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!


« June 2009 | Main | August 2009 »

Dangerous health care insanity spreads

If the news media would report on the CONTENTS of the proposed federal health care takeover (see details below) it would die in a day. People would rise up, as they did over the recent illegal-alien amnesty attempt, and demand defeat.

Instead, the media reports meaningless drivel, politicking, promises, compromises, party squabbles and leaves out the substance of this incredibly bad hostile takeover of your doctor's office, complete with end-your-life paperwork issued by bureaucrats, denial of service, strict rationing, cash penalties for selecting your own doctors or treatment.

Gun-Rights Linkage: With this much total control over your medical and financial records, there's a very short step between automated analysis of your "fitness" to keep and bear arms, and the various prohibited-possessor lists the government is keeping and recommending. That's just my idle observation, the bill does not explicitly address it in any way.

The lamestream media told you:

July 30, 2009; AP -- House democrats reached a deal Wednesday on a health care reform bill that would reduce federal subsidies, help lower-income families, exempt businesses, cover the elderly, provide additional revenue, require insurance, provide subsidies to the poor, help choose your health insurance, recommend health benefits, cap out-of-pocket expenses, set standards... deadlines, blue-dogs, budget experts, negotiations, the top of Obama's agenda, deadlines, timetable slippage, leadership, deadlines... and cost less than one trillion dollars without increasing the federal deficit.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

First off, it's impossible to spend a trillion dollars, when your treasury is already demolished by debt, without making your deficit worse, even a moron can see that (proof that morons don't work for the AP).

I make a living studying and describing laws. I've spot checked this man Fleckstein's work below, he is a little blustery, but he is accurate. The media has avoided just about all of this, preferring instead to spread he-said-she-said silliness and posturing, keeping you and the nation in the dark. CNN, FOX, the networks -- none of them are covering the real content of the bill!

If politicians somehow get away with passing this atrocity, the federal government will create an impenetrable barrier to medical service, countless bureaucrats will take over life-and-death power of every aspect of medical care, and they will wreak havoc on nearly 20% of our already frail economy. As you age, your value will be calculated and your access to health care will drop.

Remember -- there is no delegated constitutional authority for any of this: powers delegated to the federal government do not include running an insurance company, regulating what medical care you can get, where you can go for medical treatment, how much you can pay, what sort of treatments you can select, or punishing you or your employer for deciding on your own health care.

We are supposed to have a government of limited delegated powers; if government can do whatever it pleases, without constraint, as they are about to do with your medicine, that's as tyrannical as it gets -- we no longer have a limited government as we should, the basis of our freedom. Pick up your phone, finally, call your representatives, and demand they stop this insane and unlawful intrusion into your doctor's office. At least call your doctor. Do it. Ask for their advice.

Here is the entire 1,107-page health care bill, HR 3200, being pushed by Mr. Obama (no one is saying who actually wrote all of this): (PDF)

Continue reading "Dangerous health care insanity spreads" »

Sotomayer Overlooks All 14 Supreme Court Self-Defense Cases

High Court has examined every aspect of self defense

Entire nation falsely believes the issue has never come up

by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases

In Congressional testimony, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer claimed she couldn't think of a self-defense case having come before the Supreme Court, adding, "I could be wrong, but I can't think of one." Independent research shows that fourteen separate Supreme Court cases, from 1895 to 1985, addressed every basic aspect of personal self defense. All of them held that self defense is a valid, justifiable and long-standing tenet of American law.

The Bloomfield Press book "Supreme Court Gun Cases" (Kopel, Halbrook, Korwin), released in 2003 and in the Supreme Court's library, covers the 92 High Court gun cases in existence at that time. Four additional gun cases (plus the original 92) are included in the followup, "The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed," released in 2008. The fourteen cases that directly address self defense are summarized below in Q&A format. Full summaries of the cases are found in "The Heller Case" book,, and the cases themselves can be linked to from the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based company's website,, using the National Directory button.

The brief index below is a convenient research and navigation tool, and a way to set the record straight on what the Court has already done. Read the entire case for a thorough understanding of each one.

Continue reading "Sotomayer Overlooks All 14 Supreme Court Self-Defense Cases" »

Government Banning Pocketknives

The lamestream media told you:


Web sources however told you the federal government is set to confiscate or criminalize possession of most pocket knives in the country, mainly focused on "assisted opening" knives. Great confusion exists between these one-hand-opening knives, reportedly 80% of the current knife market, regular pocket knives, true switchblades and the effects of both state and federal law on the subject. Page Nine readers who have removed their blinders will of course immediately recognize that the Customs and Border Protection agency cannot write or rewrite federal law, even if they'd like to. Attorney David Wong, author of Knife Laws of the 50 States clarifies the mess below.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Hi Alan. I believe the knives in question are assisted-openers, not automatics. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ruling in question apparently stems from a reversal of a prior CBP "admissibility determination" via a so-called Headquarters Ruling Letter, for a specific type of assisted-opening knives.

The federal switchblade act is found at 15 U.S.C. §1241 et. seq.; here is the index:

1241. Definitions.
1242. Introduction, manufacture for introduction, transportation or distribution in interstate commerce; penalty.
1243. Manufacture, sale, or possession within specific jurisdictions; penalty.
1244. Exceptions.
1245. Ballistic knives.
(a) Prohibition and penalties for possession, manufacture, sale, or importation.
(b) Prohibition and penalties for possession or use during commission of Federal crime of violence.
(c) Exceptions.
(d) "Ballistic knife" defined.

This takes you to the statute itself, pretty easy to read:

Unfortunately, some of the stories I've seen about this issue contain a lot of hype and speculation. For example, "this CBP ruling will affect 'almost every pocketknife' in America" (or words to that effect). Well, no.  First, CBP cannot change federal law, and federal courts are quite jealous of their power to interpret federal law.

Second, many states allow possession of automatic knives (true switchblades). Thus, even if a specific knife is ruled to be a switchblade, such knife would be legal in those states. Those states that prohibit switchblades typically define via state statute (whose definitions are often, but not always, patterned after the federal wording) what a "switchblade" is.  State courts thus would look (and have looked) to their own statutory definitions and case law to determine legality of a particular knife. Many of those states thus have case law on what constitutes a statutory switchblade in those states. The CBP ruling won't (and cannot) change that.

For those remaining states that prohibit switchblades but have not expressly defined the term either directly via statute or indirectly via case law, state courts would typically look (and have looked) at the federal definition, as well as other states' statutory or case law, to determine whether a particular knife is a switchblade, or not.  Generally, a state court isn't going to look at an administrative ruling from a federal agency to determine what constitutes a switchblade under that state's law.  For knife-friendly states, I wouldn't expect an outlandish ruling, although that of course is always a possibility. The knife-unfriendly states have all already prohibited switchblades and defined via statute or case law what constitutes same.

Finally, federal courts may look at the agency's ruling in a particular case, but because the ruling is interpreting a federal statute and not an administrative rule, properly enacted under the Administrative Procedures Act of that agency, such interpretation isn't entitled to, and is unlikely to be afforded, much deference by the court.

I am unaware if the importer whose admissibility determination was denied is seeking further review or appeal of the CBP ruling. That generally comes down to a business (i.e., money) decision. The CBP ruling, if it stands, will indeed have a chilling effect on imports of assisted openers, and as such knife owners should be concerned.

However, some of the hyperbole needs to be toned down to a more level-headed understanding of the impact of the CBP ruling. Could CBP try to extend their ruling to encompass non-assisted opening, i.e., "ordinary" pocket folding knives? Sure, although any such attempt is unlikely to progress very far, even with the anti-tool, anti-self-defense crowd now in charge in Washington.

The idea that the federal switchblade act bans all folding pocket knives is ludicrous on its face, and without legal or historical support. And, I suspect, without much political support either. Hope you are well, and have a great day!

Stay sharp, stay safe, David.

P.S. Knife Laws of the 50 States is a tremendous resource, look at it here:


P.P.S. For what it's worth, the proposal is 63 pages long and reads like this: Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c)(1), CBP intends to revoke HQ 116315, HQ W116730, HQ H016666, and HQ H032255, and any other ruling not specifically identified that is contrary to the determination set forth in this notice to reflect the proper admissibility determination pursuant to the analysis set forth in proposed Headquarters Ruling Letters (HQs) H043122 (Attachment E)...

, ,

Stop The Tzars

The lamestream media told you:


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Responding to a request for strategy from a member of the Republican National Committee, which is developing policy to stop tsarist takeover of entire swaths of America, the Uninvited Ombudsman replied:

Tzars are not authorized by the Constitution.

Tzars represent a tyrannical exercise of power, and were fiercely hated in their homeland Russia.

Any attempt to circumvent Congress and tight congressional oversight of taxpayer funds should be treated as illegal abuse of power, with arrests and prosecutions wherever possible.

While some in the "news" media and other pundits are indignantly asking, "What's with all the tzars?" none are calling for an end to the tzarist era, arrest of anyone acting as a tzar, or dismantling the growing tzarist networks of power. Stop tzars now. Tzars are unAmerican and should be banished. Anyone supporting tzars and their exercise of power should be socially ostracized. Don't question tzars. Excise them.

"Czar," which derives from Caesar, originally meant Emperor and later became equivalent of King: "a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official."

It's important to note the non-Judeo-Christian nature of the term: "Occasionally, the word could be used to designate other, non-Christian, supreme rulers." op cit

Spell it tzar (or tsar or csar, all acceptable spellings) to help co-opt the term.

Tsars ruled in Bulgaria, Serbia and Russia. Is this the model Americans should follow? Not "no," but "h*ll no."

The very notion of power to appoint tzars is anathema, an affront to the American way of life, and indicator of disrespect for the principles of a republican form of government. Whose idea was this anyway?

Don't make the mistake of allowing tzars to flourish and placing them under bureaucratic rules. Financial policy must be under strict oversight with no imperator at the top of the pile. Say no to tzars, period.

The RNC policy on tzars will be released soon, if they maintain their spine.


Tzars Gaining Ground

The lamestream media told you:

Mr. Obama has announced the creation of a new cyber czar, a Great Lakes czar, and now a compensation czar and a car czar.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Six weeks after the Uninvited Ombudsman made national waves with The American Way speech on Patriot's Day, April 19, Neil Cavuto of FOX News on June 4 picked up one of the themes: tzars are bad news.

Noting that Mr. Obama has named more tzars than any other president, he began to question the wisdom of appointing unconstrained administrators to sensitive areas of the American life, with no apparent constitutional power to do so.

America is now under the rule of a car tzar, a Great Lakes tzar, and the latest a compensation tzar, whose role apparently will be to regulate salaries in private businesses normally completely out of the reach of the federal maw. Any business getting money from taxpayers, doled out by federal agents, could be subject to review. The cyber tzar promised to leave personal email and internet access alone.

"Tzars must be stopped by any means necessary," said one outraged observer. "They are un-American, have no meaningful oversight, and just the name should tell you that tyrants have no place in our system. What sort of man would appoint a tzar to rule in America? The "news" media, gleefully promoting each newly appointed tzar, could not be reached for comment, although Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal appeared on the show and backed up Cavuto's ire.

Numerous spellings are considered acceptable for this dictatorial autocrat, so the spelling preferred by the perpetrators, using a "c," should be avoided to reduce reinforcement of the vile concept.


Muslims Overrun Sweden

The lamestream media told you:

The London Guardian newspaper had pronounced Sweden as "The most successful society the world has ever known."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The Swedish city of Malmo has been overrun by Muslim fanatics and anti-Semitism.

Boring, formerly monolithic, responsible for few achievements of international scope, reasons for the Guardian's pronouncement were unclear. Sweden was recently ranked 17th in per capita income.

Abu Hussein Praised

The lamestream media told you:

"DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP, Brian Murphy, 6/4/09) -- The tone of respect was set from the opening lines of President Barack Obama's address to the Muslim world. 'Assalamu Aleikum' -- Arabic for 'peace be upon you' -- he said, triggering applause from the crowd at Cairo University and bringing nods of approval in places like a coffee shop in the West Bank town of Ramallah, where some began calling him 'Abu Hussein' -- using his Muslim middle name -- as a sign of honor."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

American requests to see this person's birth certificate continue to be denied.

, ,

Muslim Jihad Deniers

The lamestream media told you:

In a page one AP story by Steven Hurst, labeled "Analysis" in light gray (meaning it is opinion and not news), there is, "a growing belief in the Muslim world that the United States is at war with Islam."

The belief is attributed as a result of "the dramatic strike on the United States on Sept., 11, 2001," and U.S. actions after the attack.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Maybe there is "a growing belief in the Muslim world that the United States is at war with Islam." There is no doubt however in the rest of the world that a big chunk of the Muslim world is at war with the United States.

The attack on the U.S. on 9/11 is attributed exactly backward by the vaunted AP wire service. Someone should please tell this to Mr. Hurst and the AP, because it was not mentioned in the lengthy story -- Muslims have declared war on us.

In other news, the media agreed to complete censorship in covering Mr. Obama's trip to Saudi Arabia. Obama and Secy. of State Mrs. Clinton agreed to the terms, under which reporters can cover only the completely choreographed and staged official meetings. Any reporter accompanying the presidential entourage doing other coverage of anything in Saudi Arabia during the trip is subject to arrest. The media, instead of rejecting the outrageous affront to a free press sanctioned by the State Dept. and the chief executive, complied with the terms.


Join "The Race"

The lamestream media told you:

Supreme Court candidate Sonia Sotomayor is a member of the Hispanic civil-rights group La Raza.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The "news" media steadfastly refuses to translate "La Raza," because the result might be considered offensive to people who are not members of La Raza, or inflammatory, or even racist.

Press 1 for English: La Raza means "The Race."

Stated policies of "The Race" include driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, bans on law enforcement against illegal aliens, and the annexation of the southwestern United States to Mexico. I am not making this up. "News" media refusal to disclose this doesn't make it less true.

Google "Aztlan," the name The Race gives to the land they wish to annex (parts or all of California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico Colorado and Texas). Representatives of The Race have bragged in the past that if they can't take the land by force, they will take it at the voting booth. As the members of that race increase through illegal immigration, their threat becomes increasingly plausible.

Sotomayor is famous for saying, at a symposium sponsored by The Race Law Journal (, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Other outrageously racist comments can be easily found with a web search.

Any similar statement made by a white male would and should immediately disqualify the person from seeking the seat at the Supreme Court that  this member of The Race seeks. The media, which has been enthusiastic about her nomination, could not be reached for comment.

Referring to The Race as The Race has been deemed racist, by American race mongers. Maybe that's why the media hides The Race from the public. If you don't want a person like this on your Supreme Court, then respond to all the internet messages you've been getting to defeat her nomination.


, ,

GM Ownership Lie

The lamestream media told you:

"And now, let me be the very first to congratulate every single one of you viewers. You are the soon-to-be new owners of General Motors, or as we're going to soon call it, 'Government Motors.' Yes, the big day looks like it will be Monday. GM is expected to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The latest restructuring plan for GM calls for the U.S. government -- that means you -- to own about 70 percent of the company." --FOX News, pretty much the same as every news outlet both before and after the bankruptcy filing by GM.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The idea that Americans own a piece of General Motors is absolute nonsense. It is political grandstanding, unethically perpetuated by a "news" media gone wild. You have no stock, can cash in no bonds, should expect no dividends, cannot sell or expect appreciation in value, cannot assign your ownership or trade the asset for another, or use it to vote for policy at the company, or count it among your holdings, or leave it in your will. You have nothing, but the media delights in saying you do. The media should be ashamed of itself for perpetrating this bald-faced lie. They're not.

Bureaucrats and elected officials in government, mainly those connected directly to the Treasury Dept., own the majority interest in the company "on your behalf" and affect its policy. The correct term for this is "illegal socialist control of industry."

What you do have is money taken from you by force through taxes (try not paying to see how the force part works). It has been unconstitutionally given to this failed company. Actually, I guess that's what you do not have -- the money you earned that is no longer yours.

What the new owners-on-your-behalf have, is trips to Detroit to see how things are going, meetings on the 77th floor with luncheon served, rounds of golf between meetings, clubbing at night, cars and hotels and meals around the world as part of the managerial care of "your company." And the extra power that comes with it all.

Referring to the banks, and the insurance companies, in addition to GM, Michael Moore gloated during an interview that we, the people, which he said means the government, now own all this stuff. "This is great. I never thought I'd have any of this in my portfolio." Michael, you don't. And we, the people, is the opposite of the government.


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!