GOP Presidential Candidate and Contrarian Commentary columnist Andy Martin explains how, why and when Hillary Clinton really lost the 2016 presidential election
ANDY MARTIN /2016
Republican candidate for
President of the United States
“Make America Great Again”
P. O. Box 1851
New York, NY10150-1851
New Hampshire Headquarters:
P.O. Box 742
Tel. (866) 706-2639; Cell (917) 664-9329
Fax (866) 214-3210
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
GOP presidential candidate and “Contrarian Commentary” columnist Andy Martin explains why the Michigan primary results predict a Hillary Clinton defeat in November
Andy says the results of the Michigan primary confirm Andy’s prediction at the beginning of February before the Iowa caucuses
Andy says the “2016 presidential election was fumbled away by Hillary Clinton Sunday night (March 6th)”
Andy says the ultimate product of Clinton’s anti-gun diatribe is evisceration of the Second Amendment
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) (March 9, 2016)
This will be my fifteenth letter to the American people from the 2016 campaign trail (# 14 is still in progress). First a quick apology, then a look back, then finally a “contrarian” analysis that the liberal media ignore but that common sense Americans readily understand.
I have been working on a critique of Donald Trump’s campaign approach. I congratulate him for a great Tuesday night victory but my comments are still valid and will appear in a few days. As I was preparing a first draft of the Trump story Sunday night I wanted to append a short paragraph at the end stating my prediction that Bernie Sanders would “overperform” Tuesday night (yesterday).
I have not finished the Trump story so the Sanders prediction did not go out, but trust me I had planned to make my very bold call on Michigan.
My little “boutique” presidential campaign is under-resourced and we are working on the rollout of a major campaign initiative next week. So I am a little backlogged in getting stories out.
As I write this letter the Michigan primary has just been called for Bernie, which is both a major political upset and also upsets the future course of the 2016 presidential election.
Amazingly, no one will tell you why Sanders won Michigan. I will.
Yes, Hillary is a lousy campaigner. And, yes, Bernie is against trade agreements, etc. But those issues were not the critical factor Tuesday.
The decisive issue that turned Michigan around could turn the entire Democratic Party primary campaign upside down as Sanders goes into Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois and other Middle American states.
The issue is guns.
I watched the Sunday night debate when Clinton started exploiting the terrible shooting tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut several years ago. The killings were a horrible event. Unspeakably tragic. But why was Clinton tear-jerking? And why punish the gun manufacturers with frivolous lawsuits because of the actions of a crazed killer?
Clinton, of course, thought she was being cute by beating up on poor, old Bernie on gun control. But she was actually shooting herself in the foot, again. They say Clinton is “so smart.” I wonder.
The guns used by the crazed killer in Newtown were lawfully purchased by the killer’s mom. She left them in an open and unlocked gun cabinet. She knew her son was mentally ill (but did she actually admit it to herself?).
Why would a manufacturer of the Newtown guns be liable for damages because it produced a legal product, sold it to a legal buyer and the legal buyer then left the product sitting around for a criminal to misuse?
This is not the first time I have predicted Clinton’s abuse of the Second Amendment would boomerang in Bernie’s favor. I made that prediction before the Iowa caucuses, and I was both right (see link below) and slightly wrong. Surprisingly, Bernie almost won Iowa, though I predicted a win. And I underestimated the power of the African-American vote in later Southern primaries. But my underlying premise was 100% correct: by attacking Sanders in Iowa as “pro-gun,” Clinton had “shot herself in the foot” and handed Sanders an unexpected gift. Read my earlier story.
Sunday night she made matters even worse (see links below).
Clinton staked out the most radical anti-gun position in presidential campaign history. Clinton claims that if someone buys a legal product, a gun, but that firearm is later misused by a non-purchaser or even the lawful purchaser, the manufacturer should be liable for the injuries caused by the crime. Clinton also demands that only “safe guns” be sold. No gun is “safe” in the hands of a maniac or criminal.
Of course, this week the liberal term “dog whistle” really applies. Monday the NRA tweeted an endorsement of Sanders’ Sunday night point of view (see link below) which opposed Clinton’s radical proposal. One liberal (at Salon.com, see link below) said the NRA tweet would hurt Sanders. On the contrary, Sanders’ principled position just won Bernie an election. That explains how far the liberal (Salon.com) media are divorced from understanding everyday Americans.
Clinton’s “extreme” (even the word “extreme” does not go far enough) position on gun control dooms the Democrats in November.
Gun control has been a Democratic Party graveyard since 2000.
This year, Democrats thought they could revive gun control as a winning issue. Sanders’ victory in Michigan shows that belief is a pipe dream.
Surprise! Millions of Democrats own guns. Although Bernie is derided as a socialist dreamer, he is actually a practical politician. He wins elections in Vermont, a state that essentially has no local gun control laws (other than applicable federal statutes). So if Vermont has no gun control laws, why is the state not a dangerous shooting gallery? Because law-abiding Vermonters do not abuse or misuse guns. To be sure, Bernie is no pro-gun “nut.” He still gets a “D” from the NRA. But Bernie has courageously been defending common sense on guns during the Democratic primary debates, while Clinton has shamelessly demagogued the Second Amendment.
Where are rural and small town and suburban Democrats going to buy guns when all of the manufacturers are put out of business by the liberals’ trial lawyers’ lobby? Guns will eventually disappear if their manufacturers are forced to disappear. The Second Amendment would ultimately be eviscerated under Clinton.
People are not stupid. People in Michigan (yes, Democrats!!!) own guns. In Ohio. In Pennsylvania. In Wisconsin. Of course they do. We are pluralistic society where residents of small towns and rural areas can own guns and still hold liberal positions on social or economic issues.
What about “safe” guns? Well, safe guns are a question of money. I suppose we could manufacture a foolproof gun, but it could cost more, a lot more. And who would decide what was a safe gun and what was an unsafe one? Obviously, Washington bureaucrats would regulate the manufacturing of firearms. Under Clinton they would be in control.
To repeat, it is not inexpensive guns, or even simple guns, that cause crimes. It is criminals. Liberals seem unable to face that reality. That’s why we have a Second Amendment to protect gun ownership, and why the views of the new justice who replaces Justice Scalia on the U. S. Supreme Court are so critical.
Right now I can’t predict how the Republican “establishment” and Donald Trump will come to terms if he wins the nomination (but they will). My critical article on Trump is still in the works. And my major new campaign issue is still coming next week.
But I can predict with 100% certainty that Hillary Clinton just upended herself in upcoming Midwest primaries. Even if she wins her party’s nomination, her stand on gun manufacturer liability will doom her chances in November. You heard it first here.
Andy Do I have a controlling idea that guides www.essaynara.com/ the development of the entire piece of writing