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!


« February 2018 | Main | June 2018 »

Business Booms, Media Silent

Bigotry makes them feel shame, Americans feel pride

The lamestream media told you:

One industry grew, one shrank, the stock market blah blah... The results of an economic study by some industry trade group somewhere shows that things are good, things are bad, things are. Media typically reports on changes and events in business, because business is good, we all need work.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Virtually unreported in the lamestream, despite its undivided firearm attention for weeks on a single act of unspeakable horror by a psychotic maniac, the firearms industry is in good health and growing. In other news, ethnic murders in inner cities remained stable at about 6,000 per year, with no trials reported, if any, on national news. Police issued no statements.

310,000 jobs

The total economic impact of the firearms and ammunition industry in the United States increased from $19.1 billion in 2008 to $51.4 billion in 2017, a 169 percent increase, while the total number of full-time equivalent jobs rose from approximately 166,000 to almost 310,000, an 87 percent increase in that period, according to the annual report released this week by NSSF. On a year-over-year basis, the industry’s economic impact rose from $51.3 billion in 2016 to $51.4 in 2017, ticking higher even while the industry came off peak production years.

Wikipedia Censors “Gun Rights”

References to gun rights are redirected to politics

Propaganda is now "Wikiganda"

The lamestream media told you:


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Thanks to the observant work of an internet-presence guru, we now know you can’t find “Gun Rights” on Wikipedia.

It’s as if such a thing doesn’t exist. Internal references to "gun rights" are redirected, some very recently, indicating this is an ongoing effort.

Admittedly, there is a bizarre argument that guns don’t have rights, only people have rights, but that is specious here. As a term of art, “gun rights” accounts for limitations in the English language, everyone gets that. "Gun rights" is a synonym for the right to keep and bear arms, and everything that encompasses, along with a dozen other ways of expressing the same thing.

For Wikipedia, gun rights is “gun politics.” These are not the same of course. Look up politics, look up rights, that case rests on its own.

Even worse than the blatant censorship of "gun rights" is the fact that Wikipedia is doing it. What else has fallen under this censorship axe?

The web guru observes: “Just read the ‘gun politics’ page and look how it presents a unique perspective on guns, gun rights, and so-called "gun control," all in the name of gun politics.

"For example, here's the last paragraph in the opening of the 'gun politics history' section:

"Closely related to the militia tradition is the frontier tradition, with the need for self-protection pursuant to westward expansion and the extension of the American frontier. Though it has not been a necessary part of daily survival for over a century, ‘generations of Americans continued to embrace and glorify it as a living inheritance -- as a permanent ingredient of this nation's style and culture’.”

By redirecting a reference to “gun rights” to a slanted “gun politics” opinion piece, the so-called "gun-control" side is working within Wikipedia to promote the gun-confiscation agenda. One of its latest strategies is this redirect. It is an extremely clever Orwellian methodology.

In another maneuver, even though the opening line describing the Second Amendment Foundation retains the censored phrase "gun rights" and says the group supports gun rights, (it would not work to say they support gun politics, indicating this is not an automated global replacement) someone recently (Feb. 13, 2018) redirected (hijacked) the "gun rights" link and redirected it to "gun politics," as if SAF supports gun politics, as Wiki describes it. The Wiki history architecture captures the deed:


NOTE: What Wikipedia has done in these cases is link the organization’s statements about defense of gun rights to a blurb and pages about gun politics. The idea of a civil and human right to firearms, is absent. The fundamental civil and human right to arms that the American people possess is now missing in the descriptions. No page for Gun Rights exists at Wikipedia. The "world’s encyclopedia," now coincidentally managed by a left-leaning cabal of techno-oligrarchs, is starting to show its treachery. See for yourself:


They have all had their "gun rights" references redirected to "Gun politics" -- The Uninvited Ombudsman is now looking into developing an entry on "Gun Rights" for publication in Wikipedia, and will be working with the nation's leading experts on this important task.

How to Ban the AR-15

The lamestream media told you:

Many times over: No one needs an AR-15. All we want to do is ban the AR-15. It’s a weapon of war. It’s a killing machine. It has no place on our streets. The Founders never could have imagined any such thing in the hands of the public. It’s too dangerous for the public to own. The magazine is too large. The bullets can be fired too quickly. It’s scary looking. You don’t need it to hunt ducks. It doesn’t matter if police have them.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Having listed those familiar complaints, I’ll answer them just as fast: Property ownership in this country isn’t based on need (and you don’t get to decide someone else’s need, that’s the communist model). All we want is to have the finest rifle made. It’s a weapon of peace. It’s a self-defense firearm. It’s perfect for the public. The Founders never could have imagined throwing your voice further than you can speak either. It’s too dangerous for the government to be sole owners. Insufficient ammo supply can be lethal. Slow-firing guns are dangerous. Scary is in the eye of the beholder, you might need treatment. Preferences for hunting are personal, immaterial here, not your concern and disconnected from the right to keep and bear arms. Police have them for the exact same reasons we want them. OK, so much for that.

Banning the AR-15, America’s Rifle, as media-promoted child “survivors” are trying to force upon this great nation, is not only a bad idea, it’s illegal -- infringement -- and as a practical matter, it’s hard.

You can’t ban guns by name, people will just change the name, that doesn’t work. You can describe guns, but people just modify the designs so they don’t fit the description. That’s been tried, it was a failure.

There’s too many manufacturers, that cat’s out of the bag, along with the engineering plans, so you can’t close down the plants. If you do somehow outlaw manufacture what do you do about the millions of guns people own?

Confiscation is the answer, among the most heinous government crimes there are, illegal a dozen different ways, and incendiary to the public. The rule of law has to be abandoned for that one. When government doesn't or can't enforce the law, the militia gets called up.

Buying the guns back, an idea sometimes mentioned, runs up against the treasury hasn’t got the funds, and no votes in favor. Buying from unwilling sellers is confiscation again, disguised with ribbon and bow.

All of the drastic ideas like this tempt armed rebellion, literally, from the very people whose guns you want to take, so you must tread lightly there. Will police and soldiers shoot at Americans defending their firearms? Do you really want to push things that far? That’s not much of a plan.

Note, all the bans so far haven’t disarmed inner cities, where murderers murder 6,000 victims a year, with virtually no murder trials. Guns get smuggled into this country like drugs, women and “undocumented migrant workers and repeat offenders,” so that side of an AR-15 ban is not exactly airtight.

So what did they (that’s the democrat party, the one with no demonstrated respect for the right to keep and bear arms) do to ban the AR-15, when they drafted their bill? The bill the marching children, referred to as ignorant useful idiots by some leading experts, what did that bill propose?

They banned every rifle, pistol and shotgun that takes a magazine of any size, and has a grip.

Most but not all pistols will escape the law under the “two-grip” rule. In the past though, BATFE, the agency responsible for enforcing these things, has been known to fabricate their own parts to “prove” a firearm was subject to enforcement.

The AR-15 Ban, edited for pertinent part:
(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
(i) A pistol grip.
(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following: (ii) A second pistol grip.
(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following:
(ii) A pistol grip.
(39) The term ‘detachable magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed from a firearm without disassembly of the firearm action.*
(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
*Editor’s note: Any capacity magazine is included.

It’s safe to say every mass media report on the move to ban the AR-15, or assault weapons, has been fake, phony or wrong, based on the bill.

Fake-News Police Report for Duty

“NewsGuard” = A Free Market Solution to Wild Web

Nutrition Labels for news outlets

The lamestream media told you:

--The Wall Street Journal, March 3, 2018: “The Internet broke down barriers by enabling everyone to become a publisher. The unintended consequence was the fake-news epidemic. Teenagers in Macedonia discovered they could make a small fortune from online advertising by concocting outlandish click-bait stories... Russia Today is now ‘I saw the news on Facebook’... easy for purveyors of knowingly false news or propaganda to fool users by looking like legitimate publishers...”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Perhaps worse, CNN has become a non-stop conspiracy-theory provider, and opinion spinner, with a thin veil of newsiness and a motto, “the most trusted name in news.” Basically no one believes that anymore, despite the deep baritone that delivers the line.

MSNBC essentially makes no pretense that they are anything but a campaign outlet for leftist ideology and democrats, and a hostile belligerent aimed at all non-democrats, even the Bernies who are further left (socialist) than they are.

So -- L. Gordon Crovitz, the former publisher at The Wall Street Journal is teaming up with Steve Brill, the legendary journalist and editor who founded Brill’s Content, to launch NewsGuard.

This online news-media watchdog will establish “nutrition labels” for so-called news outlets to establish the bona fides of major news “brands” and help the news-consuming public tell what’s what, with Red, Yellow and Green color coding.

The team plans to use journalistically trained analysts, also known as human beings, instead of algorithms and other forms of computer automation, to rate news brands, depending on whether they produce real journalism, disclose their underlying interests, or intentionally purvey fake news. The team expects to cover 7,500 online outlets, about 98% of what passes for news, they say. Judging from what I’ve seen of Brill’s previous work, this could be splendid.

A “white list” of outlets that advertisers can rely on is part of the plan. Commercial groups have been hit hard, promoting their goods on sites that turn out to be biased spreaders of tripe. Reviews of the reviewers will include pros and the public, part of a robust transparency effort. Problems might arise, since the glowing description is provided by Crovitz, in The Wall Street Journal, but one can hope.

No Immediate Response

Media Hubris Goes Unabated

The lamestream media told you:

“The White House and Trump campaign officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.” -- USA Today, April 21, 2018 --Nicole Guadiano, Fredreka Schouten

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

“The White House and Trump campaign officials did not immediately respond to any of dozens of requests for comment today, on scores of topics.” --Korwin

The audacity of USA Today reporters, and “news” media elsewhere for commonly using this bombastic, antagonistic and pejorative expression, when they don’t get what they want. “The news media acts like they’re entitled to go behind police lines.” -Ted Parod.

The notion that the president of the free world is required or somehow obligated to respond at all, let alone immediately, to any request from me, or you, or an outfit with a reputation like USA Today reflects a level of hubris that calls for remedial behavior camp.

That professionals in an organization behave this way would be grounds for serious reprimand, if not dismissal, considering the status of the people being insulted. They could have their licenses revoked, except they are unlicensed operators.

The lunatic fringe nature in this particular case is hysterical. USA Today seeks an immediate response to the charge that Russian hacking revealed Hillary is indeed crooked, and with the democrat party illegally colluded to defeat -- Bernie Sanders! He apparently had a chance of getting the nomination for president away from Hillary. Democrats are suing, saying Hillary’s illegal activity, once it was revealed, hurt her, even though Trump had nothing to do with the dems shenanigans against one of their own.

“A request was made to Trump officials for comment at 10 a.m. today,” might be a reasonable line. Expecting a reply beyond sarcasm unbecoming a president? Fuggedaboudit. A reply would from the White House would be as unreasonable as the lawsuit if you think about it.

"Red Flag" Laws Reduce Safety

Identify and enrage people ready to kill. Then set them loose?

Take their guns, but leave them everything else, and free.

What crazy victim feels safer like that?

The lamestream media told you:

USA Today Editorial, a few positive points: Red-flag laws let police confiscate guns without due process. Suspending the Constitution in a secret hearing is a point from which there is no return.

To listen to the media's anti-rights drumbeat, no one does -- or could -- oppose the concept of stripping Americans of their constitutional rights in secret proceedings where they have no voice.

But this is exactly what is at stake with Gun Confiscation Orders -- cynically disguised as "red flag laws."

Six states have enacted these laws. At their core, they allow the police to convene a Kafkaesque secret proceeding, in which an American can be stripped of gun rights and Fourth Amendment rights, even though gun owners are barred from participating in the hearings or arguing their side of the dispute. --Michael Hammond, opinion writer, USA Today

Support from the “news” section:

Red Flag Laws Gain Momentum In States -- USA Today, Washington -- States across the country are taking a closer look at “red flag” laws... The laws allow family members or law enforcement to seek a court order to temporarily restrict people's access to firearms when they show "red flags" that they are a danger to themselves or others.

Florida became the sixth state to pass a red-flag law, and other state lawmakers introduced a flurry of new bills, including first-time legislation in more than a handful of states, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group. Bills are now pending in 22 states and the District of Columbia, while bipartisan efforts are coming together in Congress ... getting more attention now as students protest legislative inaction on gun violence... “those bills across the country are taking on renewed significance... What can we do to make sure this doesn’t happen here?” according to a gun-control spokesperson.

Though supporters say the bills can prevent tragedies, critics say they have the potential to deprive gun owners of due process and their Second Amendment rights.

“gun violence restraining order” or “extreme risk protection order” to temporarily restrict a person’s access to firearms. The judge can issue an emergency, temporary order -- without the gun owner being present -- to prevent immediate danger. But a full hearing must be scheduled quickly, offering the gun owner the ability to respond.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


Little more than another left-wing expression of gun fear,
and a typically dangerous, reckless, negligent idea.

“A person too dangerous to touch guns
is too dangerous to be walking around.”

The only reason this law is being floated is to provide another avenue for the anti-rights advocates to restrict gun possession. And to quiet the tantrum being thrown by children nationally. It is not a rational approach to a problem that already has solutions available, and unused.

People who want guns to “just go away,” irrationally believing this red-flagging power will somehow increase safety. They see this type of law as a saving grace, when in fact it does harm. By identifying seriously dangerous individuals and setting these ticking time bombs free it is actually counterproductive.

Continue reading ""Red Flag" Laws Reduce Safety" »

Facebook Censorship Plans Announced

Congress Goes Along

Zuckerberg must be thinking, ‘You are SO over!’

The lamestream media told you:

Opinions on Mark Zuckerberg’s recent marathon inquisition before Congress are all over the map. Search it online if you haven’t already, or care. Members of Congress showed themselves to be highly ignorant, illiterate and uninformed about the Internet, Facebook, data collection on individuals -- even how online tools work. Most of their questions didn’t rise to the level of grade-school children -- and the members didn’t know it.

Chairman Grassley struggled so hard to read his own statement he is an embarrassment to Congress itself, completely hard to listen to his broken cadence and stumbling.

Zuckerberg didn’t get frazzled, or smirk, or get really hard questions, and his answers, after a few hours and certainly by the second day, were simple repetition of prepared statements, delivered from memory, showing his incredible intellectual prowess, typical of the other few oligarchs of internet machinery.

His left-wing predilection was self-evident, and problems this presents for the nation are stunning. His support for dark-money funded ignorant children in the March for our Lives media-promoted movement was revealing.

Congress has no way to contain him, or the web’s power that challenges their own, though some suggestions did arise: An “honest ads act,” fake-account removal, state-actor identification, better advertiser ID, and third-party fact checkers from the Poynter Institute, each with their own merits and disastrous side effects and downsides were proposed. Stay tuned.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Facebook censorship will cover three areas.
No one raised objections, they all fell in line with Zuckerberg’s default position:

Hate Speech

Yes, these are broad, easily abused categories.
Good definitions of these don’t exist.
Everyone agreed on that. But it didn’t deter Congress or Facebook.
Ask Dennis Prager if decent educational material is already being wiped out,
with those excuses as excuses. It is.

Continue reading "Facebook Censorship Plans Announced " »

Everyone Backs Speech Ban, the Idiots

The lamestream media told you:

Government must ban texting while driving. It’s just too dangerous. Almost all states now do. The few stragglers must get with the program. Lives are at stake. How can you possibly be against this? We’re the media, we know what’s right for you. The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Pressure is on to get all states to outlaw texting while driving. Only Arizona, Missouri and Montana don’t have it yet. Arizona just introduced a bill, Texas passed one after a tragedy. That’s how we do things now.

There is no disagreement this can be dangerous, and has caused traffic accidents and fatalities. There should also be no disagreement that government has no legitimate delegated authority to enact such a law. The Constitution forbids it—“no law respecting freedom of speech.” Texting is freedom of speech. If someone has the power to ban this under one condition deemed problematic, nothing stops banning it under some other condition deemed suitable. “No law” means no law for a reason.

For good measure, the Arizona bill bans reading and writing while driving too.

This situation, if we still had values, would need to be handled with an ad campaign, marketing, social pressure, schooling, tech inside the device and other creative solutions. It can’t be handled by government edict, that’s banned.

If schools can teach and convince students they’re not male or female (they’re doing this you know) they could advise on texting behind the wheel. The new law doesn’t actually prevent anything, everyone knows that, it just makes teens do it below the dashboard, where visibility is even worse. And it provides a $25 fine (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!) for a first offense, and then gets worse. Social awareness would do a better job. And it would be legal.

Arizona Lacks at Least One Senator

Senator McCain recovering, Doesn’t Vote
“Might Return by Summer,” daughter says
21 legislative days until August recess

Wife attends meeting for him,
reporter sings her praise, two photos, but
fails to point out he is a no-show, again.

The lamestream media told you:

Dan Nowicki (Phoenix) There still is no timetable for U.S. Sen. John McCain to return to Washington, D.C., but his daughter on Tuesday floated the possibility of summer.

“I wish I had an exact date, but I just don’t,” Meghan McCain told Phoenix radio station KTAR-FM (92.3). "I am very cautiously optimistic about the summer, yes.”

Meghan McCain and her mother, Cindy McCain, last week helped shoot down a dubious online report anticipating McCain's resignation for health reasons.

Cindy McCain tweeted that her husband "is doing fine and has no intention of resigning!"

Meghan McCain likewise definitively dubbed the report, which had gotten some traction on social media, "FAKE NEWS."

While not giving interviews to the media, the elder McCain has continued to issue written statements from Arizona and remains active on Twitter.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Senator McCain, deathly ill with aggressive brain cancer, is not representing Arizona in public or in Congress, where you must be present to vote and participate. He is getting therapy at his cabin in Cornville, Ariz., and in hospitals, with the hoped for January return date come and gone. His daughter has appeared for and spoken for him more than once and on a local radio interview. His wife has also appeared on his behalf, which reporters just take in stride. Written statements attributed to the senator are being issued but he has not given any interviews in person.

In a published report, a local journalist covered a number of subjects but noticeably omitted the fact that McCain is not representing his state, leaving Arizona one vote short in the U.S. Senate. Arizona’s other senator, Jeff Flake, has the appearance lately of a non-Republican, angering many of the state’s constituents.

Dan Nowicki, the reporter, said McCain’s daughter Meghan, and her mother, “last week helped shoot down (sic) a dubious online report anticipating McCain’s resignation for health reasons.” He did not say why the report was “dubious.” He did later quote the senator’s wife Cindy saying McCain is doing fine and he has no intention of resigning. The daughter claimed the report was “fake news” without elaborating. Why McCain will not be representing the state, or will be living in Cornville for six months if he is “doing fine” was unexplained, or perhaps unexplainable.

Nowicki failed to respond to repeated requests for explanation of the “dubious” reports about McCain resigning, or how the Senator is fulfilling his obligations as an Arizona Senator, staying bedridden in Cornville with a condition medical experts generally refer to as incurable.

Anti-Rights Groups "Out" Themselves

It was always about taking guns away

The lamestream media told you:

The Brady Center, Everytown, Action Moms, Bloomberg -- none of these forces aligned on the left, each seeking more and better common-sense gun control, have any intention or plan to take away anyone’s guns. We’ve been telling you this over and over, why don’t you believe us.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Oregon has just introduced Initiative 43 (was I-42) which if passed would require government confiscation of personally owned guns, without compensation, under penalty of felony arrest and conviction.

Current owners could turn them in, destroy them, get them out of the state or sell them before the brief deadline to avoid arrest. Being caught with one without state police registration would be a felony.

The law is flawed on so many levels it’s hard to imagine it will withstand court challenge, but some the liberal courts in that neck of the woods are challenged themselves. The very thought that such a proposal could see the light of day is shocking in an American society, proving the rule of law no longer holds sway with a significant portion of the public. Infringement, outlawing firearms legally owned by American citizens, is prohibited by the Constitution.

This ploy comes from the left, a cadre calling itself the interfaith religious group. Misguided angry pacifists have long been a force to be reckoned with. For contrast, imagine giving credence to some similarly unconstitutional petition, like gathering signatures to ban printing an unpopular version of the Bible. It simply would not be tolerated here. Or didn’t used to be.

Banning firearms and accessories people already legally own is infringement by definition, and constitutionally banned. (It’s also ex post facto, strictly banned, and property confiscation, strictly banned.) Attempting to take away an infringed item from its rightful owner is aggravated infringement, felony behavior. Now there’s a petition the people of Oregon ought to float.

The group has until July 6 to get 88,000 valid signatures to put the measure on the ballot. With the flood of expensive publicity being provided free by the “news” media, it’s probably an attainable goal, according to leading experts.

The ban and confiscation covers any semi-auto pistol, rifle or shotgun, with a removable magazine if it can take more than ten rounds, and has a grip (that’s what it says). These would all be named “assault weapons.” The magazines are banned too. Everything becomes contraband.

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!