Media and combat expert Andy Martin says Bill O’Reilly clearly exaggerated and inflated his “combat” and “war” experience

Media critic and war/military/intelligence expert Andy Martin says that Bill O’Reilly clearly inflated his “combat” or “war” credentials by claiming a civil disturbance in Buenos Aires was a combat or war situation. Andy wades into the O’Reilly/Mother Jones/CBS News/New York Times and Washington Post “conflation” over what Bill O’Reilly did in Argentina over thirty years ago. “Bill O’Reilly has shot himself in the foot,” Andy says. “Instead of ignoring Mother Jones, O’Reilly has opened up floodgates concerning how he has misrepresented his experiences during and after the Falklands Islands War.

NEWS FROM:

                                                                                          

ContrarianCommentary.com

“The Internet Powerhouse”

Andy Martin,  J. D.

adjunct professor of law

executive editor

one of America’s most respected

independent authors/investigators

“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”

you can call Andy:

New Hampshire (603) 518-7310

National (866) 706-2639

Cell (917) 664-9329

you can email Andy:

andynewhampshire@aol.com

you can write Andy by

faxing (866) 214-3210

Blogs/web sites  (partial):

ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com

www.AndyMartin.com

www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com

To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to andynewhampshire@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.

Andy Martin says Bill O’Reilly clearly inflated and distorted and misrepresented O’Reilly’s “war” and “combat” credentials

Andy says that O’Reilly has opened up a mess that is of his own making, and O’Reilly is certain to be a loser when the exchange is over

(New York, NY) (February 23, 2015) Let me start with a disclaimer or series of disclaimers. I do not like Fox News. Fox News has treated me abysmally. I have every reason to dislike the place. I do like Bill O’Reilly’s show, watch it regularly and I think he does an excellent job of focusing on threats to our national security. So I bear Bill no personal animus or hostility.

But O’Reilly is clearly wrong in claiming he “covered a war” and saw “combat” in Argentina over thirty years ago.

If O’Reilly had come to me for advice on how to handle Mother Jones, I would have proffered an aphorism from my late Uncle Bill Vasiliou, who schooled me on how to deal with such nonsense. But O’Reilly, pugilist that he is, has now waded into a battle with CBS News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and only incidentally Mother Jones.

One more disclaimer: Bill O’Reilly’s misconduct is not even remotely related to or on a par with Brian Williams’ misconduct at NBC News.

When attacked, O’Reilly doubled down on his ridiculous claim that he was in combat, and is now dealing with a conflagration of his own making. O’Reilly is trying to bluster his way over the voices of his critics but he is doomed to failure. The match is no longer between Fox News and Mother Jones. CBS, the Times and Post level the playing field in this street fight.

First, in a generic sense O’Reilly was sent to Argentina to “cover a war.” The only problem was that you could not get to the war one from Argentina. Urban demonstrations such as O’Reilly claims to have covered are neither “combat” nor “war” as revived research concerning the aftermath of Argentina’s defeat is now confirming (see below).

O’Reilly’s ridiculous claim that he obtained the “greatest war film ever” is insulting to anyone’s intelligence who has any knowledge of real combat coverage and footage. I was in Viet-Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq and other war zones. And I was actually out in the field in actual combat zones (pictures at AndyMartin.com). But I would never have considered a street demonstration in DaNang or Saigon a “combat” situation (at least not until the Tet Offensive or the final days when Saigon collapsed and fell to the North).

Is what O’Reilly is guilty of the same level of lying as Brian Williams? Absolutely not. Brian Williams lied to his audience this month. O’Reilly has inflated something which took place decades ago at CBS, long before he was hired by Fox News. So O’Reilly’s claim that the attack on him is a tit-for-tat for Williams is, if true, complete nonsense. O’Reilly was and is clear on that front.

But, as often happens, O’Reilly’s latest exaggerations and misrepresentations in defending himself against Mother Jones may have reopened the statute of limitations over a dispute concerning what happened 33 years ago. On that basis he may suffer some ignominy similar to Williams’. If O’Reilly had kept his mouth shut, that would have been the end of the flare up. By reclaiming and reviving his goofy exaggerations and self-inflated views of combat and war in Argentina over thirty years ago, O’Reilly may now be doing unnecessary, but now unavoidable, damage to his brand.

Next time, Bill, call me before you want to inflate your resume. My own Uncle Bill has the answer.

LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/bill-oreillys-implosion-at-cbs-following-his-falklands-war-combat-reporting/?hpid=z5

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/02/23/former-new-york-times-correspondent-cited-favorably-by-bill-oreilly-rips-bill-oreilly/?hpid=z3

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/23/business/media/bill-oreilly-fox-news-host-fights-back-at-claims-of-exaggerated-stories.html

New citations after emailing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/business/media/bill-oreilly-and-fox-news-redouble-defense-of-his-falklands-reporting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

WHAT OTHERS SAY:

“Andy Martin is revolutionizing journalism… [Andy] brings to online journalism what Rush Limbaugh [brings] to radio or Michael Moore to film: sleek little stories that fit into larger political narratives…”

“The only American journalists that are “standing UP” [to Obama] are, Andy Martin…”

ABOUT ANDY:

Andy is a legendary New Hampshire, New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester 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 has forty-five years of background in radio and television. He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and he produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” www.ContrarianCommentary.com. He comments on New Hampshire, national and international events with more than four decades of investigative and analytical experience both in the USA and around the world. For more, go to: www.AndyMartin.com

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over forty-five years and he is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.EnglishforAmerica.org

He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES:

www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin

Andy’s columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com

[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs.]

----------

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2015 – All Rights Reserved

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Andy Martin explains what Barack Obama is hiding in Obama’s college/law school records

Conservative blogger and Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin continues to lead the anti-Obama “underground.” Andy was the first researcher/columnist to apply independent scholarly principles to investigating Barack Obama’s opaque personal history. In this column Andy explains what Obama is hiding in his college and law school records. Future installments will address hidden Hawai’ian records as well as an analysis of the impact of Harry Reid’s attacks on Mitt Romney on the presidential campaign.

NEWS FROM:

ContrarianCommentary.com

“The Internet Powerhouse”

Andy Martin

Executive Editor

America’s most respected independent

investigative columnist and commentator



“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”



www.AndyMartin.com

www.FirstRespondersOnline.us



E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com

National mail: P. O. Box 1851

New York, NY 10150-1851

Tel. (866) 706-2639

Tel. Cell (917) 664-9329



Blogs (partial):

ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com

ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com

Andymartinusa.posterous.com



To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to AndyMart20@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:



Conservative blogger and Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin says “Barack Obama has a lot to hide” in his college and law school records



Andy says that if you apply Senator Harry Reid’s “rules” and tactics to Obama’s missing records, you get a startling result from the available evidence.



What was/is Obama’s relationship to Khalid Al-Mansour and Al-Mansour’s Saudi Arabia cash pipeline?



Did Frank Marshall Davis finance part of Barack Obama’s college education?



(MANCHESTER, NH) (August 8, 2012) Conservative blogger and Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin was the first independent analyst and investigator to apply scholarly research principles to investigating and analyzing Barack Obama’s “hidden” personal history. Andy suggests Washington Post editor David Maraniss’ recent book on Obama’s early life missed the true significance of Obama’s “college” and “law school” years. Here is Andy’s take on the “why” and “what” Obama is hiding from the American people:



Eight years ago I began researching the life of Barack Obama. While I was not writing a formal biography I knew Obama from Illinois politics. I also knew the “Obama” being presented to the nation was not the same “Obama” I knew in the Illinois senate.



By 2007 I had explored Obama’s birth citizenship (as a result of my research Obama admitted he was born a dual national with American and United Kingdom citizenship) and his educational background.



Monitoring cable programs and national news on August 7th I thought I was back in 2008. The “Birther” controversy is back with full force, this time focused on Obama’s college and law school records. I am not surprised at this renewed interest in Obama’s personal history. In 2008 the liberal media simply refused to vet Obama the way they vet every other candidate for national office. 2012 is a throwback to the job not done in 2008.



After I introduced a small sliver of Obama’s personal history to a national audience on October 5, 2008 on Fox News (link below) Obama’s henchmen targeted me for extermination by the liberal media. What had I exposed that was so damaging, and so incendiary in the eyes of Obama’s thugs? I stated that Obama had been admitted to Harvard Law School through the intervention of a vicious anti-Semite, anti-White front man for the Saudi monarchy (link below). Percy Sutton had inadvertently blown Obama’s cover and I drew attention to Sutton’s video (link below).



Does Obama have reason to hide his educational history? I believe he does. But I also want to provide some impartial and unemotional analysis of the “Obama files.” Obama does not fear extremists who exaggerate about his family and education. Rather, Obama is afraid of people who search for the truth about his personal history. That’s why I have been targeted.



On Tuesday night (August 7th) there were all kinds of wild stories circulating (more on the impact of this outburst in a later column) by a man who claimed to be “classmate” of Obama and others. Surprisingly, both MSNBC and Fox News jumped on the “education” story, from conflicting points of view. So what’s the story?



I believe we should look at each of the educational institutions Obama attended for clues to what he wants to conceal.



OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE: When Barack Obama (“Barry Obama” – see link below) left Hawai’i to become an Occidental College freshman he went to an elite and expensive private college. The obvious question: who paid for Obama’s two years attending Occidental? We do not know. Because Obama claims to have been an average student at Punahou School in Honolulu (another explosive forthcoming column) Obama’s claim that he received “scholarships” to Occidental sounds suspicious and has never been documented.



Obama’s family was not wealthy. His grandmother worked at a bank, but banks traditionally pay low salaries. It is doubtful his grandparents had the resources to pay for a private college and the travel expenses associated with going to school on the mainland. (Interestingly, Obama avoided attending the University of Hawai’i where his mother had begun her college education.)



Who paid? How was he accepted? What is he hiding?



I think the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that Obama was admitted to Occidental College as some sort of foreign student, based on his claims about his Kenyan father, and that he was accepted despite his mediocre grades. One of the most enduring bogus emails on the Internet has been one announcing that Obama’s Occidental College records have been released. That is simply not true.



You can actually turn one of Obama’s supporters’ arguments around to understand how Obama acted. In defending his Hawai’ian birth (which I accept) supporters say: his family didn’t have a plan “x” number of years ago when he was born for him to become a public figure and run for president. True enough. But it is equally likely that when he applied to college he was looking for a hook into the mainland, and that he was willing to stretch the truth to get accepted at an expensive private college. He had no plan-to-be-president when he filled out his college applications. That’s why he lied to gain admission.



So who paid for Occidental? In my opinion, Frank Marshall Davis paid if anyone did. Whether Davis is Obama’s biological father (as I believe) or merely an ageing old racist who had money as a result of an advantageous marriage in Chicago, only Davis had the resources and the motivation to promote Obama to the mainland. To use Harry Reid’s trope, until and unless Obama proves otherwise I believe Obama’s educational expenses were paid for by Davis, and that Obama held himself out as some sort of foreign or “international” student to gain acceptance. He might have also received a small scholarship or stipend as a result of his “international” status, the same way his Kenyan “father” had years before at the University of Hawai’i. The disclosure of these Reid-inspired “facts” would be highly embarrassing to Obama.



It was at Occidental that Obama morphed from the Hawai’ian kid into the sophisticated leftist agitator he is today. What happened? Obama changed his name from “Barry” to “Barack” to promote his “Africanness.” Frank Marshall Davis knew a large number of influential people in the civil rights and Black community in Chicago. I believe it was while Obama was at Occidental that he became connected to Khalid Al-Mansour and began to tap Al-Mansour’s Saudi Arabian moneybags.



What I don't know is whether the Al-Mansour connection developed as a result of contacts originated by Davis, or whether Obama independently found his way to Al-Mansour’s doorstep in the vicinity of Occidental College.



Al-Mansour did not surface while Obama was at Occidental, as far as we know. But we continue to know very little about the financial aspects of Obama’s college years. I’m still searching.



COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: After two years at Occidental, Obama transferred to Columbia University in New York. Although Wayne Allyn Root has now surfaced as a “classmate” of Obama’s, Root has not previously disclosed any of his “new” information about Obama-at-Columbia. (I would apply a screen of skepticism to Root’s claims.)



Root’s argument that Obama may have been admitted to Columbia as a “foreign” student, however, is plausible and is also consistent with my theory as to how Obama was admitted to Occidental. Root does not discuss Obama’s finances (Root claims not to have been aware of Obama’s presence at Columbia). But, once again, the question is raised: who paid for Columbia?



And once again I believe the explanation for Obama’s source of Columbia University financing is Frank Marshall Davis and Khalid Al-Mansour. I also invoke Harry Reid: until Obama produces credible evidence of how he paid for his Columbia education, I am entitled to believe Davis and Al-Mansour were the paymasters.



HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Obama worked in Chicago under the tutelage of Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn before he resumed his education at Harvard Law School. And once again we have the same questions: how did he get in, and who paid?



Luckily this time we have Percy Sutton's inadvertent admission that Obama was being funded and supported by Khalid Al-Mansour (see links below). Sutton had no reason to lie. His voice is as crisp as his statements are clear.



Al-Mansour was promoting Obama for Harvard Law School. Al-Mansour was providing cash as well as soliciting letters of recommendation for admission. Sutton’s remarks finally lift the veil of secrecy over who was financing Obama, and why.



Obama probably could not get away with claiming to be a “foreign student” at Harvard, which is why Percy Sutton’s recommendation and the cash provided by Al-Mansour made up for Obama’s earlier mediocre academic record at Columbia.



CONCLUSIONS: Obama has good reason to hide his college records. During his college years he changed his name (from Barry to Barack) and at some point he was financed by either Frank Marshall Davis (an anti-white racist) or Khalid Al-Mansour (an anti-Semitic, anti-white racist as well as a front for Saudi oil money). When you apply Obama’s now famous trope that “you didn’t build it yourself,” (a business) or “didn’t do it yourself," Obama is 100% correct in his case. He didn’t do any of the hard work himself. He had financial assistance from racists and anti-Semites and possibly even—indirectly—Saudi oil cash.



Harry Reid is an attorney and he knew when he made his accusations against Mitt Romney that circumstantial evidence and the “adverse inference rule” are tactics used by experienced trial lawyers. Likewise, I feel it is entirely fair to use “Harry's Rules” to interpret and analyze the limited circumstantial evidence, and to draw an adverse inference from Obama’s secrecy concerning his college records. To paraphrase Reid’s words, “If there is nothing to hide, why won’t you disclose? The burden is on you (Obama) to prove the available evidence is wrong and to ‘open your books.’”



WHY DAVID MARANISS MISSED THE FOREST FOR THE TREES: Washington Post editor David Maraniss wrote an honest book about Obama, but an incomplete one. Maraniss did not ask the hard questions, and he was preoccupied with interesting but ultimately irrelevant details (the girlfriend, the “choom gang”). I don’t think Maraniss is an evil man, but he was totally unprepared to dig into the hidden past of a character as complex and secretive as Obama.



THE FOOTNOTE THAT SHOULD SEND SHIVERS DOWN YOUR SPINE: Percy Sutton is dead (old age). Frank Davis is dead (also old age). But Khalid Al-Mansour is still alive. Only Al-Mansour knows the truth about his relationship to Obama’s progression from Hawai’ian high schooler to Harvard Law School graduate. And Al-Mansour has refused to speak. Interestingly, you don’t see mainstream media beating a path to Al-Mansour's door seeking his comments or evidence. Media scrupulously avoid seeking to investigate and interrogate Al-Mansour. There is an obvious media fear of digging too deep or trying too hard to unravel the mysteries of Barack Hussein Obama. I have not been afraid.



--------------------------



MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329

E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com



--------------------------

Please Donate:

You can help support our independent Internet journalism by going to:

http://www.committeeofonemilliontodefeatbarackobama.com/

and making a contribution by mail or on line.



--------------------------

LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgjQhnDEGSk



http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/04/19/

article/downtown_baker_knew_obama_way_back_when



http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/

blog/2012/08/07/obamas-college-classmate-

the-obama-scandal-is-at-columbia/



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIVO8MZYXo8



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynbkSo3j6Eg



--------------------------

WHAT OTHERS SAY:



“Andy Martin is revolutionizing journalism… [Andy] brings to online journalism what Rush Limbaugh [brings] to radio or Michael Moore to film: sleek little stories that fit into larger political narratives…”



“The only American journalists that are “standing UP” [to Obama] are, Andy Martin…”



ABOUT ANDY:



Andy is a legendary New Hampshire, New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy’s family immigrated to New Hampshire 100 years ago. Chicago Public Radio calls Andy a “boisterous Internet activist.” The Chicago Tribune calls him “Chicago’s own…political activist.” He has forty-four years of background in radio and television. He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and he produced the Internet film "Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” www.ContrarianCommentary.com. He comments on regional, national and international events with more than four decades of investigative and analytical experience both in the USA and around the world.



Andy has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois and American politics and courts for over forty-five years. [www.AndyMartin.com] He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.EnglishforAmerica.org



He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).



UPDATES:

www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA

www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin



Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com

andymartinusa.posterous.com



[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs.]

--------------------------

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2012 – All Rights Reserved

--------------------------

Andy Martin explains why Barack Obama’s prior drug abuse still matters

Internet Powerhouse and Conservative blogger Andy Martin, the man who single-handedly created the anti-Obama “Birther” movement, who then distanced himself from part of his creation, and who still controls the Internet’s anti-Obama agenda with Andy’s Hawai’i and Chicago-based research into Obama’s past, explains why Obama’s prior drug abuse is still relevant in the 2012 election cycle.

ContrarianCommentary.com


“The Internet Powerhouse”



Blogs (partial):

ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com

ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com

Andymartinusa.posterous.com



Andy Martin, J.D.

Adjunct Professor of Law (ret.)

Executive Editor

America’s most respected independent

investigator and commentator



“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”



To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to AndyMart20@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:



Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin says Barack Obama’s history of drug abuse is “defining deviancy down” in the White House



Andy says the national media have a double standard, allowing drug abuse by Democrats and looking to expose Republicans for similar behavior



Andy asks why Obama’s “Choom Gang” story is being marginalized; the “Choom Gang” report deserves greater public attention, not cursory reporting on a holiday weekend



Andy says liberal media “dumped” Obama’s drug abuse story on the American people on a weekend when no one is really watching



Andy suggests the Washington Post has confirmed that “high school matters”



(NEW YORK)(May 29, 2012) Internet Powerhouse and Conservative blogger Andy Martin, the man who single-handedly created the anti-Obama “Birther” movement, who then distanced himself from the more extreme elements of his creation, and who still controls the Internet’s anti-Obama agenda with Andy’s Hawai’i and Chicago-based research into Obama’s past, explains why Andy believes President Barack Obama’s drug abuse is relevant today:



When did the story of Barack Obama’s drug addiction reach the media? On Memorial Day weekend when most of us are focused on remembering our fallen heroes and celebrating with our families. Obama’s “Choom Gang” document dump was timed to reach Americans when they are least focused on politics and the media. Well, I do not believe we should overlook Obama’s history of drug abuse. We should not allow the media to manipulate us into reelecting a man with a history of drug abuse in his teen and college years. The American people have a right to ask Barack Obama the tough questions that were not asked in 2008.



Does “high school matter?” The Washington Post suggests that high school is very important. The Post created a front page media feeding frenzy over an incident involving Governor Mitt Romney’s high school years. Certainly the Post believes long-ago experiences in high school can still be front-page news when a Republican runs for president.



So where does that leave us with Barack Obama’s high school drug abuse and college drug abuse? Media silence. Consider:



First, since Obama was no doubt abusing drugs into his 20’s, Obama’s drug abuse is a lot closer to the present time than Mitt Romney’s high school hijinks. Obama was a drug user well into adulthood.



Second, while I disagree with Governor Sarah Palin on many issues, I completely agree with her that Obama was never properly vetted by the media in 2008. So while “Obama” is running for “reelection” in 2012, he is still an unknown to most Americans. I wrote a book about “Obama: the Man Behind The Mask,” and laid the foundation for future Obama writing and research. But my book was not read by tens of millions of Americans. Obama is still “the man behind the [media] mask” in 2012.



Third, the way Obama has been treated by the media is a classic example of “defining deviancy down.” The late Senator Daniel Moynihan coined the term “defining deviancy down” (link below) to explain how society can undermine its own standards and security when it tolerates seemingly innocuous anti-social behavior. Moynihan showed how tolerating minor acts of “deviant” behavior can lead to major social problems as tolerance for deviant behavior increases and spreads to more serious societal matters.



Fourth, other columnists have commented on the fact that this is the first time in a long time we have two presidential candidates with no military experience. In other words, we are electing a “commander-in-chief” who has never commanded and never been a chief in any military unit. While battlefield experience should never be a sine qua non for presidential leadership, some exposure to the concept of military policy is always helpful when the person we choose must “lead” our fighting forces and make military policy.



Since we can no longer look at their military leadership as exemplars of their character, looking at other factors becomes essential when we evaluate the leadership qualities of presidential candidates.



Fifth, we learned during the Clinton years, when President Bill Clinton had an insatiable sexual appetite and an inability to control his impulses right into the Oval Office, that a generation of children (now young graduates in their 20’s) were exposed to the complexities of adult sexuality while still in grade school. Clinton defined deviancy down in a way that reached into every home. Clinton also came up with the notorious expression “I didn’t inhale” to explain away his own marijuana experimentation.



Sixth, while drug experimentation and marijuana use are widespread, the vast majority of the American public has never engaged in the type of serious drug abuse Obama admitted to in his teens (and likely well into his 20’s). Obama says he was virtually addicted to marijuana and bought all of the cocaine he could afford. How many Americans today fit Obama’s drug abuse profile? Not many.



So when you tie all of these threads together, what do they mean?



We are “defining deviancy down” in the White House when we elect or reelect a person who has history of drug abuse. The issue is as simple as that.



Ask any school administrator, local police force or our national anti-drug leaders, “Is drug abuse a problem?” The answer is “yes.” So why would we elect someone to the presidency whose very presence in the White House undermines the anti-drug message?



Recently in South Carolina (see links below) both a Republican and a Democrat were knocked out of a congressional race by sex scandals. In South Carolina, at least, people know where the line is drawn. Sex scandals and public hypocrisy are unacceptable.



But there does not appear to be a similar “bright line” for the presidency. Yet. Maybe I can help draw one.



Let me put the question to you another way. Do we want to have standards for moral conduct and personal behavior for those we consider electing to the presidency? Or does “anything go?” Are we willing to overlook and forgive and forego any examination of serious drug abuse in the candidates we consider for the presidency just because the abuse took place in a candidate’s high school years or early 20’s? The Washington Post has already told us “high school counts” when evaluating conservative candidates. How about liberals? Do their high school and college experiences also matter in considering their qualifications?



My purpose in writing these remarks is not to preach. It is to raise the question of whether because of Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades and Barack Obama’s drug abuse we have begun a slow but seriously destructive public policy of overlooking a candidate’s personal behavior.



How can a president or first lady proclaim a national policy of “fighting drug abuse” when we elect a man to serve as president who has a history of drug abuse? Is our policy “forgive and forget?” Or should there be consequences for earlier drug abuse?



During the 2000 presidential campaign I was criticized by Republicans for raising the question of then-Governor George W. Bush’s drug abuse and alcoholism. Like Obama, Bush was a drug and alcohol abuser well into his 20’s. Jeb Bush, the governor’s brother, attacked me and corrupted his gubernatorial power to harass me. Ari Fleischer, now a CNN “contributor,” also attacked me. But drug abuse was as relevant to Bush as it is to Obama. In speaking to what should be a “national” policy I do not recognize a double standard for Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. I have questioned whether candidates of both parties should be held to account. I am consistent. The liberal media have not been.



The American people need to demand, as I have been demanding since 2004 (see links below), that Barack (Obama stop lying to us and “come clean.” The American people have a right to demand that the media either “do their job” or step aside so that new media and independent media can examine Obama’s drug abuse and provide facts for an intelligent discussion on Obama’s fitness to serve as president.



As I said in 2008, and repeat today in 2012, Barack Obama is still very much “The Man Behind the Mask.” By refusing to examine Obama’s personal past the American people have been “defining deviancy down” without even realizing that is what we are doing.



I warned about Obama in 2008; many did not want to listen. I’m issuing warnings about him in 2012. We’ll see if voters listen this time. Obama has hinted to us what “reelection” means to him; freedom for him to destroy our institutions and to impose his radical socialist agenda by presidential diktat. He has also comforted his Russian buddies with the knowledge that it’s “reelection time.”



Obama himself has warned us big time what he plans to do if he is reelected; it’s no longer “high school.” In this election cycle Obama is “for real.”



I’m scared about Obama. Are you? Let’s have an intelligent discussion, deal with Obama’s facts, and ask voters to do likewise.

--------------------------



MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329

E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com



--------------------------

Please Donate:



You can help support our independent Internet journalism by going to:

http://www.committeeofonemilliontodefeatbarackobama.com/

and making a contribution by mail or on line.



-------------------------

LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):



http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm



http://www.thestate.com/2012/05/25/2288711/

columbia-cops-arrest-state-representative.html



http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/24/sc-

congressional-candidate-arrested-for-

drunk-driving-with-co-ed-in-the-car/



http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/

columnist-says-barack-obama-lied-to-the-

american-people-asks-publisher-to-

withdraw-obamas-book-71586122.html



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/

book-details-obamas-pot-smoking-youth/?hp



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/

election-2012/post/the-choom-gang-president-

obamas-pot-smoking-high-school-days-

detailed-in-maraniss-book/2012/05/25/

gJQAwFqEqU_blog.html?hpid=z3



--------------------------

WHAT OTHERS SAY:



“Andy Martin is revolutionizing journalism… [Andy] brings to online journalism what Rush Limbaugh [brings] to radio or Michael Moore to film: sleek little stories that fit into larger political narratives…”



“The only American journalists that are “standing UP” [to Obama] are, Andy Martin…”



ABOUT ANDY:



Andy is a legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Chicago Public Radio calls Andy a “boisterous Internet activist.” The Chicago Tribune calls him “Chicago’s own…political activist.” He has forty-four years of background in radio and television. He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and he produced the Internet film "Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” www.ContrarianCommentary.com. He comments on regional, national and international events with more than four decades of investigative and analytical experience both in the USA and around the world.



Andy has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois and American politics and courts for over forty-five years. [www.AndyMartin.com] He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.EnglishforAmerica.org



He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).



UPDATES:

www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA

www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin



Andy's columns are also posted at

ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com

ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com

Andymartinusa.posterous.com



[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs.]

--------------------------

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2012 – All Rights Reserved

--------------------------

ANDY MARTIN: In defense of Governor Haley Barbour

Conservative columnist Andy Martin strikes back at liberal lies about the civil rights era and brands the Washington Post’s Gene Robinson a resident “Racist-in-Chief.” Martin says efforts by the mainstream media to demonize Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour are part of a relentless attack on Republicans and Conservatives. Andy says “Gene Robinson’s ‘Big Lie’ shall not pass.” Liberals are not going to be allowed to rewrite the history of the civil rights revolution and the Republican Party’s leading role in that great moral crusade.


Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin says the liberal media are lying about the civil rights era

Martin says racist journalists at the Washington Post are trying to rewrite history and demonize Governor Haley Barbour

ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Andy Martin says “reporting” by Washington Post writers is nothing less than the “Big Lie” and a blatant attempt to rewrite history

Martin accuses the Washington Post’s Gene Robinson of becoming become the newspaper’s resident “Racist-in-Chief”

Andy says Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is the victim of a liberal smear campaign

(NEW YORK)(December 2, 2010) It’s “holiday" time for some (for me Christmas). While most people have good cheer in their hearts, the relentless disinformation and racist smears of the mainstream media are going full blast to demonize Governor Haley Barbour and Republicans in general. As someone with actual knowledge and experience of the civil rights era, the media and the Republican Party, I rise unhesitatingly to stand up to and condemn the Washington Post’s resident Racist-in-Chief, Gene Robinson, and to condemn efforts to demonize Barbour. I have no links of any sort to Governor Haley Barbour.

The origins of the latest controversy are an article in the Weekly Standard in which Barbour discusses in passing the civil rights era from his perspective. (link below) The gist of Barbour’s view is that as the civil rights era unfolded, different communities reacted differently. Out of this tiny acorn the Washington Post has created a mighty oak of lies, more lies and damn lies. The Post’s Gene Robinson is the prime orchestrator of this despicable behavior.

The Post began by reporting Barbour’s comments as though the governor was a racist. (links blow). Then the Washington Post’s latest “conservative writer” Jennifer Rubin buried Barbour’s presidential campaign before it was even announced (link below). The Washington Post always keeps a liberal-Democrat-as-“conservative” on its staff. Rubin is the Post’s latest liberal “conservative.” Rubin’s “conservative” predecessor, Dave Weigel, was fired by the Post when he was outed as a liberal: Weigel promptly became a flack on Keith Olbermann’s nightly left-wing tirade. Some “conservative.” [Full disclosure: Weigel has also written lies about me.]

Younger Post writers trying to make sense of the attacks on Barbour looked back to Gene Robinson’s despicable earlier attack on Barbour that had slipped by unnoticed during the heat of the recent campaign (link below).

Robison’s Big Lie: that Republicans in the South were racists during the civil rights civil war, and that Barbour’s claim that Republicans led the civil rights era is nonsense. Gene Robinson is a bald-faced liar.

Robinson’s distortion and disinformation of Barbour’s views: “He [Barbour] has the gall to try to portray Southern Republicans as having been enlightened supporters of the civil rights movement all along.” (link below)

Here are the facts:

1. Slaves were emancipated by a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. In gratitude, from the end of the Civil War well into the 20th Century most African-Americans were Republicans, not Democrats. Jim Crow racism was a creation of Democrats, not Republicans.

2. During the years when the “solid South” was a bulwark of the Democratic Party, the most vicious racists were all Democrats.

3. The only federal civil rights advocates were Republican judges. Due to segregation, the actual Republican Party in the racist south was skeletal. But the handful of southern Republicans had one powerful trump card: they controlled federal patronage during periods of Republican presidents. When Dwight Eisenhower took office as a Republican president in 1953 he began to appoint “Republican judges” to the Court of Appeals in New Orleans and the federal district courts in the south. Republican appointees to the Court of Appeals Elbert Tuttle, John Minor Wisdom and John R. Brown were the men who captained the assault on Jim Crow and segregation.

4. The most illustrious federal judge of the civil rights era was probably Frank M. Johnson, a Republican who was appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955. Johnson was at the center of the desegregation wars, constantly battling Alabama Governor George Wallace.

5. In 1960 Presidential candidate John F. Kenney weakened the lingering support of African-Americans for the Republican Party by reaching out to civil rights advocates such as Reverend Martin Luther King.

6. But once elected, Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy renewed the Democratic Party’s practice of appointing racist judges to the federal courts in the South.

7. More Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965.

8. In the 1964 presidential election the South switched from Democrat to Republican. Southern voters backed conservative Republican Barry Goldwater. But Goldwater was no racist. Goldwater was as decent a man as ever served in the senate. Goldwater had a conservative vision that saw an excessively limited role for the federal government; his vision, when followed to its logical conclusion, was wrong on the issue of civil rights. If anyone believed in 1964 they were voting for a racist in backing Goldwater, they were mistaken.

9. In 1968 President Richard Nixon crafted the “Southern Strategy” to appeal to conservative white voters. The wisdom of that approach is open to debate. But by 1968 the climate had also shifted in the North. Bitter civil rights disputes had broken out in Chicago, where Mayor Richard Daley clubbed and arrested civil rights advocates (I was there). Angry Whites had already stoned Reverend Martin Luther King in Chicago in 1967.

10. Boston, home of the Kennedy dynasty, was also the scene of vicious civil rights resistance.

11. To say that Republicans had a monopoly on the growing resistance the civil rights agenda is demonstrably false. History, not even morally correct history such as the civil rights revolution, does not always move in a straight line.

The bottom line:

1. Segregation in the south was entirely a construction of the Democratic Party.

2. For decades almost all of the southerners fighting to maintain Jim Crow and segregation were Democrats. Most leading advocates of civil rights reform were Republicans.

3. Without Republican federal judges the civil rights revolution would have been stymied.

I know. I was there and saw it unfold before my eyes.

One closing observation about media lies and modern media mythology:

Today we are flooded with media contacts and images. We have cable TV bobbleheads, news, opinion, blogs, the Internet. We even have “dead tree media” (national newspapers). There is a daily avalanche of information. That was not the world in which Haley Barbour and I grew up.

The evening news was still 15 minutes going into the 60’s. “National” newspapers did not exist. Actual information and “news” was scarce. Almost all of our daily news came from local papers and the odd radio news report; they in turn were dominated by clipped wire service journalism.

Looking back half a century from today’s perspective, we instinctively and unconsciously compress years of civil rights activity into a few dramatic moments and a linear narrative. But that was not the way the civil rights revolution actually unfolded and took place day-by-day in the earlier media age.

There was scant “news” coverage, except for reporting on the occasional dramatic demonstration (Bull Conner in Birmingham or Governor George Wallace barring the door) and most people in Illinois, as well as those in Yazoo City, Mississippi, were only peripherally aware of the civil rights maelstrom taking place beyond the horizon.

Gene Robinson wants to rewrite history to paint Republicans as racists. That is a Big Lie. Robinson has sadly become the Washington Post’s resident “Racist-in-Chief.” For shame, Mr. Robinson.

P. S. Resident liberal “conservative” Jennifer Rubin has the Barbour-as-a-racist brouhaha backwards. The fact that the Barbour controversy is being ventilated now, before the governor even announces, means the issue of media lies is out in the open to be confronted and deconstructed.

WATCH FOR A DRAMATIC ANNOUNCEMENT BY ANDY MARTIN DECEMBER 29TH.

--------------------------------
LINKS TO THIS COLUMN:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/
boy-yazoo-city_523551.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/
44/2010/12/the-fix-called-attention-this.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/
barbour-seeks-to-clarify-comments-on-civil-rights-era/?scp=3&sq=Barbour&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/us/
politics/21barbour.html?scp=2&sq=Barbour&st=cse

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/does_haley_barbour_have_a_
bubb.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2010/12/beware_of_conservative_
magazin.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2010/09/06/AR2010090602959.html

----------------------------------
ABOUT ANDY: Chicago Public Radio calls Andy Martin a “boisterous Internet activist.” Andy is the legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He promotes his best-selling book, “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” and his Internet movie "Obama: The Hawai'i years." Martin has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois for over forty years. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com
Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” http://www.contrariancommentary.com/. He comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of investigative and analytical experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSAwww.Facebook.com/AndyMartin Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com.
ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in this story on our blogs; find our latest edition there.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2010