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

America's Toughest Sheriff Rides Off

The lamestream media told you:

Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who calls himself "America's Toughest Sheriff" is a corrupt bully hated by nearly everyone. His prejudice and bigotry knows no bounds and if it wasn't for the power he wields and the people he controls he would have been in prison long ago. He has terrorized migrants for too long and we're glad to see him go.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that: If Sheriff Joe, as everyone in Arizona affectionately knows him, wasn't so well liked, he would not have won six consecutive terms for 24 years by usually huge margins against everything the left-wing democrats could throw against him. His fan base nationwide, well, he wouldn't have one, but he has been called on repeatedly for newscasts, public appearances, and his net positive effect on the state and national scene has been tremendously positive. He brought the illegal immigrant invasion (now called "guests" by progressives) to national prominence.

-- He limited jail TV to the weather channel and an education channel -- taxpayers shouldn't pay for cable and prisoners don't earn HBO for committing crimes.

-- Tent City housed low-risk prisoners cheap when jail space ran out, instead of releasing them like elsewhere. When bleeding hearts complained that desert heat was inhumane, he told them if it's good enough for our soldiers, it's good enough for prisoners. He hung a "Vacancy" sign.

-- Tent City housed low-risk prisoners cheap when jail space ran out, instead of releasing them like elsewhere. When bleeding hearts complained that desert heat was inhumane, he told them if it's good enough for our soldiers, it's good enough for prisoners. He hung a "Vacancy" sign.



-- Joe's get tough stand on people sneaking into our country without permission continues to be a national focal point. He single-handedly raised awareness about its effects.

-- His volunteer citizen posse has saved a fortune, instilled pride in the community, keeps malls safe at Christmas time, is its own Peace Corps in our county.

-- Animal abuse got the attention it deserves, inmates got therapeutic interactions in the kill-free shelter the Sheriff's office ran and animal crimes were back on the radar.

-- Inmates don't need coffee, that ended, and a vegetarian diet eventually saved money, eliminating the famous green baloney sandwiches that were their own cost-saving headline.

-- We get a thrill when we see Joe's chain gang working in our neighborhoods, keeping them nice. This one was right down the street from me, so I paused to snap an image. The prisoners love the fresh air and exercise, compete for good behavior to get the assignment. It's called "rehabilitation." Passersby wave and honk in appreciation. Positive feedback.



In the interests of full disclosure, Joe endorsed my book, Gun Laws of America, Every Federal Gun Law on the Books, with Plain English Summaries, http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm when it was released, because he recognized a good thing when he saw it. You can too, only $19.95.

add_to_cart.gif  view_cart.gif

-- Instituting county-wide sex offender notifications was a double-edged sword, because neighborhoods now became aware when these predators moved in, but it also made it hard for them to settle. Tough problem.

I'll stop here, and while he did attract a lot of lawsuits, and that cost the county a good chunk of change, he brought his department consistently in under budget. He had enough hot button issues from Paris Hilton in his jail to, oh, catch my political-parody band sometime, The Cartridge Family, http://www.gunlaws.com/CFB-BandInfo.htm, we played his roast.

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

USA Today may be USA's nastiest left-wing propagandist

I'm constantly stunned by how unethical USA Today has drifted, dropping virtually any pretense of newsworthiness, in its campaigns to denigrate anything American, and frame a dialog into the democrats dungeons of thought. For example:

USA Today deceptively says on Christmas Day, 12/25/16:
"Russia has developed one of the world's most sophisticated cyberwarfare networks -- one that the CIA says interfered in America's election to help Donald Trump."

Accurately stated, this would read:
"Every major nation on Earth has developed sophisticated cyberwarfare networks that are constantly in use against each other in every imaginable way."

"Unconfirmed leaks exist that Russia and others used its hackers to release criminally damaging information to WikiLeaks about Hillary Clinton's corruption and malfeasance throughout her entire operation, which apparently may have hurt her election chances."

We needed various (not just possibly Russian) hackers and WikiLeaks to discover and report that networks and cable "news" stations were working in collusion with the democrats to get their preferred candidate elected.

When we found out, they accused the Russians of throwing the election, which they continue to claim to this day, and will never stop claiming, until they put it in history books for government-school classrooms, which they also (currently) manage.

Although alerted about the ethical problem, USA Today never responds.

NOTE: No one has challenged the accuracy of the information revealed.

How the Clintons, who spent their entire lives in public service, amassed a fortune estimated at more than $200 million, has never been satisfactorily explained. On leaving the White House they were "dead broke," they said.

If democrats had not colluded to defeat their own candidate Bernie Sanders, and had not colluded with the media to corrupt the debates, and had not run an unsecured email server for top secret government business, and had not lied about everything, and did not have a campaign manager who gave the word corruption a new darker meaning, hackers would have little to give to Wikileaks for the public to see. We almost have to thank whoever hacked them for releasing the truth, because the Clintons worked so hard to hide it. Failure to elect a gang that corrupt, because their secrets came out, is hardly a bad thing, except to the people supporting the gang.

I've been informed I have to take it back about USA Today. The entire lamestream media is that way.

Traveler's Guide to Gun Laws 2017 Has Arrived!

Dear Friends and Fans,

A quick note as I rush out to help my WWII vet Dad move from Florida to Arizona—the brand new 2017 guide for armed travel has just come out and we have it in stock for immediate shipment!




The Traveler's Guide to the


Firearm Laws of the 50 States


2017 Edition
by J. Scott Kappas
http://www.gunlaws.com/travel.htm

Available now.

Only $14.95 -- New for 2017!
add_to_cart.gif  view_cart.gif



[P.S. Dad remembers how he heard WWII had started—on a street in the Bronx with his two best friends Manny and Marty, a woman stuck her head out the window and started shouting, "The Japs bombed Pearl Harbor! The Japs bombed Pearl Harbor!" People didn't know what Pearl Harbor was, some thought it was a woman! He knew exactly what and where it was, and he knew what it meant. And he knew they'd be called up—so he and his friends went and enlisted. He ended up teaching top secret radar to pilots, a subject so secret you weren't allowed to mention the word radar in public. It's a long story, I'll tell it someday.]

Tucson Melting Guns. Again

We banned this by law. They're ignoring it.

But this law has teeth, and it's biting.

Tucson is melting down guns it acquires. Again.

Arizona passed law specific banning this wasteful practice, and now state attorney general Mark Brnovich has taken action, required by law (this law has teeth!), to stop Tucson from illegally melting down guns.

State law requires cities to preserve this property, worth millions, instead of the politically correct nonsense happening there. But the case exposes something even deeper than withholding state shared funds, the $170 million penalty Tucson faces, that has one of our local columnists concerned.

If Tucson, regardless of its political structure, somehow has the power to destroy guns it acquires, (it does not have the "right," as the paper incorrectly says repeatedly, more grating to the nerves than hearing democrats constantly call our Republic a democracy), then nothing stops it from destroying cars it impounds -- or anything else.

The city must have an obligation to preserve, protect and defend the assets it acquires. This is public property of enormous value and cannot be wantonly senselessly destroyed. The reason these guns are being municipally melted is a sign of a sickness -- hoplophobia -- and pure gunism, blind hatred, with flagrant disregard for private property and the rule of law. The people who implement these policies need remedial counseling, possibly even penalties. Does destruction of public property come with no repercussions? Who covers the loss?

Can you imagine demanding the destruction of impounded vehicles, because they are more dangerous to life than guns? And they pollute Earth? Do they realize firearms have to move through FBI background checks, they're not "put on the streets" as media likes to help these weird politicians frame it. Cars are on the streets. Melting guns is irrational fear run wild, by politicians barely fit to serve.

FBI background check registrations are insufficient to these people. They begged and pleaded and campaigned for background checks, and now want more, but they're obviously not enough. The smelter is the real issue.

This is the topic Tucson raises -- violation of law by elected officials in pursuit of the same irrational perverse goal their fellow leftists pursue at everyone's dangerous expense. It is an impossible attempt to quench their paranoid fears by suppressing the rights of innocent people everywhere. The notion of guns in the public's hands is simply unacceptable to them. It's not political, it's medical, they're hoplophobic, and a dire threat to freedom. Their unbalanced actions qualify them for removal from setting public policy and destroying valuable public property in the process, in violation of law.

My White Paper on melting guns details the counterproductive nature of these feel-good plans, and the unintended harm they actually cause, written with a Harvard expert: http://www.gunlaws.com/mesamelt.htm

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.

It's Not a "Margin of Error"

"News" Media All Knows This

It's just a measure of the sample size

But it sure sounds better to suggest --
there is a measure of accuracy and it's known.

That's a smokescreen.
No, make that, a lie.

Because of the way the science of statistics is done, the size of a sample controls how reliable certain aspects of averaging will be. That's not exactly accurate, but it's close enough for this short description. We're dealing with polls you see in "news" media that pretend to declare their accuracy by stating a margin of error. That's hard core fake news. They don't accept that. They continue unabashed. To unfake it, they would swap in, "This poll had a sample size of 450." But that would serve no purpose. So they stay with the fake.

You can convert the fake into their sample size with this chart, but so what, it gets you nothing. What the poll tells you is 100% dependent on factors they can manipulate to their heart's content to get the result they seek, and you know that -- who they ask, how they ask, when they ask, why they ask. Blatant examples abound. That said, there is a science of polling, and people frequently do want to get a legit handle on what's going on, before it happens, and it can be done with loose certainty. But you already know that a poll run by democrats on abortion will show strong support, and the same poll run by republicans will not.

Illegal Immigrants Come and Go

One interview exposed it, who invented it?

Is it misleading news to suppress this and so much else.

Mark Morgan, the U.S. Border Patrol Chief described the "Voluntary Return" program our Border Patrol uses (under Mr. Hussein-Obama, C-SPAN, 12/5/16) to stop illegal immigration from Mexico.

This is designed to handle people who criminally sneak into this country, not at a port of entry with documentation or a visa, but by clandestinely crossing the border in the wilderness.

Voluntary Return means the agents simply put the person back on the other side, into Mexico. Because they make careful digital identification records, agents can find a person attempting to sneak back in four or five times -- in the same day. You read that right. This is the policy currently in place. The person stops trying to sneak in and evade authorities when finally successful, and here. Agents no longer find this person trying to sneak in.

The report included Sen. James Lankford, (R-Okla.) asking, how many times should a Voluntary Return violator be allowed back in? Mr. Morgan replied without hesitation, as you might hope he would, "zero." Mr. Hussein-Obama was not available for comment.
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!