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!


« January 2016 | Main | March 2016 »

Should We Elect An American President?

The “Natural Born Citizen” Issue Explained

It’s not a court issue—the Founders defined it—we’ve just forgotten.

February 24, 2016

by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman (


Can just anyone be elected President of the United States? No, of course not. Foreigners for example are not eligible. The Constitution spells out the eligibility standards:

Article II, Section 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

As you can see, Article II distinguishes between Citizens and natural born Citizens. Although we know the Founding Fathers used language with extreme care, this is now raising a ruckus. I’m a researcher, I’ve done the legwork, so let me set the record straight. The answers we need are right there in the historical record. This is not a judiciable matter for courts as has been recently suggested, along with other modern-day distractions and red herrings. Here’s the short version.

At the time of our nation’s founding Benjamin Franklin obtained three copies of Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel. There is a record of the acquisition from Franklin backing this up that still exists today. I’ll quote that in a moment. It was the preeminent guide on the subject. Franklin put one in a library, sent one to the College of Massachusetts, and brought one to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia for the delegates to use, which they did.

This book they used defines “natural born citizen” clearly as a person born in a country, both of whose parents are citizens of the country at the time of birth. It’s a plain, clear definition of the term they used in the Constitution.

It’s a three-part requirement. It allows for no foreign birth or parentage in a person who is a natural born citizen. It is distinct from ordinary citizenship. Article II in the Constitution recognizes the distinction.

John Jay, who became our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, sent a letter to George Washington, which also still exists, which I’ll also quote in a moment, confirming that the only way to ensure the U.S. presidency remains free of what today we would call “foreign entanglements” was to require that eligibility be limited to natural born citizens only. Washington replied, thanking him for the advice. In editing the final version of the Constitution, the Framers changed Article II from citizen to natural born Citizen, capitalized that way. Records of all this exist.

There, in a nutshell, is the entire situation.

No court decision is needed. The idea that a court must weigh in because the Founders didn’t define the term in the Constitution is nonsense. It is the same type of nonsense modern people have created to undermine other fundamental elements of our Constitution. The Founders knew exactly what the term meant, just like they knew what “weights and measures” meant when they used that (without defining it) and they used it with precision, for deliberate reason.

The presidency is the only office in our entire legal structure that has this requirement. Citizen appears throughout the law. Natural born citizen appears in one place and one place only—as a requirement for the highest office in the land. You can stop here and you have the truth of the matter, or read further if this interests you and you want the details.

This White Paper is not about liking one candidate over another—I do not endorse or oppose candidates, as people who know me are well aware. This is about liking the Constitution over any candidate. It would be wrong to let the fact that we have allowed a person into office who somehow avoided proper review and does not meet the eligibility requirements stated in our Constitution, to justify offering up additional candidates who similarly do not meet the fundamental test set out in our nation’s charter.

Continue reading "Should We Elect An American President?" »

SYRIAN MUSLIM REFUGEES: First hand report from a traveling friend and his wife

My friend's English is not great, his report is spotty, he is not a journalist. Take it for what it is worth.

We spent 4-1/2 months in Europe this past summer. Witnessed the Islamic invasion first hand.

Yes, at least 70% are young males, even if in early to mid 20's they are often classified as "children." Very many times there is no or false "documentation."

BTW, like here in the U.S., the media usually only shows the young mothers and infants, carefully editing out the preponderance of young military age males.

As overheard while sitting at an immigration control office, more than one "Syrian refugee" is not Syrian.

Sweden for example has had a huge rise in violent crime. Including 31 attacks using hand grenades in the short time we were there. There have been several shootings using real Kalashnikovs. Also a car bomb in southern Sweden that killed four. Things that have never happened there before.

As in Germany also, the exponential rise in sex crimes, often making international headlines.

Then there was an extremely rare triple murder, also in southern Sweden. Usually, unless the suspects are ethnic Swedes, there will be no ID of the suspects.

In this case there was a leak that the suspects were arrested as they left a mosque. Rare that the info got out as the Swedish media typically is just as corrupt and dishonest as the U.S. media.

This is all I got. You can go on line and get similar reports, but the U.S. media, through a mechanism that cannot be described, does not cover any of this. The bald faced lies that do make it through support the deplorable deception and omission of U.S. media:

Front cover of (our Arizona "state" newspaper, aptly named), Nov. 28, 2015: "This is what a refugee looks like" (pretty picture of nice family at home is shown):
American Newspaper “Reality”



Only 2% are military aged men, we're told. This is what refugees flooding into Europe from Syria really look like (not in the newspaper, one of hundreds of images posted on the web):

Actual Reality

They have no papers, no records, no cares about you.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning for sharia law.

This is why no one trusts the "news" media any longer.

"Smart Guns" vs. Smarter Guns

The lamestream media told you:

[NOTE: This story, its source, and its stats left me stunned; the "news" has deteriorated completely.]

Deven Coldewey (NBC News) -- "Many Americans would consider 'smart' or childproof weapons if they were to buy a new gun, a new study by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health finds.

"Fifty-nine percent of respondents to the Web-based survey of nearly 4,000 people indicated interest in the tech-infused guns, which use fingerprint detection or wireless signals to limit use of the weapon to its owner.

"Non-owners of guns and people identifying as 'liberal' were most likely to consider buying smart guns, while owners of multiple guns were least likely. [no stats provided]

"A 2013 study funded by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun makers trade association, showed only 14 percent of people would consider smart guns.

"President Barack Obama recently announced, during an emotional speech about gun violence, that his administration would pursue smart gun technology.

"'If we can set it up so you can't unlock your phone unless you've got the right fingerprint,' he said, 'why can't we do the same thing for our guns?'"

Note: NBC has been ranked by media watchdog groups as the least neutral and most hostile to gun rights of all national broadcast news outlets, but the others are very close. The term "gun violence" is a recently introduced and now common pejorative media propaganda phrase substituting for the word "crime." No balancing to this Bloomberg-funded story was provided, beyond the one line about the NSSF study that contradicts the whole thing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

So-called "smart guns" is a new rallying cry of the left, in their never ending drive to disarm or subarm the public. The effort is based, at its core, in unmitigated fear of firearms, ignorance of how firearms work, and an insecurity by its advocates about their own capacity for safely handling and using firearms, which does not afflict members of the gun community. The anti-gun sufferers do not seek treatment for their condition, preferring to disable others as a solution instead.

Their quest for so-called "smart" guns is for guns that don't work under multiple conditions. These are typically battery powered, which as anyone with an Obama phone or cash-for-clunker car knows, go dead at the worse possible times. Dead is the perfect word.

They can only be operated by one person, or only with an external device handy, all dangerous conditions for a device that must work without fail as if your life depends on it, because it does.

Guns aren't "smart" and cannot be. They are inanimate objects only as smart as their users, a point practically lost on the people promoting so-called "smart" gun schemes, in an effort to disarm or subarm gun owners. An underlying principle of proposed "smart guns" is remote control, allowing owners (but actually "officially authorized users") to make sure the gun cannot fire unless an "authorized user" deems that necessary. If "authorized user" sounds a little bureaucratic, that's because it is.

Smarter Guns

Smarter guns is what the gun industry and gun owners continuously demand and develop. Aside from evolving from smooth-bore matchlocks to self-loading rifled-barrel cartridge arms -- each step has involved exceedingly smarter designs. Modern guns have gotten smarter, for example with sights.

This includes an ongoing graduation from traditional centuries old (yet still fully functional) open iron sights to improvements like telescopic, improved reticle, three dot, phosphors, optical fiber, radioisotope light emitting, 3D red dot, laser projecting, range finding and more.

Guns so equipped are smarter, better, improved, but by no means "smart" in the left-wing sense of inoperable -- the hypothetical golden fleece anti gunners and hoplophobes seek to protect themselves -- not from crime, but from guns themselves. They don't seek protection from what guns are designed to protect us from, but from the guns. Hence their solutions are mythological, and typically dangerous or imaginary, which leads to the staunch resistance they constantly face, which they find mystifying and unfathomable. None are so blind as those who cannot see.


"gun violence" vs. "crime"

Political Correctness is really Cultural Marxism,
a perverse way to control thought and move America
toward a socialist, Orwellian future.

Political correctness has leaked its way into our schools, media, culture and thoughts -- sometimes unconsciously, sometimes deliberately, by people seeking to undermine our freedom and undo the advances we the people have achieved, replacing liberty with tyrannical control over the populace.

Unable to defeat us with military might, our enemies are having great success undermining our values using mere language. As George Orwell so keenly observed, control the language and you control thought. Control thought and you control everything else. It's time to re-read the book 1984, or read it for the first time if you haven't already.

It's time to start recognizing the corrupt use of the invented term "gun violence" in place of the correct word, "crime." The next time you see the propaganda term, in your mind, read "crime" and watch the spin change. Mr. Hussein-Obama admitted on TV recently that fully two-thirds of firearms mortality is suicide, a medical issue, and neither gun violence nor crime. War deaths in the government sponsored war on some drugs can be avoided by declaring a truce, which government refuses to even consider. By falsely labeling these "gun violence" they build shallow political capital to attack our rights, a despicable abuse of power.

The 30,000 figure constantly cited would drop to 4,000 with those changes alone, and re-frame the entire debate. The "news" media loves the distorted propaganda phrases that assault our rights. Don't help them. The Politically Corrected Glossary, Take a quick peek.

Antonin Scalia's Greatest Hit: A Defining Moment in History

The lamestream media told you:

Barack Hussein Obama has decided to skip the funeral of recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, whose dedication to the Constitution and the rule of law does not closely match Mr. Hussein-Obama's, according to leading experts.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The District of Columbia vs. Heller case, considered by the firearms community to be among Justice Scalia's finest pieces of work, is being made available in annotated form and on special terms by Bloomfield Press, the nation's largest publisher and distributor of gun law books.

The book's co-author Alan Korwin was invited by the High Court to observe oral argument in the case. He attended with his Cartridge Family Band fellow musician Bob Blackmer (who had originally planted the idea of going); Bob had to wait outside overnight in freezing conditions to obtain a seat. Korwin reported directly from Washington D.C. on the landmark event and was joined by dozens of luminaries in attendance, including his co-author, David Kopel (who sat at the Respondent's table up front). Read about the court time itself:

The book, The Heller Case, Gun Rights Affirmed! here: became an instant classic, spelling out in plain English what SCOTUS Justice Scalia had written in crisp, compelling legalese, having been assigned the case by Chief Justice John Roberts. It confirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right of American people, despite fabrications and concoctions invented by leftists to deny the right people had exercised for more than 200 years. The opposition claimed the right was "collective," and belonged to no person in particular, a false perspective expressed in the dissent, which the book includes.

In addition to every word of both the decision ("the holding") and the dissents, the book highlights hundreds of important quotations in the texts and features plain English summaries of every aspect of the case, plus explanations of how the case came to be, who the various players are, and how the Court works. "News" media typically exhibit an abysmally low understanding of such things, misleading the public, you included, unfortunately.

The Heller Case, Gun Rights Affirmed! also includes three other Supreme Court important gun cases that were decided before the Heller case, but after Supreme Court Gun Cases, the unabridged guide to the Court's 92 prior gun cases Supreme Court Gun Cases Journalists constantly and inaccurately say the Court has been largely quiet about guns but that is totally false -- they have used some form of the word firearm more than 2,900 times in those decisions, consistently recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms.

This is reflected in the fact that in America we have gun stores, we have always had gun stores, and you don't need to join a state militia to walk in and buy as many firearms and as much ammunition as you like.

Lobbyist John Snyder, Dick Heller, and Alan Korwin wait for the proceedings to begin at the Heller case, downstairs at the U.S. Supreme Court. You can tell how cold it was, we were bundled up.

The Heller Case, Gun Rights Affirmed! is a joy to read and a tribute to the memory of one of the finest legal minds to ever grace the Supreme Court bench. If you have never actually read a High Court decision, this is the place to start. It is an education, an exhilaration and rollicking good fun all at the same time.

Justice Scalia and Alan Korwin had a word about their books, author to author, on May 12, 2015, at a Federalist Society reception in Phoenix. He had graciously agreed to sign my book, Supreme Court Gun Cases, at his book signing for Reading Law, which I'm working my way through

Obama Announces No-Buy List for Guns

Seeks to change arbitrary "No-Fly List" into "No Buy List"


Don't TSA Scanners Work on These People?

If you can't buy guns, you sure can't own guns Democrats cheer wildly at announcement

The man in the White House has publicly announced his intention to summarily disarm the public based on a swiftly growing secret police list.

“Right now, people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you're too dangerous to board a plane, you're too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun.”

That's a direct quote from Barack Hussein Obama.

Are those people charged with something? Have they been convicted of anything? That's rhetorical. No to both questions. I asked the FBI at the SHOT Show in Jan., 2016. They are just banned from flying. Why? The FBI won't say. It's a secret. How do you get on the list? I found out that's a secret too. You lose your right to fly by secret. The list is kept secret by police. Secret police list. Those are words we're not supposed to connect in this free country.

People on this secret police list can still take Amtrak, or a bus, or drive to Cincinnati. Or anywhere. If those people are that dangerous why are they still walking around? I asked the FBI. No answer. What sense does that make? Who are these people? That's a secret too. Maybe they can down a plane with a karate chop.

Some things about this no-fly list just don't fly --

Does it mean the scanners and screening at TSA airport checkpoints don't work on those people? That's why we need the list? Those folks could board with guns and knives and bombs if we didn't ban them -- with a list? The X-ray machines, wands, bomb swabs, anal probes and magnetometers work for the rest of us, but not on them? Does that make sense to you? Maybe checkpoints are just a feel-good scam to keep us in line like the skeptics say.

Continue reading "Obama Announces No-Buy List for Guns" »

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!