Andy Martin: Contrarian Commentary

My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Monday, December 31, 2007


Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”



(CHICAGO)(January 1, 2008) My relationship to the crescent of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan is a rather close one: my existence almost ended there, more than once, and I am sure the worst day of my life was spent in that region. Positively. So the area continues to exert a hold on me.

When I heard that Hollywood had made a movie of George Crile's book "Charlie Wilson's War," I was curious. When I saw that Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times was praising the film as a comedic masterpiece, I knew I had to see the movie.

Having experienced various wars and revolutions over the past forty years, I do not normally see war movies or related topics. I retain my own images, and memories, and photographs of shooting and killing. They are sufficient to remind me of the horrors of conflict. On the other hand, I also know that the bad guys have to be fought and, when you fight the bad guys, you have to win. There is no substitute for victory, no margin for error, no opening for mercy when it comes to eliminating the enemies of peace and freedom. And so I went to see Charlie Wilson's War.

Go see it.

The film revolves around a Huston socialite who wants to fight the commies, a CIA agent who is a rogue in the finest sense of the term, and a congressman who sees the light and sees to it that The Company gets the means to fight the Russkies.

Now some may question how war, death, and tragedy may be the topic of comedy. I can speak with experience. One of my favorite movies is "Air America," which is also a madcap comedy, but which comes very close to capturing the goofiness of the "secret war" in Laos and the men who made it happen on a daily basis, Air America pilots. Like CIA agents who want to destroy communism, Air America pilots were not perhaps the type of boys, or men, you would want to bring home to meet your parents. But they had fun, and lived with the insanity of war and the daily prospect of death by laminating insanity to humor and extravagance.

Humor is how people cope with the insanity of war. Taking off from a short runway on the tip of a mountain on a Pilatus Porter is enough to give anyone religion, irrespective of how many times you perform that feat. Likewise, dealing with piles of bodies hacked up in pieces leaves a lasting impression that must be washed away. Somehow. When Kate Webb died last year I had occasion to revisit my memories of my early conflicts. The images are still vivid.

They haven't made a movie of my activity in that part of the world, yet, but then it would also be laced with moments of utter panic and heapings of sheer levity in the face of extreme danger. And so I went to see Charlie's War as a kindred spirit.

Afghanistan was a brutal place. In the 1960's and 70's the United States and Soviet Union had competed for influence. We even built a highway there. There was an "American colony," and schools and an expatriate community. All that evaporated in the mid-70's when the coups, counterattacks and invasions began a downward cycle. I became very close with an expatriate Afghan family, and shared their challenges, including the death of my close friend at the hands of the Northern Alliance (before they were part of our alliance).

The movie actually comes close to presenting the truth in an intelligible sort of way. The arrogant CIA station chief who was following "policy" to bleed the Russians rather than defeat them is a classic example of the mad bureaucrat. The indescribable suffering of civilians caught in the "Great Game" of Cold war conflict is captured. "Gunga Dan" (Rather) of CBS in Afghanistan in full mujaheddin finery. And Charlie Wilson, a liberal congressman on domestic policy but a strong conservative on foreign policy is the unsung hero of the Congress.

The movie documents how the U. S. was committing pitiably small resources to assisting the mujaheddin, and how the deployment of surface-to-air missiles eventually leveled the playing field and chased the Russians out of Afghanistan.

One moral that is not clear in the movie but that is worth noting is that the effort to defeat the Russians was a bipartisan operation. There was none of the hyperpartisanship that we see today in Washington.

After we won the Cold War, we became intoxicated as a nation with our self-proclaimed role as "sole superpower." One Yale professor wrote arrogantly of the "end of history." Politicians in both parties decided that the United States had become de facto world master. We are still paying the price for that era of self-delusion.

And we fumbled away our victory in Afghanistan.

"Eternal vigilance if the price of liberty." In Afghanistan we were lucky that the system, fitfully, worked. Three people came together to spearhead an operation that if it did not win the Cold war certainly contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union. See the movie.

[I will also be doing a special column on the film for Greek-Americans and if you request a copy we will be delighted to send it to you.]
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with forty years of experience. He has almost forty years of experience in the Middle East, and is America’s most respected independent foreign policy and intelligence analyst. Andy is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:

Monday, December 17, 2007


Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”



(CHICAGO)(December 18, 2007) Today I work off and comment on the original research by Abdon Pallasch of the Chicago Sun-Times.,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article

What follows is my opinion and reaction to the story about Barack Obama’s grossly inflated legal career as a “civil rights attorney.” There was “no there, there.”

When a lawsuit is initiated, or when a new attorney enters an existing case, an attorney files an “appearance,” a formal legal document which notifies the court and, more particularly the clerk of the court, that counsel has “appeared” in the case.

Obama has made a career of defrauding the American public about his legal “career.” Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate, never filed a single appearance in a single case all of the years he was “practicing” law.

Obama was an “Arm Candy Attorney.” Or, to put in a Palm Beachy sort of way, he was a “Walker.” In other words, he was almost always paid to show up in court, and do nothing more than be there.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports during the years Obama was affiliated with a law firm, he never formally was counsel of record in any lawsuit. I have a friend, a retired airline pilot, who has tried more cases than Barack Obama. One.

Obama describes himself as a “law professor,” but he was actually a Lecturer, who is a contract employee paid to teach courses on a semester-by-semester basis. He was never on a “tenure track” to become a permanent part of the law school staff. I was an adjunct professor of law, akin to a lecturer but usually with fewer courses.

Obama’s former partner says Obama “wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn’t try any cases.” Obama would usually show up in court, and then let other lawyers do the talking. He was the legal equivalent of what people in the social pages call “arm candy,” someone basically hired to appear in public and make the holder “look good.” In Palm Beach we used to call these people ”Walkers,” because they were asked to squire ladies of a certain age and walk around with the lady in tow. You get the idea.

Obama was an arm candy attorney. A make believe civil rights attorney.

Legal memos are assigned by lawyers to junior attorneys. Indeed, Obama’s vacuous legal career almost perfectly tracks his vacuous career as a national candidate. Barry O is brilliant at getting up and speaking in a situation he controls (compare to writing a memo). But when he has to enter the rough and tumble of political debate (compare to a courtroom hearing or trial) Obama is absent and ineffective. He can’t cut the rigors of a courtroom. Couldn’t then. Can’t now.

I first walked in to the United States Courthouse in Chicago in 1969. I saw lawyers who would “practice” for days to appear in front of a federal judge for a couple of minutes, and argue with passion and vehemence—all for a two day extension of time, or for permission (leave) to “file instanter” (instantly). Eventually many graduated to presenting cases before a jury. Obama never graduated. Why?

Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards was a real attorney. He tried real cases and he made piles of money for his clients, and for himself. He didn’t only achieve the American “dream,” he became American “reality.” Sadly, Obama is still in the dream stage. He is a wonderful dream merchant. But reality is another matter altogether.

Small law firms such as Obama’s, with only a few attorneys, usually send young counsel into the courtroom to fight just as quickly as possible. Obama was never up to the task.

In all fairness, Hillary Clinton also has a grossly inflated legal resume. I remember when she was “ranked’ as one of the top 50 lawyers, or something like that, in America. Another fraud artist. Clinton was not much better than Obama. Hillary was basically a bagman (bagwoman?) for Bill.

By comparison, Republican Fred Thompson was also a “real” lawyer. He actually went to federal court and tried cases before a jury, as an assistant federal prosecutor.

To be sure, everyone who was contacted and quoted in the Sun-Times article was exceedingly polite about Obama’s legal endeavors. They should be. He could make them federal judges if he wins the White House. And lawyers as a group are polite. Or perhaps imbued with a sense of politesse.

In fact, as I read Abdon Pallasch’s article I had a sense that Obama may have performed one of he worst sins of an attorney: he may have inflated his billing hours to bilk the opposing party. The bank paid. Over billing is a crime, and lawyers have gone to jail for bilking their clients or opposing parties (in some cases, a party has to pay the bills of an opponent). Obama billed almost three hours of legal time for a routine court appearance that may have taken a few minutes, as well as “reviewing documents.” I submit Obama’s billing records need much more scrutiny, searching scrutiny. No doubt they have been or will soon be destroyed. Like his state senate files and records.

“Professor” Barack Obama, meet “Professor” Harold Hill, of “The “Music Man.” The Music Man was a Broadway hit and later a big movie about a con man who shows up in—of all places—Iowa. Maybe history is repeating itself. First as fiction, and this time as fact. Or is Obama’s “civil rights career" just another one of his many fictions, that he has merchandised so successfully to the gullible American public?

I’d say “You be the judge,” but then Barry Obama never tried a lawsuit in front of either a judge or a jury. I invite you to read the Sun-Times article and e-mail me with your responses. Obama and Hill, perfect together. Perfect fictions. Hey, they even sound like a law firm, “Obama & Hill.”

Obama was sure no Johnny Cochran. Or, if I met Obama I could say, “Barry, I knew Johnny Cochran, and you’re no Cochran. Not at all. You’re an ‘arm candy attorney.’” Lordy, lordy. I don’t envy the Democrats having to pick between two “arm candy attorneys” and a real trial lawyer, John Edwards.

Ok, you win. You be the judge. Iowa, are you listening?

Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:

Internet editor/columnist Andy Martin “terrorizes” Obama campaign with facts about Obama’s Muslim “roots”

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”




(CHICAGO)(December 18, 2007) Senator Barack Obama sees a face; in Oprah-speak, “Is it him?” Yes it is. Andy Martin, the crusading Chicago journalist that has driven the Obama campaign to the point of distraction, forced Obama to make his current religion an issue, and eclipsed Internet stars from earlier campaigns.

Martin is preparing to focus on a new target on February 6th: Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. Martin is a Republican candidate for Durbin’s seat.

Monday’s national coverage (December 17th) of Obama’s campaign was all driven by Martin’s original research and commentary on Obama’s religious roots in Islam. In the New York Times, Katherine Q. Seelye wrote that Obama’s campaign “worked to dispel false rumors spread on the internet that he was a Muslim and had ulterior motives for running.”

Both the Chicago Tribune and New York Post carried extensive stories on former Senator Bob Kerrey’s “endorsement” of Hillary Clinton while stating he likes “the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim...”,0,2144595.story

Obama’s campaign has been driven to distraction by Martin’s columns and original research, which began in 2004 and have been continually updated. In the process, Martin’s impact on the presidential race has eclipsed that of former Internet stars from earlier presidential races such as Matt Drudge.

In order to dilute and dispel the impact of Martin’s continuing reporting Obama has been forced to make his church attendance a public event, with TV cameras and reporters in attendance, all because of Martin’s seminal research on Obama’s religious roots and Obama’s attempts to evade accurate reporting on that Muslim history. The Nation magazine recently credited Martin with devastating Obama’s campaign and orchestrating a “Right-Wing Smear Machine.” Martin denies the accusation.

“While the national media always use the term ‘rumors’ to describe confusion about his religious roots, the ‘rumors’ largely flow from Obama’s evasive responses and his refusal to engage in a Mitt Romney moment of full disclosure,” says Martin. “Most of my columns are on the Internet. I have never dealt in rumors, false facts or innuendoes. I have generated hard facts for hard news. And I am no more responsible for the misuse of my information than if someone exaggerates based on a New York Times editorial. Both my reporting and my opinions have been and continue to be rock solid.

“I kept the story alive on the Internet when earlier this year the mainstream media tried to cover up Obama’s own cover-up. Now the N. Y. Times and others are having to play catch-up ball with my editorial writing. Obama is having to play catch-up ball with my reporting. And from the looks of the national coverage, I’m winning and Barack is losing. I have pursued what we call the ‘Joe Friday approach,’ ‘just the facts, ma'am.’ That’s how we will continue to play the story.”

Martin is planning to target Illinois’ Senator Dick Durbin on February 6th, says a senate campaign volunteer. “His high-impact journalism is going to be devastating when Durbin is the target. Andy has become the most influential Internet journalist in the world though his reporting on Obama. Mainstream reporters may dislike his commentary but they respect Andy’s impact on national coverage and, more importantly, on the actions and reactions of voters across America.

“We like to pass around an old Chicago Tribune editorial which called Andy ‘an absolutely brilliant campaigner’ whose ‘public relations skills are masterly.’ That sounds like a description of what he has done to Obama, and what he plans to do to Durbin once he wins the Republican nomination. When Andy is the nominee against Durbin we expect the Martin/Durbin race to be the most exciting senate campaign in the nation, here in Illinois.

“It’s an improbable story, but right now Andy’s reporting out of Chicago is driving the national political agenda in the 2008 election cycle. The nation is hungry for a tough opponent to confront Durbin. Andy has shown he can do the job on Obama, and he will do the job on Durbin. And, as he says, it will be a ‘just the facts, ma’am’ campaign. Honest. And tough.”
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Andy Martin under attack by Barack Obama's "Disinformation Doctors"

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”






(CHICAGO)(December 17, 2007) A reporter from the Miami Herald interviewed me last week. We had a long, substantive discussion, in which I pointed out that I had only published facts and original research about Barack Obama since 2004. All of my factual claims had been found to be true, and all of my opinions based on my facts were accurate.

Sunday the Herald portrayed me as a "chief rumor-monger" concerning Obama. Previously I had been called the kingpin of a "Right-Wing Smear Machine" by The Nation magazine.

What's going on here? Me? Rumor-monger? "Smear machine?"

I submit that it is the mainstream media, and not, that are the real peddlers of rumors, fantasies, half-truths and disinformation from Obama Central.

First, a little background. Way back in August 2004 I published original research on Obama's religious past. At the time, the Illinois media were soused on Obama's Kool-Aid, and pretended the facts were not as I presented them. Fast forward to 2006. Obama is running for president, and I am still doing original research. Some people started paying attention.

The Nation magazine suggested I circulated anonymous e-mails about Obama; but my name is my brand, and my name is on anything I have ever issued about Barry O. I do not do anonymous. Not many publishers and columnists do. So why the attempt to snarkily suggest I do "anonymous" postings about Obama?

The mainstream media can’t face the truth, and they are engaged in a massive disinformation campaign to sell Obama to the American people.

Fact: In 2004, I debunked Obama's myth that his father was a "goat-herder." But there was Obama's lie, published in Friday's Washington Post "Barack Hussein Obama Sr. grew up herding goats..."

This claim is a crass distortion and misrepresentation of the Obama family's history. Obama's father was a rich boy, who came from an educated and affluent family.

In Kenya, where a great deal of wealth (not unlike Illinois where I live) is measured in land and livestock, Obama's grandfather had some goats, and his son helped care for them. Guess what? We have prosperous farmers in Illinois, and no one calls them "goat-herders" even though their children come to the State Fair to display their prize animals. Barack Jr. has slandered his father by calling him a "goat-herder," and the media lets him get away with this lie. Do they fact-check at the Post?

The Post was right about one, thing, however: Obama has never wanted to know the truth abut his father, because he has been so successful in selling the media a lie. One of Barack Senior's friends tied to engage Obama about his father but "[Barack, Junior] did not want to pursue it." "Not even a little bit." Strange. Or is it? If you are selling the public a myth, why muddy the waters with the truth?

The Miami Herald claims the "real story" is told on Obama's own web site. Puhleeeze. The Herald claims Obama's parents "did not practice any religion." Oh yah?

Then who registered Obama as a "Muslim" at primary school in Jakarta? Why did Obama's father receive a Muslim burial and, no doubt, a Muslim wedding in Kenya?

Instead of digging beneath the surface of Obama's fantasies, the Herald resorted to trying to undermine my credibility by citing a 34 year-old court opinion, where I was attacked by the Illinois Supreme Court for successfully being part of a team that forced two crooked judges off the court. I have always been committed to the truth. Obama has not. If Obama would just go back 34 years in his own life, and start telling the truth, instead of telling 34 year old lies about me, we could get somewhere.(Full disclosure: I am very unpopular with lawyers and judges, for successfully exposing decades of corruption both in Illinois and nationally. And I am very proud of that fact.)

And just exactly what "rumors" have I published? None whatsoever. My writings are all there to be seen, and all of my commentary has stood the test of time. [See, as well as other sources on the Internet.]

I have always accepted the fact that Obama is a Christian. But the Herald muddied the waters as to when Obama became a Christian. Has Obama ever presented a baptismal certificate? Of course not. That would date his acceptance of Christianity. He just focuses on the "is." "It all depends on what your definition of what "is," is. Bill Clinton meet Barack Obama.

Should religion be an issue? Obama thinks so. That is why he constantly uses African-American churches as a backdrop for his photo-ops. When you play the religion card, isn’t fair game to ask when you were baptized? Or don’t you want the public to know? Notice I am not questioning Obama's current Christianity, or seeking to slander his church. My doorman is a member of the same congregation. Rather, I am asking a simple question: when did you become a Christian? Do you have a record date for your acceptance? Conversion? A certificate? Something. So far as I am aware, there is nothing.

Bottom line: my commentary stings Obama precisely because I print the facts and lay out the truth, and no one can impeach me on the facts or the truth. So Obama's "disinformation doctors" have to resort to calling me names, such as "rumor-monger" and "smear machine," and fall back on 34 year-old court opinions in a desperate effort to debunk me. It hasn't worked, has it?

I correctly predicted earlier this year that the issue of Obama's religion would not go away, and that questions would not disappear, until the truth came out. All of it. I'm still waiting. The mainstream media thought they had buried Obama's religion in January. Now who was right and who was wrong?

Who are you going to believe?

I think it is time for full disclosure from Barack Obama. It is time for his "Mitt Romney Moment." Or are Democrats who traffic in religious allusions when they want to profit politically, and otherwise want to stonewall, held to a different standard of disclosure?

You be the judge.
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:

Is Barack Obama a doper, or just a dope? Or are we dopes for believing his lies?

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”





(CHICAGO)(December 17, 2007) A reporter from the Miami Herald interviewed me last week. She asked me what I had against Barack (Barry) Obama. I said nothing. I find Obama's tap dancing and prevarication endlessly entertaining. Obambi gets away with stuff that would never pass if another candidate were involved. And, as usual, focuses on the ignored story. Feast on.

The "big" news this week, of course, was whether Republicans next year could smear Obama because he used marijuana and cocaine up to some still-uncertain date (Teens? Twenties?). What Obama should have said to counter Hillary Clinton's claim that Obama was planning to run for president while still in kindergarten was, "Would anyone planning a run for the White House write a book and admit to using cocaine?" Not on your life. Well, Barry has not offered me a job as a speechwriter, yet, so he will have to take this long distance advice. (Obama's staff has offered to promote me for a job as "fiction writer.")

But to the point, will Republicans raise the issue of Obama's cocaine use? They could. But I doubt they will have to. Bill Shaheen, one of Clinton's leading supporters in New Hampshire, provided a preliminary list of questions that could be asked: did you sell? When did you last use? Did you give it to anyone else? You get the idea.

On the contrary, I think that rather than Republicans raising the cocaine issue, the media will. Absolutely the issue of cocaine use will be a question asked in any nationally televised presidential debate. How could it not be? The media loves salacious little tidbits. Bill Clinton "did not inhale" and we are still talking about his lack-of-inhalation 15 years later. What if he had inhaled?

Since Obama admitted to using the stuff, he is in a difficult position. People are curious, and the media wants to ask what is on peoples' minds. So puffing and snorting have to be on the agenda of questions to be asked in any fall debate.

I am a complete nerd when it comes to drug use. Never have, never will. But even I could come up with a few questions. Who was your supplier, Barry? What was the good stuff? (Hint: "Maui Wowie?" comes to mind.) I have been in opium dens in Asia, and on military reservations where bags of hash were sold for a buck, and even an occasional party where marijuana was used, but I stayed away. Far away. Can't stand the taste; can’t stand the smell. Just a whiff was enough to cure me for life. So, no, I did not inhale, either.

Clearly, Obama does have some "exposure" on the drug issue. It would be fanciful to deny that fact. Why do Democrats deny the obvious? Here's a possible explanation.

Democrats have now entered the real kindergarten phase of the campaign. This past week Hillary promised not to run negative ads if her opponents do not run negative ads. Obama has threatened to fire staffers who engage in negativity. Are they all running "positive" campaigns? I am waiting for one of them to cite Adlai Stevenson, who once said "I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them." But the reality is that no one can displace an entrenched front-runner without aggressive tactics. And that's a fact.

Now on to's take on Barry Obama's latest "lie." Once again, although the following comments originally appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times, under the byline of the increasingly skeptical Obama observer Lynn Sweet, they were totally ignored by national and mainstream media.,CST-NWS-sweet12.article

Sweet says that "someone" started passing out Obama's responses to a 1996 IVI questionnaire when Obama was first running for the Illinois state senate, and Obama's answers popped up on I have run for the state senate, and the U. S. Senate, and I can tell you that candidates for state senate have small districts and very little to do. Moreover, Obama was a Democrat in an overwhelmingly Democratic district, so his election chances in 1996 were 100%.

So how did Barry O lie, again? Well, he tries to claim that in running for a nothingburger office, Illinois state Senator, he was too busy to fill out answers to the IVI questionnaire, which he "never saw," and that his campaign manager "unintentionally mischaracterized" Obama's views. Yah, sure.

Caught in a flip-flop, Obama says, "The woman did it!" Isn’t it just like Barry O to blame a woman for his flip—flop? If any other male candidate said he "never saw" a questionnaire and some "woman" filed it out for them, can you imagine the uproar? But not in Obama's case. The story was buried. The double standard for Obama carried the day, again.

Obama's latest lie dovetails with the way Obama was two-faced in attacking Hillary Clinton for concealing her presidential files, while claiming he had destroyed the files of his own state senate office.

Politicians are world-class pack rats. At the time he claims he destroyed his own state files, Obama had just been elected to the U.S. Senate and was planning a presidential campaign, in 2005. He had lots of money to rent a storage space. Can you really believe he wanted to destroy the history of his first office? Or was he destroying incriminating evidence of his links to crooked Chicago politicians like Tony Rezko, and to a former name partner of Obama's own law firm, to which Obama had previously passed out a cool $1 million in "honest graft" as part of a charitable contribution?,CST-NWS-watchdog29.article

Most likely, Obama destroyed his state senate files because they contained unflattering and even incriminating evidence of his extensive links to the sleazy world of Chicago Democratic Party politics and politicians. Barry's record in the Illinois state senate was taken to a laundry and disappeared. The way Obama plays these games with opponents, and the way the media always put him in the light of the innocent target, is a scandalous double standard.

And so on and on it goes, the media cover up of Obama's flip-flops, blaming women for his mistakes, and still-uncertain history of using illegal substances as part of his coming-of-age.

Bottom line: the only reason Obama is doing well in Iowa and elsewhere is because Hillary Clinton is running an incompetent campaign and has Bubba popping up to sling mud, when she should be the one confronting Barry O and ripping his credibility to shreds. A good lawyer could, and would, do precisely that. But, contrary to 1992 Clinton disinformation machine propaganda, Hillary was never a good lawyer, and as a result she has very poor forensic skills as a candidate. So what goes around comes around.

Maybe Hillary should hire me and dump Bill.

As I said, we are now in the kindergarten phase of the Democratic presidential campaign. Dennis Kucinich, anyone? (Just kidding.)
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Andy Martin asks, “Why does Barack Obama lie about his religious history?”

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”





(CHICAGO)(December 11, 2007) Three and a half years ago I stunned the world by disclosing Senator Barack Obama’s family ties to the Muslim religion. Well, “stunned” is not exactly the right word. No one cared. Illinois political writers were asleep at the switch, or perhaps saying “Shhh, we want him to win to make Illinois relevant again.” Whatever.

The truth about Obama’s Muslim history was there to be discovered, but through masterly inactivity the media ignored what was staring them in the face.

I didn’t write about Obama because I hated him or hated Muslims or hated anyone. I saw a good story that the mainstream media was ignoring. Someone who lied about their past religion.

For myself, I am a Christian, and an Episcopalian. In my church, all are welcome. We welcome “newcomers” four times a year. Holy Baptism is all it takes and, presto! you’re a Christian. We are inclusive religion. We have no interest in who your mother is or was, or who your father is or was, or anything except your own belief structure.

I was baptized into the Greek Orthodox Church of my mother, which made me "Greek" as a kid, but eventually gravitated to the Anglican (Episcopalian) church of my father. It wasn't much of a shift. I feel at home in both. I can still pray in Greek. During the 1980’s I studied with a thought to holy orders (ordination) in the Episcopal Church, but decided there was more good to be done fighting secular demons than praying. Plenty of people were ready to pray; not so many knew how to fight the bad guys the way I had been trained in Champaign-Urbana and Chicago.

And so I began to research Obama’s past, and his past religious practices as well as his family’s religion. Based on exhaustive research around the world, documented Obama’s religious practices from childhood to adulthood, from the Muslim faith to the Christian faith. Lacking any agenda or obsession with the topic, I moved on to other subjects as columnists/editors usually do.

But I found myself in the focal point of media scrutiny when Obama began to run for president and when some people circulated e-mails attacking Obama’s religion based on my research and editorial writing. The Nation magazine published an attack article claiming I was at the center of a “Right-Wing Smear Machine,” when I was not smearing anyone. I was just telling the truth and laying out the facts.

In 2007, as the Obama charade escalated into a political cult, continued to publish new research and new insights into Obama’s character (q.v.). And I continued to be blamed when people published articles about Obama’s religion. One anonymous article in Washington triggered calls asking “Did you write it,” to which I simply replied they all based their claims on my writings and research, and then embellished to suit themselves. But no, I didn’t.”

As 2007 progressed my own campaign for the U. S. Senate has claimed more of my time, and gradually I left Barry (as Obama called himself until he left Hawaii) to the “mainstream.” From time to time I notched another article about Obama’s prevarications but mainly I focused on my own race and my efforts to reform the corrupt politics of the Illinois Republican Party.

But Obama keeps calling me back. Although I don’t practice law, I was trained as a lawyer, and I was trained in cross-examination by a federal judge, the late Judge Prentice Marshall who was my law school professor. I know how to examine a witness. Central to cross-examination, or the “search for truth,” is a sense of when and what a witness is hiding. It was the fact that Obama was hiding his religious past that drew me to research the issue in 2004, and I am back at the same stand for another installment as a result of Obama’s latest lies.

Barry can’t keep from lying, on and on.

In Monday’s New York Times (December 10), Obama told new York Times columnist Roger Cohen that “[I] had relatives who practiced Islam.”

Note Obama’s passive voice. Notice the disconnect between relatives he “had” and cousins he “has.” There is no active connection there. But family is one and the same, as Barry may not understand due to his convoluted background. You can't claim some of your relatives all of the time, or all of your relatives some of the time. Family doesn’t work that way. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, we are stuck with family.

What makes Obama fascinating, and perhaps confusing to the inexperienced and unprepared cross-examiner such as Mr. Cohen, is that Obama lies within the same conversation and almost within the same sentence. “Slick Willie” meet “Obama the Obfuscator.”

Fact: Obama’s father was a Muslim. Fact: Obama’s grandfather was a Muslim. Fact: Obama’s stepfather was a Muslim. Fact: Obama went to mosque with his stepfather and worshipped there as a child. Fact: Obama was registered at a state school in Indonesia, as a Muslim student (not a Christian). Fact: some of Obama’s relatives in Kenya are still Muslims. Fact: Obama’s father was buried in a Muslim ceremony, suggesting he was a Muslim to his death.

So why can’t Obama just come out and come clean and tell the truth, he was born a Muslim due to his parents’ choice, and later during either his childhood spent with grandparents in Hawaii or in his adult years, he converted to Christianity. But for Obama it’s all politics and all prevarication. Obama is terrified to use the “M” word, which is why he “had” relative who were Muslims.

Barry, your dad is not someone you “had.” He is still your dad, even though he died. Barry, Lolo Sotero is still your stepfather, and the father of your sister, even though Sotero was Muslim. Sotero took you to the mosque with him. Your mom registered you as a Muslim student in the state school in Indonesia. (CNN made a great deal of its vacuous “investigation” in Jakarta that tried to debunk nonexistent accusations, in the process missing the obvious facts about Obama’s religion as a child.)

And may I be permitted to remind the good reader of the belief of some in the Roman Catholic Church, where they claim “give us a child until age 7, and we have him for life?”

Like most kids, I am sure Obama did not understand much about religion. I am sure I didn’t at the age of 8 or 9, although I wanted to be a priest even then. But what makes Obama’s brazenness and mendacity so irritating is that he treats his personal family facts as chess pieces, able to be moved and repositioned for maximum political effect. First he says he "had" relatives, and then simultaneously he wants to use his "cousins," who are probably still Muslim, all in the same act. Hello?

Obama tells Roger Cohen that Obama can be a potential world statesman because of his family history, and then denies his family history and suggests that some part of it is in the past tense. It just can’t be.

Ultimately, Obama is consummate huckster, playing Three Card Monte with the truth and playing Three Card Monte with his family history. Sad but true. Obama claims to be brave enough to tackle world terrorism, but he is not brave enough to admit he worshipped at a mosque as a child, or that he father and stepfather were Muslims. How brave is he really? Really?

Obama fooled Roger Cohen. Who else is he trying to fool? Why only the American people he claims to want to lead. Oprah? Naw.

Is Barack Obama brave enough to be our commander-in-chief? Not so long as he denies the religion of his father and family.

Postscript: No one denies that Obama is a Christian today. But it is obvious from the undisputed facts he was not always a Christian. And, for all of us, all of whom were children once, our religion and religious practices are usually chosen for us by our parents. That our parents choose for us does not make our religion any less real, or dilute its impact on our psyches. So, the issue is not what Barack Obama is, the issue is what he was and members of his family who he cites as “cousins” still are.

Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:;

Monday, December 03, 2007

Andy Martin on yet another Chicago scandal involving Barack Obama

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”




(CHICAGO)(December 3, 2007) During the 1970’s I had several good friends in the Chicago Sun-Times (and Daily News) newsroom. I’d often stop by to chat when I walked home. Off in one corner of the newsroom was the legendary Chicago columnist Mike Royko. Royko had his own cube, as well as an assistant. He was newsroom royalty and he probably kept the Daily News from folding sooner than it did.

Royko was not an easy man to know, and we never became close, but he had Chicago street smarts that came from the City News Bureau as well as the Bureau of Hard Knocks (and Bureau of Hard Drinking). I can say without fear of contradiction that Royko would have loved writing about our own homegrown presidential phony, Barack Obama.

Royko would have fulminated at the way an outstanding Sun-Times expose last week was buried by the national press.,CST-NWS-watchdog29.article

Sun-Times reporter Tim Novak unearthed not only a new Obama scandal on November 29th, he unearthed the arrogance and “L’etat c’est moi” demeanor that characterize Obama’s real attitude towards ethics in government: “If I do it, there’s no conflict of interest.”

One of Royko’s favorite expressions was “if you lie down with dogs, you catch fleas.” When I began writing about Obama three years ago I had Royko’s maxim in my mind. Obama had been too close to too many sleazy Chicago politicians for him to be clean. Indeed. Mike Royko, meet Barack Obama.

Obama worked for a law firm in Chicago. One of the name partners (Allison Davis) in the firm of Davis, Miner & Barnhill left the firm to enter “real estate development.” Davis’ partner? Indicted wheeler-dealer Tony Rezko, who later financed part of Obama’s million dollar residence.

Davis came in front of Obama when Obama sat on the board of the Woods Fund. Obama voted to give his former law partner $1 million, for which there has been no accounting. Part of the money may have been funneled into a deal where Davis cleared $700,000 in “development fees.”

When Novak asked Obama’s campaign about the Woods Fund grant, there was no response. Except.

Except the defense that Obama now claims that “It’s not a conflict of interest to do what’s right for your community." Royko would have gone into orbit over that remark.

Barry Obama, meet the late Mayor Richard M. Daley, who always felt corruption in the service of “community” was a good deed. And if you didn’t agree with him you could “kiss [the late Mayor’s] mistletoe.” Christmas was always, and always is, in season where “honest graft” is concerned in Chicago.

And so, Royko would have written, Obama hung around with bad characters in Chicago politics, and he became tainted beneath the surface, even if they allowed him to prance and preen as pristine on the surface.

On the matter of public integrity, there is no “good for your community” exception. A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. The very reason we have conflict-of-interest laws is because individuals tend to have clouded vision when acting on business issues where they are related to the principals or participants.

Despite being a self-styled “constitutional scholar,” Obama still hasn’t learned that a conflict of interest—especially a $1 million conflict of interest—is a conflict of interest and should have been disclosed.

When the Daily News folded, Royko eventually moved to the Chicago Tribune. He died early. But his spirit lives. And, in so far as Obama is concerned, if I were able to wander into Royko’s cube-in-the-sky, I know exactly what he would growl. “If you lie down with dogs, for sure you’re going to catch fleas. Obama’s caught more than a few.”

Amazingly, the national media have completely ignored the Sun-Times’ story on Obama’s sleazy conflict of interest involving his former law partner. I guess where Obama is concerned, he is allowed to be the sole judge of his conflicts of interest. Or, as Bill Clinton once said, “it all depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” I guess it just depends on what your definition of “conflict” is. And “interest” is. Obama and Clinton. Perfect together. Over to you, Mike.


Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:;

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Andy Martin suggests President Jimmy Carter is owed an apology by the American Jewish Community

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”


(CHICAGO)(December 2, 2007) Last year former President Jimmy Carter published a book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Carter was excoriated by large segments of the American Jewish community. Former colleagues debated and denounced him; associates deserted him and his Carter Center. Carter was accused of being an anti-Semite, and worse.

Carter’s sin was to use the term “apartheid” in connection with the occupation of Palestine by the State of Israel.

After President Richard Nixon, who has neither been recognized nor appreciated by Israelis, Carter did more to ensure the safety and security of Israel than any president. Carter brought peace between Egypt and Israel. That peace has endured for three decades. The Egyptians and Israelis may not be kissing cousins, but they are not killing each other and they have civilized channels for discourse. That’s an accomplishment that no other president can match.

And yet when Carter described the unspeakably horrible Israeli occupation of Palestine, and compared it to the apartheid system in South Africa, which was also boycotted, discredited and collapsed, sadly he became the target of incredible hostility and denunciation from Jewish leaders.

Well, perhaps, President Carter is owed an apology. A big apology.

This week the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, in an interview with Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, described Israel’s future as a “South African-style struggle,” if peace is not agreed to by the parties. Haaretz followed up with an editorial using the “A” word, Apartheid.

Now Mr. Olmert is not a popular leader anywhere, not in Israel and not in the American Jewish community. And he speaks the truth not because he wants to, but because he has to. He is derided as a “politician.” There are times when politicians are despicable creatures. And there are times when politicians are the only people who can see and speak unpleasant truths to their peoples. Olmert is not mouthing apartheid scenarios because he wants to. He is warning of a dismal future if present trends continue. In other words, he acknowledges that the world will impose a solution on Israel, the solution that many Palestine-based Jews and all of the Arabs wanted in 1948: a unitary state.

Indeed, I used “present trends” in 2000 as a basis for proposing my own Andy Martin Middle East Peace Plan. Like Olmert, I saw that Israel could not endure as a brutal occupying power while seeking to be welcomed into the community of nations as a democracy. Like Carter, I was also called an anti-Semite. The charge was untrue. As for Olmert, when is he going to be called an anti-Semite? The day is coming when his remarks will prompt attacks on him as well, and cries that he is making anti-Semitic pronouncements.

Olmert’s warnings may also be a warning to the United States and to us. Olmert sees that a decline in American power and a rise in the power of Russia, China, India and other nations, may tip the scales against Israel in the near future.

Unless the U. S. Congress also faces reality, and stops marching in lockstep with the extreme right in Israel, we are in for yet another Middle East foreign policy disaster in the future. The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy by professors Mearsheimer and Walt details how at the snap of a finger, the Israel Lobby can produce 75 U. S. Senate votes for virtually any action demanded by the Lobby. When will they ever learn?

And so, at the end of the day, perhaps both Carter and Olmert are both owed apologies. Jimmy Carter was not a great president, but he was a decent man. He brought a partial peace to the Middle East, and he has pointed the way to future peace as well.

Likewise, Ehud Olmert is a dismal leader, disliked by virtually everyone, but on him has fallen the burden of speaking truth to power. Olmert may believe he can manipulate and control the process he is setting in motion. Most politicians do. But he should look to the “South African” model he has himself described.

South Africa, after all, despite overwhelming white military power, eventually fell to majority rule. The world demanded it. And South Africans, white and black, live in peace with each other. South Africa is not a perfect state, far from perfect. But power was transferred peacefully, and people live in relative peace and prosperity with a brighter future than they had before. There are worse ways to live.

Just ask Jimmy Carter and Ehud Olmert.

Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with forty years of experience. He has almost forty years of experience in the Middle East, and is America’s most respected independent foreign policy and intelligence analyst. Andy is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: