GOP congressional candidate Andy Martin says the real target of President Obama’s “radical Islam” speech was Hillary Clinton
New Hampshire Second District congressional candidate Andy Martin says that although the liberal media reported Tuesday that President Obama attacked Donald Trump, the real target of Obama’s anger and threats was Hillary Clinton. Andy provides exclusive insight into Obama’s real motives, explains why Andy supports Trump, and points out that Andy’s primary opponents are lightweights who don’t have a prayer of taking on Rep. Annie Kuster. Read Andy’s penetrating analysis and see for yourself if he gets Obama right (hint: Andy has been “getting Obama right” for twelve years).
ANDY MARTIN /2016
Republican candidate for Congress
Second Congressional District-NH
“Make New Hampshire Great Again”
P.O. Box 742
Tel. (603) 518-7310
Cell (603) 777-2615
Fax (866) 214-3210
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Attention, New Hampshire, Washington, National and Political editors
Andy Martin says the real target of President Obama’s “attack on Trump” Tuesday was Hillary Clinton
Andy says Obama was sending a warning to Clinton that she should not deviate from Obama’s rigid insistence on ignoring the term “radical Islam”
Andy analyzes Obama’s speech and points out the inconsistencies
Andy says all of his primary opponents are totally inexperienced in foreign policy and counterterrorism; he is the only credible opponent for Rep. Annie Kuster
To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line
Please feel free to forward and/or post this email
Please sign up for our enhanced Twitter feed with enhanced, original coverage
(Manchester, NH) (June 15, 2016)
Dear Granite Stater:
This is my third letter to you from the GOP congressional primary trail in New Hampshire. Once again my comments are fairly extended but I hope you will find them worth reading and worth circulating to your friends and associates.
On Tuesday President Barack Obama launched a diatribe against use of the phrase “radical Islam.” The liberal media are interpreting this outburst as an attack on Donald Trump. Actually it was a smackdown of Hillary Clinton. It was a warning to Hillary Clinton that if she strays from the Obama reservation, bad things may happen to her. As a New Hampshire congressional candidate I would like to explain why Obama lost his cool, what he really meant, what he claims and what is reality, and why Clinton was the real target of his remarks. I will also explain why I endorse Donald Trump and why I need your vote and support to go to Washington.
1. First the facts: what Obama said
A. Obama’s remarks and the underlying basis for them
If you want to read Obama’s full remarks, please go to Link #1 below. Liberal media reaction is at Link #2 and Clinton’s remarks Monday that triggered Obama’s outburst are at Link #3. If you are a regular reader you know that my analysis is always properly sourced and based on evidence.
B. What Obama really did Tuesday
The liberal media treated Obama’s outburst Tuesday as an attack on Trump (please see link #2 below). In reality, Obama was attacking Hillary Clinton and threatening her for saying Monday that she could accept use of the term “radical Islamism.” (please see link #3). The minute Clinton deviated from the Obama party line he threatened her by supposedly attacking Trump. Of course Obama had to use Trump to threaten Clinton. He can’t attack her directly. He could not come out openly and say he was threatening Hillary. But the timing of his attack, after years of saying nothing about radical Islam, was significant. He could endure Trump’s apostasy; he could not remain silent in the face of Clinton abandoning his fantasy claim that radical Islam does not exist. The day after Clinton adopted the “radical Islam” term Obama pounced. Need I say more? Clinton has been warned. Unless she tows the Obama line bad things could happen to her. And Obama will do bad things. He’s that bad.
2. Does “radical Islam really exist?
A. ISIS and Al Qaeda and the Taliban have committed atrocities
We are fully aware of the atrocities committed by ISIS (ISIL) and Al Qaeda. These organizations claim to be acting in the name of Islam. Obama claims they have “hijacked” Islam. He argues there is no such concept as “radical Islam” or “Islamic terrorism” because the religion itself prohibits such beliefs and activity. Apparently the terrorists disagree. But even “regular” Islam is a violent and ruthless religion as practiced by hundreds of millions of its adherents. Let’s take a memory tour.
B. Regular Islam is pretty bad in its own right
How often have we seen Muslim immigrants right here in the United Stats engaging in atrocities against their own children? How many “honor killings” have they committed?
Remember the Taliban? When they ruled Afghanistan they committed public atrocities on a regular basis. Women were murdered if they dared to leave their homes or learned to read. These atrocities didn’t happen centuries ago. They happened just a few years ago when the Taliban was in power. We have “lovers” who came to America from Afghanistan because their lives were threatened because they wanted to marry whom they chose to marry. Gay rights? Don’t make me laugh. Claim to be gay in Afghanistan and ordinary citizens will deal with you harshly.
Afghanistan has a veneer of civilization in Kabul and the surrounding area. But leave Kabul and you go back 1,000 years in time to a primitive society that is capable of unspeakable horrors for voicing the simplest human desires such as the “freedom to marry” (sound familiar?) and the desire to go to school or learn to read. I know. I have been to Afghanistan.
ISIS admittedly proffers a radical interpretation of Islamic theology. But they cite chapter-and-verse in the Koran to justify their behavior. Look beyond ISIS to a “peaceful” country like Egypt. A few years back the Islamists won a free election. What did they do once they took power? Start scheming to impose Islamic strictures on ordinary Egyptians. I know Egypt well. Been there too.
Iran? I was in Iran during the hostage crisis (1979-80). Ironically, the mullahs hated the Shah because he was all for modernizing Islam and secularizing Iran. In 1979, when I arrived in Tehran women were still free in Iran. A few months later, in 1980, their imprisonment began.
Pakistan? Sadly, the United States encouraged radical Islam as a bulwark against communism. We are paying the price for our international stupidity. Once again, I was there. I saw it all unfold. Today Pakistan borders on being ungoverned; Islamic radicals terrorize the entire nation.
Saudi Arabia? I suppose Obama is going to say the Saudis have also “hijacked Islam?” Saudi women are prisoners in their own homes. The government routinely cuts off arms and legs as criminal punishment. In fact, one of the greatest reasons the world is in chaos today is that for the past fifty years, U S leaders have been unwilling to force modernization on Saudi Arabia. So we have a nation with a technologically advanced oil industry and a Stone Age social system. Obama likes to think that other than his own personal vision of Islam (please see link #4 below) everyone else is a “hijacker of Islam.” Tain’t so. Obama is not the Grand Mufti of what is and what is not properly Islamic.
C. Obama is in denial when he claims “radical Islam does not exist
Obama has a way of speaking that is familiar and traditional after ten years: he creates false narratives and imaginary bogeymen and then attacks his own delusional creations. Let’s take a closer look at his speech Wednesday (please see link #1 for the entire speech):
A. What Obama said: “Our mission is to destroy ISIL…”
B. Reality: Does it really take over two years to defeat a grab bag of terrorists and malcontents? Hillary Clinton said Tuesday, “don’t look at words, look at deeds.” Do Clinton’s words apply to Obama? What are his “deeds?” His “deeds” show he is not committed to a plan to destroy ISIL. He is not a serious commander-in-chief.
A. What Obama said: “This campaign is firing on all cylinders…”
B. Reality: Obama may be firing on all of his “cylinders,” but he only has one or two of them devoted to “destroying” ISIS. On Obama’s timetable, the “destruction” of ISIS could take decades. Someone who wants to “destroy” an opponent doesn’t delay year after year. Already we know the liberation of Mosul has been postponed indefinitely. Raqqa? There is no plan to seize the terrorist headquarters and destroy the command center. Ask yourself a simple question: if Raqqa was threatening Israel, would the Israeli military be unable to eliminate the threat after two years? Even little Israel could have “destroyed” ISIS if that was what the nation intended to do. Obama? Not so much.
A. What Obama said: “I’ve been clear about how extremists groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism…I have called on our Muslim friends and allies…to reject this twisted interpretation [of Islam]…”
B: Reality: Many of our “friends and allies” were and may still be quietly funding ISIS; none of them have stepped up and offered to lead a military attack on Raqqa. “Our friends and allies” basically ignore Obama and ridicule his ineffective policies. Ultimately, our “friends” (Sunnis) fear (Shiite) Iran more than they fear (Sunni) ISIS.
A. What Obama said: “…I ordered to get Bin Laden…”
B Reality: Obama was very reluctant to order the attack on Bin Laden. More significantly, Bin Laden has been dead for five years. How many more years is Obama going to keep playing the “Bin Laden card” to pretend he is tough on terror?
A. What Obama said: Obama closed his remarks with his usual hyperbole. Trump is trying to “ban all Muslims…” and “Are we going to start discriminating…?” These are typical, exaggerated, paper maché Obama bogeymen.
B. Reality: Trump has proposed a temporary suspension of refugee and visa waiver admissions. Reasonable people can differ on this and in practice there would probably be generous exceptions. Hillary Clinton claims Trump is “declaring war against a religion.” Also not true. But unless the extremists are identified and isolated, America faces endless years of terrorist attacks. On balance, Trump’s approach is not only reasonable, it is highly rational.
3. Obama’s hostage-taking of our military leader
Obama made his outrageously political remarks today while standing with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He is trying to politicize the military, the way Islamic dictators such as Turkey’s leader routinely do. Obama should not have been standing with a military officer being held hostage when the president began his embarrassing claims denying once again that Islamic terror and radical Islam are proper labels to describe ISIS and Al Qaeda. Obama should have allowed the general to leave the White House meeting before Obama began his political outburst. But Obama is a desperate man, a very desperate man, and desperate people do desperate things. Reality is slowly closing in on Obama. He is a failed president. An utter failure.
4. Why I support Trump
A. What does Clinton offer?
During the primary season Clinton defined herself. She is for the Obama approach, and she is for incremental change. Contrary to what she may tell Bernie Sanders, Clinton is not going to propose major changes at the national level. It is not in her character. Clinton’s character has been molded since childhood; she is cautious to a fault and paranoid about outside influence. She makes Lady Macbeth look like a softie. She says Trump is wild and unstable. A new book by a former Secret Service member which is being published this month says Hillary is violent, abusive, irrational, condescending and just plain nasty. I’ll take Trump any day.
B. What does Trump offer?
Trump offers a clean break from “Obamanation.” Is Trump going to act alone? Not at all. In his campaign remarks he has clearly said he will turn to our military leaders for advice. Obama by his own admission has been trying to eliminate ISIS for two and a half years, and failed. Within eleven months after D-Day, Nazi Germany was gone. Obliterated. Reduced to ruin. Obama can’t even eliminate a handful of what he calls nothing more than religious “crazies.” With the severely limited resources and very restricted mission Obama has authorized we have made some progress against ISIS. But the international and Internet profile of the group continues to draw adherents. ISIS continues to grow as a threat to the United States. While Obama has dithered ISIS has ramped up its “lone wolf” and “domestic terrorism” threat to the U S and Europe.
Ironically, the fact that Obama has allowed ISIS to continue creating chaos for years triggers the need some temporary limits on immigration. Trump is criticized for proposing to impose limits on immigration, but why do we have to admit any refugees? (One notable exception: Iraqis and Afghans who worked for the U S and were promised admission to the U S. We must honor our promises to the brave people who assisted us in those countries.) We have no means of vetting refugees, and the command center of ISIS remains in Raqqa. In fact, under Obama’s flaccid campaign to “destroy” ISIS the terror group has expanded to Libya and elsewhere.
Could Trump do any worse than Obama? I don’t think so. I think we can and should protect the refugees in safe zones where they live, and where they have greater hope of returning to their homes some day. The Republican Party plan is far superior to Obama’s.
Clinton won the nomination by proposing incremental change in everything, foreign and domestic. She would continue Obama’s policies and maybe ramp them up slightly. There is no evidence Clinton wants to eliminate ISIS or conquer Raqqa. So, really, as long as ISIS remains a threat, we have no viable option but to adopt the Trump approach and expand our efforts to eliminate ISIS, not contain it.
C. I am not going to let Clinton “define” Trump and neither should you
I first met Trump 38 years ago. I have followed him closely. I feel that I know him well, warts and all. I know all of Trump’s bad points. I am not delusional.
But there is really no alternative to Trump. A vote for other candidates is a de facto vote for Clinton.
Trump has been somewhat bombastic during the primary season. He is who he is. But let’s look behind the public façade. Trump has been a solid businessman for decades. Has he made mistakes. He sure has. But he a survivor. Trump has shown he has one essential quality for a successful leader: he read the mood of the people and he managed the primary battlefield to win the nomination. Give him credit for that. In one year Trump came from nothing to being the presidential nominee of his party. If he can read the mood of the American people as well as he has so far, why would he go against the American people once he is in office? Remember that point of view when the Democrats try to smear Trump.
Let me be clear. With my eyes wide open, and having known Trump for decades, I unhesitatingly support his election as the superior choice to the alternative, eight more years of the Clintons.
5. In life, you have to make choices
The perfect presidential candidate does not exist. You often hear people say they don’t want a “choice” between the lesser of two evils. But in life we are always forced to make choices, sometimes between unpalatable alternatives. From the available menu, the voters chose Trump and Clinton. That’s the reality of the 2016 presidential race. Is Trump a flawed candidate? Yes he is. But Clinton’s flaws are much, much worse and even more dangerous.
I believe Trump could surprise us and become a good president (remember how the liberals ridiculed Reagan in 1980?). The Clintons? Bill and Hillary already have an eight year track record. Do you want eight more years of them? The choice is obvious. There is no choice.
I am very comfortable choosing Trump and I will work hard to see he is elected. My primary opponents? Not one of them has yet announced his unconditional support for the Republican presidential nominee. Why are they even running for a congressional nomination? They are timid candidates who, apart from a few stock phrases conservatives love to hear at picnics and meetings, offer the voters nothing. A vote for any one of my primary opponents is a vote to reelect Annie Kuster, plain and simple.
- Please vote for me, an experienced GOP congressional candidate
Experience counts. In the Second Congressional District I am running against a number of wannabes. None of them have any foreign policy or national security experience. Frankly, not one of them is a credible opponent for Annie Kuster. In the Republican primary I am the only GOP candidate who can give Kuster a serious race. I am the only candidate who is ready to start leading my first day in office. Whether you love Trump, or have doubts about him or hate him, I will keep him on the straight and narrow. We will Make America Safe Again.
My primary opponents may posture and make promises but I ask you to do one thing: look at their records and their experience. To use Obama’s lingo, my primary opponents are not even “J V team” candidates. Look at my experience and depth of knowledge. Look at my decades of experience around the world. Look at my accurate predictions, from Iran and Afghanistan to Iraq. I have a solid record to run on. My primary opponents have no record at all. They are complete newbies with cotton candy in their eyes.
7. Andy’s catch-phrase gets picked up across America
Sunday afternoon I held a news conference and issued a news release. I stated the campaign henceforth would be a referendum on how to “Make America Safe Again.” Within the space of a few hours my phrase had been picked up by the media and adopted by Trump himself. With me in Washington as your U. S. Representative, New Hampshire can play a vita role in “Making America Safe Again.”
LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):
Link # 1
Link # 2
New citations after emailing:
ANDY MARTIN – A BRIEF BIO:
Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire, New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With forty-eight years of background in radio and television and with five decades of investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, intelligence and military matters. For a full bio, go to: ; also see www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm
Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over forty-five years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also ; .
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 and .
Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He is New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.
Andy’s columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs.]
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2016 – All Rights Reserved The on-line http://writepaper4me.com revolution in libraries, edited by allen kent and thomas j