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!


« July 2020 | Main | September 2020 »

An Italian to White Woke Dopes: Fottiti!

By Craig J. Cantoni

Craig Cantoni is a retired business executive, author, and activist who founded and led a large community-action group in New Jersey, where he was honored as Community Service Volunteer of the Year.


Okay, white woke dopes, you’re going to get what you asked for. You’ve asked Americans to:

  • Engage in racial identity politics instead of inclusivity and pluralism,
  • Favor some races over others in the name of diversity,
  • Lump the hundred or so diverse racial and ethnic groups of European and Middle Eastern ancestry into a catchall group called “white,”
  • Stereotype everyone in this group as privileged and racist,
  • Illogically exclude Hispanics from this group, and
  • Embellish the achievements of your favored racial and ethnic groups while ignoring the achievements of your disfavored racial and ethnic groups.

By asking for the above, you’ve asked for blowback.  Well, here’s blowback from an Italian American—blowback that you can stick up your culo, which is already the location of your ignorant, righteous, virtue-signaling, pasty-faced head.

It’s time for Italians to strike back. After all, we Italians have put up with your prejudices for over a century without striking back. For example, we didn’t strike back when you:

  • Stereotyped all of us as anarchists during America’s individualist-anarchist movement, which culminated in the execution of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Varzetti.
  • Treated us with suspicion and government scrutiny during the First and Second World Wars.
  • Applauded or looked away as mobs hanged twelve of us in New Orleans and one of us in St. Louis.
  • Implemented immigration restrictions against us and other Southern Europeans in the early 20th century.
  • Tried to put “papist” parochial schools out of business, an attempt that continues today.
  • Called us all kinds of ethnic slurs, including wop, dago, and greaser.
  • Accepted Life Magazine’s description of baseball great Joe DiMaggio as not being a typical Italian because he didn’t put bear grease on his hair or reek of garlic.
  • Portrayed us as gangsters, mobsters and Mafioso in hundreds of movies, most notably in the “Godfather” trilogy.

Then you went through your silly phase of “celebrating diversity,” which was a precursor to your dopey wokeness of today. The phase began with a valid point, as most causes do: that too much history had been told from a Eurocentric perspective.

But you went overboard, as you are doing now. You began celebrating certain minority groups, such as Latinos, and stopped celebrating other minority groups, such as Italians.

Here’s a personal example from years ago: An Arizona military museum had an exhibit on the Second World War, and one of the prominent displays was of Latinos who had piloted fighter planes during the war. There was not a separate display for Italian pilots or for any other racial or ethnic group. Given that my dad landed on Saipan and is buried in a Veterans cemetery, that rubbed me the wrong way.

Maybe olive skin is also thin skin, but I think not.

What was the reason for spotlighting Latinos? Condescension? Some kind of crackpot social agenda?

Instead of an exclusive display, there could’ve been an inclusive display that spotlighted all races, or better yet, didn’t mention race at all. Alternatively, by showing photos and names of all pilots regardless of race, the point could’ve been made that the war was multiracial and multiethnic, without having to be so damn condescending to Latinos.

No doubt, you woke dopes don’t realize that Italians are one of the most diverse people in the world, the result of different peoples, including Africans, tromping through the peninsula for millennia and mixing their DNA together. Italians also understand multiculturalism, having explored much of the world and traded with much of the world before “globalism” became a buzzword. You’ve heard of Marco Polo, right? How about tomatoes? You know where they’re from, right?

You want your favored races to dwell narcissistically on their own grievances and accomplishments, and even to exaggerate both. Okay, you get your wish.

At the link below is a 59-page list of accomplished Italians throughout history, without exaggeration, including painters, sculptors, musicians, singers, writers, actors, scientists, architects, philosophers, and leaders.

That’s my way of saying to woke dopes like you: Fottiti!

Black Lives Matter Is a Racist Fraud

Black Lives Matter Is a Racist Fraud

by Tom Patterson with Alan Korwin

Tom Patterson is a retired medical doctor, former Republican Majority Leader of the Arizona State Senate, and former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute. Alan Korwin, the author of 14 books, is the publisher at Bloomfield Press and has been writing as The Uninvited Ombudsman since 2006.


Black Lives Matter claims to be fighting for things it calls “social justice” or “black liberation” and “black sovereignty.” It’s conveniently unclear how anyone would know when those goals are met. Meanwhile, they do promise to “burn down the system” if they don’t achieve success. Some of these conflagrations are easily perceived.

Black Americans, no, Americans, already enjoy legal equality and civil rights protected by law. Polls reveal police are well regarded by 70% of minority community members. Charges of excessive black deaths at the hands of police have been debunked statistically time after time.

So what’s really going on here? Mass media certainly hasn’t illuminated the subject. The fact is: BLM was founded by proud Marxists with the avowed intent of spreading Marxist ideology. In a 2015 interview, co-founder Patrice Cullors broke the code, stating “myself and Alicia [Garza, another co-founder] in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.” Nothing said or done since provide cause for doubt.

With media’s help, many well-intentioned Americans and the corporate class have bought into the false notion that BLM is a populist movement dedicated to combatting police brutality against blacks, and promoting the welfare of a black underclass. But Marxism is nothing of the sort—it is an ideology devoted to the destruction of democratic capitalism and the eventual triumph of a group-think dictatorship. Corporations funneling buckets of guilt tribute to the organization are financing their own destruction, vainly hoping as Neville Chamberlain did to appease the beast.

Like other totalitarian movements throughout history, BLM has never been that concerned with the plight of minorities or the public, though it may expediently profess to be. In fact, the liberals of Marx’s time were a major source of irritation to him—liberals here meaning those dedicated to Enlightenment values like reason, liberty and equality.

So now BLM starts to make sense. Totalitarians don’t tolerate criticism. Critics of BLM get attacked and lose their jobs, some for simply not showing adequate enthusiasm, or departing from the party line.

If black lives mattered to BLM, they now have the funding to do enormous good (blindly supplied by terrified or misguided and extorted donors on bended knee). They could establish community watch programs, create opportunities for black children with education initiatives like charter schools and provide rewards for the apprehension of the murderers of black children.

But that’s not their interest or style. Their street “protests“ inevitably degenerate into terrifying, demoralizing riots with looting and burning that couldn’t possibly benefit blacks. Erasing the nation’s past is in the Marxist playbook, flatly stated by communists and written into the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963. It was the heart and soul of the Cultural Revolution perpetrated by Mao in China, and now taking root here.

Death to religion, the family, art, culture, comfort and the rest. Statues reflecting our history and past are toppled, and American values are denigrated even though again they have nothing to do with helping today’s blacks or what matters. Manhattan is a boarded up wasteland hidden from you by the hopelessly corrupted “news” media.

Some of the BLM‘s stated goals are nominally concerned with actual black lives, but even these include such dated nonsense as “ending the war against black people.” That “war” put a black man in the White House (for two terms), made Oprah a multi billionaire, generated the Black Congressional Caucus which you better not decry as segregated, discriminatory and racist while calling for an equivalent white caucus.

Now BLM explicitly demands the dissolution of police and prisons. That’s not even rational. The level of extortion and excess is reflected by Congress, cowed into awkward silence. BLM wants a “radical and sustainable redistribution of wealth through the tax code.” In America, if you want money, you go out and earn it, like Oprah and all the other rich people of color and no color did. Redistributing people’s wealth—which is done by force at the point of a gun—is the corrupt communist way. We don’t do that here, hear?

Then there’s that left-wing totalitarian staple, the “disruption of the western-prescribed nuclear-family-structure requirement.” Now they’re treading on really dangerous ground. What’s next? Maoist style abortions or death to all female newborns? Eugenics to solve the fatherless birth problem in the “community”?

The BLM movement bears no resemblance to the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, with its stunning progress and accomplishments. MLK’s followers believed their campaign was a moral witness that should be conducted with dignity. Protestors were non-violent, wouldn’t brook pillaging, arson and wanton destruction. They didn’t hate America like these malfeasants do.

No, they sought to be part of the dream in a fully realized way. Unlike today’s radicals, they faced real racism embedded in the institutions and laws of the time. But they followed their dreams with high ideals, a just cause and in the end proved profoundly effective. Democrats’ counterproductive war on poverty, dissolution of the family (which BLM still champions as a Marxist goal) continues to beleaguer full participation in America’s wealth creating engine. We’re not there yet.

BLM followers are the diametric opposite—sharing a core belief that America is irredeemably racist and therefore deserves destruction. America is not “a thing,” it is its people. These people, of every stripe, are the greatest force the planet has ever seen, for eliminating poverty and improving the human convention, and BLM only sees horror! Shelby Steele, a veteran of the civil-rights movement, points out that they have to search hard for signs of actual racism, instead resorting to complaints of “micro- aggressions” and “cultural appropriation” as well as endless hoaxes and myths. America, a work in progress, is among the most tolerant nations on Earth. Would BLMers prefer Nigeria, or Cuba, Russia or Venezuela? Make it so, buy a ticket to ride. They won’t. This is the promised land.

The bright future promised by the civil-rights movement and our Founding documents is materializing, slow and steady. But now it struggles against the twin toxins of black victimhood and white guilt, aggressively exploited by this new BLM—for the perverse advancement of Marxism, socialism, communism, and destruction of the greatest system of governance ever devised.

BLM isn’t here to help and heal. Everything it does serves to divide us and pit Americans against each other, in classic Marxist class-warfare style. By their own words, they are here to destroy us unless we bend to their intolerant tyrannical will. Stand firm America, let not the unholy forces of the dark side of human nature overtake the bright white light of all we have and will continue to accomplish in this, the greatest nation on God’s green Earth.

What Is a "natural born Citizen"?

Was it ever defined?

What was/is the definition?

Did the Founding Fathers know the definition?

Did they just throw that in without knowing what they were doing?

Is there a reason they used it? What was the reason?

Can the Constitution be changed without an Amendment?

(You know the answer to that)

Why do people who ask get called dirty names?


I know I promised to write up the Democrats gun-ban bill, HR 5717, but this has to come first.

All the fuss over Article II, 14A, “citizen,” "birthright citizen," and “natural born Citizen” is getting out of hand.

I have the gun-ban bill done, but questions are flooding in to me. Have to answer all at once.

This first. Then I have co-written articles about the BLM and race-baiting,

but the mess media won't let up on this --


Birther Is an “N” Word. 

It’s almost as bad as calling someone “a racist.”

Typically, the people who charge racism are the racists, did you ever notice that?

This is a way to avoid a discussion, to write off a person or topic as unworthy of debate.

Using a curse word to avoid using your brain is dishonest. It avoids knowledge, facts or logic.

Cursing you out is a cheap shot, a way to hide truth.

There is nothing “birther” about the U.S. Constitution, or Article II, or its requirement for the U.S. President to be not just a citizen but a “natural born Citizen” spelled that way in Article II with no hyphen and one capital letter.

Our Founding Fathers (yes, Fathers) put the nbC requirement in the Constitution for a reason, a critically important reason, and modern efforts to denigrate it, whitewash it, pretend it doesn’t exist or doesn’t mean what it really means are really about destroying America. Yes, it is that important. Anyone who says “birther!” about this is worse than someone who shouts the N word, because the "N" word is just racism. This is about the survival of freedom.

A lot of lies and distortions are being used to attack the Constitution right now. Leftists and unfortunately Democrats are the main culprits (but not the only ones). The whole concept of a natural born Citizen, or nbC is under attack, along with infringement of your right to arms and more. Some of these principles you know, they’re easy. NOTE: Be sure you're registered to vote, do it.

1. The Constitution can only be changed by Amendment. You know this. It cannot be changed by a statute from Congress. News media has been insisting otherwise, shame on them, they abandoned ethics long ago. It cannot be changed by a Supreme Court decision (though some decisions reinterpret it, sometimes badly).

2. The Constitution does not define “natural born Citizen”and while that’s true, anyone saying that seeks to deceive you, it’s a "tell," a dead giveaway.

The Constitution doesn’t define virtually any of its terms. You know that too: weights and measures; post roads, arms, infringed, the people, privileges, immunities, due process of law, free speech. the press, houses, papers, religion, assemble, none of it is defined. If you see “But the Constitution doesn’t define natural-born citizen!” you know you’re dealing with an evil bastage.

The Founders warned, when a question of definition arises, go back to the original meaning at the time the Constitution was written and use that.

3. Article II has never been amended.The process for amending the Constitution is in Article V. It has never been used to change Article II. The President must be a natural born Citizen, or the Constitution is violated, abrogated.

4. You also know this --The Founders used language carefully and with precision. They did not just jot things down without thought.  This is less widely known, and is now being obfuscated (obscured, blurred, confused, muddied, twisted): “natural born Citizen” was defined and well known when the Constitution was written. The definition of nbC, the only definition existing at the time, was in a book Ben Franklin brought to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a process described in detail below.

A natural born Citizen is a person born on U.S. soil, to two U.S. citizens at the time of birth. There is no other way to gain this quality. Period.

Continue reading "What Is a "natural born Citizen"?" »

Kamala Harris Is Not Eligible

REMEMBER: Kamala Harris is not eligible to become President of the United States.

Neither of her parents were American citizens at the time of her birth. It’s like offering the children of any other foreigners as candidates. It is forbidden, banned, not allowed by the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the requirements.

A candidate, a valid candidate, must be a “natural born Citizen” per article Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution: “No person, except a natural born Citizen,” shall be eligible to the Office of President. This is not about any past mistakes, or modern arguments -- of which there are many. It is about The U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. Kamala Harris is ineligible.

What Congress relied upon in drafting that section --

Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at § 212:

  • 212: The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

John Jay (first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) wrote to George Washington:

July 25, 1787

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Modern media pundits and others are attempting to confuse the issue, but the reality and logic is plain and inescapable: only a 100% American can be President. How foreign is too foreign? Any. (Her mother was from India, her father was Jamaican, neither had been in the U.S. long enough (five years) to have become naturalized at the time of her birth.) Sorry, those are the facts. She may be nice, talented, experienced, she isn't qualified.

What would happen if our country got into a disagreement with a nation that was the homeland of a President with foreign roots, parents from elsewhere? Where would the person’s loyalty reside? Who would that person side with? Would the person have undivided loyalty to this country? Of course not -- the conflict would be monumental. India has nuclear weapons. Jamaica is close to our shores. Both have alliances with other nations, some less than friendly with us, and complex financial relationships, supply chains, citizens here. The Founding Fathers recognized the problem those foreign entanglements would cause. That split loyalty is why our Constitution requires the U.S. President must be 100% American.

Details, if you want more: We Elect An American President.htm

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!