Andy Martin: Contrarian Commentary

My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Wednesday, June 27, 2007


Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”





(CHICAGO)(June 27, 2007) State Senator Kirk Dillard of DuPage County did it again this week: he said he was not “endorsing” Senator Barack Obama for President, and then Dillard endorsed Obama in TV ads. What gives? Is Dilly crazy, or crazy like a fox?

After Kirk Dillard was quoted by the New York Times two weeks ago making pleasant comments about Barack Obama some Republicans told me that Dilly’s remarks were from “old interviews.” What are they going to say about Dillard’s TV endorsement of Obama? Old TV ads?

Dilly insults our intelligence when he is quoted by the Chicago Tribune as saying he has “stopped short of an endorsement." Please, Kirk, do not insult us. When you appear in someone's TV ad, you are an endorser. Appearing in a TV ad is an endorsement.

If I were Senator John McCain I would quietly and politely ask Dillard to step down as a McCain backer. Politicians are known for working both sides of the street, just like streetwalkers. But even streetwalkers know enough not to be too obvious. Dillard obviously doesn’t.

The DuPage senator apparently thinks he can be active in both parties, simultaneously. Dillard was quoted in the Daily Herald criticizing the Republican Party, stating “maybe if my party understood the issues of racial reconciliation, less partisanship and hope, they would be the majority party.” I have news for Dilly: Republicans are the majority party.

“Racial reconciliation?” In a party that appointed two (Count ‘em: 2!) African-American Secretaries of State? “Hope?” What is Dilly drinking? Or thinking?

Most Illinoisans know where I stand on “intraparty” battles and “party issues.” As to intraparty battles, I stay on the sidelines. Being a candidate is enough of a challenge without thrashing away at internal politics.

As to party “issues,” I have not hesitated to criticize the Iraq invasion and President Bush’s Middle East policies. Bushie doesn’t like me. I disagree with him. And I am right. Boom.

But I would no more blame the Republican Party for President Bush’s mistakes than blame the Democratic Party for Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades.

Where was Dillard when he claims the party was going to hell in a handbasket? Keeping his head down. And keeping quiet. He was not critical then. Now that Kirky-boy thinks the Republicans are mortally wounded he has his shank out. Et tu Brute?

There is nothing inherently wrong with switching parties. People are entitled to change their minds and even change their views. And they are certainly entitled to “make a statement” by jumping ship. But Dillard wants to represent the Republican Party in the Illinois Senate while he backs a Democrat for president from the U. S. Senate. It won’t work.

Senator John McCain has sometimes been accused of having a temper. I would be surprised if McCain is not having a fit at Dillard’s ongoing “support.” Dillard has become an embarrassment.

After Dillard was quoted in the New York Times as praising Obama I made the obvious observation that legislative politics turns on legislators working together. We expect elected officials to cooperate.

But no one has ever suggested that someone can work both sides of the street as an elected Republican official and TV endorser of a Democratic presidential candidate during the same election. Maybe Dillard is auditioning for the role of Chairman of Republicans for Obama.

We also expect candidates and elected officials to demonstrate a certain amount of opportunism in their campaigns and public service. After all, no one ever got elected by working for #2.

But Dillard and another Illinois state rep who switched to the Democratic Party are demonstrating reprehensible opportunism. I predict their disloyalty will backfire on them. Dillard and his fellow traveler obviously expect the Democrats to win, and they want to jump aboard the winning float at the start of the parade. Wrong.

These hogs are going to get slapped, not slopped.

No one can predict the outcome of the 2008 election. I know, I know. Democrats are measuring for curtains in the executive branch. But they better not overdo décor dementia.
Right now Republican prospects look bleak. As bleak as the Democrats’ electoral prospects in 1968? About the same. The “in” party during a botched war is not the favorite to repeat. But Hubert Humphrey came within a whisker of being elected in the midst of a horrible war. Some Republican could do likewise. And likely will.

But, if a Republican is elected, Dillard can look forward to being appointed a federal judge. To the U. S. District Court for the Moon.

People who switch parties because of philosophical differences can sometimes succeed. I also lived in Florida during the 1980’s when the political structure went through a wholesale realignment, and people switched parties regularly. It was acceptable and accepted. But then the parties stabilized and the process came to an end.

People who switch parties for opportunism, however, often are rejected. My prediction? Dillard’s days in the Illinois senate are over. And the switching state rep will be retired in the next primary. By Democrats. Thanks for nutt’in.

So will Dilly and Barry (Obama) ride off into the sunset together? Only if they are marching in their own parade. They may be holding hands; but don’t hold your breath.

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 politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:;

Tuesday, June 26, 2007


Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”


(CHICAGO)(June 27, 2007) Some time last year I thought of doing a column with the headline “Michael Bloomberg Could Be the First Jewish President.” My thought then was that Bloomberg’s stewardship of New York City was so deft that he could be a serious contender for president. In the mix and match of daily competition for time and space, the column was never written.

This year, Bloomberg has made “presidential” moves while denying that he will run for president.

And Bloomberg’s potential candidacy has elicited anti-Semitic comments from John Podhoretz of the New York Post’s editorial page. What gives?

Mr. Podhoretz is a talented editorial columnist and he and I agree on almost all domestic issues; but we part company with our views on the Middle East. But is Podhoretz an anti-Semite? Well, maybe. But not really.

Podhoretz opined that Bloomberg could not be elected president because of “the ethnic question.” Indeed, Podhoretz asked us to “excuse the expression” and called Bloomberg a “Member of the Tribe.” Most people today, especially non-Jews, have never even heard that expression. “MOT” began as a Jewish term, and was indeed picked up by WASPy anti-Semites as shorthand for a Jewish person.

But WASPS gave up on anti-Semitism decades ago. It seems the last bastion of anti-Semitism is, Jews. Much as Blacks use the “N-word” to shock, until the word shocks no more, some Jews apparently feel that the use of anti-Semitic expressions opens the door to a discussion of anti-Semitism by “gentiles.” (Other than in scriptural readings in Christian churches, who uses the term “gentile” any more, anyway?)

I am not suggesting that anti-Semitism has evaporated. Obviously, some people still hate on the basis of race, religion, etc. But such attitudes are largely confined to the fringes of American society.

For Mr. Podhoretz to suggest that Bloomberg cannot be elected because of his “tribal” status is really a slam at every American. Podhoretz has called all of us anti-Semites. Is that a fair accusation?

I don’t think so.

Many Jews feel the greatest threat today to their ethnicity/religion comes from assimilation and not from anti-Semitism. American society is assimilationist in the extreme (Muslims watch what happens to your kids in the third generation). We assimilate because ours is an open culture. Or as Ross Perot, the waifly presidential candidate in 1992 stated, “We are all owners.”

So is it fair to accuse Americans of refusing to elect a president simply because he or she is Jewish? A Mormon? African-American. I don’t think so.

Podhoretz is living in the past. We live in a post-ethnic America today. Our common culture, however vulgar much of it may be, draws us closer and closer together, and erases ethic divisions. My own mother can remember being the target of ethic slurs. I can remember as a young boy being confused as to why some people could not buy property on the beach.

But no one today would suggest that Americans are anti-Greek.

Jews, Irish, Italians; who have I left out? All were the targets of discrimination in the past. But no longer. We live in a “dollar democracy.” You have the dollars; you can set yourself up anywhere and anyhow you want.

Michael Bloomberg is a gifted politician. And leader. Many would say he only “inherited” Rudy Giuliani’s New York, and continued the progress then in progress. But progress is a process. Bloomberg has continued the process so effortlessly that people think he is doing very little, when in reality he is doing quite a bit. Like all gifted performers, Bloomberg makes the process look easy, which is why people fail to credit him.

And I don’t that it is only New York City’s Jewish population is happy with Bloomberg. In the aftermath of 9/11 the City is prospering as never before.

Of course, “Mayor Mike” has now stirred up a storm of protest over his switch from Republican to independent. What does the change mean?

I believe it means Bloomberg may seriously be considering a run for the White House. And, unlike John Podhoretz, Mayor Bloomberg does believe that a Jew can be elected president. Bloomberg does not believe Americans are anti-Semitic.

If he does run Bloomberg will no doubt make the process seem effortless, easy and natural. His religious heritage will be no more of an impediment to him as a national candidate than it was as a local official.

Mr. Podhoretz, Mr. Bloomberg is not a member of any “tribe.” Rather, Bloomberg is part of the greatest “club” in history: the American People.

Welcome to “The Club.”

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 politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:;

Monday, June 18, 2007




GAZA: PART TWO (A Three-Part Series)

(CHICAGO)(June 19, 2007) As conditions in the Gaza Strip collapsed over the past month, Israeli leader Ehud Olmert was rubbing his hands with glee. When Gaza fell, Olmert began to ooze sugar and honey. He began referring to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas as "my friend." What gives? Friendship?

As we Episcopalians say, "Be careful what you pray for; your prayers may be answered." Israelis have been praying for Gaza to fall into the hands of Hamas, to create the opportunity for separating Gaza from the West Bank. Now that their prayers have been answered, at least temporarily, things can only and will only get—worse. Olmert's plans for two Palestinian states were already prepared for President Bush before Gaza fell into the hands of Hamas. Implementation will be another matter entirely.

I begin with several critical historical reference points: when Israel invaded Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 the Israelis were greeted as liberators. The Egyptians and Jordanians had brutally suppressed Palestinian nationalism. Likewise, when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1980, Israelis were again greeted as liberators. In both instances, Palestinians soon turned from throwing rice to throwing brickbats, because the Israelis changed from liberators to arrogant occupiers within days.

The claim that the enmity between Palestinian and Israelis
is "historical" is thus belied by the facts. Palestinians have always been abused and neglected by Arab states; yet Israel has repeatedly fumbled "historical opportunities" to make peace with Palestinians and to trump the hollow rhetoric of the Arab states. To borrow Abba Eban's elegant phrase, "The Israelis have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity," even when the opportunities came on a silver platter. Israel could have made peace with Palestinians in 1967. Just ask Moshe Dyan (he's dead).

The Washington Post for February 18, 2006 carried the p. 1 headline: "Israelis poised for ascent of Hamas: Palestinians face cutoff of funds." So what has happened in June 2007 was preordained by a US/Israeli policy of "genocide light" directed against Gaza's civilian population right from Election Day 2006.

We gave the Palestinians "democracy" after Yasser Arafat died, and when they voted the "wrong way" we "elected" to destroy them for exercising their vote. Is it any wonder the US has become a laughingstock throughout the Middle East?

So, back to my question, why is Olmert smiling? Why the syrup flowing from the Israeli junta? Well, they have been dreaming of separating Palestine into two states since? Since time immemorial.

The Israelis have been trying relentlessly to separate Gaza from the West Bank. They actually think they will be able to create a "free fire" zone in Gaza, freely slaughter innocents, and constantly apologize for their "mistakes." They have done everything possible to set Palestinian against Palestinian. And it has worked. For the moment.

Now they plan on playing endless negotiating games with Mr. Abbas. Again.

When I see Ehud Olmert kissing Mahmoud Abbas I see only the kiss of Judas. I am prompted to ask if Abbas will accept Israel's thirty pieces of silver.

The Israelis, of course, think that they have succeeded in dividing Palestinians, and in hiving off the West Bank, where they may now begin a new round of endless posturing, constantly "negotiating," opening and then closing checkpoints, and generally delaying any hope for the future, all while using the grand language of expectancy to indicate an open door and a bright future.

But Israeli promises are all blather. With no hope for the people of the West Bank, and no improvement in their long-term living standards, the Gaza virus will soon spread to the West Bank. How soon? Soon.

Unfortunately for the Israelis, and Abbas, the same rope-a-dope that caused Gazans to abandon Abbas and Fatah in Gaza will soon infect the West Bank as well. In other words, Israel's celebrations today will soon turn into Israel's reprisals and repression tomorrow. Gaza/West Bank spring, 1967; Lebanon spring, 1980, all over again. The "West Bank spring, 2007," will be short-lived.

And so, once again, as Mr. Olmert sits in Washington ready to meet with President Bush on Tuesday, Israelis and the Bushies are poised, to fumble perceived opportunity, and to make a bad situation even worse.

If I were Mr. Abbas I would keep my distance from Israeli representatives, and keep Olmert at a very long arm's length.

Beware the Americans and Israelis bearing gifts.

The New York Times has been resplendent with "exclusive" interviews with Olmert, and anonymous comments from Israelis that "To give [the Palestinians' own tax money] to a Fatah government is an opportunity." An opportunity for what?

Ultimately, Olmert has no authority to "give" anything but hollow promises and empty gestures. His standing is probably even lower among Israelis than it is among Palestinians.

There will be a short period of harmony, a "honeymoon," one more honeymoon in a long list of honeymoons between Israel and Palestine that will lead—nowhere.

Is Israel going to stop occupation settlements? Doubtful. Will the US stop its embarrassing, meaningless hand wringing about conditions in the West Bank? Doubtful. Will the racist-highways-for-Israelis-only be dismantled and opened to all traffic on the West Bank? Are you kidding?

And so, Tuesday, Olmert and Bush will be "just kidding" again. They will hope that Palestinians are as stupid and desperate as the ethnofacists in Washington and Tel Aviv believe they are.

What is this battle really about? It is about the theft of fertile land owned by Palestinians, land that Israelis covet in the guise of proffering theological excuses for taking private property owned by Palestinians for generations. Over the past three years they took a good slice of the West Bank's prime farmland with a "security" fence. Blatant thievery, not "security," is more like it.

Many of us in America, and probably even more so in Illinois, have a false conception of occupied Palestine. We think of deserts, and dry areas, and maybe even camels strolling about. Yes, Jerusalem and the surrounding area are arid. But northern Palestine (i.e. the northern part of the West Bank) bears a startling resemblance to northern Illinois.

There are gently undulating fields, saturated with stalks of golden grain. In late summer the Northern West Bank looks strikingly like Northern Illinois.

And so the battle is not over what God gave the people of Israel; the battle is over what Israelis think they can get away with stealing from Palestinians. Golda Meir's racist claim that the creation of Israel reflected "a land without a people, for a people without a land," was a sheer fabrication. There were people on the land. They were peace-loving farmers.

Because land is as precious to an Illinois farmer as it is to a Palestinian family, neither people will surrender their soil easily to usurpers. If we would only think of Palestinians as being like ourselves, instead of accepting the stereotypes published by Israeli and American media, we would understand the endless conflict much better. Illinois farmers would be fighting anyone who took their land away and used theological mumbo jumbo to claim a right to dispossess them.

Will any of this land grabbing in the West Bank end in the days ahead? As Dilbert would say "Gahhhhh."

And so, as Olmert meets Bush, and delivers yet another kiss of Judas, Mr. Bush should feel very uncomfortable indeed. Israeli "experts" have "advised" America to the brink of multiple disasters in the Middle East. We have also bungled ourselves, without Israeli help, into empowering extremists when, for example, we called for free elections and then sought to undermine the outcome. Now we dream of extinguishing a "terrorist" enclave, Hamastan-on-the-Mediterranean.

Sadly, Hamas control of Gaza will last much longer than the remaining days of the Bush administration. Whoever inherits the wind and the White House in 2009 will find a festering crisis.

Mr. Abbas, be careful when Olmert comes close to kiss you and to offer his friendship and assistance. Olmert's open hands are disingenuous. Olmert's embrace is the kiss of Judas. And the money he brings with him, money stolen from Palestinians, is thirty pieces of silver.

Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. Martin, America's most respected independent foreign policy and intelligence analyst first went to the Middle East in 1970. He served as a Baghdad Bureau Chief in most of 2003. Columns also posted at;
Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:,

Saturday, June 16, 2007


Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”





(CHICAGO)(June 16, 2007) Republican State Senator Kirk Dillard is a thoroughly decent, intelligent and normally sensible public official. But he gets all gooey where senate Barack Obama is concerned. And this time Dillard may have crossed the line between bipartisan friendship and sheer loopiness.

Public officials, of course, do develop respect and admiration, and friendships, on city councils, in legislatures and in government. That’s normal and healthy. Unlike some people, we don’t settle our differences with guns. We work hard to compromise, accommodate and reach consensus. Democracy requires compromise, even if some conservatives don’t always want to admit it.

But Dillard’s “bipartisanship” is lately rising to a screwy level. He is quoted today as stating “I would not lose a night’s sleep worrying about my young children’s future if Senator [Barack] Obama were my president…he would probably surround himself…with exceptionally experienced people.”

Who has Obama surrounded himself with? The sultans of sleaze of the Democratic Party in Illinois. Mayor Richie Daley? State Senator Emil Jones, who thinks every government job should belong to one of his relatives? Alexi Giannoulias, the Chicago Crime Syndicate’s representative in Springfield? Dorothy Tillman, the race-baiting White-hating former Alderperson? Tod Stroger, who is also shamelessly looting local government?

What was Dillard thinking?

And what about the current the clown prince of corruption in Chicago, indicted influence peddler Tony Rezko, concerning whom Obama refused to speak with reporters from the New York Times this week? Rezko helped financed the Obama family’s estate in Chicago.

What was/is Dillard thinking? Or as Dillard’s BFF Barry Obama might say, “Whassup?”

Dillard wants to put Obama in charge of nuclear defense? Middle East wars? The energy crisis? Welfare? Dillard is comfortable entrusting these crises to Obama? Entrusting his children’s future? Is Dillard going completely nuts?

Kirk, we hardly knew ye.

Is Dillard thinking of switching parties? It sure seems like it.

Does anyone have an answer or explanation for Dillard’s bizarre comments and behavior? He owes us one.

Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:;


Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”



(CHICAGO)(June 16, 2007) For young people today it is difficult to imagine the arrogance and corruption that characterized welfare recipients in the 1960’s and 70’s. Barack Obama wants to bring back the “good old days” of welfare fraud, when his mother was “ripping of the man.”

Obama, of course, is a master pickpocket. But he doesn’t pick our wallets, he picks at our emotions, speaking boldly with the use of emphatic but hollow phrases. And every so often he drops in a zinger, just to confirm that he knows everyone else wants to “rip off the man” too. A vote for Barack Obama is a vote to bring back the old days of welfare thievery. Exhibit A: The Obama Family.

Today’s Chicago Tribune (June 16th) has a huge picture of Obama telling us to have “responsible” fathers. What about responsible mothers? Dropped into the Tribune story is this gem: “[Obama] noted that, without support from his father (who was in Kenya siring more children and drinking up good whiskey) he and his mother at times turned to food stamps to make ends meet.”

I found this reference startling, because I did not remember any admission of welfare use by Obama and his mother. I checked my notes on “Dreams From My Father” (dreams after a night of whoring and whisky in Kenya?) and found no reference either. So I started digging.

It appears that the Barack-Obama-On-Welfare claim originated in Time magazine in a story by Joe Klein. See:,9171,1546302,00.html. Later, Larry King picked up the story and asked Obama about it on CNN. Then the issue faded. Until June 15th.

In Klein’s story the line is slightly different, and more arrogant: “For example, I was going to a fancy prep school, and my mother was on food stamps while she was getting her Ph.D.”

Well, the origins of the Obama-On-Welfare reflect a callous indifference to “ripping off the man.”

First, we have been led to believe that while he was at prep school in Hawaii, Obama lived with his grandparents. His grandmother worked at a bank. How is it they were able to afford tuition for prep school and could not afford money to feed their grandson? Strange. Maybe that’s why grandma is hidden and avoids the public. She knows the Obama family’s dirty secrets.

It is possible that Obama might have lived with his mother at some point while she was a doctoral candidate in Hawaii, and voluntarily unemployed after competing two college degrees. Obama seems to think it was all right for his mother to collect welfare while she “invested in herself.” Unfortunately, they had a name for such abuses, even in the 60’s: criminal fraud.

Welfare was never intended as a public subsidy for people who wanted to become long-term college students. Mrs. Obama (if that is the name she should be given, given her former husband’s frolicking in Kenya) seemed to think it was perfectly all right for her to claim welfare benefits at the taxpayer’s expense while her son went to prep school, and someone paid thousands of dollars of private school tuition and she pursued endless academic studies. What about student loans? Well, those would have to be repaid, of course. No need to repay welfare. Just “rip off the man.” Man.

While he served as mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani tightened requirements for welfare and food stamps. Hundreds of thousands of cheats like the Obama family left the public trough. Now Democrats are trying to liberalize welfare and food stamps in New York again, and the parasites are salivating at the new opportunity to “rip off the man.” Democrats want to bring back the “salad days” of welfare in Washington too. Or, rather, the private school tuition days of welfare.

By coincidence, my mom was studying her for Ph.D in the 1960’s. She did not apply for welfare and supported her family on a teaching assistant’s salary of $4,800 a year. She did not have money for private school tuition at exclusive academies of the type Obama’s family enjoyed. There was a lot of white bread and baloney sandwiches. My mother would have sooner died than apply for welfare. But then that’s the difference between an honest American family and Obama’s Kenyan-American rip-off artists. For us, welfare was a form of shame. Obama, obviously, is shameless.

And the liberal morons keep sending him money and swooning. Instead of “,” we need a ”” web site to alert Obama to the need to improve his standards of public morality.

There are few, if any, Americans who would deny a neighbor help in a time of genuine need. I have served at church soup kitchens, and many of us have contributed to programs for those in need. But few of us feel the need to subsidize people who want to get a doctorate degree, or who want to “save” their money for private school tuition or who are too lazy to apply for a student loan or work part-time, like Mrs. Obama. Many of us remember standing in supermarket lines and seeing people use food stamps to buy food, and then using their cash to buy alcohol and cigarettes. They called it “ripping off the man.”

The fact that Obama refers to the fact that his mother was a welfare queen, and that she thought nothing of ripping off society for her own selfish benefit, tells a lot about the man. This is another example of why Obama has such a troubled psyche. Instead of shame, Obama is telling us he wants to bring back the good old days when his mom was ripping the man.

Is it any wonder people voted for Ronald Reagan for president in 1980? Obama’s mother was one very obvious reason the thievery and arrogance and corruption had to stop. It did. Except in Obama’s mind, where stealing from taxpayers is what he promises for his future presidency.

Maybe, as a matter of conscience, Obama should repay the money that his mom ripped off from the “man.” The “man” was and is the American people that he now claims he wants to serve.

Barack Obama owes the American people an explanation. And an apology.

Really, Barry, you should get a life. And get a mom.

Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:;


Executive Editor

“Factually Correct,
Not Politically Correct”




(CHICAGO)(June 16, 2007) Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin will hold a news conference Saturday, June 16th at 3:00 P.M. to ask that Barack Obama disclose the dates when his mother/family was on welfare (food stamps).

“The Chicago Tribune web site for June 16th,1,7040230,print.story?coll=chi-news-hed quotes Barack Obama as saying is mother was on welfare, and received food stamps,” Martin will note, “although that comment is not in the Associated Press story of the same event.

“I have read ‘Dreams From My Father’ and I find no mention of food stamps or welfare. This latest claim is such a startling one I fail to see how he could have omitted it from his book. Perhaps I missed the comment. But I am concerned by this latest ‘rabbit out of the hat,’ when the claim that Obama grew up on food stamps has apparently not appeared before today.

“Given that Obama’s grandparents were middle class, it is surprising that they would have allowed their daughter to apply for and receive welfare.

“Obama of course, in the past has offered imaginary claims for when he was conceived and other critical events in his life. I believe he owes the American people a detailed factual explanation of specific dates when his family was on welfare if he wants to become the first American president to rise from ‘Welfare to the White House.’”

Martin will state he is considering Freedom of Information requests to the State of Hawaii, which appears to be the only state where Obama resided with his mother and where he could have received welfare payments.


WHO: Internet journalist/editor/critic Andy Martin

WHERE: Southeast corner of Wabash and Huron Streets,
Chicago, (St. James Cathedral)

WHEN: Saturday, June 16, 2007 3:00 P.M.

WHAT: Andy Martin asks Barack Obama to disclose when his
mother was on welfare

CONTACT: (312) 440-4124


Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:;

Friday, June 15, 2007




GAZA: PART ONE (A Three-Part Series)

(CHICAGO)(June 16, 2007) As the impact of the chaos in Gaza sinks in, it is time to remember some painful truths. First, Hamas was originally encouraged to develop two decades ago, by Israel. Israeli security services falsely believed that empowering Islamic organizations would undermine the secular Palestinian national movement. Finally, 20 years later, the security services have been vindicated. Hamas has removed the remnants of Yasser Arafat’s movement from Gaza. Unfortunately, Israel will be the big loser in this week’s chaotic developments.

Second, those of us who are independent experts in Middle East matters advocated a welcome by the United States to Hamas’ democratic victory in fair and open elections. Tragically, President Bush and his administration marched in lockstep with the self-destructive policies of the Israeli regime, and we are now reaping the bitter fruit. I wrote a column entitled “Marhaba Hamas,” or “Welcome Hamas,” not because I was a supporter of Hamas but because only democratic politics can gradually extinguish the violent tribal conflicts which have been engendered by 40 years of Israeli occupation and Palestinian powerlessness.

President Bush parroted the Israeli-junta line, that Hamas should be quarantined. Wrong. Big mistake. Folly. That quarantine has now strengthened and spread the virus. The consequences will be chaos.

Israelis and American supporters of Israel like to brand critics of our Middle East policy “anti-Semitic.” But we are not anti-Semitic at all. We are just more impartial and emotionally uninvolved in the passions of the parties, and we offer long-term solutions, not petty political proposals. (See Gaza Part Three for an Open Letter to American Jewish Supporters of Israel).

Even before the guns were falling silent in Gaza this weekend the Israeli political and military structure was calculating how to profit from the misery of their neighbors. Once again, I caution the Israelis: all of your elaborate schemes over the past four decades have exploded in your faces, and in our American faces. Please, please try to take the side of history, and not petty political squabbling in the Knesset.

Indeed, even as a subdued 40th “anniversary” of the illegal seizure and occupation of Gaza and the West Bank was soberly being reflected upon in Israel (not celebrated), the fires were burning in Gaza and the pressure was building for this week’s explosive developments.

Unfortunately, if President Bush continues to allow Israelis to dictate American policy in Palestine, the result will be growing regional conflagration. Ultimately, Israel will be consumed by the very fires which Israelis deliberately and repeatedly set. The arsonists will eventually be consumed by their own acts of arson.

We come to today’s headline: “President Bush’s Bay of Pigs.” You might ask how I connect our policy involving Cuba with our policy involving Palestine. Sadly, they have run on parallel tracks. The Bay of Pigs is remembered because American intelligence services prepared an invasion plan for Cuba, and then President Kennedy failed to devote adequate resources to the project. The venture collapsed embarrassingly on the beaches of Cuba.

Since the death of Arafat, which Israelis had always promised would herald a new day—the Israelis always making such promises and always yanking them away like a magician pulling a handkerchief over a rabbit at a county fair—the U. s. has had a Palestinian structure which it could utilize to empower Palestinians for peace. We did nothing. Instead, the U. S. has done everything it can to encourage civil war in Palestine. The bill is only party coming due. And future installments of this liability will come with higher and higher risks.

And, finally, the Bay of Pigs in Palestine. At some point maybe the Israelis, or maybe some American, or someone whose identify we can’t yet identify, realized the obvious: If Gaza fell, the West Bank will eventually fall, and if the West Bank fell Israel would eventually fall as well. So we started our Bay-of-Pigs involvement of sending weapons to one side in the civil war. But not enough weapons for "our side" to win. Just enough weapons so that we would be blamed for the loss. Great move. Bay of Pigs all over again. Too little will, too late.

Israelis have always operated on the delusional band width where they believed they could float above the tragic conditions they inflicted on Palestinians. Israelis have schemed for sixty years to expand their empire, and to continuously swallow bits and pieces of Palestine. Ehud Olmert is coming to Washington this weekend with his latest scheme: to “separate” Palestine into two cantons, to allow Gaza to become a free fire zone for the Israeli military and to allow Israel to swallow more of the West Bank. Why does Olmert always remind me of a mindless Nazi Gauleiter?

Reflecting on their own self-induced delusion and mindless creation of misery among their neighbors, Israelis secretly and not so secretly think they can profit from the civil war they have created, split Palestine in two, destroy Gaza, and conquer the West Bank, apartment block by apartment block.

Unfortunately, Israeli policy is madness. Indeed, between Washington and Tel Aviv there is madness to excess. Washington egged on the Israelis to conduct terror attacks on Lebanon last year and young Israelis senselessly died for the greater glory of American policy. Now Israeli wants a blank check to commit new atrocities against Gaza. If President Bush endorses Olmert’s insane plans, more innocents will perish, including Americans, before the entire region is consumed.

As the battles in Gaza recently grew, Olmert threatened “consequences” from the temporary success of his policy to foment civil war. Indeed there will. Today, Egypt is endangered. If Egypt falls, Israel will not survive.

Like all madmen, the Israeli politicians who lead that regime always believe the laws of nature and the laws of gravity do not apply to them. Hizballah taught them that those laws do apply.

If Olmert is allowed to begin his campaign of planned atrocities against Gaza, Egypt will be the next casualty. Egypt may not fall all at once, but the Mubarek regime is creaky, and any spark could trigger a revolution in Cairo.

So what should U. S. policy be? First, admit we goofed. We were too little too late to aid Abu Mazen, because we allowed the Israelis to diminish and discredit him since he became Palestinian leader.

The Israeli ruling political structure is no more prepared for peace with Palestinians than the Palestinian extremists are prepared for peace with Israel. Ordinary Israelis, and ordinary Palestinians, want peace. But their leaders continue to blatantly betray them. And we betrayed the two peoples as well.

After admitting we sent too little, too late, and triggered the Bay of Pigs takeover of Gaza by Hamas, we should embrace Hamas, and send aid. Load up the planes and land in Gaza with food, medical supplies, field hospitals and every from of assistance we routinely devote to natural disasters around the world. My policy recommendation today is the same as it was after the 2006 election. Engage, don't enrage. Only engagement can succeed the long run.

In the light of last week’s developments, my recommendation is riskier than it was in 2006. Now we risk rewarding Hamas. But our own foolishness should not continue to blind us to good long-range policy.

Unlike the Israeli politicians who glory in all of their political infighting, American men and women are dying for our failed polices in the Middle East. The failures in Gaza and the coming failures in the West Bank will demolish what remains of American influence. We must not let Gaza become a killing field for the Israeli military, and we must not let the West Bank continue to be colonized by Israeli expansionists. We must put America first.

Sixteen years ago the first President Bush was called an anti-Semite for seeking to prevent the theft of Palestinian lands in the West Bank for “settlements,” which are not “settlements” at all but organized thefts of occupied land in violation of international law. The second President Bush opened the flood gates to theft of land, and to encouraging Palestinian to fight Palestinian.

I repeat: engagement is the only policy that can bring benefits for the U. S. in the long run. Ehud Olmert learned nothing in Lebanon last year, and engagement is the last option he wants to pursue. Expansion and annexation and atrocities are on his menu for his coming meeting with President Bush.

Saturday I will be holding news conference in Chicago to outline a way through this dangerous period.

President Bush and I have not agreed on policy matters since he was a candidate eight years ago. Personally, I like the man. But politically, Bush has been a slow death for the Republican Party, and he will bring more senseless and needless death on the American people if he allows Ehud Olmert’s visit to Washington this week to permit new Israeli attacks against the Palestinian people.

Finally, you can label me what you want. But I speak as a friend of the Palestinian people, and the Israeli people. These two peoples want peace. And they deserve better than the leadership they have received for the past sixty years. It is time for an American president to become a leader again, and not to be a handmaiden to the malignant agendas of Ehud Olmert and his cabinet.

Only an anti-Semite could be happy at the developments this past week. Because slowly, but inexorably, incompetent Olmert and his supporters are leading Israel down the path to destruction.

I prefer to stand apart, to sound the alarm, and to state the unpleasant and unpalatable truths to both sides. That is why I consider myself a true friend of both Israel and Palestine.

President Bush, will you join me?

Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. Martin, America's most respected independent foreign policy and intelligence analyst first went to the Middle East in 1970. He served as a Baghdad Bureau Chief in most of 2003. Columns also posted at;
Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:,


Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”




(CHICAGO)(June 16, 2007) Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin will hold a news conference Saturday, June 16th at 2:00 P.M. to renew his Andy Martin Peace Plan for the Middle East and to implore U. K. Prime Minister Tony Blair to take dramatic action for peace in the Middle East in Blair’s final days as a world leader.

“In 2000, I outlined the Andy Martin Peace Plan for the Middle East,” Martin will state. “Time has confirmed the wisdom of my analysis and my proposal. It is almost, but not quite, U. S. policy. Finally. But action has been lacking. Dramatic steps are needed by a world leader in response to last week’s developments in Gaza. I call on Mr. Tony Blair to grasp the reins of history in his last days as Prime Minister.”


WHO: Internet journalist/editor/critic Andy Martin

WHERE: Southeast corner of Wabash and Huron Streets,
Chicago, (St. James Cathedral)

WHEN: Saturday, June 16, 2007 2:00 P.M.

WHAT: Andy Martin renews his Andy Martin Peace Plan
and appeals to U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair
to take dramatic action for peace in lair’s
final days as Prime Minister

CONTACT: (312) 440-4124



Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:;

Wednesday, June 13, 2007



(CHICAGO)(June 14, 2007) Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin will hold a news conference Thursday, June 14th at 1:00 P.M. to demand that
Barack Obama step down as a presidential candidate “because Obama has brazenly lied to the American people” about his links to Illinois influence peddler and indicted alleged extortionist Tony Rezko.

Martin’s demand on May 15th that Michelle Obama resign from Wal-Mart supplier Treehouse Foods prompted Barack Obama’s wife to step down from Treehouse shortly thereafter.

“Last November 16th I asked to appear before the United States Grand Jury to testify about the extensive links between Barack Obama and indicted influence peddler Tony Rezko,” Martin will charge. The Chicago Sun-Times’ latest disclosures confirm more of the basis for my testimony.

“Wednesday, June 13th’s Chicago Sun-Times exposed yet another layer of links between Obama and Rezko.

“Plainly put, Obama lied when he claimed his contacts with Rezko were innocent and that he was simply a ‘boneheaded’ naïf, the ‘Obambi Defense.’ He lied when he said he had no idea about Rezko’s real estate activity.

“It is simply not credible that Obama and his senior law partner and Rezko were all holding hands without knowing what was going on, and that Obama was writing letters on behalf of his ‘community’ for Rezko. Obama’s earlier story was that he ‘knew nothing’ about Rezko’s real estate shenanigans. Now the Sun-Times has published a letter on Obama’s senate stationary boosting Rezko. Will wonders never cease? Obama has what Illinois Republicans would call a ‘Jack Ryan’ problem, i.e. damaging disclosures to come after the primaries next year.

“We don’t need an African-American Bill Clinton in the White House, who thinks that he has a ‘license to lie’ as he seeks the nation’s highest office. Obama has cruelly lied to his supporters about his links to Tony Rezko. He is hoping that his ongoing ’modified limited hangout’ through press agents will allow him to tough it out.

"Obama’s response to the latest disclosures about his links to Rezko were more of the same: hiding behind campaign press assistants. Barry needs to come clean.

“The Democrats may be paying footsie in their presidential ‘debates,’ afraid to ask each other tough, penetrating questions, but the ‘Ghost of Rezko’ will not soon depart from Obama’s presence. Not only has Obama lied to the American people, he has lied repeatedly and sought to misled flaccid journalists about his years as a practicing lawyer in Chicago, when he dealt in the same kind of soft-core influence peddling and corruption as countless other attorneys and state legislators.

“When Tony starts to sing, he’ll be singing ‘Barry Obama’s Song,’” Martin says.


WHO: Internet journalist/editor/critic Andy Martin

WHERE: Southeast corner of Wabash and Huron Streets,
Chicago, (St. James Cathedral)

WHEN: Thursday, June 14, 2007 1:00 P.M.

WHAT: Andy Martin will demand Barack Obama step down as
a presidential candidate due to latest disclosures of
his links with indicted influence peddler Tony Rezko

CONTACT: (312) 440-4124


Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers national and world politics with forty years of personal experience, 35 years in Chicago. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:;

Saturday, June 09, 2007



(CHICAGO)(June 8, 2007) Paris Hilton may have landed back in jail due to bad lawyering.

True, her family hired the best lawyers. And her income permits nothing less than the best. So how could the best go wrong? They forgot the courtroom of public opinion. Sometimes even the best lawyers can get it wrong when they are in the courtroom of public opinion.

In every big city, and every little one too, good lawyers develop quiet contacts with the high and mighty, and with the lowly minions who administer the courts and jails. I had "friends" in the Cook County courts that could always point me in the right direction, ensure that I was on top of what was going on and be sure that if there was a secret story I knew it first.

Likewise most major law firms in Chicago have lawyers who are quietly "connected" to "Crime Syndicate" counsel, and who can help when help is needed, the old fashioned way. These firms also know lawyers who know jailers. White shoes to gumshoes.

In Chicago we even have a name for this legerdemain. We call it the ancient common law writ of fixicatus.

I believe Hilton's lawyer had informal contacts both in the jail and in the Sheriff's department. He asked for a favor, and he new he could expect one. He had done this before, very quietly, of course. And so Paris would go through the ruse of surrendering, with a prearranged release already in the works. Once Paris was sprung it would be too late for the judge to spring.

That's what Paris thought would happen.

Hilton's attorneys assured her they would fix the Sheriff where they could not fix the judge. And they did. Only the fix went terribly wrong. The lawyers never suspected the worldwide boomerang, and never warned their client what the risks were of such a fix. Who knew?

The "medical condition" that Paris contracted was so evanescent that it never even surfaced in court. Given the opportunity to produce the jail records, the Sheriff and County Attorney played Alphonse and Gaston. ("You first, no you first.") The "records" never surfaced. And they probably never will.

The judge was played for a sucker, and reacted predictably. Friday he just sat in court reading off the time and saying "No records here yet." Case closed. Jail doors reopened.

The City Attorney who asked for recommitment had a strong legal case. It turned into a sucker shot.

The more Paris played a mini version of Sunset Boulevard, delaying the judge, delaying the deputy sheriffs, sashaying along at her own pace, the more predetermined the outcome became. In true Norma Desmond style Paris thought that she was big and the court system was small. It turned out the other way.

A good lawyer should have said (and maybe did say), "Just do the time quietly and this stuff will go away." Instead, Prima Dona Paris had to make a scene, had to be "reassigned" to her home and ultimately had to be assigned back to jail all over again.

The American justice system, and indeed the justice system of any nation, does not always work with such guillotine-like efficiency. Today it did. Paris went down.

Chances for an appeal? Nil.

------------------------------------------Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Cell (917) 664-9329 Web sites:;

© copyright by Andy Martin
(Sung to "You Are My Sunshine")

You are my Paris, my only Paris
You serve your time,
both night and day
You'll never know dear,
What hard time really is,
You'll live to party, another day.
Please don't lock, my Paris Away.

You love your mommy,
And love your daddy,
And love your daddy too,
On Father's Day, you can be
His singing jailbird,
No matter what they say.
But please don't lock my Paris away.

They say you're crazy,
Can't waste your time,
You really need to, get away.
But you know you, can do
That hard time,
Baloney sandwiches so dark and gray
Please don't lock my Paris away.

My closing words,
I have to say;
Be a good girl now and
Do what the jailers say
Sheriff Arpaio, that man in Phoenix
Is only, an hour's flight away.
Please don't lock my Paris away.

Thursday, June 07, 2007


Executive Editor
"Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct"



(CHICAGO)(June 7, 2007) Paris Hilton has thumbed her nose at the California judicial system, again. Yes, Virginia, there really are two court systems in America, one for ordinary working people and minorities, and one for the very rich who and treat the law with contempt and can buy justice with money and influence.

When Hilton was sentenced on May 4th Judge Michael Sauer said there would be no "alternative" punishments for her. Three days after surrendering to the jail (and getting five days jail credit) she was sent to her home to serve "home confinement." Well, what did the judge's order mean when it specifically prevented such lenient treatment? It meant nothing.

Blacks, Latinos and ordinary working Joes don’t get early release from jail because some psych says "they can't do the time." If that was the standard for home detention, we could empty out our jails today.

Hilton is a woman who has made a lifetime career of thumbing her nose at society, propriety and sobriety. And now she has thumbed her nose at the California judiciary.

She has made a joke of the judges of California.

Has Judge Sauer reacted? No, he has been remained silent. So he only acts tough when poor people are in front of him.

Hilton would have predictably had psychological adjustment problems in jail. She has a sociopathic personality disorder, or worse. She is not used to having her media access and her money taken away.

And the proceedings before Judge Sauer reflected that Hilton's mother is as nutty as her daughter. In fact, her mother is a big time enabler. So going to jail would not have been an easy thing.

Hilton's defense to breaking the law over and over again was that "she didn't know" that her license was suspended. Well, for any ordinary person of such sub par intelligence, there is no exemption from jail. They get to stay in jail.

Where will the Paris Hilton saga end? My guess is that after the "45 days" are up, she will strike again, violate the law again, and the circus will go on and on until she kills someone in a car wreck, and it is too late to salvage the dignity and integrity of the California courts.

Come to think of it, California judges deserve Paris Hilton.

For those who didn't know that there are two judicial systems in California, Paris Hilton provides an unavoidable eye-opener. She is rich, and she bought her way out of jail—after a judge said that would not happen. It happened. So much for California justice. Maybe justice is all just California dreamin'. Hilton proved there are two systems of justice in America, and that's a great injustice. It also happens to be true.

Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Cell (917) 664-9329 Web sites:;

Monday, June 04, 2007

Executive Editor




(CHICAGO)(June 3, 2007) Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster, media critic and U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin will hold a toll-free telephone news conference Monday, June 4 to attack U. S. Senator Dick Durbin for "professional incompetence" in seeking to hamper the immigration of highly educated professional employees into the United States.

Journalists are free to call in from Illinois and around the United States.

"I realize that the current immigration debate is very emotional and very charged," Martin will state, "But the one area that has avoided controversy is the need for the U. S, economy to continue to import increasing numbers of highly educated professional employees with engineering, scientific and technical degrees--

"Until Dick Durbin woke up last Friday and said he wants to make it more difficult for American businesses to employ these workers.

"What is Durbin smoking and who is buying his lunch? The man is professionally incompetent. "Durbin wants to make himself, and by implication the State of Illinois, an anti-immigrant, anti-business bastion. I say no.

"California, which is certainly the high-tech capital of America, recently announced that the state was going to be tens of thousands of employees short in the areas of scientific and technical expertise. Our economy is growing. We need PhD's, engineers, and scientists. We are not producing enough PhD's to grow. We need more. Let's get some of them from overseas. It's good business to do so.
"Silicon Valley was largely created by immigrants. The American economy benefits immeasurably from scientific and technical immigration.

"Why should Illinois, which has lagged in technology employment, but which is trying to enter the high-tech leader board, hamstring the immigration of highly educated employees? It makes no sense. Between Senator Durbin and Governor Blagojevich, Illinois getting the well-deserved and completely destructive reputation of being as anti-business as West Virginia. Maybe worse than West Virginia.

"Illinois needs growth in our economy. We need highly educated, highly skilled scientific and technical workers—because they create new jobs in research and ultimately in manufacturing and services.

"It's obvious: Dick Durbin hates America's businesses. And Dick Durbin is also against American labor, because to employ more workers, more laborers, we need more scientific and technical leaders to staff our laboratories and technical research teams.

"Every year business is caught short when visas for technical staff quickly run out. Durbin wants to make it worse, harder, more petty and delayed.

"Whatever happens in the area of 'general' immigration, and I have not announced my views on that topic, I stand shoulder to shoulder with America's research universities (e.g. University of Illinois, University of Chicago) and America's technical and scientific businesses in seeking more and more educated workers from abroad. These immigrants create immense value for every American.

"The U.S. is no longer an island. New ideas are coming from China, India and elsewhere. We need to be able to attract these young scientific leaders to the United States.

"Whose side is Durbin on? Certainly not on the side of growing Illinois' economy. Or America's. Durbin claims to be 'safeguarding' Illinois' workers. In reality he is endangering and diminishing our economy. Durbin is a disgrace to the Democratic Party, and a disgrace to Illinois," Martin will charge.

Martin is the only actively campaigning Republican candidate to oppose Durbin in 2008.


WHO: Internet journalist/editor/candidate Andy Martin

WHERE: Telephone news conference:

Toll-free call-in number: (866) 295-5950

Participant code: 2090340

WHEN: Monday, June 4, 2007 2:00 P.M. (CDT)

WHAT: Andy Martin attacks Senator Dick Durbin for
seeking to limit the immigration of highly educated
professional employees into the United States.

CONTACT: (312) 440-4124


------------------------------------------Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:; He is an announced candidate for U. S. Senator in 2008.

Sunday, June 03, 2007


June 3, 2007


Once again, congratulations to the Tribune for publishing balanced Middle East coverage. Marda Dunsky's opinion article in Sunday's Tribune is a stunning indictment of U. S. policy. Hopefully, your fairness and balance will not change when Sam Zell takes over. That would be a tragedy for American journalism, and for the Middle East.
Dear Republican leader:

In the wake of my letter to you about attacks on me by "Pro-Israel Republicans," seeking to muzzle debate on our Middle East policy, I urge you to read Sunday's Chicago Tribune op-ed piece by Marda Dunsky:,0,1997624.story?coll=chi-newsopinionperspective-hed

I have congratulated the Tribune for publishing the truth about our utter failure in the Middle East and the way our policies benefit Israel and destroy the United States.

The Tribune and I may not get along where I am involved, but the paper's Middle East coverage is a priceless asset to the public political debate that must take place in the United States.

I hope we have seen the last of the "Pro-Israel Republican" attacks on my campaign for the Senate. I think Steve Sauerberg should be asked to withdraw as a candidate. I am prepared to lead a united Republican Party in a ferocious campaign against Dick Durbin. We may not succeed in defeating Durbin but he will come out of the election bleeding from every pore, as we work together to relentlessly attack Durbin's incompetence and mendacity.

Illinois Republican incompetence gave America Barack Obama; let Illinois Republican unity produce a tough campaign against Dick Durbin, a senator who should be run out of Washington.

One of the greatest moments in Fighting Illini football history came when Chuck Boerio, an Illinois linebacker, challenged the powerful Wisconsin team to "Send [Alan] Ameche at me." Illinois won. In the same Fighting Illini spirit that Coach Ray Eliot gave me as a freshman football player at Memorial Stadium, I ask you to "Send Durbin at me."

Saturday, June 02, 2007


The Right Republican for
U. S. Senator from Illinois/2008
Suite 4406, 30 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
Web site:

June 3, 2007

Dear Republican leader:

On May 21st I sent you a preliminary response to a smear campaign being waged against me by self-styled "Jewish Republicans" Michael Cohen and Paul Miller who want you to support Steve Sauerberg, my opponent. I promised some follow-up comments and I am pleased to provide them at this time.

First, let us be clear who "Pro-Israel Republicans" really are. They want to elect liberal Democrats. Paul Findley was a reliable conservative Republican congressman from downstate Illinois who had the temerity to question our Middle East policies a quarter century ago. He was targeted for destruction and defeat. Findley was replaced by—Dick Durbin. Pro-Israel Republicans launched the career of Dick Durbin.

Feeling flush, this same coterie of "Pro-Israel Republicans" then defeated an incumbent Republican senator, Senator Charles Percy, and replaced him with a liberal Democrat, Paul Simon. It wasn't long ago that "Pro-Israel Republicans" were calling President George H. W. Bush an "anti-Semite" because he sought to block illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian lands.

I could go on but you get the point. When they ask you to put Israel first the Republican Party always comes in second.

I have been committed to fair and balanced Middle East peace. Treating Palestinians like vanquished hostages to Israel will never serve American foreign policy interests and will never bring peace to the region. There is a great deal of confusion and disinformation about Palestinians. Surprisingly, some of the fairest coverage I have seen is found in the Chicago Tribune. I hope the Tribune's fair reporting will not become less balanced now that a "supporter of Israel" claims to have purchased the Tribune Company.

Second, I am committed to fairness and equality in the Middle East. As a young boy in the 1950's I grew up being schooled in the Holocaust by a refugee from Nazi Germany. He was a scholar whose books were burned, and who got out in time. He was a family friend. It is precisely because of the horrors of Nazi Germany that I have come to embrace human rights for everyone, those with whom we agree and those with whom we disagree.

I have led a life unhesitatingly committed to civil rights and fighting bigotry. That’s the kind of a senator I would be. The first African-American federal judge in Chicago once stated he respected me as a good man. A copy of his federal court transcript is available on request.

Third, my opponents always refer to a piece of gutter journalism that appeared last year in the Chicago Tribune. It was a smear job orchestrated by Rick Pearson. To paraphrase Capital One ads, I wonder "What's in Rick Pearson's wallet?" Pearson tried to patch together lies, half-truths and distortions to smear me. I must be pretty important if the Tribune organized a three-man smear squad to investigate me.

Is there any truth to the Tribune's lies? Not really.

Pearson refers to a series of lawsuits in the 1980's. He must be pretty desperate if he has to reach back 25 years to attack me, wouldn't you say?

In the course of a lawsuit, claims are made that do not necessarily represent the views of the pleader or the party on whose behalf a pleading is submitted. Otherwise, no one could make legal arguments.

In 1983 I was the victim of bankruptcy shysters. The bankruptcy courts are notorious dens of fraud and corruption. I was dragged there against my will, as punishment for fighting corruption in Illinois. I made the claim that I was the victim of religious discrimination by Jewish attorneys. That was a painful claim for me to make. But it was legally correct. The U. S. Supreme Court subsequently adopted my civil rights theory, see Shaare Tefila v. Cobb, 481 U. S. 2019 (1987). Making a claim that is later supported by the U. S. Supreme Court hardly qualifies as "anti-Semitic." It marks me as a legal scholar and nothing more.

A claim has also been made that I somehow ran a vicious campaign for office. That is a lie. I have repeatedly testified under oath that I had no connection with any such campaign. My testimony is a matter of public record. But my adversaries are not concerned with the truth; they are only concerned with spreading their smears and lies.

Well, as President Reagan might have said, "Why do they hate us?" In 2000 I produced the Andy Martin Peace Plan for the Middle East. Unbeknownst to me, parts of it were incorporated in President Clinton's peace offers. Today the Bush Administration is moving in the direction of my proposal. I am attacked because I am an apostle of peace, not hate; under my plan Israel would have to withdraw to the 1967 armistice lines and recognize the State of Palestine.

In 2008, the Middle East and Iraq are going to be at the heart of the election. I am the only acknowledged expert who has been in the Middle East and who can make credible attacks on Durbin.

Rick Pearson of the Chicago Tribune can publish all the lies he wants, and he can ignite all the frenzied hate he wants, but the truth will win out. Pearson has never met me, has never interviewed me and has never provided any opportunity for a discussion of his "issues." He was on a smear mission for his sponsors. I wonder who was supporting him. How could Pearson hate me so vehemently when he had never met me? Ask him.

Finally, two closing points. I am not popular in the legal system. Is there a reason? You betcha.

First, as a young law student at the University of Illinois I joined in researching the law that led to the ouster of two crooked Illinois Supreme Court justices (Klingbiel & Solfisburg). They were removed from the court. Even before I picked up my Juris Doctor diploma I was warned crooked judges and lawyers were waiting to retaliate. And they did.

The Illinois Supreme Court retaliated by trying to suggest I was unstable—all because an Army psychologist was disgusted by the corruption in Illinois politics. I hold an Honorable Discharge from the U. S. Air Force Reserves. I was in Viet Nam three (3) times. But the crooked associates of Klingbiel and Solfisburg tried to draft me illegally, to silence my corruption exposures. (I was pursuing more crooked judges on the court at the time, Democrats.) The psychologist tried to stop that abuse by declaring me "unfit" to serve, merely as a ploy to block the Illinois Supreme Court. He was disgusted by crooked justice in Illinois, and you should be too. By the way, if you would like a copy of my Honorable Discharge just ask and it will be faxed to you. Do Steve Sauerberg, or Mill-+er and Cohen and Pearson, have honorable discharges? Or Dick Durbin? Ask them.

Second, I have devoted my life to fighting corruption in the courts, not being a part of corruption. Most lawyers will tell you privately that a little corruption and a little back-room dealing are the emollients that make "justice" function. I prefer to rely on the Constitution, on Due Process, and on open and honest government. In the 1970's I used the racketeering laws against the Illinois Democratic Party, and helped launch a "Civil RICO" revolution. I was a point man in the efforts that led to Operation Greylord, where approximately eighty (80) crooked Chicago judges and lawyers were convicted and imprisoned. You bet there is a reason they don't like me in the courts. I force them to obey the law.

Enough said. I run a very open campaign, and I have led an open life. The Tribune tried and tried to find dirt and found nothing. So Rick Pearson invented the muck he published.

I am running a non-sectarian campaign. All are welcome to support me. But I am not beholden to any religion, to any ideology or to any orthodoxy except the United States Constitution.

Steve Sauerberg has every right to run for senator. But he is apparently not running on his own merits; he is running as a "Stop Andy" candidate. In other words, the "Pro-Israel Republicans" are at it again, trying to reelect a liberal Democrat. I think you should tell Sauerberg, Pearson, Cohen and Miller to stop their lies and face the truth. America needs Andy Martin, not Dick Durbin, in the U. S. Senate.

If I am fortunate enough to defeat Durbin, and beating him will be an extraordinarily difficult task, I will take an oath to support and defend the U. S. Constitution and nothing else. Unlike Mr. Durbin, I will put Illinois first, not the interests of my contributors and lobbyists.

In reality, Sauerberg, Cohen, Miller and Pearson are fronting for the Durbin campaign; Durbin is their man.

As for me, I am the last Republican Durbin wants to face. I will attack Durbin's sordid record as no other Republican can.

And now you know the rest of the story. The real story.

Respectfully yours,