My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Monday, December 08, 2008

Is a Washington, DC news conference showcasing anti-Obama scam artists?

The U. S. Supreme Court becomes ground zero in a con game by anti-Obama profiteers. Paranoia spreads as hucksters undermine the anti-Obama movement. Con artists such as Philip Berg seek to cash in by filing false legal claims against Barack Obama. The Chicago Tribune suggests this travesty will never end. You be the judge.

Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin slams "hucksters" who are lying to the public to profit from anti-Obama sentiment

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”





(CHICAGO)(December 8, 2008) Over four years ago I created the anti-Obama movement by disclosing that Barack Obama was lying about his religious heritage. I went on to publish the first questions about Barack Obama's citizenship (and forced Obama to admit I was right) as well as making a continuing series of disclosures about the man. But I am increasingly concerned that the anti-Obama movement is passing into the hands of fast buck artists such as a corrupt Philadelphia lawyer, Philip Berg, and other con artists or profiteers who do not have any legitimate basis for their inflammatory accusations against Obama.

Con men make it difficult for honest columnists to present legitimate questions about Obama. There is no way I can compete with the litany of lies that is being marketed as "facts" and "law" to a deceived public.

Three basic points:

First, people have a constitutional right to dislike Obama. In our free society no one can tell us who to believe, and who to follow. Every American leader in recent history has also had his rabid opponents. There is nothing new about the militant anti-Obama partisans. Indeed, in a healthy democracy, skeptics keep politicians in line by exposing their lies and shining light on suspicious activity. In principle, I strongly support the anti-Obama movement, because I am one of those skeptics.

Second, Obama has been his own worst enemy in creating doubt and fanning speculation about himself. He is an unknown man. He has secreted his college records from occidental College. He has secreted his records from Columbia University, and he has secreted his records from Harvard Law School. What has oozed to the surface has linked Obama to the most unsavory and anti-American elements in our society. Bill Ayers, anyone? Khalid Al-Mansour, an anti-Semitic, anti-white Black nationalist, has been exposed as someone who raised money to finance Obama's legal education. What?

Obama refuses to discuss an of these matters.

Obama posted a laser-printed abstract of his birth record on the Internet at, and falsely portrayed this document as a "copy" of his "original birth certificate." It was nothing of the sort. But Obama fooled a lot of people with his big lie. Why did he lie, and why did he falsely represent what he was posting? Good question. But by constantly and repeatedly lying, Obama has been the biggest source of suspicion concerning his birth and family history.

Third, the decline of mainstream media (MSM's) has helped fuel crooks and paranoids on the Internet. Last month in Honolulu I began a nationwide series of "Conversations" about the future of Obama's opponents. I was surprised by how little was known about Obama, even by his legitimate and sincere opponents. The MSM's never did their job.

Last month I also exposed a Philadelphia con artist, Philip Berg, who has been issuing increasingly fraudulent claims and making increasingly irrational arguments against Obama. Berg claims to be a "Hillary Clinton supporter, when he is nothing of the sort.

Last week an advertisement ran in the Chicago Tribune challenging Obama's qualifications for office. There were legitimate questions contained in that ad, as well as gross exaggerations and undocumented accusations. In my opinion, the ad would have been more powerful if it had stuck to the facts, and Obama's lies, instead of creating a new round of deception and misrepresentation by his opponents.

Who is to separate the wheat from the chaff? Monday, three people who have filed lawsuits against Obama are holding a Washington, DC news conference. Readers and citizens should have a "contrarian" commentary on the three lawyers who are attacking Obama.

First, Philip Berg. As near as I can tell, Berg is a scam artist and nothing more. He filed a crackpot lawsuit to collect money and, one presumes, to put the money in his pocket. I spoke with Mr. Berg before he filed his lawsuit, and advised him his claims were injurious to Obamas legitimate opponents. Berg didn’t care. He just wanted to scream—and ask for money.

Berg filed a paranoid lawsuit in federal court and, as I told him it would be, the case was promptly tossed out. He then filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals and, for good measure, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to cancel the 2008 election. I have lost track of Berg's wild charges. A few days ago I heard from a woman in Florida who made the paranoid claim that Berg has provided "secret evidence" to the Supreme Court. Yah, sure. People will believe anything. What was her source for the claim about Berg? Directly or indirectly, no doubt Berg himself.

The irony in Berg's lawsuit and the two which I discuss below is that they are pinning their hopes on Justices Thomas and Scalia. These two judges have done more than anyone else to close down and lock out citizen participation in the judicial system. So are we to assume that judges who have been locking the courthouse doors by issuing restrictive interpretations of "standing to sue" are now suddenly going to reverse themselves and reject the pronouncements of their entire judicial careers? Could happen, of course. But highly unlikely.

Second, there is a lawyer from New Jersey named Leo Donofrio. No one had ever heard of Mr. Donofrio before he popped up and also demanded to stop the 2008 election. Unlike Berg, Donofrio followed the correct legal highway, by petitioning state officials, and then working his way up through the state courts, before filing with the U. S. Supreme Court. There is no question that procedurally, Donofrio has followed the correct path.

But do Donofrio's claims make sense? Donofrio claims Senator John McCain is not "natural born" because his father was serving in the military when the senator was born. That claim is complete nonsense. Donofrio makes a similar accusation against Obama. If Donofrio had some track record of being either a legal scholar or an recognized advocate, I would look more deeply at his claims. But Donofrio has no track record as an attorney at all. Would you listen to a "surgeon" who was making radical new surgical claims if he had no record of any medical accomplishments? Not many people would.

Finally, there is Alan Keyes and his lawyers in California. I am not an admirer of Alan Keyes. He is a charlatan and huckster who carpet bagged in Illinois and appealed to some right-wing morons in the local Republican Party. Keyes helped elect Barack Obama to the Senate in 2004. In the process, Keyes administered a blow to Illinois Republicans from which they have not yet recovered. "The rest is history."

But, amazingly, Keyes has the best case of the "DC threesome." Keyes' name was on the ballot last month. Undoubtedly he has standing to challenge Obama. Unlike Berg and Donofrio, who are representing themselves, Keyes actually has an independent lawyer who is therefore responsible for filing a meritorious claim at the risk of his own career.

I don’t know a thing about California law, where Keyes' case was filed, but he is certainly following the outline I presented on a talk radio program last month: people could challenge Obama's election at state election agencies and thereafter in state courts. Keyes has apparently gone to court on a proper basis. His petition seems to be the most valid, and the most rational, of the three that that are popping up at the Washington news conference on Monday.

But Keyes is also a political profiteer. He uses his political activism to run a very lucrative business. Keyes is not a Republican and he is not even a politician. Rather he uses the political grandstand to merchandise his views for profit, and he makes a very good living at it. It's a free country, and his activity appears to be legal. So if people who agree with him want to financially support him, that is their right and privilege.

The level of paranoia that these cases are spawning, however, is exploding beyond reason. I spoke to a woman last week who seemed rational. By Friday she was accusing me of hurting Obama's opponents by telling the truth about them. She was not the first person who told me I should accept lies if they were being spread for a good cause, namely opposition to Obama. I refuse to do so.

Are there questions about Obama's birth certificate? Indeed there are. I have filed my own lawsuit in the state courts in Hawai'i, the only courts that actually have jurisdiction over Obama's document, to release the certificate. On October 31st I prompted a big lie from Hawai'i officials: Chiyome Fukino issued a statement on her official state letterhead stating that she had "personally seen and verified…has Senator Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

What do those weasel words mean? She could have an "original birth certificate" confirming he was born in Kenya, as the extremists want to believe. And why is she covering up the original document? The birth certificate is no longer a private document; it is a part of American history. Whether you love or hate Obama, he is now a part of our history, a big part. I have asked the Hawai'i judge in my case not to insult the intelligence of the American people by falsely claming he is protecting Obama's "privacy." That's nonsense.

Interestingly, however, I am the only investigator who has actually filed a lawsuit seeking access in the proper state under the proper court procedures seeking the proper material. That does not guarantee me a win, but it makes my lawsuit in Hawai'i a serious one, in comparison with Berg's frivolous claims in federal court. Why is no one else seeking the truth in Hawai'i? Maybe they would prefer to peddle their lies. Lies seem to be more profitable. And cheaper to produce.

The latest "lie" is that there is "evidence" that Obama was born in Kenya. If I had a shred of credible evidence that Obama was actually born in Kenya, I would jump on it. And, do you know what? Bad as they are, even the MSM's would be all over the story. That claim first crossed my desk last spring. But there is not a shred of credible evidence that Obama was born in Kenya.

Over the past few months there has been a bogus operation called the African Press International that has been peddling lies and exaggerations about Obama and—no surprise—they are linked to Philip Berg.

Berg was also the originator of the plan to bombard the Supreme Court with letters. I don’t know how many have been sent, but they would never be helpful to a litigant with a legitimate claim.

People who are not lawyers often misunderstand the "right to petition" clause of the First Amendment. The "right to petition" is not an unlimited right to do what you want where you want with any and all public officials. You can’t just barge into the White House and "petition" the president. Likewise, over the past 200 years Courts have developed procedures for petitioning them. Sending letters to judges is not one of them. Once again, the purveyors of paranoia are misleading the public, by falsely claiming that the "right to petition" allows them to harass judges. It does not.

Over the past four years I have made serious charges or accusations against Obama. They have all proven to be factually accurate. And where my opinions have changed after more research and investigation, I have openly acknowledged that fact. Rather than trying to excite people with lies, I have tried to do exactly the opposite: present the truth so we can have an informed debate on Obama's limitations and weaknesses.

But in the case of Obama I have constantly been told that lying is the right approach when the truth is not available or inconvenient. The ends justify the means when you are against Obama. I disagree. Berg doesn’t care about truth, facts or credibility. He is using lies as a fund raising mechanism, to exploit the anti-Obama element that is as rabidly and blindly anti-Obama as the "Obamabots" are pro-Obama. I do care about the facts and truth.

Finally, an article in today's Chicago Tribune helps explain why the Internet has become such a forum for the delivery of misinformation.,0,7258812.story

As MSM's have declined, and news organizations have been striped of their resources, hucksters have moved in to sell paranoia and disinformation at a profit. Jerome Corsi followed me to Honolulu, and falsely claimed the Governor had "sealed" Obama's birth records. He never corrected his story when the Governor denied his claims. The truth was expendable. He did nothing to challenged the Governor's rebuttal. He just went on to new claims.

Likewise, has published writers who have been both sources of accurate information about Obama and also provided gibberish masquerading as "constitutional" analysis. Junk sells. People who hate Obama will believe anything, and pay for the privilege of being deceived.

I would love to believe Obama was born in Kenya. Yes I would. And if anyone can show me any evidence of that fact, I will look at it seriously. But the "caller" I spoke with last week now claims she has the exact time when Obama was born in Mombassa. She has become unhinged because of her irrational hatred for Obama. She also believes Obama's "grandmother," who supposedly claims she was present when Obama was born. Sadly, the old woman who was originally but falsely portrayed as "granny" by Obama himself (shooting himself in the foot, again) is probably senile and is not his grandmother at all. She was not his father's mother, period. But Obama managed to fool the Chicago Sun-Times. That paper falsely labeled her as "granny" on its web site for months.

Maybe Obama is reaping what he sows: he lies to the public, and his lies boomerang on him when they are exposed and fuel new speculation. But at the end of the day, even Obama's lies have to yield to the facts and the truth. And the fact and truth is that his "granny" is not his granny, and the possibility she was present at his birth is remote to nonexistent. Obama exploited a senile old woman for his own disinformation purposes, and now his opponents are doing the same.

Maybe Obama and his paranoid protesters deserve each other.

Where do we go from here? First, let me make an obvious observation. Politicians are given a very wide berth in our political system. From Senator Joe McCarthy, who falsely claimed he had a list of "200 communists" in his pocket, down to the present, politicians and political activists have unfortunately used and abused free speech with exaggerations and disinformation. Obama himself is a master of disinformation and misrepresentation. The constitution protects these exaggerations.

But misusing the courts is entirely a different matter. As I told Phil Berg in August, no one has a right to file a false pleading in a federal court and claim "I saw it on the Internet." Courts want documentation, not hyperventilation, for arguments presented to a judge. Courts are not a political forum, even if some judges abuse their powers. Courts are not a place for liars, incompetents and con men. That is why Berg and Donofrio are likely to lose, and likely to disappoint their supporters, who will no doubt immediately spawn a new round of "rumors" and fabrications about the "real" basis for their defeat.

Almost every day I get e-mails talking about "rumors" about what is happening at the Court. Rumors from whom? You get the picture.

Secondly, I will continue to strive and search for the truth. I have often said I follow the fictional Sergeant Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am." The facts may not be easy to get to, and judges may rule against you. But that is no reason to fabricate "facts," and I refuse to do so.

In addition, as any honest and experienced lawyer knows, in a court of law if you mix lies in with the truth, the lies will undermine the truth and destroy your case. Lawyers who file fantasies in court seldom win, and they often do damage to the very causes and clients they claim to be supporting.

The fact is, Obama has been the source of a great many lies, and he refuses to tell the truth. Why? But, on the other hand, how could sensible people vote for someone like that? These are legitimate issues. But just because they are legitimate issues does not mean they can be fashioned into legitimate lawsuits.

Finally, blame the MSM's, and blame them legitimately. But, at the end of the day, we still need to confront and attack Obama on his lies, and not create and concoct our own lies to fight back.

By all means, feel free to ask me to attack and expose Obama. I delight in doing so. But please don’t ask me to lie about him. I won’t do it.

Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: or Immediate shipment from or signed copies from the publisher are available.
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at; Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Labels: , , , , ,


Blogger WIZolman said...

Internet powerhouse? You mean internet impotent Andy Martin. I just read that the Supreme Court laughed at you guys. I told you so. What a bunch of publicity seeking lowlifes. Obama is president and you are out a bunch of money. How fitting.

7:25 AM  
Blogger HZW said...

Mr Martin, I have been following the Obama birth certificate issue avidly, hence I came across your blog and attempts to get to the truth not only concerning his eligibility to be president but also his unsuitability to be so. In my research I have also come across the reasonings of Mr Berg, Mr Donofrio and Mr Keyes. My observations are that all of you believe deeply and have put a lot of time and effort into trying to establish the truth. You have all made different approaches and I truly believe that somewhere, someone, who does have the power to make Mr Obama produce proof that he eligible to be the president, will do so. I also think that there is more chance of this happening if the powers to be see that this is not a one man vendetta but a matter of national concern so in my mind the more people pursuing it the better. Mr Obama has no doubt an army of lawyers ready to defend whatever actions are taken so the more cases presented to the court makes for a better chance of success.

I wish you all success, all of you have worked very hard to expose the truth and you should all be acknowledged for your efforts.

7:54 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Actually, Candid (or should I call you HateMachine), that was Donofrio's case and was not based upon any 'hidden mystery documents' or theory, but on constitutional law. Also the SCOTUS simply didn't hear the case, which is something that it does QUITE a lot of, and actually means very little.

The only "lowlife's" I can see are the people attempting to shout down & stomp out others rights to question someone who has basically NO available background.

But don't you have other issues to worry about like how BHO doesn't seem to be the arch-raging liberal that he sold you on?

9:06 AM  
Blogger Steve Schulin said...

My wife and I had to provide more documentation about birth to allow our sons to play Little League than the Democrats apparently had to provide to put their candidate for President on the ballots in all the states. Ant Elector who votes for Obama on Dec 15 without having better basis for claiming he meets the natural born citizen requirement will be abrogating any oath they take to support the Constitution. Here in Maryland, that's a crime. I don't pretend to know where Obama was born. But it does seem clear enough that he could have answered the question a long time ago by allowing his records to be released.

9:10 AM  
Blogger JT - Texas said...

Mr Martin, you are as bad as the people you trash in your latest article. I am anti-obama as you are but your trashing of Berg and Denofrio do not do you any justice. To be frank, you haven't put forth any proof of your claims either, and from my vantage point you seem more the fruit case than either of them. Plus, you have had your hat handed to you ion court just like they have, so why we should we give you more credence than them? Why not put forth some of your evidence? I would truly like to see it...

10:02 AM  
Blogger gl1963 said...

Justice Scalia distributes for conference another case today:

1:12 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Candid Blogger -- Andy Martin is a brilliant writer, and indefatigable investigator.

The names he uses for himself were once epithets thrown at him by others to slur him (like you), so he likes to wear them in their face as a "badge of honor."

I sometimes have taken different views from Andy -- for example, I happen to like Leo Donofrio as much as I like Andy, but for entirely different reasons.

He's as good a lawyer as Andy, and kind, yet firm, when answering questions from people who don't quite understand the issues. He can get very angry, however, when people try to cross him. But, I understand that as well.

He ALSO tries to stay miles away from Berg, in case you haven't noticed.

But, never overlook the obvious when trying to understand a Supreme Court docket action.

The newest Justice on the Supreme Court is Justice Alioto from New Jersey. He may know all the key players, and so the Supreme Court took a pass on the New Jersey case to look at the superior set of facts coming with the case from Connecticut, the one that Justice Scalia just referred to all and sundry for Conference December 12, 2008.

SCOTUS will always choose the case with the biggest impact, requiring a narrow decision.

They may not have found it yet, that's all.

In the meantime, Andy is completely on the ball trying to break up the private club known as the State Government of Hawaii.

3:49 PM  
Blogger Jade said...


Please send me a refund since I never did receive the book that I had pre-ordered back in June. You sir are a rip-off artist yourself.

5:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home