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!


« October 2016 | Main | January 2017 »

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:

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.

Usurpations Mount

Bill of Rights Day a good time to reflect

How much rollback might a new administration bring?

People who argue that all gun laws are infringements are completely off base. Yes, laws that criminalize mere possession of firearms typically usurp power government is not rightfully delegated, and should not rightly have. Possession of private property is not and should not be grounds for arrest. You're supposed to do something harmful before an arrest occurs. That might get fixed, if Constitutional Carry moves forward.

But a person legitimately arrested can have all weapons removed, the same for people in jail, without infringement. Five-year-olds can't walk into gun stores and buy arms. Use of weapons in commission of crimes increases the crime and its punishment. Arming a vessel of an enemy nation is a criminal act. These laws are legitimate. Review how some gun laws ought to change here (model legislation): Do not expect all gun laws to simply go away, even if you believe the new boss is a gun-lobby lackey (he's not). That would be idiotic.

True usurpations, and this is not a complete list, the ones that have our system running out of control, are where government is operating because some folks think it would be good (or seek power), but there is no legitimate delegated authority to act. It's what we used to call a government of limited delegated powers. To the extent the president or Congress or even the courts have not remained within those constraints that usurpation rules our lives. And no one is prepared to shoot the perpetrators for the usurpations, as the Declaration describes.

We go to war without an act of Congress, a complete travesty, total violation of our charter and morality, full abandonment of the Constitution. It empties our treasury, kills our people and others, creates enmity on a global scale, and ignores any semblance of rule of law. The Department of Education has no authorization in the Constitution, along with the Departments of Energy, Environment, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and half the others which have been delegated legislative authority disguised as "rule making." Books have been written about the extent of that debacle.

Appointments to the Supreme Court are made to satisfy ideology -- surely you know that's not right. Oh sure, it's so much better when your side picks the approach, and the other side gets stiffed. You know the other side feels outraged about that -- and that was almost you -- but both sides are wrong on that. To top it off, Congress is supposed to exercise control over it (Art. III, Sec. 1, cl. 2: "...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." They have abdicated their power to keep the whole thing in check like they're supposed to.

Do not believe the "news" media when they say the High Court is deadlocked at four to four. That is a decision. It means they decide to let the court below settle the case, and the settlement only applies to a small area of the country -- that Circuit only. The rest of the nation is free from the decision. Not bad, really, federalism at work. There's value in that. An even number of Justices (eight) means that overruling the locals requires a five to three majority (62.5%), a nice break from one-vote policy decisions we've been enduring (55.5%).

Does anyone expect the new boss to do anything differently than the old boss? Chill the euphoria for a few moments and remember where things were before Nov. 8, OK?

Fake News

How You Can Tell

If you watch ABC or NBC you C... BS
(They don't know it)

The left and the right are both outraged over what they're calling fake news. They don't agree on what this is and they're searching for a definition -- so they know what to censor. We are on real dangerous ground here folks.

Since the left controls most of the corporate standardized lamestream media, censoring what little is left is a bad idea. On CNN and MSNBC, you can tell the news is false with a simple test -- if their lips are moving it's largely false. If it's about guns it is typically 100% untrue. I've written about this extensively: Just errors of omission cast doubt on their reports -- tons of gun-related crime, virtually zero on all the good that guns do, or economics, science, balance of trade, tax base, jobs, and even sports (it's the #2 participant sport, ahead of golf).

When reporters are interviewing each other, which happens virtually non-stop (reporters are supposed to interview news makers, the people involved in what's actually happening in the world), you can use a simple test. Ask yourself, "Can they actually know what they're saying?" and if you can reply, "You don't know that!" you know it's fake news. Entire CNN broadcasts are filled with you-don't-know-that.

Reasonable concerns have arisen that fake news may have influenced the presidential election, with stories such as, "Pope endorses Trump!"  That appeared on social media, and was simply false, but it circulated widely, and some people, delighted by the report, may have decided it was time to hold their nose and vote Trump. Other reports, like "Space aliens land in Manhattan!" are fake news. But reports like "Trump will never get to 270 electoral votes!" and "Trump will never break the blue wall!" and "People trust Hillary," are as distorted as space alien stories, but presented as real, and the media still doesn't realize those were fake.

I could write a book on this, and have already opened the file. Fake News Is Real.

So, who did win?

And who are the real haters?

HINT: Whatever the left says conservatives are -- is what the liberals are.

They call conservatives racist, but the liberals are the racists. Who are the bean counters, constantly obsessed with how many blacks, or whites, or whatever group-of-the-day are included or excluded? It's the liberal race baiters (think Sharpton, Schumer, Jackson, long list).

Who is overwhelmed with feminist anti-men programs that are true misogyny? It's the liberals of course -- the men of conservatism are real men, not girly men. I could go on at length, but you understand. Liberals charge everyone else with their own liberal foibles, the election brought this out, especially the vitriol afterwards -- it is "psychological projection" -- they project their neuroses, fears and hatreds on the people around them because they can't face it themselves -- it literally defines the liberal mindset.

The defeat of Hillary has provided our friends on the left an excuse to vent their pent up hatred, racism, sexism and other isms -- including gunism, blind hatred of firearms -- at the world and all available targets.

If it weren't for their vicious anger and threatening hostility we'd be having parades and celebrations in the streets for the election of a populist non-politician for simply promising to make our great country great again... but we hold back out of fear of firebombing, smashed glass, race rioting from racists and other civil unrest from phony peaceniks.

Continue reading "So, who did win?" »

Stop The National Carry Permit

"Gun Guys" Are Pushing In Wrong Direction

Misguided effort to restore rights can destroy rights

Will NRA, GOA and others get it right?

The lamestream media told you:

"Do you have a firearms carry permit Mr. Trump?"

"Are you for law and order?"
"Yes. Law and order is very important."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The last thing you ever want is to have the federal government issuing national -- or any -- firearm carry permits.

The feds do not have this power. The feds should never have this power.

Your right to have a firearm anywhere in America should never depend on getting "papers" from any government, much less the federal powers in Washington, D.C.

If you have a gun -- constitutionally protected private property -- and you aren't doing anything inherently wrong, that should never be a crime. There is no victim. No one is harmed. No actual crime is committed. The idea that you need a wallet card to be somewhere you have a legal right to be is preposterous.

Too many gun owners, including some leaders of the gun-rights movement, sincere but totally misinformed and misdirected, are salivating for our permit-carrying president elect to issue some sort of national carry plan. It cannot, must not, better not be a national permit in any way shape or form.

The best solution

The best plan to resolve the travesty of national gun-rights denial Americans have suffered under for generations -- worse than racism -- is to repeal the restrictions that deny your rights. You don't need no stinkin' permits to be black and we don't need no stinkin' permits to be peacefully in possession of property.

Repeal restrictions
on the right to bear arms.

The next logical step would be to arrest and charge officials who under color of law deny a peaceful person's civil right to possess arms. Denial of rights is a federal felony under 18 USC §241 et seq. You can't just deny a person's constitutional, civil and human rights because you don't like those rights. That's got a name. It's gunism, like racism. This law 18-241 and the ones that follow it were written to prevent haters from denying blacks their rights. Everyone has fundamental rights that need the same protection.

Continue reading "Stop The National Carry Permit" »

Electoral College Matters

The nub of it:
True America doesn't support mob rule.
Simple majority democracy tramples minorities, we don't do that.
We have rules, a Constitution:

That's why we're a Republic NOT a one-vote-to-tyranny democracy.
(The person currently in the White House and reporters constantly get it wrong.)
Read the Declaration and Constitution, you'll see.

Top official offices here get filled in four different ways:

  • The House is directly elected (two year terms)
  • Supreme Court is nominated and confirmed (lifetime terms)
  • The Senate was elected by State legislatures (six years, but method switched to mass democracy)
  • President selected by state majorities through Electoral College (two four-year terms maximum)
  • (Appointed officials in agencies frequently wield power they have no legitimate authority to exercise)
The Founders in their wisdom not only separated powers, they separated selection methods.

OK, now --

The lamestream media told you:

Hillary got more votes, she should be president! The election is unfair! She got a majority! The Electoral College is antiquated and makes no sense! It ought to be discarded just like the olden constitution, written by a bunch of dead white slave owning mysogynist pigs, and it's a living document that means whatever we want it to mean so it can help people! Hillary even said so in the debates, weren't you listening?

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

First, the words here are awful, because they don't mean what they seem to say.

There is no "college" in the Electoral College. Those folks are "collegial," meaning they work together.

Next, "federalism" is the opposite of the federal government. It refers to the States, as a balance to federal power. Federalism is a good dose of why we have remained free all these years. In other words:

Because you are governed by two governments, under federalism (state and federal), not one, there is a balance of power. If the feds are out of line, your state resists it, so federalism saves your sorry butt (and vice versa). Happens all the time. Some states approve of slavery, the feds say no, the rest is history.

The states and the feds battle over marriage, abortion, pot, wages, immigration, that's federalism at work. Eliminating federalism would destroy the brilliant system that has gotten us this far.

Arizona now has two highly paid high-power full-time lobbyists working to eliminate federalism by working to eliminate the Electoral College, after 230 years of success. It's a really really bad idea.

Democrats desperately want to get rid of the Electoral College, which the Founders invented and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It comes down to one thing and one thing only.

If the Electoral College is eliminated, we get democracy, also known as mob rule, and the Republic collapses. Anything that strikes the whim of the people gets passed. Population centers (there are about seven or eight) run the nation. Democrats will have a permanent lock of the office of the President, they know it, they're pushing for it.


Let's say Hillary got 65.5 million votes and Trump got 62.8. (They did.)
Looks like Hillary won. A 2.1% spread. Slim. And only a plurality.

But if Trump got 306 electoral votes to her 232, then Trump trounced Hillary.
(He did.) That's what happened. 57% to 43%. A clear majority.

But let's say Trump got 30 states and Hillary only got 20. (He did.)
Looks like Trump won again. He did. In another clear majority.

Trump won by a 60% to 40% majority in the forum that decides, the states.
Which translates to a decisive majority in the Electoral College.

With 320 million Americans, 128 voting means 40% of the total population voted.

The Founders set us up as a federal system, where the states' electors,
proportioned based on representation in Congress, elect the president.
Trump wins.

Otherwise, the few population centers would elect the president,
and most states would never have a voice. False democracy would crush the republic.

In Colonial, times, it meant Boston, New York and Philadelphia would always elect,
and Vermont, Georgia, New Hampshire and the rest would count for nothing.

We're a Republic, not a democracy, which the founders understood
would be a terrible mob-rule disaster. The Founders kept the word democracy
out of all our founding documents and plans.

It's imperfect. It would be either way. The way they chose was best. For centuries.

California to Repeal Laws of Physics

Those people really are fruits and nuts

"Zero-Emission Car" Lunacy, Discrimination Against "Low Income" People

The lamestream media told you:

Six laws and a dozen other regulations have been passed in Calif. recently, representing a more than $2 billion financial commitment to "clean" transportation... Tax concessions are a cornerstone of the government’s goal of rendering the internal combustion engine irrelevant by 2050... drivers are also offered an $8,000 grant towards an electric car... "Electric vehicles (EVs), generate fewer global warming emissions than gas-powered cars, and don't produce tailpipe pollution (hence the term: “zero emission vehicle”)," according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. A series of mandates, kickbacks, tax breaks and required "incentives" will force manufacturers to comply with state government climate-warming initiatives.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

All-electric, plug-in hybrid cars use energy of course -- which they get from the power plant that makes the juice you get from the wall or hard-to-find charge stations that makes the car work. Reporters and legislators don't seem to understand this simple rule of physics: "Electric cars need electricity."

Even if the plant uses hydro, wave, geothermal, wind, solar or magic power, the power must be transmitted, which creates loss. Then it must be stored in the vehicle, which creates loss. The vehicle must convert the stored energy to dynamic motive force, which creates loss. When you add up the losses, and compare it to using fuel directly -- well, no one knows whether it is efficient because no one has done such enormously complex studies. They just want to promote things that are "green." Turns you green with envy. The cars have no emissions. The power plants do.

Recalling the summer, and the winter, when the power grid teeters on the brink of collapse, communities suffer brownouts, smart meters are used to cut power to neighborhoods, curious minds want to know how the nation's fleet of cars will run off power plants on the electric grid. It sure won't be from the nuclear plants we aren't building, or from coal-fired plants the current administration has convinced democrats are evil. When asked, technical experts at a huge tech firm based in San Francisco (I asked, I was there), said you will charge you car at night, when demand is low. I typical fuel my vehicle in daylight, when fuel is low. And you?

The article never makes clear who exactly is making the $2 billion commitment.

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!