Andy Martin opens conference with "Obama's children: the Tsarnaevs"

New Hampshire author Andy Martin says the Boston Bombers - the Tsarnaev Brothers - are “Obama’s children”

Andy says President Obama’s “America-is-in-decline” approach to world affairs is the true source of Muslim radicalization

There is no “self-radicalization,” Andy says; Obama himself is the source of Muslim radicalization

(NEW YORK) (May 5, 2013) 

Dear Reader:

On April 21st, the New York Times’ respected liberal columnist Thomas L. Friedman referred to President Obama’s “Muslim grandfather.” (Please see Link #1 below). Seven days later, Friedman again referred to “Obama’s “Muslim grandfather.” (Link #1)

It is almost unimaginable today, but nine years ago when I first raised the issue of then-Senatorial candidate Barack Obama’s religion I was attacked by the media for telling the truth. The same New York Times that today allows Friedman to link “Obama’s grandfather” to Islam, in 2008 sought to demonize me by publishing a front-page story making all sorts of false accusations (please see Link #2).

So what’s happened? What’s changed since 2004? Well, Friedman, who has lived in the Islamic world, knows the truth. Islam descends through the father, not the mother. For Friedman to repeatedly state that Obama has a “Muslim grandfather,” while politely overlooking Obama’s putative Muslim father, is to point directly at President Obama’s Muslim roots as a source of our problems in the Muslim world. Friedman may be suggesting, inferentially, that Obama’s heritage is more of an influence and more of a problem than Friedman originally anticipated.

People can change their religion; President Obama says he has done so. But people can’t change their culture and values. Obama says he hasn’t. Obama told New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof that Obama had a total recall of the Muslim muezzin call to prayer (see link #3).

Obama may claim to have left behind his Muslim roots. But young Muslims such as the Tsarnaev Brothers reject Obama’s “conversion” to Christianity. The Tsarnaevs see our president as a Muslim who has never publicly rejected his family’s faith. Thomas Friedman’s continuing concern with Obama’s family religion is testimony to the fact others agree with me.

Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech and Obama’s constant overtures to radical Muslim nations may be the real reason the Boston Bombers “self-radicalized.” The Tsarnaev brothers may be “Obama’s children.”

I am not for a moment suggesting President Obama intentionally or directly encouraged the bombings. But, indirectly, Obama’s complacent and compliant attitude toward radical Islam has created the conditions and circumstances where young Islamists are not “self-radicalizing” but rather radicalizing directly in response to Obama's stimulus.

After all, why are only Muslims “self-radicalizing?” Lots of people have grievances, all over the world. They are not committing terrorist acts.

When I began to study Barack Obama in depth in 2004 I was alone. The media were spoon-fed Obama’s propaganda.

When I landed in Honolulu five (5) years ago, I was the first scholar to conduct independent research into Obama’s past.

Although I am credited with creating what the media sought to call the “Birther” movement, I had and have nothing to do with some of the thieves and crackpots that have sought to profit from false claims about Obama’s birth. I have found no evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Honolulu. Even the New York Times was forced to admit I clearly differentiate between fact and theory (see Link #2).

In fact, the reason Obama’s henchmen have attacked me so relentlessly over the years is precisely because I only seek to find the facts and to search for the truth.

You can see the short film I produced at www.boycotthawaii.com which prompted other researchers to produce their own films. In other words, over the past nine years I have been and continue to be a catalyst for research and investigation into Obama’s origins.

For the past five years I have convened an annual conference in Washington, DC to discuss my research into Obama, and to present my theories about where we are headed in the future (www.nationalconferenceonobama.blogspot.com).

This year we are combining the national conference with sponsorship by Contrarian Commentary, and we are holding our meetings in Honolulu beginning May 8^th. This is your opportunity and invitation to attend the conference, to financially support the continuing investigation, and to help us spread and share the ongoing research. We kept a lid on the conference with this late announcement because we have some explosive leads that we are pursuing in Honolulu.

When we began planning the 2013 meeting a couple of people said to me, “Why bother, the election is over?” First, the “election is not over.” Obama will be in power for three more years. Need I say more?

Second, many of the seeds Obama planted in his first term took time to germinate. “Self-radicalization” is one of them. Obama’s unwillingness to stand up for America, and his refusal to defend our values against competing “values” from the less civilized world, have now created a cotillion of continuing terrorism.

Many liberals were offended when conservatives attacked Obama for not defending American “values,” and for appointing an Attorney General who refuses to even mouth the term “Islamic terrorism.”

Anyone who has ever been an avid gardener, as I am, knows plants can take years to grow to maturity, and some plants are just slow starters. I have a plant that went in the ground five years ago; many times I thought he had died, but he is sprouting this year. Likewise, political doctrines do not create an instant response. That is why the Tsarnaev Brothers may be “Obama’s children.” It took time for their violent anti-American attitudes to explode into the reality of the Boston bombings.

Since Obama started planting his seeds in 2009 he has mismanaged (sabotaged?) the federal bureaucracy so as to limit counterterrorism activity. Today, Obama's so-called “self-radicalized” seeds are bearing bitter fruit. Obama planted a lot of seeds in the past four years. The Tsarnaev Brothers are not alone.

If ordinary Americans are not prepared to break through the relentless propaganda of the Obama Administration (Benghazi: “what difference does it make?; Benghazi: “that was along time ago”) then we can expect more anti-American activity from Obama’s children.

It is Obama himself who has radicalized the Muslim world. He has created and presented a portrait of America as being in decline, a helpless and hapless nation. Obama’s actions are “radicalizing” Islamic extremists. There is no such thing as “self-radicalizing.” College students respond to incitement from their environment and from their national leaders. That is why I have labeled the Tsarnaev Brothers “Obama’s children.” There are many more “Obama children” out there.

Please be sure to pass these comments along to your family and friends. Right now I am perhaps the only source labeling Obama’s bogus “self-radicalization” claims what they are: the fruits of Obama’s surrender to the Muslim world over the past four years.

It took Tom Friedman five years to catch up with the reality that Obama was raised in a Muslim family. What are the media ignoring today that they will only admit five years from now when it is too late? At ContrarianCommentary we like to say we “see over the horizon.” Our work in 2004 looks pretty good in retrospect. That’s the best reason to support our continuing efforts.

Won’t you join us in Honolulu for a scintillating and controversial conference, or support our work with a contribution if you can’t attend in person?

Respectfully,

Andy Martin

P.S. While my research into Obama is independent and scholarly, I do not hide my own Republican views. The Republican Party’s internal incompetence, in Illinois in 2004, and nationally in 2008 and 2012, has done a great deal to facilitating Obama’s rise to power. While I try to keep scholarly research and investigation separate from partisan politics, there is no denying that Republican Party failures to confront Obama and to understand the threat he poses to the United States have allowed him to endanger our national security. At a time when Christians in the military are threatened with prosecution for “proselytizing,” President Obama has been very subtly proselytizing the Muslim world to rise up against America. Facts are facts. The truth is the truth. The Tsarnaev Brothers are the fruits of Obama’s efforts.

"The Day the Obama Administration Died"-Andy Martin on the politics of "Boston"

I had originally intended to write on the geography and religion of the Boston terrorists. But while I plan a second column on my analysis later today, there is already a lot of lamestream media work being done on those issues.

The question the mainstream media will not touch is whether “Boston” makes the effective end of the Obama administration. I believe that it does.

Nine years ago I wrote the first article that linked Barack Obama to the Muslim religion. Since 2004, Obama and his minions have tried to “terrorize” me into submission. Yet the facts I articulated in 2004 have never been rebutted and have acquired general legitimacy. Most recently, the Washington Post’s David Maraniss was forced to accept and credit what I had written.

But the scope of this column is not to debate whether Obama is a Muslim or not. That is not the issue today. If put to a vote, I suspect more people would accept my facts about Obama’s religion – that he is a “Christian of convenience” – than would support Obama’s version. But here is Obama’s real problem: Americans do not trust him on Muslim issues.

In 2009 Obama gave his infamous “Cairo speech” where he began what many called an “apology tour” for American sins against Islam, and what Obama somewhat injudiciously called a “New Beginning.” (please see link #1 below).

Then there was the “workplace violence” of Major Nidal Hasan, where an army officer shouting Allah Akbar killed fellow soldiers and is still awaiting trial (please see group link #2 below). Workplace violence?

The Boston Bombing crisis is going to drag on. News reports indicate that authorities are trying to capture the remaining Bomber alive, to determine if he has accomplices “out there” and whether he is linked to terror networks. A live capture would be great for the CIA and our intelligence agencies, but not so good for Obama. As the crisis and the investigations drag on, the Obama Administration will become increasingly distracted.

Yesterday Obama gave a stirring speech about the rebirth of the Marathon in 2014. People might not have been cheering Obama so openly if they had known that Muslim extremists were the source of mayhem and death. But Obama’s speechifying may become less welcome as links between Homeland Security and the Obama White House show a cool attitude towards fighting terrorism.

In fact, when Obama came into office over four years ago, he banished use of the word “terrorism” and banned the term “war on terror.” Is the war on terror still “Banned in Boston?” No so any longer. I never believed Obama could simply wish terrorism and the war on terror away. The terrorists still had and have a big voice in whether they can simply be ignored or whether they will go quietly into the night. Not last night, at least.

Can anyone point to a single terrorist who has surrendered, or a single terrorist act that has been prevented, because of Obama’s “New Beginning” towards Islam?

The great investigative and police work which is being done in Boston is being produced by our day-to-day non-policy-making employees. It was the new national security structure implemented under George W. Bush that allowed the FBI and others to capture the bombers in a matter of hours. Obama’s contribution to national security? He denied that terrorism exists, and claimed that a war on terror was unnecessary.

Obama, moreover, has demoralized federal employees with his “sequester shenanigans.”

This weekend Obama is supposed to unleash another war – against the American people when he tries to harass millions of air travelers by sequestering the workers who protect aviation security. That’s not the best public relations approach in the middle of a terrorism crisis.

Capitol Hill will convene hearings on “what happened in Boston?” Senator Grassley has already announced that the Boston Bombing will derail and delay a new immigration statute. There will be  other delays and distractions until the questions about “Boston” are finally resolved.

And there is more bad news for Obama.

While an armed terrorist is lurching somewhere in suburban Boston, the State of Massachusetts prides itself on some of the toughest gun laws in the United States. If I lived in Watertown – a town were I had a bank account and where one of my favorite restaurants is located – what I would want is a gun to protect myself, yes, an assault rifle, an AR-15. Instead, people are being told to lock their doors while the murderer lies out there somewhere in their backyard possibly armed with a suicide vest. If there is a stronger case to be made for having weapons at home, I don’t see it. “Watertown” will bury any further gun control efforts.

And so, slowly, the Obama administration will grind to a halt while it tries to address the problems created by the Boston Bombers.

I went to Washington in 1965 and went to work there in 1966. I saw what happens when unexpected circumstances intervene. The mainstream media are justifiably focused on capturing the remaining bomber. But as someone who has spent almost a half century in the political process, I can tell you this is the Day the Obama Administration Died.

Oh, Obama will fight back with more lofty speeches, more vacuous proposals, and more relentless and divisive campaigning. But his ability to mobilize and accomplish will be curtailed to the point of ineffectiveness. Obama has given Democrats a great issue to run on in 2014: gun control. We all know how that tuned out before.

The Boston Bombers have done something that perhaps no one else could have accomplished: they have rekindled sotto voce discussion about Obama’s links to and sympathy for Islam. “George Bush kept America Safe after 9/11; Under Barack Obama, Islamic terrorism returned to our shores.”

Welcome to the real world, President Obama.

As for the Obama Administration? R.I.P.

Andy Martin leads the opposition to Barack Obama's nomination of Penny Pritzker

Obama critic Andy Martin will lead opposition to the nomination of Penny Pritzker for U. S. Secretary of Commerce

The conservative blogger and Internet Powerhouse says that putting Pritzker in the cabinet is like putting a swindler near a pile of cash; Pritzker previously had a hand in “busting” a Chicago-area bank

Andy led opposition to Jay Pritzker’s efforts to gain control of the South Shoe National Bank in the 1970’s; decades later Andy helped block a bailout of the Obamacentric bank

Andy says the FBI and congress must open closed court files involving Penny’s attempted swindle of her cousin Liesel Pritzker

Andy is already on the scene in Chicago investigating Pritzker’s nomination

Is Andy pointing to Pritzker family tales of “greed and jealousy?”

(CHICAGO, IL) (March 14, 2013) Republican corruption-fighter and Conservative blogger Andy Martin will hold a Chicago, Illinois news conference today, March 14th, to announce he will lead the opposition to the nomination of Penny Pritzker as U. S. Secretary of Commerce (please see group link #1 below).

Andy has been battling the Pritzkers since the 1970’s when he opposed Jay Pritzker’s efforts to take over the South Shore National Bank. SSNB later became liked to Obama scandals.

Another Pritzker-owned bank later went bust.

Andy’s attempts to block Pritzker’s nomination will focus on Pritzker’s attempts to swindle her cousin, Liesel Pritzker. “Penny was trying to swindle her cousin out of millions,” Andy says. “Come to think of it maybe Pritzker would fit perfectly in Obama’s ‘dream team’ of phonies, swindlers and incompetents. I will ask that Congress require Pritzker to open all of the closed court files concerning Penny’s involvement in the Liesel Pritzker scam. This is not only a business and corporate scandal; Penny’s behavior is going to fill the gossip pages with stories of Pritzker family greed and jealousy.

“Penny Pritzker is up to her ears, maybe higher, in family swindles, from the Liesel Pritzker family robbery to bank swindles and trying to buy influence with Barack Obama. I will lead the opposition to this disgusting example of corruption in Barack Obama’s political ‘family.’”

Andy is already is Chicago conducting further investigation concerning Pritzker. Andy previously conducted extensive investigation in Hawai’i concerning the Obama-Pritzker linkage.

Andy Martin - Coos County, NH Planning Board: Opposition to Balsams View, LLC building permits

Andy Martin released the following documents today regarding his opposition to Balsams View LLC building permits!

Request to be heard by telephone

Opposition to Issuance of Building Permits

Notice of Intent to Sue

Andy Martin on New Hampshire DRED nominee Jeffrey Rose: Is Rose nomination DOA?

Andy Martin asks the New Hampshire State Executive Council to hold an evidentiary hearing on the nomination of Jeffrey Rose to head the state’s Department of Resources and Economic Development (“DRED”). Andy is one of New Hampshire’s leading opponents of both Northeast Utilities’ proposed Northern Pass high voltage transmission line and the expansion of unnecessary wind turbine electric power on scenic ridge lines. He has been “walking the lines,” in opposition to “power lines” (electric) and now “ridge lines” (wind power) since 2011.

February 21, 2013

Hon. Raymond S. Burton,

Hon. Colin Van Ostern,

Hon. Christopher T. Sununu,

Hon. Christopher C. Pappas,

Hon. Debora B. Pignatelli,

Re: Appointment of Jeffrey Rose to

Department of Resources and Economic Development

Dear Members of the Council:

Earlier this week I testified in support of a proposed statute to place a one-year moratorium on new wind and electrical power systems. Rather than repeat my earlier comments in this letter, I am sending you a copy of my prior remarks by separate email.

It is sufficient to summarize my view that issues raised by new electrical transmission systems (Northern Pass) and wind turbine systems raise serious questions concerning the economic future of our state. In this letter I would like to suggest why the Council should place a hold on Mr. Rose’s nomination and appoint a special committee to take testimony under oath from Mr. Rose.

1. My own qualification and background in environmental law

I was “present at the creation” of the modern environmental movement and have litigated cases under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). When I returned to New Hampshire two years ago, people brought environmental concerns to my attention. I began “Operation Walk The Line” to “walk the line” of the Northern Pass high voltage transmissions system. I have walked from the northern border into the central part of the state and will resume my statewide march when the weather improves. I oppose the Northern Pass as currently proposed. Recently I have broadened the scope of Operation Walk The Line to encompass opposition to “walking the ridge lines” in opposition to the untrammeled expansion of wind turbine power.

2.  Mr. Rose’s right to fair treatment and due process

I start with the obvious view that whatever Mr. Rose’s positions on wind power and electrical transmission, his nomination should be treated fairly by all sides. There is no avoiding the fact that a sharp cleavage has developed in the state concerning whether to permit Northern Pass and whether to expand wind turbine power. But whether we are “for” or “against” (as I am) we should treat Mr. Rose and each other with civility and fairness.

3. The need to order an evidentiary hearing

There are sharply conflicting views on what Mr. Rose believes about Northern Pass, and apparently a gap in public knowledge about his position on wind turbine power. Asking the council to vote on his nomination without taking testimony under oath from Mr. Rose as to his prior statements and current views would by buying the proverbial pig in a poke. When the U. S. Senate exercises its power to “advise and consent” it always hears the nominee under oath, and subjects a nominee to searching inquiry before making a decision.

Has Mr. Rose opposed Northern pass? Has he supported Northern Pass? Has he sponsored meetings pro or con? There is no sworn record. Mr. Rose has a right to be judged fairly on his record, and both the Council and New Hampshire citizens have a right to know what that record is so that the Council may make an informed decision on his nomination. Unlike the federal level, where a president is given a presumption of choice, New Hampshire constitutional history is clear that the Council and the Council’s powers are a “negative” check on gubernatorial authority and not merely a rubber stamp.

4. The power to order a limited evidentiary hearing

I did some legal research before preparing this letter and while there are several dozen cases discussing the Council none of the Supreme Court’s decisions explicitly discuss the inherent powers of the Council. However, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is extensive on the inherent authority of the various branches of New Hampshire government. Because the Council is a creature of the Constitution, I believe it has inherent power to conduct evidentiary hearings in appropriate circumstances. I believe the need to unquestioningly establish what Mr. Rose believes, and what actions he has taken in the past, support the appointment of a special committee or other appropriate person to conduct a hearing for the Council. Alternatively the Council could convene a hearing itself and sit en banc for the purpose of taking testimony from Mr. Rose under oath. If today’s hearing is limited merely to statements pro and con, the Council will only have the views of the proponents and opponents, and not the sworn testimony of Mr. Rose on which to make an informed decision.

5. My unavailability today and continuing cooperation

I regret that due to previously scheduled investigatory commitments I am unable to be present today. However, you may feel free to call on me for whatever opinions I may express or experience I can impart. And, if the Council decides to hold an evidentiary hearing, I would like to conduct part of the examination (or cross-examination) of Mr. Rose.

Respectfully submitted,

ANDY MARTIN