Andy Martin: Contrarian Commentary

My Photo
Name:
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

American analyst Andy Martin says that French President Emmanuel Macron is beckoned by history to veto British membership in the European Union.


Will Macron take the bold step of putting an end to the pathetic display of governmental incompetence in London, or will Marcon stay “petty” and forfeit the mantle of undisputed European leader? An exhaustive analysis by Contrarian Commentary comes to only one conclusion: France must veto British membership in the European Union.

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 email Andy:
AndyMart20@aol.com

Blogs/web sites  (partial):
ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Attention: Washington. London and Paris international editors

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

Please feel free to forward and/or post this email

Please sign up for our Twitter feed with enhanced, original coverage

Republican conservative analyst and activist Andy Martin says the only EU course of action is for France to veto continuing British membership in the European Union

Martin says Britain today is a dagger pointed at the heart of the EU; only a hard and immediate Brexit can provide any prospect of “peace” for both Britain and EU members

Will President Emmanuel Macron have the courage to take decisive action and vote “non?”

(London-in-New York) (April 10, 2019)

This column started out to be an analysis of “Brexit” (terminating British membership in the EU). As I dug deeper and deeper into the morass created by both EU leaders and the visibly deranged British leader Theresa May, it became unavoidable that the perspective of France was being totally ignored.

But French interests stand at a historic crossroads. France is the most interesting “player” in the Brexit odyssey.

We at Contrarian Commentary have been studying the EU for over 20 years; our research goes deep into what was once called the “Eurosceptic” movement and now is known as the Brexit movement. We have seen Brexit move from being a fringe element of a handful of parliamentarians in the 1990’s to a majority position of ordinary UK citizens in 2019.

Because we do not write from a pro-British or pro-EU bias, and are only concerned with US interests in the ongoing travesty, we shifted our point of view to studying the French position – and French opportunity.

Today France stands at its most powerful and prominent position in 100 years. How France votes on UK membership will determine whether France assumes the primary leadership role in Europe or continues to play second fiddle to Germany.

Few media ever analyze the governing structures of the three leading EU nations. But there are significant differences between them. Germany has a strong governing structure, but a weak government because of the mistaken addition of one million undocumented refugees into German society. Angela Merkel, the most powerful leader in Europe, is a lame duck and most probably a dead duck. There is a vacuum of power in Germany and Merkel’s successor will not automatically assume Merkel’s role as EU ruler. Germany has internal challenges from the growing power of the far-right.

Britain’s governing structure is an anachronism that is collapsing on itself. Theresa May bungled her unnecessary national election and she manifests obvious mental concerns. She has actually faced voters herself in 1/650 of her nation, a single parliamentary constituency. She accidently fell into the Prime Minister’s role because Britain’s ancient parliament is too weak as an institution to function effectively in the modern era. (Most of the “laws” enacted in modern Britain are mandated by the EU; parliament has become a sovereign eunuch.)

The role of “head of state” in Britain, which confers democratic legitimacy on a political leader, is instead exercised by an honorable woman in her 90’s who by law has no democratic legitimacy. In effect the UK has no “head of state” who can run the government. This is why May has been unable to impose order or structure on the Brexit proceedings.

France has a rock-solid governing structure. There is a strong president and a legislature that he controls. Emmanuel Macron has national democratic legitimacy. Despite the anti-government demonstrations in Paris and elsewhere, the French government of 2019 is not the French government of 1958.

Because of his strong government, Macron has an opportunity that has eluded France for a century: to become the leader of Europe.

The Brexit chaos may have exposed Theresa May as a hapless and totally unqualified leader. But the Brexit situation has also exposed the EU’s weaknesses. Instead of treating a neighbor cordially, thuggish EU leaders have sought to exploit May’s incompetence by bludgeoning her into accepting an absurd “deal” that enjoys minimal support in London.

May herself voted against Brexit in the referendum! May’s government is controlled by anti-Brexit politicians. And yet liberal media in London and the US constantly flay Brexiteers as “extremists” when the real extremists are May and her cabal who have worked relentlessly to sabotage the 2016 vote of the British people (see link below).

UK citizens are inundated by a daily dose of propaganda from Brussels as to the dire consequences that will befall the country if it leaves the EU. These scare stories are nonsense. The US stands ready to support the UK. The financial capital of Europe, the “City” in London, has already hedged substantially all of its exposure. Britain is the only genuinely free market in “Europe.” Will German auto manufacturers stop selling in the UK, Germany’s biggest market, because of Brexit? Of course not. Will the French refuse to sell their cheese, the Dutch their flowers? Of course not. Trade is trade.

When Britain voted to leave the EU, it should have been given a cordial departure. Instead, the petty minds in Brussels, whose bureaucracy had strangled Britain in the first place and precipitated Brexit, decided to exploit May’s weaknesses and the structural deficiencies in Britain’s government structure. They were seeking to “make an example” of the UK. The EU’s dirty tactics have backfired, and could backfire even worse if a new extension for Brexit is agreed this week.

If Britain stays in the EU, it will be forced to conduct elections next month for the European Parliament. Almost all of the new Members of the Parliament (MEP’s) from the UK will be sworn enemies of the EU, working from the inside to disable and dismantle the EU.

Make no mistake: sooner or later Britain is leaving the EU. The EU can delay a departure but it cannot prevent Britain leaving. The EU’s own ham-handed tactics ensure that the separation will be increasingly bitter.

The conceit that the British people will agree to become non-voting vassals in the EU (which is the EU and May approach) is nonsense. What nation in history has ever agreed to be governed by rules and a rule of law in which that nation has no voice or vote? But that is what pathetic the “Maybot” “negotiated,” and that is what EU thugs are demanding.

The proposals to deprive the British people of their voice and to erase their 2016 vote for freedom, is liberal intelligentsia nonsense. That is why May has no legitimacy in parliament.

So how can both the UK and EU be saved? If Macon denies a new extension to the UK, and Britain leaves the EU under WTO (World Trade Organization) rules this weekend, everyone would end up a winner.

First, if Macron votes to deny Britain membership in the EU, he will establish himself as the premier and most powerful leader in Europe. Germany won’t always be confused and destabilized by its own internal challenges. Already the fascists (Alternative for Germany) are organizing, and reviving the mantra of the 1930’s that Germany and Britain have overriding and special interests together. The more things change…

Second, if Macron forces Britain out, the Brexit disturbance will be removed and Britain can end up next week as a neighbor and trading partner of the EU under internationally accepted WTO rules and procedures.

If Macron fails to grasp this moment in history, France will remain a caboose on a train with a wounded Germany as the conductor. And Britain will be fighting the EU from the inside until a full and complete Brexit becomes a reality.

Rationally, there is no option but for the EU to remove Britain, and for the hopeless May to be removed from parliament by a rebellion of her Conservative Party.

Where might Macron look for advice? To France, of course. In the 1960’s President Charles deGaulle vetoed British membership in the precursor to the EU. deGaulle understood that British presence in an EU focused on continental needs and interests would always be a disruptive force.

Seventy-five years ago, in June, British, Canadian and American troops landed in France to liberate Europe from the evils of Nazi Germany.

Does Macron really want 70 new anti-EU MEP’s from the UK landing in France this July, and proceeding to demolish the European Parliament in Strasbourg?

Macron has only one option: to answer the call of history, to reject Britain the way his predecessor deGaulle did, and to make France the leading power in the EU.

Further delays will only destroy the EU, not Britain. In order to save France, and save the EU, Macron must veto continuing British membership in that super-national organization.

-----

Over the past half-century, Andy Martin has lived and studied in Britain. Oxford University, where he never matriculated, had a profound influence on his life. He has intensively studied the EU for more than 20 years.
-----

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/for-the-sake-of-britain-theresa-may-must-find-a-centrist-consensus/2019/04/09/3a6316c0-5ae1-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html?

New citations after emailing:

ANDY MARTIN - A BRIEF BIO:

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With over fifty (50) years of background in radio and television and with decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to: www.AndyMartin.com; also see www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over fifty years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.

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).

He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind the Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 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 New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.

UPDATES:

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

Andy’s opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.]

----------

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2019 – All Rights Reserved

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, February 11, 2019




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 email Andy:
AndyNewHampshire@aol.com

Blogs/web sites  (partial):
ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Attention: Washington national and political editors

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

Please feel free to forward and/or post this email

Please sign up for our Twitter feed with enhanced, original coverage

GOP Conservative activist Andy Martin says “Jeff Bezos is a billionaire bully”

Martin says Bezos may have pulled off a scam by accusing the National Enquirer of extortion, When the real extortionist is Bezos himself

Martin says left-wing national media are spawning conspiracy theories faster than anyone can absorb them

Andy resumes his series of national and New Hampshire-based columns about critical issues


(Manchester, NH) (February 11, 2019)

Dear American:

Almost all of you may have heard by now of the claim by Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos that he has been “extorted” or “blackmailed” by the National Enquirer and its parent organization.

In this, my first 2019 letter to the people of New Hampshire and the American people, I express my contrarian view that Bezos may himself be the real extortionist and blackmailer, not the Enquirer. Bezos may have pulled off a classic scam by fooling the liberal media into believing he is a victim when in reality he is the victimizer.

This year I celebrate fifty (50, wow) years since graduating from law school. I have a considerably greater and broader amount of litigation experience than many of the so-called “legal experts” on the cable TV networks. In fact, you will read something below that so far as I am aware has not been meaningfully discussed anywhere on cable TV. It’s an exclusive.

First, a couple of small matters. In a few days I hope to announce my political plans for 2020 in New Hampshire. I also plan to publish a critique of the New Hampshire Republican Party’s conduct over the past decade, with a prescription for progress going forward. I don’t think my writing on Bezos has any relationship to the upcoming political activity. I am a conservative Republican but that’s a well-known fact.

Turning now to Bezos, the media have discussed the broad First Amendment privilege applicable to bona fide reporting. The National Enquirer has been in business for decades. It has published massive amounts of news which literally changed the face of politics. The Enquirer, for example, was the first to report on the infidelity of Senator John Edwards and the baby he fathered with Rielle Hunter.

The Enquirer mentioned me in a news story over twenty-five years ago. My claims led to legislative reform.

Our system of free speech in unique in the world. We allow unbridled publication of sometimes embarrassing, sometimes erroneous, often scandalous but true and almost always controversial information about public officials, celebrities and their private lives.

There is even an enhanced protection for publishing information which is true. The Enquirer’s stories on Bezos were true. He apparently admits the reporting was accurate but protests that it was/is “invasive.”

The fact that Jeff Bezos was carrying on an extramarital affair was indisputably legitimate news, especially when it could affect control of Amazon.com (his wife apparently has an equal interest in “Bezos” Amazon stock).

So how did Bezos react?

He hired a team of investigators, as is his right, to investigate where the embarrassing leak came from. Early on, the brother of Bezos’ paramour was identified as a strong suspect.

Lately Bezos is floating a conspiracy theory that Saudi Arabia is responsible for exposing his misconduct.

Bottom line: the Enquirer had a right to publish, and Bezos had a right to investigate. So far, no problem.

Then it gets dicey. At some point the Enquirer’s people approached Bezos. But it is also likely that Bezos’ people approached the Enquirer. They were facing off. Again, no problem. That’s what lawyers do. They “negotiate” and try to settle disputes. Settlement is the backbone of the legal system.

But the media have failed to even mention, let alone discuss, one of the most critical doctrines in civil law: there is an almost absolute privilege afforded to settlement negotiations. Bezos’ company itself uses privileged settlement negotiations, see Eat Right Foods vs. Whole Foods, 880 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018). Settlement negotiations are covered by Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the area is complex, see Rhoades v. Avon Products, 504 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2007).

When parties engage in settlement negotiations, the normal rules are suspended. During settlement the lawyers almost always bully and threaten each other. In the Enquirer story involving me 25 years ago, I was threatened and bullied by a prominent Hollywood lawyer. (I ignored his threats.)

I have always been very conservative about advising lawyers in settlement negotiations. But some lawyers like to threaten and pound on the table. I am not aware of anyone who has ever been prosecuted for threats made in civil settlement negotiations. Have the media provided any examples? None. So, where’s the story, Jeff? It looks like Bezos, embarrassed by being an unfaithful husband, was trying to bamboozle the American people into believing he’s a “victim” when in reality he is the victimizer. Bezos’ threats backfired on him, and may backfire even more if the pictures leak out to another media platform.

None of the media have addressed the broad privilege accorded settlement negotiations and settlement offers afforded by Rule 408. Instead, they have adopted Bezos’ scam as their own because Bezos used the “magic word:” Trump. I suspect President Trump knew nothing of what was happening and only leaned about the fracas when it appeared in the newspaper.

It is clear that the Enquirer made a settlement offer. That offer, far from being a criminal act, was close to being an absolutely privileged communication.

So why is Bezos the bully and extortionist?

Bezos’ attorneys almost certainly also made counteroffers of settlement and compromise to the Enquirer. It is likely they were just as threatening and belligerent as those made by the Enquirer. But since the Enquirer is engaging in a constitutionally protected activity, news reporting, Bezos’ ability to threaten the Enquirer is much more restricted than if the Enquirer had published false stories. Bezos’ lawyers apparently didn’t like the Enquirer’s counter-settlement offer and took the controversy public.

So, who’s the real “guilty” party here? Bezos. He betrayed his wife, carrying on like a teenager with a married woman (who was also betraying her husband). He acted in a way more typical of a juvenile, taking selfies of his anatomy and sending them to his goumada. By email. And this man runs an Internet company? When he could not reach a settlement agreement with the Enquirer Bezos started acting like a wounded bull. It all sounds like “Bezos bull” to me.

Beware of the biased media that are trying to promote Bezos’ bull and seeing make this a Trump/Enquirer issue.

So-called legal analysts were quick to say “prosecutors are investigating.” When did the U. S. Attorney’s office in New York City become our national nanny to referee media disputes? The whole “prosecutors are investigating” trope is totally insincere.

Some liberal cable TV channels already have the Enquirer’s staff being hauled off to jail, and the newspaper being put out of business. Mr. Bezos has tried to pull a scam on the American people by pretending he’s the victim. In just a few days we went from Bezos’s gumshoes saying “it’s the brother” to “its’s the Saudis.” That’s “Amazon Prime” bull. Bezos is the bully, not the Enquirer. Near as I can tell, the Enquirer was only trying to make money by publishing a truthful story about Bezos. When did that become a crime?

Bezos’ bull and his bullying tactics may yet backfire on him.

-----

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


New citations after emailing:

ANDY MARTIN - A BRIEF BIO:

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With over fifty (50) years of background in radio and television and with decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to: www.AndyMartin.com; also see www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over fifty years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.

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).

He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 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 New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.

UPDATES:

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

Andy’s opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.]

----------

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2019 – All Rights Reserved

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, November 05, 2018

New Hampshire politics: Andy Martin’s endorsement in a close congressional race - Chris Pappas is my cousin; I’m voting for Eddie Edwards

New Hampshire conservative GOP leader Andy Martin explains why he is enthusiastically voting for Eddie Edwards for Congress. Andy got to know Edwards during the recent primary campaign and explains why he supports Eddie. Andy is a cousin of Democrat Chris Pappas, and grew up knowing all of the Puritan Restaurant’s founders and owners, making Andy’s endorsement of Eddie Edwards even more significant.

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:
National (347) 960-9593

You can email Andy:
AndyNewHampshire@aol.com

Blogs/web sites  (partial):
ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Attention: New Hampshire editors

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

Please feel free to forward and/or post this email

Please sign up for our Twitter feed with enhanced, original coverage

Andy Martin supports Eddie Edwards for Congress

(Manchester, NH) (November 5, 2018)

Dear New Hampshire Voter:

Tomorrow is likely to be a close election. As a candidate in the primary, I did not want to seem like a buttinski during the general election. So I kept my mouth shut. But because of the closeness of the election, I feel honor bound to provide my input. I don’t want to remain silent when every vote counts.

Chris Pappas is my cousin. I am voting for Eddie Edwards.

Let me explain why.

1. Family connections

Chris Pappas’ great grandfather, Arthur Pappas, married my grandfather’s sister’s daughter. Growing up, we “lived” at the Puritan Restaurant when we came to Manchester. My mother had worked there as a high school and college girl. The Puritan had two major founders, Arthur Pappas and Louis Canotas. Canotas baptized my mother; he was her godfather. Charlie Pappas, who created the modern Puritan Backroom, was my mother’s favorite cousin and vice versa. My memories of Charlie are still vivid.

Arthur owned a property at 1040 Elm Street, where his son Charlie lived on the first floor and Cousin Theo lived on the second. I stayed there every time we came home to Manchester. A few times I even baby sat Chris’s father. I know so much about the family because I was the first born, and thus got to see and hear things for years, alone, as I was dragged from family event to family event. (I am the only one who is fluent in Greek.)

I flew back for Charlie Pappas’ funeral, as well as that of his wife Mary. I cannot really explain and express the love and warmth that existed among our families. (I could go on with more details, but enough. You get the point.)

I bore you with these historical facts - my family has been in Manchester over 100 years - because you can now understand why it is so difficult for me to endorse Edie Edwards over Chris Pappas.

Although I have never met Chris Pappas - we bumped into each other on the campaign trial - I haven’t been close for a long time. Charlie’s kids grew up and I lived in many places around the world. But I’m certain Chris and his dad are both fine people and my support for Edwards is not a slur on the family.

2. The 2018 primary

I am in a strange place vis a vis the September primary. My work with the Right to Know law really defined the primary. My campaign efforts ended up choosing the winner; unfortunately it wasn’t me.

During primaries, candidates often get to know each other and by election time they are sufficiently friendly - if still adversarial - they can support each other after the election. That is essential in New Hampshire where there is only a small gap between the primary and general elections.

Unfortunately, the evil leadership of the New Hampshire GOP did everything it could to sabotage my campaign. They were sending me solicitations for contributions, to use my own money against me! The party leadership supported Andy Sanborn but, with my Right to Know litigation driving the news, Edwards emerged the winner.

3. Eddie Edwards: why he has my vote

I have not spoken with Eddie since the primary and he has not asked for my endorsement. But I give it freely.

I did get to know Edwards during the primary. We are not close; but I have a lifetime of experience analyzing and observing individuals and assessing their potential. Despite the efforts of the evil clown man, Wayne McDonald, to separate the congressional candidates, I gradually got to know Edwards and eventually to like him.

I have also been close to African-Americans all of my life, from my days in primary school. I was recruited to play Big Ten football in part because the coach wanted someone who would break the color bar. Whites and Blacks roomed separately; during the turmoil of the civil rights era the coach wanted someone to break that disparity. My roommate was an African-American. Today I belong to a church with somewhere around 50% African-American membership. I worked in a U. S. Senator’s office during the darkest days of racism and bigotry in Chicago. I know the handicaps African-Americans have faced, and still face every day.

My relatives came to New Hampshire over 100 years ago and achieved the American dream. Eddie Edwards came as a navy recruit and he has achieved the American dream. He did so despite handicaps that make his success all the more extraordinary.

Chris Pappas has been a career politician since graduating from Harvard. So he is glib and conversant with the Democratic Party playbook: higher taxes, more spending, open borders, blah, blah, blah. Pappas will be a Nancy Pelosi clone if he is elected. Sad but true. Just look at who is supporting him. And who is behind him.

Eddie Edwards’ biggest challenge is that he is not a politician. He sometimes says things that Democrats exploit. Edwards is not going to abolish Social Security. Since, like Eddie, I am a weight lifter, I am the only guy who could punch him out if he even tried. Both parties have “think tanks” that put out psychobabble (to justify their own existences) and almost all of their output will never see the light of day in Congress. Like dumb elephants, Republicans always walk in their own doo doo and permit Democrats to engage in Mediscare. Medicare has been on the books for over 50 years and is going nowhere. President Trump understands that.

Here is where Eddie will stand out in Washington. He will stand up for what is right. (I'll be there to help him if he wants my help.) His pre-primary refusal to endorse Andy Sanborn was one of the most courageous gestures I have seen in over a half century of political involvement.

Despite his TV ads, I don’t know what the state of Eddie’s muscles really is; weight lifting is a chore. But I can tell you he has one of the strongest backbones I have seen in many, many years. That is why I will vote for him Tuesday with enthusiasm. I know I will be proud to do so.

I hope you will also vote for Eddie Edwards. You’ll be proud you did.

Andy Martin

-----

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


New citations after emailing:

ANDY MARTIN - A BRIEF BIO:

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based 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 intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to: www.AndyMartin.com; also see www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for fifty years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.

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).

He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 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 New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.

UPDATES:

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

Andy’s opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.]

----------

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2018 – All Rights Reserved

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

New Hampshire Republican leader Andy Martin backs Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the U. S. Supreme Court


ANDY MARTIN WORLDWIDE COMMUNICATIONS
New York-London-Washington-
Chicago-San Francisco-Palm Beach-Manchester, NH

Headquarters mail:
P.O. Box 750426
Forest Hills, NY 11375-0426
Tel. (866) 706-2639
Fax (866) 214-3210
Web: AndyMartinWorldwide.com


Andy Martin, J. D.
Adjunct Professor of Law
Managing Director


September 25, 2018

Hon. Chuck Grassley
Chairman
Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
via Fax (202) 224-6020

Dear Senator Grassley:

Because I believe your somewhat inept leadership of the Judiciary Committee is doing incalculable damage to the Senate and to your own staff, I am writing to express my opinions and to ask that you take strong leadership in the continuing matter of the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

1. My background and experience

I have litigated cases in the D. C. Circuit going back forty-nine (49) years with a surprisingly strong average of success, so I am familiar with that court. I was a witness concerning another nominee in a hearing before your committee in 1974. I worked for Senator Paul Douglas, worked with Senator Everett Dirksen’s office and served as an outside consultant to Senator Phil Hart. I am not a partisan ideologue although I am a conservative Republican.

I first went to the Senate as an intern in 1965, working on a senior thesis in the Parliamentarian’s office. I served as an informal background expert for the Church Committee regarding the CIA.

Until recently, I maintained an office on Connecticut Avenue where I did consulting, research and analysis.

2. Culture analyst

As a student writer, I wrote an unpublished novel titled the “Orphans of Suburbia,” which dealt with adolescents and college students such as Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanagh. That experience was woven into my analysis, research and profiling over the decades. So, I think I am somewhat unique in understanding the culture of Georgetown Prep and Yale. I was a football player and honor student at the University of Illinois so I toggled between the “jock culture” and the “nerd culture.” When I express analysis and opinions they are premised on a deep reservoir of experience and observation.

3. Similar incident experience

I have observed and participated in situations where students were acting out, and where someone exposed to a traumatic situation could not remember the episode a couple of hours later. (Seven years later the victim still did not have any awareness of the incident and the danger to her life.)

4. The witnesses

One witness, Dr. Ford, was a child, and has never been analyzed with a focus on her status as a child of fifteen (15) at the time her accusations arose. The perceptions of a child differ materially from those of a mature adult. The other “witness,” Ms. Ramirez, was a young adult at college. She can be expected to have greater awareness and cognition.

Unfortunately, they have been lumped together as “accusers” despite the fact that their emotional experiences were very different and should not be conflated. I do not believe either witness should be attacked. But even under the looser standards of a senate hearing the testimony of every witness must be tested for accuracy. The bizarre claim by some of your colleagues that any accusation, however undocumented, must automatically be believed is sheer nonsense.

A. Dr. Ford

I have an intuitive sense that Dr. Ford was exposed to something unpleasant. But I am challenged to believe her story about Judge Kavanaugh. Initially I thought she was at some large, raucous party. Today I became aware that the “party” may have been much smaller, a factor that has to be carefully weighed in evaluating the credibility of her testimony. I have been in fraternity parties at Wesleyan University where people were indeed out of control and probably were not aware who was doing what to whom (one reason I chose to attend the U. of I.).

We also have not seen any awareness of the guilt trigger. If someone is guilty about what happened to them in an incident, they will inevitably repress, suppress and distort memory of that event. With all due respect, there is a greater likelihood that Dr. Ford was failed by her parents than failed by Judge Cavanagh. A fifteen year-old girl (child) should not have been sent unsupervised to a “party” with a bunch of older boys. The conflicts and confusion that arose from an unspecified experience at some unspecified location at some unspecified date and time make her recollection of events tenuous even though there is a genuine core to her trauma.

I know we are in a senate hearing, and not a court of law, as some people seem to forget. But I doubt a prosecutor would take a case to a grand jury where the victim’s recollections were so highly selective and opaque.

I also find Dr. Ford to be highly manipulative. We seem to forget she has a Ph.D. in psychology and has been a researcher and faculty member for many years. So, when she claims she is an ingenue in public, seeking special treatment, her explanation seems somewhat hollow.

A person who is seeking to stay anonymous does not start by contacting a newspaper and “requesting confidentiality.” Whether she knows it or not, Dr. Ford’s initial contact with the Washington Post psychoanalytically was an effort to become public and to be drawn into a public arena. Like Bre’r Rabbit asking not to be thrown into the Briar Patch, constant protestations of a desire for confidentiality, all made to public officials, taken in totality are not the way an experienced college professor advised by an experienced attorney would protect her anonymity.

Dr. Ford’s constant confidentiality demands amount to a desire to enter the public sphere. That is why I believe she is a highly manipulative individual and, with an increasingly prominent cadre of attorneys to assist her, her uncompromising demands have successfully made the Senate into a laughingstock.

As I write Tuesday morning, she has “accepted” an offer to testify” without any announced criteria for her testimony. How can you accept an offer without accepting all of the offer? A partial acceptance is a counteroffer, not an acceptance. The Senate has looked feeble while Dr. Ford has now been “believed” by senators and members of the public who have never seen her, never heard her and have no idea what her detailed accusations or evidence are. Such “belief” is more akin to a cult that a confirmation proceeding.

B. Ms. Ramirez

The differences between a fifteen year-old child and an eighteen year-old woman are considerable. Thus Ms. Ramirez’ testimony can legitimately be held to a much higher standard. Unfortunately, she offers an even less credible platform for her accusations. If you have to caucus with a lawyer for several days to arrive at a “story,” no prosecutor would take such a claim seriously. If you are still not clear on who did what, decades later, there is little prospect that even the loser evidentiary standards of a senate proceeding can rescue such an insufficient body of factual information from irrelevance or disbelief.

5. Your somewhat bizarre leadership of the process

A. The ridiculous “witness” process

The clown show where “witnesses” pop up long after the committee’s investigation and hearings have been completed, and members of the Committee claim such witnesses “must be heard,” is nonsense. The Committee should adopt strict, public procedural rules for processing future nominations, so that the travesty of closing a hearing and a background check, only to face claims of a need to reopen, must be avoided.

The Committee looks incompetent, feckless and out of control. No one has a right to obstruct or disrupt the Senate. Orderly process is essential. Because you appear to have weak control of the committee, you have been forced to tolerate the regrettable process where people are popping up, demands are made for “investigations” and the abuse keeps repeating itself, all in an untimely manner. Every area of government, legislative, judicial and executive, routinely sets timetables and deadlines and adheres to them. Your committee is out of control. Constant deadlines, all of which were then ignored, undermine the credibility of the Committee. That is not negotiation; it is capitulation.

B. Your failure to defend staff

I have observed staff up close for over half a century. The senate has some of the most competent investigators and analysts in Washington. But when have you defended your staff and said their investigation can be the functional equivalent of an FBI background check? Instead we hear a constant chorus of demands for an “FBI investigation,” when agents would only do what your staff is doing, try to locate witnesses, listen to stale recollections and record them in some coherent manner. You need to stand up for your staff and not let your employees be bullied by blustering attorneys who do not hesitate to make exorbitant demands and posture for the media.

When the Church Committee staff was investigating allegations of CIA misconduct, the evidence was less than a decade old. I am not sure that FBI background checkers could do a better job than your staff in evaluating what are now 35 year-old matters, but nowhere have you stood up to say “enough of this FBI demand.” I can’t say for sure, but I suspect that your experienced staff members could do an even better job than the FBI, because they would be more relaxed and informal than agents.

C. Who runs the Committee?

While I realize that in most hearings senators want to ask the questions and posture for the cameras, when you are dealing with allegations of criminal conduct due process demands a more coherent interrogation process. I endorse the proposal that a female attorney ask the questions. That way the process will not be interrupted every few minutes as you switch from senator to senator, and counsel can ask follow-up and probing questions without the necessity of yielding every five minutes or so. Who should make the decision as to how questioning should proceed?

In what is one of the more bizarre, and suspicious, demands by Dr. Ford, she wants senators to interrogate her, because such questioning would be far less organized and coherent than an inquiry presented by a single staff attorney, preferably a woman. If you don’t have someone on staff that you believe can conduct a thorough examination of the witness, there are many, many very competent women who are former prosecutors and defense lawyers in Washington who would handle the job with ease. (I do not believe former Senator Ayotte is a strong enough interrogator to fill this role.)

Dr. Ford’s accusations have to be subjected to serious, searching inquiry. That is not possible with a rotating panel of twenty-one senators. Even if the Democrats will not agree to route their own questions through a single attorney, Republicans absolutely must employ a single questioner, preferably a woman. Don’t bungle the inquiry by using the traditional approach to more routine proceedings.

6. An offer of assistance

Your staff is free to pick up the phone and call me. I would be happy to offer insight and analysis. As you can see from the foregoing I am something of an “all-in-one” expert with experience in several areas of concern to the Committee.

7. Judge Kavanaugh deserves a scrupulously fair process, not a one-sided circus

Watching members of your Committee pontificate on their “belief” that Dr. Ford is telling the truth has been a very                         disappointing experience. I do not want to name names, but some senators are an embarrassment to themselves and the states that sent them to Washington. There is no way you can “believe” a witness you have never seen, who has never spoken and whose testimony remains secret. Rather, to use Justice Thomas’ eternal comments, you are allowing Judge Kavanaugh to be subjected to a “high-tech lynching.”

Judge Kavanaugh deserves better. Let’s see if you provide it, or if the Jell-O-like leadership of the Committee persists.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy

ARM:sp

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, February 23, 2018

Chicago news conference: New Hampshire congressional candidate Andy Martin, a strong supporter of veterans, focusses a national spotlight on the decrepit Illinois Veterans Home in Quincy where veterans are dying unnecessarily because of Legionnaire’s Disease



Andy is a New Hampshire congressional candidate.


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:
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
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.

Announcement of Chicago news conference Friday, February 23

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Attention: Chicago assignment/daybook editors and political editors

February 23 Chicago news conference details:

Who:

New Hampshire congressional candidate and conservative columnist/blogger Andy Martin demands that Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner protect Illinois veterans at the Illinois Veterans Home in Quincy

What:

Andy says that Illinois authorities have allowed a serious public health challenge to fester, causing over a dozen deaths of Illinois veterans

Where:

Sidewalk news conference, SE corner of Huron and Wabash Streets, Chicago (weather permitting; otherwise indoors)

When:

Friday, February 23, 2018; 4:00 P.M.

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

Please feel free to forward and/or post this email

Please sign up for our Twitter feed with enhanced, original coverage

Andy Martin says that every veteran, from New Hampshire to California, is outraged and incensed at the maltreatment of Illinois veterans by state authorities

Andy says that Illinois authorities have neglected basic public health protocols for protecting veterans from Legionnaire’s Disease

Andy calls for Governor Bruce Rauner to take emergency action to prevent any further deaths from Legionnaire’s Disease and to protect veterans who are being housed at the Illinois Veterans Home in Quincy

(Chicago, IL) (February 23, 2018) New Hampshire congressional candidate and corruption fighter Andy Martin has gone to Chicago to demand that Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner stop neglecting veterans housed at the Illinois Veterans Home in Quincy.

Andy will hold a Chicago news conference today to charge that Rauner’s efforts to provide a safe environment, free from Legionnaires' disease (please see link [1] below), have been a dismal failure. Veterans continue to die from the infectious condition.

“Every veteran in America is outraged by the incompetent care being provided to Illinois’ veterans in Quincy,” Andy says. “In New Hampshire, we take protecting veterans seriously. The idea that the State of Illinois can’t protect veterans from a serious public health menace is preposterous [please see links [2] – [4] below).

“President Reagan spoke of the ‘Boys of Point Du Hoc’ who stormed the cliffs on D-Day. I was a friend of General Ray Davis who saved the ‘Frozen Chosin’ in what was one of the most brutal battles of the Korean War. I have seen our men and women at war from the Mekong River to the DMZ, from Iraq to Afghanistan. Are we to forget their sacrifices and consign them in their final years to negligent administration at the hands of incompetent politicians and bureaucrats in both political parties?

“Rauner is the governor, but the Democrats, who hold a stranglehold on the legislature, are also culpable. No veteran in Illinois or anywhere in the United States should die because of lack of proper care in a federal or state facility,” Andy says. “In New Hampshire we had a horrible VA facility; but we raised our collective voices to demand reform. Nationally, Congress has tried to reform the Veterans Administration, with mixed results. In Congress, I will be a strong advocate for veterans and for providing proper care for those few who bear the burden of protecting the many, us.

“With all due respect, if a private hospital neglected patients the way the State of Illinois has, the directors would be sent to jail. The hospital would be closed. But in government there is no accountability, there are no consequences for failure.

“I speak for every veteran across the United States [please see Link 5] in demanding that Governor Rauner take emergency action to end the preventable and avoidable Legionnaire’s Disease crisis in Quincy that is a disgrace to the people of Illinois.”

Andy is a GOP candidate in New Hampshire’s First Congressional District.
-----

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

[1]


[2]


[3]

https://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/legionnaires-disease-quincy-illinois-veterans-home/


[4]


[5]


http://www.andymartin.com/bio.htm

New citations after emailing:

ANDY MARTIN - A BRIEF BIO:

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With fifty years of background in radio and television and with five decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to: www.AndyMartin.com; also see www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for fifty years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.

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).

He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 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 New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.

UPDATES:

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

Andy’s opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.]

----------

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2018 – All Rights Reserved

Labels: , , ,