for the rainbow-painted portions of the crosswalks that are not already maintained by the city, according to the news release.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Painting crosswalks into rainbow colors for sexual politics crosses a bright red line. The gay community must not manipulate (in this case) the Phoenix City Council politicians under the dubious rubrics of "inclusion and diversity." Google informs us this now includes lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, questioners, transsexuals, asexuals, reassigns, multi-genders, agenders, non-genders, genderqueers, genderfluids, and other recently identified sexually diverse people.

Changing something as basic as safety crosswalks for their personal political ambitions -- especially ones that arouse deep gut feelings, animosity and political discord in the community -- dishonors any respect for older fundamental rights. How many crosswalks will we have to repaint, in what colors, to represent Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, or even the Right to Free Speech -- which you can actually find in the Constitution? How long will this list become? Do we really want gun-rights advocates to get their shot at a crosswalk?

Rainbows make equal crosswalks unequal. Rainbows are magnificent acts of nature. Misappropriating them for political advantage on public roads are Intolerable Acts. It doesn’t matter who pays or how much pride a group has in its adopted color guard. Everyone pays when politicians allow such discrimination against everyone else. It is intolerant and non-inclusive.

The entire gender-confusion bollix is an artifice of the “left” -- a euphemism for socialism, which long ago determined destruction of the family unit was a superb solution for dissolving The American Way. The gay community has every right to live their lives in peace and harmony. This isn’t that. This is an aggressive assault. Brutal communist dictator Nikita Khrushchev said, “We will bury you.” He didn’t say how long it would take, or how they would accomplish the task.

The Federal Register in 1963 recorded 45 stated goals of communism that included a terrifying list of values such as:

discrediting the family as an institution, promoting promiscuity, pornography, obscenity, degeneracy, easy divorce, the negative influence of parents, promoting ugliness, meaningless forms as art, and the idea that such things are normal, natural and healthy.

You can decide for yourself whether any of that is valid, I’m not judging so don’t shoot this messenger. I’m just noticing we’ve arrived.

Khrushchev’s late advocate Saul Alinsky, a widely recognized guiding light for leading leftists Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, is now influencing socialists in America with projects like taking over crosswalks. They must be stopped before they nail the coffin shut on The American Way. It’s not about the rainbows, intolerance and phony inclusion they pitch. It’s about God, family and pure American values first, which they denigrate.

When the term “family values” first hit the scene writ large around 1990, mass-media geniuses screamed “What is that,” as if they didn’t know. Maybe they didn’t, which would be terrifying -- bad enough to revoke their licenses -- except they’re unlicensed operators.

Americans know implicitly what family values are. They are what made this nation the shining beacon of freedom that attracts people to our land. Those values must be protected against the vicious assaults we’re experiencing now at every black-and-white line in the road.

The state newspaper, which promoted the one-sided rainbow program widely, refused to publish this article.


Identify Serious Criminals, Then Turn Them Loose

They're standing in the store, trying to buy guns, FBI's on the phone

Is this what "97% of the public" actually supports? Do they even know?

The lamestream media told you:

Do you support background checks? It's the biggest gun question of the day. Mass media insists virtually everyone does. How could any rational person not support background checks?

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

1. After two decades of background checks, inner city gangs are all thoroughly armed. The checks have failed. Plus, we have 6,000 gangland rubouts every year, maybe you've noticed. And there are no 6,000 murder trials for the 6,000 murderers. Is that what everyone supports?

2. The muslim jihad is pretty much unaffected by the background checks. The jihad mass murder in the Florida gay nightclub, the "workplace violence" (Obama's term for the jihad), no effect from the background checks. Is that what everyone supports?

3. The psychotic children who want to mass murder their class mates, they aren't even addressed by background checks, and we all want to fix that problem. Why are we even talking about background checks when murderous classmates are what we want to fix? Isn't the mass media missing something there? Shouldn't someone ask them about that?

4. The background check collects the names of 10 to 12 million innocent Americans who purchase firearms every year, who didn't do anything. What does that have to do with stopping mass murderers, or any crime? Is that a good use of scarce resources? Does that have a sinister ulterior motive like its critics claim -- a list of gun owners kept by big government? Can we audit that system? (No, government tell us, just trust us, we're honest.)

5. And of course the biggest problem. Murderers, rapists, parolees, escapees, fugitives, kidnappers, arsonists, thieves, even illegal aliens and DACA students who walk into gun stores, cash in hand, seeking to buy guns -- which is at least five years in the federal slammer. They fill out forms with their names and addresses, and with the FBI on the phone, while they're standing there, get turned down. What happens next? They get sent away, with their money. Still eager to buy guns.

Is that what everyone supports?

Is that what the mass media makes clear when they conduct their polls?

The background check plan is a scam.

The only thing the background check does effectively is collect the names of innocent Americans who buy constitutionally protected products, that create a balance of power between the public and the government.

Look here:


Identify People Ready to Commit Murder, By Saying So?

Confiscate their property, with no due process, then turn them loose

What kind of housewife feels safer after that?

The lamestream media told you:

Six states have enacted these important laws, a new front in the fight against wild-eyed psychopathic mass murderers, and 22 other states are considering this fine new legislation.

Basically, a spouse, family member, law-enforcement officer, relative, recent co-habiter or certain others can make an official statement that they know you are a danger to yourself or others, and a court can issue a STOP order (Severe Threat Order of Protection). This empowers police to break into your home and confiscate your firearms. Filing the "red flag" complaint falsely is a crime, if it can be proven you filed falsely. Later, the flagged person can file to have the flag removed, paying for all the lawyer bills. "Your honor, my wife hates me. I have no plan to kill her. Give me back all my guns." Children would have the same right, though it's unclear how they would exercise it. ("Your honor, give me back my journal and Facebook password, I don't really plan to mass murder my classmates.") Why children have become mass murderers lately was unclear as we go to press, but it is certainly not because of anything we in the media did, that for sure.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

It sounds good at first blush -- provide a way for instantly disarming people who are obviously immediately dangerous and about to commit mass murder. Of course, we have laws to do that. Give police more power to save us!

But how do you do that exactly? No one knows. The psychology community uniformly agrees it can't be done, there is no way to predict future behavior. Besides, the psych community is omitted from the new laws. Rights are removed, firearms are forcibly confiscated before trials or hearings, without the flagees involvement. They come into the picture later.

Gun-rights advocates are screaming about what amounts to small stuff. Sorry, someone has to say it. Constitutional violations, no due process, infringement of the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, government overreach. Yes, that's all true, and valid. But folks, it is small stuff in the big picture of the goal -- keeping everyone safe.

The fact that these laws represent government out of control? We've known that for a long time. The public (useful idiots) are being led around by the nose, and they don't know it? We know that too. The "news" media is complicit, a cheering squad for all the wrong things? You know that, you don't need me to tell you that, again and again.

Here's the real problem:

People too dangerous to bear there own arms are too dangerous to be walking around in public.

It's the same mythical problem as the no-fly list government tried to convince us of back under that other guy. Someone, typically a suspected muslim jihadi, or not, is so dangerous we can't let them get on a plane, by putting them on a secret government list, maintained by police, in secret. A secret police list. Sound familiar? And if you're on this secret police list, you no longer possess your Second Amendment rights. So you can't fly to Cleveland. But you can drive there, or take a bus. Say what? Who would believe such a thing -- besides journalists and the people they write for?

P.S. We have laws to disarm people and remove them from society of course, of course. Involuntary commitment. (Oh, but that's an extreme measure!) Right. But this is an extreme situation we're talking about here. Arrest! Absolutely, if it's called for. A new law for summary arrest without probable cause, on someone's say so? You're talking about introducing official societal paranoia by force of law. Bad idea. Real bad idea. "I think he's dangerous! Arrest this man!" Oh yeah, I think you're dangerous! Where does that end?

Complaints about the draft laws have softened them some, but we are on a dangerous path here folks. Hoplophobia and law by mass murderer are having a cumulative effect.

Business Booms, Media Silent

Bigotry makes them feel shame, Americans feel pride

The lamestream media told you:

One industry grew, one shrank, the stock market blah blah... The results of an economic study by some industry trade group somewhere shows that things are good, things are bad, things are. Media typically reports on changes and events in business, because business is good, we all need work.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Virtually unreported in the lamestream, despite its undivided firearm attention for weeks on a single act of unspeakable horror by a psychotic maniac, the firearms industry is in good health and growing. In other news, ethnic murders in inner cities remained stable at about 6,000 per year, with no trials reported, if any, on national news. Police issued no statements.

310,000 jobs

The total economic impact of the firearms and ammunition industry in the United States increased from $19.1 billion in 2008 to $51.4 billion in 2017, a 169 percent increase, while the total number of full-time equivalent jobs rose from approximately 166,000 to almost 310,000, an 87 percent increase in that period, according to the annual report released this week by NSSF. On a year-over-year basis, the industry’s economic impact rose from $51.3 billion in 2016 to $51.4 in 2017, ticking higher even while the industry came off peak production years.

Wikipedia Censors “Gun Rights”

References to gun rights are redirected to politics

Propaganda is now "Wikiganda"

The lamestream media told you:


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Thanks to the observant work of an internet-presence guru, we now know you can’t find “Gun Rights” on Wikipedia.

It’s as if such a thing doesn’t exist. Internal references to "gun rights" are redirected, some very recently, indicating this is an ongoing effort.

Admittedly, there is a bizarre argument that guns don’t have rights, only people have rights, but that is specious here. As a term of art, “gun rights” accounts for limitations in the English language, everyone gets that. "Gun rights" is a synonym for the right to keep and bear arms, and everything that encompasses, along with a dozen other ways of expressing the same thing.

For Wikipedia, gun rights is “gun politics.” These are not the same of course. Look up politics, look up rights, that case rests on its own.

Even worse than the blatant censorship of "gun rights" is the fact that Wikipedia is doing it. What else has fallen under this censorship axe?

The web guru observes: “Just read the ‘gun politics’ page and look how it presents a unique perspective on guns, gun rights, and so-called "gun control," all in the name of gun politics.

"For example, here's the last paragraph in the opening of the 'gun politics history' section:

"Closely related to the militia tradition is the frontier tradition, with the need for self-protection pursuant to westward expansion and the extension of the American frontier. Though it has not been a necessary part of daily survival for over a century, ‘generations of Americans continued to embrace and glorify it as a living inheritance -- as a permanent ingredient of this nation's style and culture’.”

By redirecting a reference to “gun rights” to a slanted “gun politics” opinion piece, the so-called "gun-control" side is working within Wikipedia to promote the gun-confiscation agenda. One of its latest strategies is this redirect. It is an extremely clever Orwellian methodology.

In another maneuver, even though the opening line describing the Second Amendment Foundation retains the censored phrase "gun rights" and says the group supports gun rights, (it would not work to say they support gun politics, indicating this is not an automated global replacement) someone recently (Feb. 13, 2018) redirected (hijacked) the "gun rights" link and redirected it to "gun politics," as if SAF supports gun politics, as Wiki describes it. The Wiki history architecture captures the deed:


NOTE: What Wikipedia has done in these cases is link the organization’s statements about defense of gun rights to a blurb and pages about gun politics. The idea of a civil and human right to firearms, is absent. The fundamental civil and human right to arms that the American people possess is now missing in the descriptions. No page for Gun Rights exists at Wikipedia. The "world’s encyclopedia," now coincidentally managed by a left-leaning cabal of techno-oligrarchs, is starting to show its treachery. See for yourself:


They have all had their "gun rights" references redirected to "Gun politics" -- The Uninvited Ombudsman is now looking into developing an entry on "Gun Rights" for publication in Wikipedia, and will be working with the nation's leading experts on this important task.

How to Ban the AR-15

The lamestream media told you:

Many times over: No one needs an AR-15. All we want to do is ban the AR-15. It’s a weapon of war. It’s a killing machine. It has no place on our streets. The Founders never could have imagined any such thing in the hands of the public. It’s too dangerous for the public to own. The magazine is too large. The bullets can be fired too quickly. It’s scary looking. You don’t need it to hunt ducks. It doesn’t matter if police have them.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Having listed those familiar complaints, I’ll answer them just as fast: Property ownership in this country isn’t based on need (and you don’t get to decide someone else’s need, that’s the communist model). All we want is to have the finest rifle made. It’s a weapon of peace. It’s a self-defense firearm. It’s perfect for the public. The Founders never could have imagined throwing your voice further than you can speak either. It’s too dangerous for the government to be sole owners. Insufficient ammo supply can be lethal. Slow-firing guns are dangerous. Scary is in the eye of the beholder, you might need treatment. Preferences for hunting are personal, immaterial here, not your concern and disconnected from the right to keep and bear arms. Police have them for the exact same reasons we want them. OK, so much for that.

Banning the AR-15, America’s Rifle, as media-promoted child “survivors” are trying to force upon this great nation, is not only a bad idea, it’s illegal -- infringement -- and as a practical matter, it’s hard.

You can’t ban guns by name, people will just change the name, that doesn’t work. You can describe guns, but people just modify the designs so they don’t fit the description. That’s been tried, it was a failure.

There’s too many manufacturers, that cat’s out of the bag, along with the engineering plans, so you can’t close down the plants. If you do somehow outlaw manufacture what do you do about the millions of guns people own?

Confiscation is the answer, among the most heinous government crimes there are, illegal a dozen different ways, and incendiary to the public. The rule of law has to be abandoned for that one. When government doesn't or can't enforce the law, the militia gets called up.

Buying the guns back, an idea sometimes mentioned, runs up against the treasury hasn’t got the funds, and no votes in favor. Buying from unwilling sellers is confiscation again, disguised with ribbon and bow.

All of the drastic ideas like this tempt armed rebellion, literally, from the very people whose guns you want to take, so you must tread lightly there. Will police and soldiers shoot at Americans defending their firearms? Do you really want to push things that far? That’s not much of a plan.

Note, all the bans so far haven’t disarmed inner cities, where murderers murder 6,000 victims a year, with virtually no murder trials. Guns get smuggled into this country like drugs, women and “undocumented migrant workers and repeat offenders,” so that side of an AR-15 ban is not exactly airtight.

So what did they (that’s the democrat party, the one with no demonstrated respect for the right to keep and bear arms) do to ban the AR-15, when they drafted their bill? The bill the marching children, referred to as ignorant useful idiots by some leading experts, what did that bill propose?

They banned every rifle, pistol and shotgun that takes a magazine of any size, and has a grip.

Most but not all pistols will escape the law under the “two-grip” rule. In the past though, BATFE, the agency responsible for enforcing these things, has been known to fabricate their own parts to “prove” a firearm was subject to enforcement.

The AR-15 Ban, edited for pertinent part:
(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
(i) A pistol grip.
(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following: (ii) A second pistol grip.
(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following:
(ii) A pistol grip.
(39) The term ‘detachable magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed from a firearm without disassembly of the firearm action.*
(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
*Editor’s note: Any capacity magazine is included.

It’s safe to say every mass media report on the move to ban the AR-15, or assault weapons, has been fake, phony or wrong, based on the bill.

Fake-News Police Report for Duty

“NewsGuard” = A Free Market Solution to Wild Web

Nutrition Labels for news outlets

The lamestream media told you:

--The Wall Street Journal, March 3, 2018: “The Internet broke down barriers by enabling everyone to become a publisher. The unintended consequence was the fake-news epidemic. Teenagers in Macedonia discovered they could make a small fortune from online advertising by concocting outlandish click-bait stories... Russia Today is now ‘I saw the news on Facebook’... easy for purveyors of knowingly false news or propaganda to fool users by looking like legitimate publishers...”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Perhaps worse, CNN has become a non-stop conspiracy-theory provider, and opinion spinner, with a thin veil of newsiness and a motto, “the most trusted name in news.” Basically no one believes that anymore, despite the deep baritone that delivers the line.

MSNBC essentially makes no pretense that they are anything but a campaign outlet for leftist ideology and democrats, and a hostile belligerent aimed at all non-democrats, even the Bernies who are further left (socialist) than they are.

So -- L. Gordon Crovitz, the former publisher at The Wall Street Journal is teaming up with Steve Brill, the legendary journalist and editor who founded Brill’s Content, to launch NewsGuard.

This online news-media watchdog will establish “nutrition labels” for so-called news outlets to establish the bona fides of major news “brands” and help the news-consuming public tell what’s what, with Red, Yellow and Green color coding.

The team plans to use journalistically trained analysts, also known as human beings, instead of algorithms and other forms of computer automation, to rate news brands, depending on whether they produce real journalism, disclose their underlying interests, or intentionally purvey fake news. The team expects to cover 7,500 online outlets, about 98% of what passes for news, they say. Judging from what I’ve seen of Brill’s previous work, this could be splendid.

A “white list” of outlets that advertisers can rely on is part of the plan. Commercial groups have been hit hard, promoting their goods on sites that turn out to be biased spreaders of tripe. Reviews of the reviewers will include pros and the public, part of a robust transparency effort. Problems might arise, since the glowing description is provided by Crovitz, in The Wall Street Journal, but one can hope.

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.

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!