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

« May 2014 | Main | July 2014 »

The Comments I Get

"Sebulex" writes: "I'm a liberal and I have a gun and I would bet my mother's life that Obama's mysterious troops aren't going to show up at my door to confiscate it, and unlike you I don't have sexual feelings for my gun. You people are just old fashioned pussies. What aren't you afraid of? And how on earth did I get on your poisonous email list?"

Dear "Sebulex,"

Thanks for writing, and saying you're a liberal. I've heard things about liberals, but I prefer to discount them. You've made that hard to do in your case.

1. Please don't bet your mother's life on anything. 
2. What "Obama's mysterious troops" are you talking about? I've said nothing in that regard. 
3. I haven't suggested anyone is going to show up at your door, or any doors. 
4. I haven't said you have sexual feelings about your gun, and be careful about what you deny. 
5. Why do you conjecture the same about me? It's not in my writings. 
6. That's just your first sentence to me.

Your next sentence addresses some imaginary "you people" so I'll leave that for them to answer. If you'd like to write about what I've written in my report (Page Nine No. 135), please do. I have no idea how you got on my list, no need to call names, maybe you signed up and forgot, or wrote to me about something, or someone else did it when you weren't looking (our system theoretically prevents that, but you know how computers are, fallible). If you'd like to comment on the actual content of my report, I'd enjoy hearing from you. Alan. http://www.gunlaws.com/Page9Folder100up/PageNine-135.htm

P.S. I looked up "Sebulex." Medicated dandruff shampoo? Am I supposed to take some meaning from that? [No response received.] 

 

//////// 

 

Alan, Almost all of school shootings have been by persons on mind-altering drugs. Why not mandate that anyone prescribed certain psychiatric medications be prohibited from access to firearms? The problem is not firearms, it is drugs. --Frank L.

[The drug/homicidal-rage link can't be denied, it is virtually universal, though the medical field adamantly denies it and the media downplays it as hard as they can. But deny civil rights to tens of millions of innocent people who haven't done anything because they take medicine? I can't support that, and neither should you. There is also a logical fallacy in that line of thinking, because coincidence is not causality, e.g., every drug addict in prison started on milk. A.] 

 

//////// 

Re: http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2014/06/an-open-letter-to-president-obama.html

Mr. Korwin,

Regarding your open letter to Obama, why do you deal with these people as though they were interested at all in a compromise, or your reason, your arguments, or even your rights? They prove every moment that they have no concern for any of those things.

It should be abundantly clear to someone with your degree of involvement with firearms that what the "Gun Control" industry is after has absolutely no connection to the things they mouth in public. The only reason they have largely dropped the rhetoric of rank demonization in favor of rank deceptions like "Common Sense" laws, or "reasonable" anything, is to get the nose of the confiscation camel under the tent flap. They know nobody supports their real goal, which is a monopoly of physical force by those who share their affinities -- and so they seek to gull and browbeat with words like "reasonable," and reams of data showing their constituents' preferences for whatever insanity they advocate.

Arguing in good faith with these people is going wind up one way -- the same way every argument with a tyrant intent on securing untrammeled power ends. With us lined up against a wall, or on the edge of a ditch. Giving them any quarter whatsoever begets nothing but relentless demands for ever more. As an exercise, ask any one of these people to tell you exactly when they will have enough -- will it be single-shot muzzle-loading Derringers for the commoners? Or will it be nothing -- as they will not rest so long as one single gun remains in private hands?

I think you know the result of that little thought experiment. It's the same as the one where you ask them at what level of taxation will they say "enough," or how much anyone should be "allowed" to earn. No answer, because they know no satiety. They don't seek safety, accommodation, or anything else they prattle about.

They seek Utopia. And pretending they do not only aids in the deception. I urge you to reconsider the efficacy of any conciliatory approach to the statists and their demands. They have long since declared war on us, and it's time we behaved as though we realize that -- by dropping the collegial airs, and being as implacable and relentless as they are -- only in favor of liberty and not against it.

Sincerely, D.W.

 

[Your points are all well taken and beautifully expressed. Many other said similar things (though not as well). But perhaps you're missing the point. First, it's just a writing technique, I don't really expect the guy to read the letter, c'mon, he doesn't even read his daily security briefings.

It's aimed at the millions of people swarming around him, people who read newspapers and are on staffs, it's aimed at the court of popular opinion, to force (carefully nudge, actually) people to think about what they're doing, and win the battle for our gun rights, one step at a time. People in the media, people who are politically connected at every level, our own choir, not just the guy in the address box, that's my audience.

Sometimes you need a bludgeon, sometimes you need a soft drink. From the looks of it, it's having an effect. One of many, it's a long struggle. I've got more coming. You should send this one around, especially to non gunnies, like democrats, rattle their cages a little. Add this: How can you not support education?

As far as the guy who did release a phony birth certificate, and all the other stuff going on, I've got some other irons in the fire too, ya know. Look at some of the blue notes on the left:
http://www.gunlaws.com

or this:

http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm


////////

 

 

I strongly suggest you unsubscribe me. Immediately. I did not sign up for this and couldn't even possibly disagree with you more. I am not your ally in any way, and do not wish to receive your messages.

[My sincerest apologies, I didn't mean to upset you. I've never had anyone express such a closed attitude. If you don't agree with education, what do you suppose might work? I've unsubscribed you of course.] 

 

//////// 

 

Please please no more,
No more of this.
Mlk

[Are you asking to unsubscribe,
or are you asking for an end to the awful things
the government and others are up to,
like demanding no voter ID, but ID for everything else]

Who sent this, as I am a Canadian and out of five countries lived in this is the only one armed.
I do not feel that I belong in a country armed by citizens against a govt voted in to serve.

[Hey if you don't feel like you belong here, why are you here?
I'd really like to know.
Foreigners are often complaining, but live here anyway.
Is that you? Always strikes us citizens as hypocritical, no?
You like all the good stuff an armed nation provides,
but have no end to the vacuous complaints.
If you read Page Nine, you'll learn about all this,
it will make you a better person, and part time resident.
What would you like me to do?
[No reply received.] 

 

//////// 

 

Someone forwarded me your letter to President Obama. I have no problem with having a gun for security reasons in a home, for hunting and shooting. The many shootings in this country are horrendous. I am not a gun owner. What are your thoughts on banning the sale of assault weapons? Why are those legally sold in this country? I see no purpose in anyone owning an assault weapon unless they are in the armed forces. I posted this on FB and naturally got a backlash from a friend who is a gun owner. To be honest, I never heard of you but when I googled you, your bio was impressive, to say the least. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the above question.

[Regina, Assault is a kind of behavior, it is not a kind of hardware. The media has created this term to scare people and muddle the debate. When you say "assault weapon," to what are you actually referring? Diane Feinstein' s so-called "assault-weapon" bill would have banned anything with a grip. Hard to believe right? It's no wonder everyone objected and it went no where. So what is it you're really objecting to? I'd like to hear your reply.

I hope my brief remarks have helped clarify your thoughts. It sounds like you, unfortunately, are a victim of the awful reporting that has confused so many people following the "news" media. They rant about "ugly" guns, or what they think of as "dangerous" guns, without pointing out that all guns are dangerous, they're supposed to be dangerous, and wouldn't be much good if they weren't dangerous. If you're referring to the AR-15 rifle, that's what police use, because it's accurate, reliable, it's the best, which is why the public likes it too. Using something inferior when your life might depend on it is a really bad idea.] 

 

//////// 

 

Hi Alan,

Forgotten me already? I'm the guy that wrote How to Win a Gunfight, and we've met many times when we were living in Scottsdale. Now, we're living in an 18th century house overlooking the North Sea in Scarborough, in gentle retirement. Since we left AZ in November 2011, we've visited New York Berlin, Prague, Rome, Florence (Italy, not Ariz.) and Siena, and we go down to London about four times a year.

Have to admit that I do miss my guns; not so much as shooting them, but knowing that I can own them. That's why I signed up for your Page Nine newsletter -- to keep me in touch with a free society.

Incidentally, according to a friend of mine in London, if I wanted to buy an illegal handgun, it would take "no more than a couple of hours," if you knew the right people.

The politicians here tell us that street crime is down, but as Winston Churchill said; "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics," and I think we're getting some heavily-massaged statistics thrown at us. If you want to read what right-minded people think over here, I'd suggest that you read the Daily Mail online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk. The lefties and commentariat all sneer, but it is the biggest-selling conservative newspaper in the UK. Take a look. All the best, Tony Walker.

[Tony's book remains a good seller and a fine examination of the split-second timing that can determine the winner in a spontaneous gunfight. We have them in stock, only $14.95, click the link to read about it. Alan.] 

Paranoia Sweeps Media As Governor Expands Civil Rights

The lamestream media told you:

The Hill reports that: "Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) signed sweeping gun legislation on Wednesday that some have described as unprecedented. Licensed gun owners will be able to carry their firearms into public places including bars, schools, churches and government buildings, among other areas.

"The NRA called House Bill 60, The Safe Carry Protection Act, 'the most comprehensive pro-gun bill in state history.'"

[NOTE: The bill had support from both Republicans and Democrats, passed with relative ease, (it is an expansion of civil rights) and takes effect on July 1, 2014]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/204156-georgia-governor-to-sign-sweeping-gun-rights-bill#ixzz30ZYZK0DO (4/23/14)

MSNBC called it The Guns Everywhere Bill, and quoted Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group founded by anti-gun-rights billionaire Mike Bloomberg with former Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords as its leader, which called the legislation "the most extreme gun bill in America."

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/georgias-guns-everywhere-bill

NPR exclaimed people will be able to bring firearms into unsecured government buildings without approval (their emphasis, overlooking everything that goes into getting the license). Librarians expressed alarm that they may not be able to even speak with people who are armed, "even if there are children running around," although that made no sense and is not a part of the law.

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/22/324006448/georgias-new-pro-gun-law-triggers-confusion-for-some-residents

The law will free (NPR says "allow") licensed owners to carry firearms into more public places than at any time in the past century, including bars and government buildings that don't have security checkpoints. The law also authorizes school districts to appoint staffers to carry firearms. It allows churches to "opt-in" if they want to allow weapons. Bars, which could already opt-in, must now opt-out if they so desire.

A webinar designed for 500 cities addresses bureaucrats who want to know if they can just post a no-guns sign to keep people exercising their rights out. The answer: "No." 

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

People were always able to walk into those places with guns, that's the whole point. What this law means is they can do it legally. This law covers places that are not secured, where anyone good or bad, can simply stroll in armed.

We know for a fact that many people in the past simply ignore the old bans, with both good and bad intent all the time, and discreetly went armed. All this rule change does is allow decent people to enter without being at risk of arrest. There is absolutely no change for armed bad guys intent on shooting up a place. (Well, except that maybe there might be more armed good guys around.)

Get it? People could always walk in armed to the teeth to all those places, because the places are unsecured. As long as they acted discreetly not a thing prevented them.

Now, even after two decades of licensed discreet carry in America, anti-rights activists like Bloomberg-funded groups, left-leaning media pundits, and the uninformed are still paranoid about expansions of civil rights in the firearms arena.

Georgia's governor has done nothing other state officials haven't done bit by bit, he is just in the spotlight of the moment, responding to beneficial acts of the legislature and a hailstorm of complaints.

We know for a fact that decent citizens do not start gunfights when their rights expand.

We even know that citizens who have achieved Constitutional Carry in their states -- the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights without government interference -- are equally responsible.

Yet ill-informed portions of the public, whipped to a frenzy by an embarrassingly incompetent media, continue to exhibit signs of paranoia or hoplophobia when gun-rights grow.

The old psych 101 tapes are rolling again, hoplophobic fears of blood in the streets are beginning to manifest, none of the fearful sufferers are getting much-needed treatment, and the public is forced to suffer through this same old expensive and primitive civil-rights battle all over again -- ironically from the political left that thinks it is the harbinger of civil rights.

None are so blind as those who do not know they cannot see. 

An Open Letter to the Governors of the Fifty States of the Union

Alan Korwin, Publisher

Bloomfield Press
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254

To: The Governors of the Fifty States of the Union

Re: Gun-Free Zones That Aren't


June 27, 2014


Dear Governor,


Like you, I'm mortified by the psychotic atrocities being committed in one state after another. And like President Obama recently said, "Legislation is not going to pass without more grassroots-level support."

But too many of you keep seeking small or large gun bans -- and run into brick-walled opposition from the grassroots gun-owner community. Then you appear surprised, or dismayed.

You don't seem to realize, every time you create some new type of "no-guns-at-the-lunch-counter" rule, you don't create the safe gun-free zones you think you do, and we out here know it, so of course we resist you.

You're creating reckless "make-believe gun-free zones," where anyone with a gun can simply walk in. These pretend gun-free zones are exactly where the psychosgo.

That's not only dangerous, it's as crazy as the psychopaths who use these places for their evil deeds. Tens of millions of honest people obey your rules, like lambs to a slaughter, and the slaughterers merely walk in, every time.

Just look at the record on these slaughterhouse cases, it's right there -- in make-believe gun-free zones created by your signing pens. Your pen is as mighty as the sword.

You keep us out, or sanction that -- and are bewildered by how much opposition you faced in doing it! Then it does nothing about stopping wild-eyed butchers from coming in. And still you wonder why we fight you?!

So -- instead of denying civil rights to solve a problem, try something different. Try encouraging civil rights.

That worked pretty well in the past -- just ask the President. That's doing something, and you'll have tens of millions of eager supporters instead of opposition for a change.

You'll have the support you say you want, and that you do need, more easily than you can imagine. Just work with the majority of the electorate you're leaving out, who owns these things.

Every time you sign a bill to ban guns from some location, without putting up the money for expensive physical barriers like at an airport, that's practically negligent, since everyone can see (thanks to the media) how dangerous these make-believe gun-free zones are.

Whenever you deny a human being's basic civil and human rights you create a problem. Your role as an official is not to deny human rights, but to protect them.

You should pledge to never again sign a bill that diminishes the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It's actually part of your sacred oath of office. You need to work diligently to repeal state and local laws that restrict this constitutional guarantee all Americans have.

You should pledge to never again sign a bill
that diminishes the fundamental right
to keep and bear arms.

The idea that only some people are allowed at the lunch counter must be abolished, and society will benefit. The innocent will benefit and the criminals will be disadvantaged. And:

You will have the robust and unbridled support of the firearms community and get somewhere, instead of being stopped cold. Wouldn't that be nice for a change? You want to do something? Do that.

We faced the fear -- some say paranoia -- that carry permits first spawned, when they began sweeping the nation decades ago. But we soon learned that armed citizens don't shoot slow waiters, or each other at stop signs. Responsible gun owners are, well, responsible.

It's the criminals we have to watch out for, and since we know our laws don't disarm them, of course you'll meet fierce resistance when you work to disarm the rest of us. So stop banging your head against the wall and work with us. We're your constituency too. Do something already.

Please don't fall for this dangerous, reckless and negligent logic:



IN THIS BUILDING
YOU ARE PROTECTED
BY THIS SIGN



Sincerely,

Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America



Alan Korwin is the author of fourteen books, ten of them on gun law, and runs the website GunLaws.com. His company, Bloomfield Press, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country.

 

Alan Korwin's open letter to Obama (Video)

See also Alan Korwin writes open letter to Obama (VIDEO)

 

An Open Letter to President Obama

Alan Korwin, Publisher
Bloomfield Press
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254

President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C.

 


June 19, 2016


An open letter to the President of the United States

Re: Increasingly common public slaughter


Dear Mr. Obama,

I agree with your recent remarks -- it's terrifying to have all these shootings. I want it to stop as much as you or anyone. And I share your frustration in seeing nothing get done.

What I don't understand is why you keep trying to do the same things and get blocked.

You know that those plans will meet with fierce resistance. Instead, try something that the community at large might accept, and finally move us ahead. Work both sides.

Stop harping about background checks, with the now tired litany about how it's so reasonable, yet you can't even get that.

Well, OK, you can't. It's time to accept that. But you don't seem to know why. The gun owners out here know why.

The shootings would not have been stopped by background checks.

It's the wrong answer to the problem.

It would have affected all of us -- and so we resist -- but it would not have "done something" about the psychotic murderers we want to stop. Let's not get into what the proposed bills really proposed, that's for another day.

So if you want to "do something" with huge grass-roots support and get it done, try promoting gun-safety training and marksmanship in schools. Watch what happens then.

Right now schools are a gaping cavern of ignorance on the subject of guns. Kids think guns are the fun blood bath they see in pop culture. Do something about that.

Work with the firearms community -- not against it. We're your constituency too. Teach gun safety and respect for arms -- like 100 million decent gun owners have -- instead of leaving the festering ignorance in place. The forbidden fruit of guns -- a word students can't even voice -- can't be helping.

Wouldn't it be nice to have the support of 100 million gun owners, instead of banging heads with us all the time? Teachers, school administrators, their unions, students, most haven't got a clue about the true role of guns in our lives and culture. Let us educate them. Let there be light.

Prominent doctors have suggested treating guns, which they too understand poorly, as germs and disease. Louis Brandeis framed it well: the best disinfectant is a little light.

Encourage gun-safety and marksmanship training for all Americans, to teach respect for this constitutionally protected property. You'll garner the significant support you seek, and do something to move a culture that has grown inured, as you have so eloquently noted, to something it should not tolerate. Get something done.

It's a good first step.

Sincerely,

Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

Economy is Strong -- in Gun Biz

The lamestream media told you:

The economy is slow, jobs are off but getting better, income inequality, it's still a recovery. Why did the chicken cross the road... you're a racist and it's Bush's fault.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


The National Shooting Sports Foundation, NSSF.org, reports that in April 2014, the NSSF-adjusted NICS background-check figure of 988,726 is the second highest April on record for the system, even with a decrease of 16.6% compared to the April 2013 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,185,231. For comparison, the unadjusted April 2014 NICS figure of 1,733,651 reflects a 1.8% increase from the unadjusted NICS figure 1,702,455 in April 2013. NSSF adjusts the figures to more closely approximate gun sales, since the raw data reflects other uses of this $250 million centralized FBI computer ID system in Clarksburg, W. Va., funded and built for the FBI to satisfy requirements of the Brady Handgun law, heh heh. System diagramhttp://www.gunlaws.com/images/nicsbig.gif

In other news, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, NSSF.org, reports that the latest Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax collection report released by the Treasury Dept. indicates gun and ammo makers reported $213.5 million in taxes for the 4th calendar quarter of 2013; up 22% over 2012.

In even bigger news, if you can consider paying tax big news, the 2013 annual FAET collections totaled $863,696,528 making it the highest year on record, beating 2012 by 34.1%, a stunning advance in economic terms. The lamestream media basically missed the story.

Truth Leaks on Gun-Free School Zones

The lamestream media told you:

The federal gun-free school-zone law is a good thing. It was enacted in 1990, declared unconstitutional, then reenacted with a small change, and has been left standing since. Schools are so much safer because of it.

Technically, it creates a 1,000-foot zone around school perimeters that basically prohibits most gun possession almost anywhere in a populated area (see maps). The zones essentially all overlap http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm

Experts have noted it is essentially unenforceable, and it in fact is not generally enforced on the general public as it travels. More often, state laws apply when actual offenses or crimes occur.


IN THIS BUILDING
YOU ARE PROTECTED
BY THIS SIGN


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


The far left publication Education Week provides a clear understanding of what the Gun-Free School Zones has actually accomplished, at the ground level, in schools (in the bad parts of town, but they don't put it that way):
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/10/16policies.h32.html?qs=discipline+policies+squeezed

 

A student passes through security at the beginning of the school day at
Christian Fenger Academy High School in Chicago. School officials
around the country are working to balance school security with
the need to maintain a positive learning environment.

-Peter Hoffman


"The so-called zero-tolerance approach to discipline, once reserved for the most serious of offenses, has prompted the suspensions and expulsions of students in possession of butter knives and theater-prop swords. The federal Gun-Free Schools Act, enacted in 1994, ushered in an era of tough punishment for low-level offenses.

"Meanwhile, research and public positions by psychologists, physicians, and teachers' unions denounce such practices as harmful to students academically and socially, useless as prevention tools, and unevenly applied. Advocacy groups--backed by that research and by data collected by the U.S. Department of Education--say the discipline machinery has a disproportionate effect on students who are black, Latino, or male and those with disabilities." [studies of course do not measure (or care) whether these groups are disproportionately involved in offenses, because that could be an inconvenient truth.)

Clever New Approach -- Disarm The Women

The lamestream media told you:

Following a horrible gun tragedy we've got to do something about the guns the entire public owns. Following a horrible gun tragedy we've got to do something about the guns the entire public owns. Following a horrible gun tragedy we've got to do something about the guns the entire public owns. Following a horrible gun tragedy we've got to do something about the guns the entire public owns. Following a horrible gun tragedy we've got to do something about the guns the entire public owns. Following a horrible gun tragedy we've got to do something about the guns the entire public owns.

It became clear eventually that three people were shot on the far left side of the country, by one crazed madman, who first stabbed three people to death, then killed one with his car, before committing suicide.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Once again, we only glance over gun policy while dancing in the blood of victims, because anti-rights bigots -- and there are many in high places -- know that then emotions might trump reason and they will get what they want. That is, more power in their hands (they don't have to disarm) and less power in ours (we would in all sorts of creative ways).

If we looked at other times, we might deal with facts and reason and get somewhere -- stopping crime and balancing power.

So here's a completely fresh idea -- a thought experiment like what scientists use -- for ending crazed-maniac shootings in public.

Let's disarm all women -- that's half the population -- and see what happens!

That way, at least they can't shoot anyone. It's at least worth a try. We have to do something.

Our thought experiment demonstrates that this obviously won't work at all. But it does establish one critically important element we often overlook.

The problem clearly is not the fact that so many people have guns (about 300 million by some estimates, many of them women). Disarming at least half the public -- a massive, expensive (and unconstitutional) endeavor, will have zeroeffect, right?

You'd have to disarm the right half of the public! I'll get to the fact that the anti-rights people are crying out for background checks (not disarmament, so far), in a minute.

To fix the problem, then, it's obvious, you just have to disarm all the men! Hmmm. Now that's not going to play well at all either -- but for entirely different reasons.

So this brings us to the nub of the problem, and the end of the thought experiment.

This is not about background checks or registries or safety devices or gun types, is it?

You could do all that stuff to the female half of the country, and nothing would change. So maybe we could even leave them out of the scheme! It would cut the infringement by half. But if you try to single out the males, well, you can start to see why there is so much resistance, not from civil-rights groups, though they're in it up to their percussion caps, but from the body politic itself.

Laying entanglements over the entire United States of America, to stop a handful of psycho-maniacs who have only recently started acting out, is grotesque. That level of massive government infringement, to accomplish that admittedly important goal, is as astonishing and bizarre as most of what the NSA, or the VA, or IRS, or the BATFE (which would run this campaign) is up to these days. Do you really seek more of what they do? Is that how you solution this problem? Should we try it out on the women first and see, and then go to the good ole' boys?

Continue reading "Clever New Approach -- Disarm The Women" »

Extremist Groups Rising -- But Which?

The lamestream media told you:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/us/hate-groups-decline/

(CNN) -- Far-right extremist groups had been on the rise, particularly in reaction to President Obama's election in 2008 and the financial crisis around the same time. But now, hate group prevalence is taking a downward turn, according to a report released Tuesday. The number of hate groups declined 7% from 2012 to 2013, the Southern Poverty Law Center said in the report.

"We had four years of spectacular growth of the radical right," said Mark Potok, senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center. Now, it "seems to be turning a corner." It's unclear whether the decline will continue, Potok said. There were 1,007 groups in 2012 and 939 last year, but those numbers are still substantially higher than in 1999, when there were only 457 such groups.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


The number of left-wing extremist groups is not being tracked by the SPLC, a radical left-wing group itself, despite presenting itself as a neutral analyst of hate groups and extremists. The corrupt "news" media covers SPLC as if it's a news source.

Communists, the primary left-wing totalitarian extremists operating in the U.S. and around the world for the defeat of freedom, are known to have operatives in the U.S. Congress, college campuses, "news" rooms in most major news operations, environmental and "green" movements, Hollywood film studios, global whining outfits and most other facets of U.S. life.

The Occupy private-property coalitions, lately operating quietly, featured communism recruitment booths at their public events. Fully one-quarter of the world's population live under communist-ruled oligarchies, including Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, much of South America and elsewhere. Communism is the sworn enemy of capitalism, the system upon which most of American success is based.

The current U.S. administration, led by Barack Hussein Obama, has dedicated itself to redistribution of wealth and a brand new fiscal policy of income-inequality management, both Marxist programs, but do not figure into SPLC reports.

It's hard to imagine anything more left wing or extremist than that, according to leading experts, and it operates at the very highest level of government, with support from nearly the entire party of Democrats, with fawning cooperation from the "news" media. The reasons for SPLC's omissions from its list of extremists were unclear at press time.

The FBI states leftist extremist groups "generally profess a revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as protectors of the people against the "dehumanizing effects" of capitalism and imperialism." Mainstream economists agree income redistribution squarely fits this definition.

Such groups can sometimes be recognized because they also frequently champion causes including ecological extremism, racist civil rights, radical feminism, gay and other sexual-orientation belligerence, anti-defense positions, domestic terrorism, so-called "abortion rights," private property and wealth assaults, and they oppose banking and capital accumulation, corporate development, land use, business and natural resource development, profit motive, free enterprise, use of animals, while expressing hatred directed toward the RNC or individuals such as Rush Limbaugh or former president Bush (that's according to the DHS Office of Intelligence). Hard left ultra violent so-called "peace activist" attacks on law enforcement were reportedly stable for the year.

Photo ID For Voting Is Racist, Dems Say

The lamestream media told you:

The Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency will reportedly require a photo ID for individuals as a condition to attend hearings next month on new carbon emission regulations that have been proposed in the name of fighting climate change.

This is notable if not ironic in that the Obama Justice Department is suing a number of states which have passed laws requiring American citizens to produce a photo ID to vote in a state or national election. A member of the public also needs a photo ID to enter the Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C.

The EPA explained that because the hearings are held in government facilities, the photo ID would required for security. Voting is also held in government facilities. Related questions about the government becoming an armed fortress instead of a servant of the people, and this becoming a cause for alarm among the public, were not asked.

According to the Inquisitr website, "Most (but not all) Democrats and their allied groups from the Obama administration on down consider government-issued photo identification, usually in the form of a driver's license, as a voting requirement, to be almost the equivalent of waterboarding."

Rhode Island democrats enacted a law to require voter ID to limit voter fraud (the reason for voter ID at polls), during the 2012 elections, and surprisingly, had no problems.

Photo ID in order to vote is the world standard on planet Earth.

Although FOX News picked up the story from The Blaze, as did Inquisitr, the other lamestream "news" sources didn't give it enough attention to make the front pages (plural) of Google.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1282861/epa-climate-change-hearings-will-require-photo-id/#rh4hRm45fb7cTlek.99

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

If it's racist to demand a photo ID to vote, then
how can you demand photo ID for gun purchases?

Democrats hate being called hypocrites.
But the shoe fits.
Oh, uhh, and it's not good to hate.


"Requiring Voter ID is racist!"

 

 

Riddle me this--
How could the Dems and the leftists possibly defend that position

if the "news" media wasn't totally corrupted and on their side?
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!