Eight years ago corruption fighter Andy Martin explained why martial law was needed in Chicago, to stem the tide of relentless violence
Andy Martin was supposed to attend the University
of New Hampshire, where his mother
and uncle had graduated. But when Andy got the chance to play Big ten football
at the University of Illinois
he grabbed for the brass ring, eventually ending up as a corruption fighter in Illinois.
Today Andy lives in Manchester,
near the Merrimack River. But this year, 2017, he
celebrates fifty years as a corruption fighter in Chicago
and Illinois, and forty years as
the last surviving reform mayoral candidate in the historic election to succeed
“The Boss,” Mayor Richard J. Daley. Andy continues to fight political
corruption from Hanover to Honolulu,
and he remains an “honest broker” in explaining why martial law is the only approach
that will succeed in quelling the violence in Chicago.
Andy endorses President Trump’s promise to “send in the feds” if Chicago
leaders cannot stop the killing; eight years ago in a blunt, landmark
prediction, Andy said Chicago’s
leaders were incapable of regaining control of the city. Andy was right. The
failed political leadership in Chicago
was wrong. And today President Trump is also right. Will Trump right Chicago’s
To become a regular subscriber to our
emails please send an email to email@example.com place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.
Please feel free to forward and/or post this email,
with proper attribution
Please sign up for our enhanced Twitter
feed with enhanced, original coverage
says that without a declaration of martial law, Chicago violence cannot be stopped
and Chicago politicians lack the guts to act,” Andy says; “Only President Trump
has the willpower to succeed”
2017 Andy celebrates fifty years as an Illinois and national corruption
fighter, and forty years since he led a reform movement after the death of
“Boss” Richard J. Daley in 1977
Martin was once a modern day successor to “Eliot Ness and the Untouchables” in Chicago; today Andy lives in New Hampshire but occasionally takes on a Chicago corruption battle
(Near the Winter
White House, Florida) (February 6, 2017)
Eight years ago I called for the imposition of martial law
in Chicago, to stem the relentless
tide of murder and violence (please see link #1 below). History has confirmed
the accuracy and wisdom of my predictions. Since 2009 thousands have been
murdered in Chicago, and tens of
thousands have been shot. Local authorities remain unwilling and unable to stop
the violence. In 2012 I again predicted that martial law was the only solution
(please see link #2 below).
Since my original prediction both national personalities
such as Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and local public officials have joined my call
for emergency action (please see link #3 below).
Now that President Trump has promised to “send in the feds”
(please see link #4), it is time to understand why Chicago
continues to fail to provide public safety for its citizens, and why only
drastic measures can succeed.
First, a little personal history. I grew up in New
England, not the Midwest. Because both my
mom and uncle had graduated from the University
of New Hampshire I was expected to
attend there. But I got the chance to play football at the University
of Illinois and the siren call of
the Big Ten took me to Illinois. I
come from a military family; the last thing on my mind was becoming a
corruption fighter. But through a series of accidental opportunities I ended up
working for a U. S.
Senator who himself had been a legendary corruption fighter in Chicago, as well
as a friend of the great lawyer Clarence Darrow.
As a college senior I went to the Illinois General Assembly
(legislature) as an intern where I encountered the Mafia, which enjoyed its own
state senate seat from Chicago. The
machine politics of the 1950’s-1970’s Daley Machine was operating with little
hindrance. And, somehow, fifty years ago the die was cast. The people who
supported and encouraged me became an informal version of “Eliot Ness and the
Untouchables.” We were a team that could not be bossed or bullied or bought and
had a steadfast commitment to public integrity and fighting political
corruption. I was the public face and took the brunt of the counterattacks and
Forty years ago in 1977 I participated in the historic
mayoral primary election to succeed “Boss” Richard J. Daley. Today I am the
only surviving candidate from that election. But I have just as much energy and
commitment today as I did fifty years ago.
I moved back to New Hampshire
in 2010 (please see link #5 below). But because of my national corruption fighting
activity from Hanover (NH) to Honolulu (HI) we still get involved with Illinois
and Chicago corruption from time to
time. Why do I mention my long history of experience with political corruption
and public integrity? Because many political leaders have a “here today, gone
tomorrow” attitude and lack any institutional memory.
Forty years ago Governor “Big Jim” Thompson of Illinois
passed “Class X felony” legislation to rid Chicago
of gang violence. Thompson is long gone (but still alive); Class X felonies
still remain on the law books. But the gangs are more powerful than ever.
Everything the politicians have tried has failed. That’s why it’s time for the
Donald Trumps and Andy Martins to offer solutions and in the case of President
Trump to take action.
If you go back and read what I suggested in 2009 (link #1)
you’ll think it sounds pretty mild. But in 2009 I was considered “way out” for
proposing a massive campaign to end gang violence through an initial
declaration of martial law. Since my original proposals, thousands have died
and tens of thousands have been permanently maimed and wounded by violence.
Obama has come and gone in the White House. The killing continues unabated.
Significantly, Obama has not moved back “home” to Chicago.
Recently some of us went on a ride through the most
dangerous neighborhoods. They are barely a stone’s throw from President Barack
Obama’s mansion on the South Side. I first went to the South Side long, long
ago. But the bombed out neighborhoods of the 1960’s are still largely bombed
composed of good people who are held hostage by crooked politicians. Both the
State of Illinois and City of Chicago
are bankrupt. Taxes skyrocket, services are curtailed and the “death spiral”
that caused me to move away in 2010 has gotten progressively worse. Can Chicago
and Illinois be saved? I believe
they can. But I also believe that neither Mayor Emanuel nor Governor Bruce Rauner
is going to take action. So President Trump must act.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel has said he wants President Trump to
“help.” But Emanuel doesn’t really want Trump’s help. Emanuel wants to continue
the same old failed liberal Democratic Party solutions, while trying to shift
the blame for failure to Trump. Trump is too smart to fall for that snare.
My 2009 proposals are strikingly current. But stronger
action is needed today because of the deteriorated situation.
In 1957, President Eisenhower sent in a contingent of the
101st Airborne Division (U S Army) to support the Arkansas National Guard which
the president had federalized. (While the National Guard remains under the
control of a state’s governor, a president can “federalize” state troops and
place them under national command). Thus, there is a precedent for federal
action to protect constitutional rights when local officials fail or refuse to
The federal ATF agency supposedly will send twenty (20) more
agents to Chicago, a claim the
agency denies (please see link # 7 below). But “20 agents” is a drop in the
bucket. In 2014 more ATF agents were sent to Chicago
with no noticeable impact (please see link #8 below).
Drastic and dramatic gestures are necessary. Which is why
local politicians prefer to do nothing and pray for cold weather to keep people
indoors. Mayor Emanuel has claimed he is “hiring more police,” but that is a
typical Emanuel smokescreen. Emanuel’s hires would bring the police force back
to where it was when he took office (please see link #9 below).
In November Chicago
voters chose to continue the chaos when they rejected Trump and elected to
continue the state’s relentless decline into insolvency and mediocrity. So
Trump doesn’t owe Illinoisans anything. He could let the people who voted
against him stew in their own juices and it would be a condign response since
he is under no immediate obligation to do anything.
Nevertheless if Trump could succeed in stemming violence in Chicago
- and he can - that would send a message to every American, “Law and order is
back, anarchy will not be tolerated, and if local officials refuse to act, we
The tragedy is that African-Americans, who remain laminated
to the failed Democratic Party policies of the last half century, and laminated
to the failed political leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus, are the
ones who are betrayed by their local and national leaders every day in every
way. Trump could redeem his campaign promise to African-Americans by “making Chicago
Eight years ago I laid out a rational and reasonable program
to bring peace to the embattled streets of Chicago
(#1). That program can easily be updated, as I have done in these few
The cost of bringing peace is far less than the ongoing cost
of the bleeding which the city and region are enduring. While “Chicago
hating” is a time-tested electoral strategy in Illinois,
particularly downstate, Chicago is
an economic engine that powers the entire Midwest. If Chicago
dies, citizens across the region, from Indiana
to Wisconsin and beyond will be
Martial law would not have to last very long. But it would
involve an initial “shock,” followed by a precinct-by-precinct effort to regain
control of lawless neighborhoods. Instead of seeking to regulate the police, as
President Obama did, Trump could work to encourage and professionalize local
If politicians simply allow the same failed policies to
continue, and allow the same failed leaders to persist with the same failed
programs, the Midwest will eventually suffer irreversible
Demanding “jobs” and “education” and other federal
giveaways, which is what Emanuel and Black leaders expect from Trump, is a
pathway to oblivion. Without public safety in the streets, no program can
succeed. I have known Chicago for
more than a half century. The trend has been down, down, down. There is no
local leadership and no local initiative. The demands for justice and giveaways
have been relentless and irrelevant. Nationally, trillions of dollars in
“poverty programs” have accomplished little.
If Trump wants to tackle the problems with real solutions,
he knows where to reach me. In Manchester, New
LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not
just the underlined portion):
Andy Martin is a
legendary New Hampshire, New York and Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist,
talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With
forty-nine years of background in radio and television and with five decades of
investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides
insight on politics, foreign policy, intelligence and military matters. For a
full bio, go to: www.AndyMartin.com;
also see www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm
immigrated to Manchester, New
Hampshire 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where
he played as a small boy. He is ’s leading corruption fighter and
Republican Party reformer.
New Hampshire Attorney General Joe Foster faces possible lawsuit from New Hampshire GOP corruption fighter Andy Martin over Foster’s immigration activism
Andy Martin, J.D.
Adjunct Professor of Law
P.O. Box 742
Tel. (603) 518-7310;
Fax (866) 214-3210
February 1, 2017
Hon. Joe Foster
33 Capitol Street
Re: Potential lawsuit against you for ultra vires actions
Dear General Foster:
You have recently made some very inflammatory and, frankly,
irrational statements concerning the President Trump’s efforts to protect the United
States from immigration problems. With all
due respect, I believe that while you are free to present your views as a
private citizen, as an appointed official of the State of New
Hampshire whose public office is subject to and
governed by statutes, you are not free to waste state assets propagating
left-wing Democratic Party propaganda.
I am therefore writing to give notice that if you follow
through on your plans to apparently join frivolous out-of-state litigation by
other state attorneys general with too much time and money on their hands, and
divert New Hampshire resource and the time of assistant attorneys general on
your staff, I will file a lawsuit to enjoin you from taking part in such
activity. I believe your actions would be ultra
vires to the limited rights and duties embodied in your office. Again, I
recognize that as a private citizen you are free to pop and toot as a goofy
liberal Democrat; as a public official paid for by New Hampshire taxpayers you
have to respect the limits of your official position and not use your office to
grandstand or vindicate a political agenda.
1. The State of New
The State of New Hampshire
is the embodiment of “small government” and limited government. We are not New
York or California
or one of the other loony left states. Our state government is provided by the
taxpayers through the General Court and state constitution with limited revenues, not a credit card for
unlimited excursions into public expenditure.
Like most New Hampshire
citizens I am the product of immigration. My maternal grandparents immigrated
to Manchester over 100 years ago,
see AndyMartinNewHampshire100.com. So I am not anti-immigrant. But at a time of
increasing worldwide terror risks, I am pro-national security. I am very
comfortable with a “time out” to immigration from unstable nations lacking
robust government institutions to put down terrorist threats.
2. The Office of Attorney General
Before sending this letter I spent time doing research on
the New Hampshire Constitution and New Hampshire Statutes. My due diligence did
not find anything in Title 1, Chapter 7 of the New Hampshire Statutes that authorizes
you to engage in litigation concerning the rights of foreign individuals or
others who may not have immediate disputes with the State of New
Hampshire. Therefore, your announcement that you apparently
contemplate joining frivolous lawsuits filed by other state attorneys general is
ultra vires to your office. If
private entities have legal claims under the president’s policy, they are free
to pursue them. I do not believe New Hampshire
taxpayers have claims against President Trump's immigration policies.
3. Your statements concerning President Trump
You accused President Trump of engaging in an
“unconstitutional assault” which violated “principles that are fundamental to
our democracy.” Other than an isolated number of foreign citizens that served
the military and were entitled to preferential treatment entering the United
States, no foreign citizen has a generalized “right” to enter the United
States. People with Green Cards and valid visas were clearly inconvenienced and
I hope that the federal government will do everything possible to correct those
mistakes and compensate for the unnecessary disruption. But there is simply no
basis for your exaggerated and inflammatory rhetoric attacking the president. I
repeat that in your private capacity you are free to make idiotic remarks. But
when you use the letterhead of your public office, and the power and budget of
your office, to publish doggerel, you are acting “unconstitutionally” and
launching an “assault” on the rights of New Hampshire
taxpayers who govern your behavior as a public official.
You need to understand that both federal statutes and the U.
S. Constitution provide the president and his administration with exceptionally
broad authority to regulate who enters and leaves the United
States. Those powers do not accrue to your
own office. The president, not you or I, gets to be the decision maker.
4. The lawsuits filed last weekend
Ironically, I agree that there may have been a limited basis
for the lawsuits that were filed last weekend. Like you, I am not an expert in the
minutiae of immigration law. But I suspect some of the administrative action taken
by the federal government did not comport with the sprit of the President’s
intention in signing his Executive Order.
It is also my view, however, that substantially all of the
problems created by improvident enforcement of a valid order have now been
alleviated or are in the process of being alleviated administratively. Thus,
the “problem” giving rise to the lawsuits is over.
On the merits, to the extent that the pending or proposed
state attorneys general litigation seeks to challenge and undermine the broad
authority of the president and federal government in areas of foreign relations
and immigration, where presidential powers and prerogatives are paramount, the
lawsuits are ultimately frivolous and will not be successful.
As a constitutional scholar I see no conflict between the
lawsuits that may have had an initial basis for judicial intervention last
weekend, but which are now unnecessary because the legal basis for those claims
has evaporated as the government responds to the lawsuits and takes corrective
action. If you do not have a constitutional scholar on your staff I would be
happy to volunteer my services and opinions pro
I do not consider your office under New
Hampshire law to be a “roving commission to do
equity,” Moushigian v. Marderosian, 764 F.3rd 123 (1st Cir. 2014). The
same limits apply to your office as enunciated by the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, in an opinion by Judge McCafferty who normally
sits in Concord.
5. The “Will of the People”
Ultimately, unless the “will of the people” reflects some
unconstitutional or unlawful intention, that “will” as implemented by the
president and congress should be respected. Americans voted for change, even in
New Hampshire where President
Trump’s electoral votes were stolen by liberal Democrats who encourage unlawful
out-of-state voting in our elections.
Most Americans want limits placed on immigration and Trump’s
limits were and remain reasonable. I don’t think any of us, from Trump down to
the single voter, has a concrete vision of what has to be done to conclusively
protect us from unwise immigration and terrorism. That’s why Trump’s order was
limited in time and scope. Trump is exploring alternatives and options.
The federal government has a right to take tentative steps
without being bombarded with lawsuits making grossly exaggerated claims, or by
flatulent rhetoric such as your own remarks.
Reasonable people can argue - we can - as to how the
president should implement his agenda. But every coffee table policy difference
with President Trump is not a trigger to file a frivolous lawsuit or stage a
6. Please help safeguard New
Former Governor Hassan, your boss, concealed tens of
millions of dollars in state spending in order to fraudulently induce voters to
support her election to higher office. She left the state in a mess. If not for
the fortitude of the General Court (legislature), New
Hampshire today would be another Illinois.
Luckily, legislators had implemented sound fiscal policies and Hassan’s damage
was limited. Nevertheless, we do not have money to waste on frivolous lawsuits
over federal policies which do not concern your office.
I urge you to avoid the necessity for me to file a lawsuit
by exercising the discretion that should be inherent in your office and by avoiding
participation in any lawsuits seeking to malign President Trump for trying to
do his job. If you proceed with your apparent course of action, I shall file
suit in the Superior Court to enjoin your ultra
vires activity. We may have a state judiciary that is dominated by Democrats;
but even Democrats should be governed by common sense and the limits of New
Hampshire law and the New Hampshire Constitution.
I am confident President Trump and his administration can
both comply with the law and implement their policies without input from your
office. Please do not waste our precious New Hampshire
tax dollars on wild goose chases.